Download a PDF copy of this Blog here.
Importers seeking duty relief under Chapter 99 of the Customs Tariff often need to establish that imported goods are “for use in” other qualifying goods or activities. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Medline Canada Corporation, 2026 FCA 74 (“Medline Canada”), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) clarified that this phrase requires more than goods being used together in a practical or commercial sense with limited or no physical connection — overturning a prior Canadian International Trade Tribunal ("CITT”) decision.
In this Customs & Trade Report, we review the significance of the FCA's ruling for all importers.
Facts
Medline Canada Corporation (“Medline”) imported sterile surgical gloves that were classified as surgical gloves of vulcanized rubber. Medline later sought retroactive duty relief under tariff item 9977.00.00, which applies to certain articles “for use in” medical, surgical, dental or veterinary instruments and appliances.
The key issue was whether the gloves were “for use in” surgical instruments. Under the Customs Tariff, “for use in” requires that the goods be “wrought or incorporated into or attached to” the qualifying goods. Since the gloves were not wrought or incorporated into scalpels, the issue was whether they were “attached to” them.
The CITT accepted Medline’s position, finding that the gloves were sufficiently connected to surgical instruments when used in the operating room under its two-pronged attachment test.
FCA Decision
The FCA allowed the CBSA’s appeal and reversed the CITT’s decision. The Court held that the CITT had adopted an interpretation of “attached to” that expanded the meaning of “for use in” beyond what the words of the Customs Tariff could support.
In the FCA’s view, “attached to” requires a closer physical connection or integration between the article and the host good. Temporary contact between a glove and a scalpel, dependent on a surgeon holding both together, was not enough. The Court also emphasized that Parliament used different phrases in Chapter 99, including “for use in,” “for use with,” and “for use by.” Those phrases are not interchangeable.
Accordingly, while the surgical gloves may have been useful to surgeons using scalpels, they did not meet the required “for use in” attachment test for the scalpels themselves. Thus, the surgical gloves were not classifiable under tariff item 9977.00.00.
Takeaways
The FCA's decision in Medline Canada narrows the availability of Chapter 99 duty relief where the claim depends on goods being "for use in" other goods or activities. Importers will need to show a closer physical and functional connection than mere simultaneous use.
The decision also shows that despite the traditional deference to the CITT as a “specialized tribunal”, the FCA is not afraid of overturning the CITT on questions of law or proper statutory interpretation.
Experienced Customs & Trade Counsel can assist with most customs matters, including the proper interpretation of tariff classification, hopefully avoiding costly disputes.
For help with tariff classification issues, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
