South Africa Case Law

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Diageo SA (Pty) Ltd (1063/2023)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Diageo SA (Pty) Ltd (1063/2023) [2024] ZASCA 158; [2025] 1 All SA 299 (SCA) (15 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1063/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Schippers, Smith, Coppin, Mantame

The SCA held that “non-alcoholic” in Note 4(b) means no alcohol, not a negligible amount. Cape Velvet Cream Original was classified under 2208.70.22.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Classification
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Excise Duty
• Harmonized System
• De Minimis Principle

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (442/2017)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (442/2017) [2018] ZASCA 101; 81 SATC 44 (27 June 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

442/2017

Judges

Ponnan, Wallis, Dambuza, Davis, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that SAB’s flavoured alcoholic beverages were correctly classified under tariff heading 2206, not 2208, for excise duty purposes.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Classification
• General Rules Of Interpretation
• Excise Duty
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Tariff-classification

Distell v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (56295/11)

Distell v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (56295/11) [2015] ZAGPPHC 687 (7 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56295/11

Judge

Potterill

Condonation for the late filing of the appeal was refused because the delay was excessive and not fully explained. The reasons advanced by Distell were found to be commercially motivated and not legally justifiable. Distell deliberately chose not to include Amarula in the earlier litigation and only sought to appeal when faced with significant financial consequences. The affidavits submitted by Distell were mutually contradictory regarding the nature of Amarula and its similarity to other products, undermining the prospects of success. The court held that it would not be in the interests of j…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Tariff Classification
• Excise Duty
• Administrative Fairness

Distell Ltd and Another v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service (416/09)

Distell Ltd and Another v Commissioner of South African Revenue Service (416/09) [2010] ZASCA 103; [2011] 1 All SA 225 (SCA); 73 SATC 148 (13 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

416/09

Judges

Harms, Heher, Mhlantla, Ebrahim, K Pillay

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that wine coolers were mixtures of wine and water, not other fermented beverages, for tariff and excise purposes.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Tariff Classification
• Excise Duty
• Rebate Entitlement
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Tariff-classification

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd. and Others v Secretary for Customs and Excise and Another (79/1983)

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd. and Others v Secretary for Customs and Excise and Another (79/1983) [1984] ZASCA 140; [1985] 1 All SA 398 (A) (26 November 1984)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

79/1983

Judges

Kotzé, Miller, Van Heerden, Galgut, Eloff

The court held that late declarations under a customs regulation did not forfeit a diesel rebate where the regulation did not make compliance a condition precedent.

• Excise Duty
• Customs And Excise Act
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Rebate Entitlement
• Administrative Discretion
• Excise-duty