Appeal No. AP-2019-008 T. Tse v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency |
Order and reasons issued |
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal submitted by T. Tse on April 25, 2019.
BETWEEN |
|
T. TSE |
Appellant |
AND |
|
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY |
Respondent |
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Jean Bédard
Jean Bédard, Q.C.
Presiding Member
STATEMENT OF REASONS
1. On April 25, 2019, Mr. Tse submitted an appeal with the Tribunal regarding folding knives. The same day, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of Mr. Tse’s correspondence and requested additional documentation regarding the appeal. Having been unable to locate a phone number to contact Mr. Tse, the Tribunal’s correspondence was sent via courier.[1]
2. On May 9, 2019, having received no reply from Mr. Tse, the Tribunal sent a second letter, requesting Mr. Tse’s intentions with respect to his appeal by no later than May 23, 2019.
3. On June 3, 2019, the Tribunal again sent a letter to Mr. Tse noting the lack of response and requesting that Mr. Tse file his brief and the decisions of the President of the Canada Border Services Agency from which he was appealing no later than July 30, 2019.
4. On August 1, 2019, the Tribunal sent one last request to Mr. Tse to file the required documents immediately. The Tribunal stated that, should it not receive any written communication from Mr. Tse by August 22, 2019, the Tribunal would dismiss the appeal in accordance with rule 29(c) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules (Rules).
5. The Tribunal has provided Mr. Tse with multiple opportunities to submit the required documentation. However, the Tribunal has received no responses to its letters.
6. Furthermore, even with the few additional days between the August 22, 2019, deadline provided to the appellant and the date of this Order, the Tribunal has not received the required documentation.
7. Considering the above, the Tribunal dismisses Mr. Tse’s appeal in accordance with rule 29(c) of the Rules.
Jean Bédard
Jean Bédard, Q.C.
Presiding Member
[1]. The Tribunal confirmed that its correspondence was delivered and signed for by the reception at the address provided by the appellant.