A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v Commissioner for SARS and Others (139/2002) [2003] ZASCA 18; 2003 (6) SA 244 (SCA); 65 SATC 414 (26 March 2003)

A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v Commissioner for SARS and Others (139/2002) [2003] ZASCA 18; 2003 (6) SA 244 (SCA); 65 SATC 414 (26 March 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trade agreement between South Africa and Malawi is incorporated into the Customs and Excise Duty Act 91 of 1964 and must be interpreted in accordance with the Act and its rules. The term 'production cost' in article 6(ii) of the agreement is not to be given its ordinary grammatical meaning but must be calculated as prescribed by section 46 and rule 46 of the Act. The court rejected the appellants' argument that administrative practice or the intention to provide certainty for Malawian entrepreneurs could override the statutory requirements. The absence of explicit reference to the rules in article 6(ii) does not alter the requirement that...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 18
Parties
Appellant: A M Moolla Group Limited; Appellant: AM Clothing (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Mahomed Yacub Dhai; Appellant: Yusuf Ahmed Sadek Vahed; Respondent: Commissioner for SARS; Respondent: Controller of Customs & Excise, Durban; Respondent: Government of the RSA
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2003
Case Number
139/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Marais, Cloete, Lewis
Legal Topics
Customs and Excise Duty, Preferential Tariff Treatment, Interpretation of Trade Agreements, Production Cost Definition
Tax Law Commercial and Corporate Customs and Excise Duty Preferential Tariff Treatment Interpretation of Trade Agreements Production Cost Definition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M Moolla Group Limited

Appellant

AM Clothing (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Mahomed Yacub Dhai

Appellant

Yusuf Ahmed Sadek Vahed

Appellant

Commissioner for SARS

Respondent

Controller of Customs & Excise, Durban

Respondent

Government of the RSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 46 and rule 46 of the Customs and Excise Duty Act 91 of 1964 apply to goods imported from Malawi under the trade agreement.
  2. 2 Whether 'production cost' in article 6(ii) of the trade agreement should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning or as defined by the Act and rules.
  3. 3 Whether past administrative practice or interpretation by officials affects the legal meaning of 'production cost' under the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trade agreement between South Africa and Malawi is incorporated into the Customs and Excise Duty Act 91 of 1964 and must be interpreted in accordance with the Act and its rules. The term 'production cost' in article 6(ii) of the agreement is not to be given its ordinary grammatical meaning but must be calculated as prescribed by section 46 and rule 46 of the Act. The court rejected the appellants' argument that administrative practice or the intention to provide certainty for Malawian entrepreneurs could override the statutory requirements. The absence of explicit reference to the rules in article 6(ii) does not alter the requirement that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.