They can be summarized as follows. The appellants were, at all material times, licensed wholesalers under the Act. The appellants then selected various lifts to make up truckloads based on specific sales orders for shipment to their customers. The lumber was then delivered to the customers. Such customers include wholesalers.
Some customers prefer to make their own delivery arrangements.
Underweight charges are imposed, in part, to cushion lumber mills from fluctuations in costs to which they may be exposed arising from the pre-purchase of shipping services from railway and trucking companies. It appears that an underweight charge is an amount which represents an average of freight losses or gains experienced by the lumber mills. The representative claimed that the underweight charges, those being the amounts paid to the manufacturers for arranging transportation, should not have been included in the purchase price and that, accordingly, FST should not have been paid on those amounts. The appellants' representative submitted that there are different methods for calculating FST for manufacturers and wholesalers under sections 42 and 50 of the Act. These two bases give rise to two different FST calculations, he argued.