Capri Oro (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner of Customs and Excise and Others (483/99) [2001] ZASCA 86; [2002] 1 All SA 571 (A); 2001 (4) SA 1212 (SCA); 64 SATC 156 (7 September 2001)

Capri Oro (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner of Customs and Excise and Others (483/99) [2001] ZASCA 86; [2002] 1 All SA 571 (A); 2001 (4) SA 1212 (SCA); 64 SATC 156 (7 September 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that goods brought into South Africa and not declared as required by section 15(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 are liable to forfeiture under section 87(1), irrespective of whether a criminal offence has been committed. The intention to subsequently remove the goods to another country is irrelevant to the statutory obligation to declare them upon entry. The court found that the second appellant entered South Africa with the jewellery and failed to declare it, passing through the 'nothing to declare' channel. The court rejected arguments based on the goods' intended destination and distinguished prior case law where goods remained in transit....

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 86
Parties
Appellant: Capri Oro (Pty) Limited; Appellant: David Mazor; Appellant: Pentagold SRL; Respondent: Commissioner of Customs & Excise; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Controller of Customs and Excise at Johannesburg International Airport
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2001
Case Number
483/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Applications for Condonation for Late Delivery of Notices of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for condonation dismissed; costs awarded against appellants.
Judges
Harms, Streicher, Mpati, Conradie, Cloete
Legal Topics
Customs and Excise Act, Forfeiture of Goods, Declaration of Imported Goods, Condonation of Late Appeal, Judicial Discretion
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Customs and Excise Act Forfeiture of Goods Declaration of Imported Goods Condonation of Late Appeal Judicial Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capri Oro (Pty) Limited

Appellant

David Mazor

Appellant

Pentagold SRL

Appellant

Commissioner of Customs & Excise

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Controller of Customs and Excise at Johannesburg International Airport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Applications for Condonation for Late Delivery of Notices of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether goods brought into South Africa and not declared under section 15(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 are liable to forfeiture under section 87(1).
  2. 2 Whether the intention to subsequently remove the goods to another country affects the operation of sections 87(1) and 15(1).
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in refusing relief to the appellants regarding the seized jewellery.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that goods brought into South Africa and not declared as required by section 15(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 are liable to forfeiture under section 87(1), irrespective of whether a criminal offence has been committed. The intention to subsequently remove the goods to another country is irrelevant to the statutory obligation to declare them upon entry. The court found that the second appellant entered South Africa with the jewellery and failed to declare it, passing through the 'nothing to declare' channel. The court rejected arguments based on the goods' intended destination and distinguished prior case law where goods remained in transit....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for condonation dismissed; costs awarded against appellants.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation for the late delivery of the notices of appeal and the failure to deliver notices of appeal in proper form are dismissed.
  • The appellants are directed, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the applications for condonation and the costs occasioned by the appeal.