South Africa Case Law

Sava Di Bella Bathroom Accessories CC t/a Prima Bella Bathroom Accessories v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (65155/2011)

Sava Di Bella Bathroom Accessories CC t/a Prima Bella Bathroom Accessories v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (65155/2011) [2021] ZAGPPHC 640 (29 September 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

65155/2011

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court held that imported glass shower enclosures are classifiable under tariff heading 70.20 as other articles of glass, not under heading 70.07.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Harmonized System
• Costs Award
• Customs-tariff-classification
• Harmonized-system

Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South Africa Revenue Service (2018/68900)

Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South Africa Revenue Service (2018/68900) [2021] ZAGPPHC 130; 83 SATC 304 (18 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2018/68900

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court held that the decisive criterion for customs classification is the objective characteristics and properties of the goods at the time of presentation for customs clearance. The Samsung Galaxy S7 is designed to be carried in the hand, has telephony features such as a speaker, microphone, SIM card slot, and keypad, and is manufactured as a cellular network handset. The fact that it performs additional functions does not detract from its principal function as a telephone for cellular networks. The applicant's reliance on post-usage and market surveys was found to be misplaced, as classi…

Source excerpt

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Interpretation Of Tariff Headings
• Principal Function Test
• General Interpretative Rules
• Appeal Against Tariff Determination

Toneleria Nacional RSA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1042/2018)

Toneleria Nacional RSA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (1042/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 29; [2020] 3 All SA 281 (WCC); 2021 (2) SA 297 (WCC); 82 SATC 420 (30 April 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1042/2018

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that the imported oak planks, although not containers, are products made by coopers using traditional cooperage skills and methods, specifically for wine maturation. Applying the 'always speaking' doctrine, the court found that the statutory term 'other coopers' products' in tariff heading 4416.00 should be interpreted to include modern barrel alternatives produced by coopers. The Explanatory Notes do not restrict the heading to containers only, and where there is conflict, the tariff heading prevails. Therefore, the goods are properly classified under heading 4416.00 and are d…

Source excerpt

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Statutory Interpretation
• Harmonized System
• Explanatory Notes
• Always Speaking Doctrine

Ellies Electronics (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Revenue Services (47899/2017)

Ellies Electronics (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Revenue Services (47899/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 61; 85 SATC 457 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47899/2017

Judge

Van der Westhuizen

The High Court held that a solar panel light kit should be classified as a lighting product, not a generator, and dismissed the application with costs.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Harmonised System Interpretation
• Essential Characteristics Test
• Costs Award
• Customs-tariff-classification
• Harmonised-system-interpretation

Mustek Limited v South African Revenue Services (67269/15)

Mustek Limited v South African Revenue Services (67269/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 878 (20 April 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67269/15

Judge

Ranchod

The High Court set aside SARS’s tariff ruling and held that Mustek’s H2159 bare bone base model is classifiable as a computer part under tariff heading 8473.30.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Parts And Accessories Definition
• Interpretation Of Harmonized System
• Automatic Data Processing Machines
• Customs-tariff-classification
• Harmonized-system-interpretation

Cannon South Africa v Commissioner: South Africa Revenue Custom and Excise (2671/2016P)

Cannon South Africa v Commissioner: South Africa Revenue Custom and Excise (2671/2016P) [2016] ZAKZPHC 94 (7 October 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2671/2016P

Judge

Mbatha

High Court review of taxation in a customs and excise costs dispute; the bill of costs was set aside and remitted for taxation de novo.

• Review Of Taxation
• Costs Discretion
• Party And Party Bill
• Customs Tariff Classification
• Review-of-taxation
• Taxed-costs

Daikin Air Conditioning SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (50781/2015)

Daikin Air Conditioning SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (50781/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 854 (14 September 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50781/2015

Judge

Makhubele

The court held that the wording of tariff subheading 8415.10 is restrictive and refers specifically to window or wall types, whether self-contained or split system, and does not include ceiling-mounted air conditioners. The Explanatory Notes, even as amended by the WCO in December 2012, cannot override the clear statutory language of the tariff heading. The amendment to the Explanatory Notes merely provides examples of possible mounting locations for indoor heat exchanger units but does not expand the scope of the tariff heading itself. The respondent's determination to classify the applicant…

Source excerpt

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Harmonized System Interpretation
• Explanatory Notes Guidance
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Aquazania (Pty) Limited v Commissioner South African Revenue Services (29658/09)

Aquazania (Pty) Limited v Commissioner South African Revenue Services (29658/09) [2011] ZAGPPHC 67; 76 SATC 54 (4 May 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29658/09

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

High Court customs tariff dispute over water dispensers. The court held the dispensers were composite machines with no principal function and dismissed the review.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Customs And Excise Act
• Interpretation Of Harmonized System
• Multi Function Machines
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Customs-tariff-classification

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Baking Tin (Pty) Ltd (431/06)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Baking Tin (Pty) Ltd (431/06) [2007] ZASCA 100; [2007] 4 All SA 1352 (SCA); 2007 (6) SA 545 (SCA); 69 SATC 220 (14 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

431/06

Judges

Scott, Brand, Lewis, Maya, Mhlantla

The SCA held that imported aluminium containers were classifiable as hollowware for kitchen use. The importer’s intended use did not control tariff classification.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Objective Characteristics
• Anti Dumping Duty
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Customs-tariff-classification
• Objective-characteristics

Baking Tin (Pty) Limited v Minister of Finance NO and Anothe (6067/05)

Baking Tin (Pty) Limited v Minister of Finance NO and Anothe (6067/05) [2006] ZAWCHC 11; [2007] 1 All SA 477 (C); 69 SATC 171 (22 March 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6067/05

Judge

J G Foxcroft

The High Court held that disposable aluminium foil containers were not household articles or hollowware, but other aluminium articles, and thus duty free.

• Customs Tariff Classification
• Appeal Procedure Under Customs Act
• Interpretation Of Statutory Headings
• Customs-tariff-classification
• Customs-and-excise-act
• Tariff-heading-interpretation