South Africa Case Law

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022)

Astron Energy (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (20306/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 245 (9 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20306/2022

Judge

Moosa AJ

The High Court dismissed SARS’s exceptions to Astron Energy’s combined customs tariff appeal and PAJA review, with costs, holding the pleading was sufficiently framed.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Determination Appeal
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exception Procedure
• Internal Administrative Appeal
• Judicial Review

Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (23278/2022)

Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service and Others (23278/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 539 (26 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23278/2022

Judge

N.N Bam

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, on the evidence, that the goods were not diverted and were delivered to the intended recipient in the DRC. The applicant's explanation for the error was credible, given the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and operational disruptions. SARS failed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation and did not substantiate its allegations of diversion or intention to mislead. The court admitted the applicant's hearsay evidence, supported by contemporaneous records and an affidavit from the mine employee, as it was reliable and c…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Remission And Mitigation Of Penalties
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Condonation For Delay
• Admission Of Hearsay Evidence
• Judicial Review

Bottom Line Solutions (Pty) Ltd trading as BLS Portco SA v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (27441/2020)

Bottom Line Solutions (Pty) Ltd trading as BLS Portco SA v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (27441/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 476 (12 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27441/2020

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

The Court found that BLS, as a licensed clearing agent, did not satisfy the jurisdictional facts under section 99(2) of the Customs and Excise Act to escape liability for customs duty, VAT, penalties, and interest. BLS failed to provide valid proof of export, did not notify SARS of non-fulfilment, and did not take all reasonable steps to prevent diversion. The acquittal documents submitted were found invalid, and SARS' systems reflected the goods as unacquitted and not exported. The improper preparation of customs documents by BLS facilitated the diversion of goods. The Court held that SARS'…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Liability Of Clearing Agents
• Judicial Review Under Paja
• Agency Principle In Tax
• Condonation For Late Review
• Diversion Of Bonded Goods

JT International Manufacturing South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1330/2023)

JT International Manufacturing South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1330/2023) [2025] ZASCA 37 (4 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1330/2023

Judges

Zondi, Smith, Koen, Musi, Phatsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner may retrospectively exempt non-compliance with rule 19A.09(c) under section 75(10)(a).

• Customs And Excise Act
• Rebate Of Duty
• Commissioner Discretion
• Statutory Interpretation
• Import Duties
• Customs-and-excise-act

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019)

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 265 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30959/2019

Judge

N. Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the issue of review jurisdiction had already been finally determined by Tolmay J, whose judgment was not appealed and remains binding on the parties. The pending Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter, even if it results in a different interpretation of section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, will have no legal consequence in the present matter unless Tolmay J's judgment is set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a stay of proceedings would serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court. Accordingly, the a…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Review Jurisdiction
• Customs And Excise Act
• Finality Of Judgments

Biskit (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (6156/2023)

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

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6156/2023

Judges

P.J. Loubser, I. Van Rhyn

The High Court dismissed a review of SARS’s seizure of cigarettes, holding the applicant failed to prove excise duty had been paid and the seizure was fair.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Search And Seizure
• Presumption Of Duty Unpaid
• Procedural Fairness
• Administrative Action
• Onus Of Proof

Woods Warehousing (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Others (2022/026798)

Woods Warehousing (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Others (2022/026798) [2025] ZAGPPHC 162 (14 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/026798

Judge

N.N Bam

The applicant, as a licensed customs warehouse, failed to comply with statutory obligations by releasing goods to an unauthorised remover without proper amendment of official records. The Customs and Excise Act imposes strict liability on warehouse licensees for duty and penalties unless they prove goods were duly entered and exported. The applicant did not provide such proof and relied on informal amendments not recognised by SARS. The prescription defence fails as the investigation commenced before the expiry of the two-year period. The allegations of bias, arbitrariness, and incomplete rec…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Judicial Review
• Liability Of Warehouse Licensee
• Prescription Of Customs Claims
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Self Regulation In Tax

Naude v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (51712/2017)

Naude v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (51712/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 152 (13 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51712/2017

Judge

E Joyini

The High Court dismissed a challenge to SARS’s disallowance of diesel refund claims, finding the applicant had not met the statutory requirements and ordering costs against him.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Vat Assessment
• Tax Administration Act
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Diesel-refund-scheme

FTTX and Energy Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/5522)

FTTX and Energy Warehouse (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/5522) [2025] ZAGPPHC 140 (31 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/5522

Judge

A J Le Grange

The High Court classified a fibre-optic splice closure tray under TH8538.90 as a part suitable for use with optical-fibre connectors, not as a plastic article.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Classification
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Statutory Appeal
• Tariff-classification
• Customs-and-excise

Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (053180/2022)

Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (053180/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 54 (21 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

053180/2022

Judge

Woodrow

The High Court dismissed Sandbaken Boerdery’s diesel refund appeal, finding its invoices and logbooks did not meet the Customs Act’s strict rebate requirements.

• Diesel Refund Scheme
• Customs And Excise Act
• Recordkeeping Requirements
• Onus Of Proof
• Strict Compliance
• Eligible Purchases