Biskit (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (6156/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 71 (13 March 2025)

Biskit (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (6156/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 71 (13 March 2025)

The court held that the notice of intent to seize cigarettes did not constitute administrative action as defined in PAJA, since it was not a final decision but merely an invitation to make representations. The applicant was afforded multiple opportunities to provide proof that excise duty had been paid on the detained cigarettes but failed to do so. The statutory presumption in section 102(4) of the Customs and Excise Act placed the onus on the applicant to rebut the presumption that duty had not been paid, which it failed to discharge. The respondent acted fairly and in accordance with the law, and the seizure decision was procedurally fair. Consequently, the application for review and...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Biskit (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Case Number
6156/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.J. Loubser, I. Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Customs and Excise Act, Search and Seizure, Presumption of Duty Unpaid, Procedural Fairness, Administrative Action, Onus of Proof
Tax Law Administrative Law Customs and Excise Act Search and Seizure Presumption of Duty Unpaid Procedural Fairness Administrative Action Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biskit (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of intent to seize cigarettes constituted administrative action reviewable under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the decision to seize the cigarettes was procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant rebutted the statutory presumption that excise duty had not been paid on the detained cigarettes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the notice of intent to seize cigarettes did not constitute administrative action as defined in PAJA, since it was not a final decision but merely an invitation to make representations. The applicant was afforded multiple opportunities to provide proof that excise duty had been paid on the detained cigarettes but failed to do so. The statutory presumption in section 102(4) of the Customs and Excise Act placed the onus on the applicant to rebut the presumption that duty had not been paid, which it failed to discharge. The respondent acted fairly and in accordance with the law, and the seizure decision was procedurally fair. Consequently, the application for review and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review and setting aside is dismissed with costs, the costs of counsel to be on scale C.