South Africa Case Law

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

Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/059481)

Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2022/059481) [2024] ZAGPPHC 709 (23 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/059481

Judge

BAM

The High Court dismissed Turners Shipping’s declaratory application, holding that SARS had a legal basis to hold the clearing agent liable for amounts in lieu of forfeiture.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Agent Liability
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Refund Of Duties
• False Declaration
• Diversion Of Goods

Nu Africa Duty Free Shops (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (62436/21)

Nu Africa Duty Free Shops (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (62436/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 624 (1 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62436/21

Judge

GB Botha

The court found that the applicant's storage of alcohol products in trucks parked outside the bonded warehouse constituted irregular dealing under the Customs and Excise Act. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not moving the goods into the warehouse once lockdown restrictions eased, and did not adequately address alternative means of accessing the trucks. The administrative process followed by SARS was fair, with the applicant given ample opportunity to make representations and appeal. The court distinguished the Desmonds case, finding it inapplicable to the presen…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Detention And Seizure
• Administrative Review
• Forfeiture Of Goods

Glencore International AG v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (34490/2021)

Glencore International AG v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (34490/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 951 (7 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34490/2021

Judge

L.A. Retief

The High Court set aside SARS decisions finding Glencore’s goods diverted and imposing forfeiture, VAT, and penalties, holding the review irrational and unlawful.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Vat Liability
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Procedural Fairness
• Review Of Administrative Action

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others (751/21)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others (751/21) [2022] ZASCA 84; [2022] 3 All SA 311 (SCA); 85 SATC 289 (7 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

751/21

Judges

Schippers, Plasket, Hughes, Tsoka, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to comply with the peremptory notice requirements under section 96(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, as their notice was anticipatory and did not set out a valid cause of action. The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to review and set aside the seizure decision. SARS' decision to seize the goods was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, based on evidence of under-declared transaction values, false agreements, and the respondents' failure to provide credible documentation. The respondents' explanations regarding inflated…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Judicial Review
• Notice Requirements
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Transaction Value
• Procedural Fairness

Mat Chem CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (7139/2019)

Mat Chem CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (7139/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 71; 83 SATC 535 (20 November 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7139/2019

Judge

Mnguni

High Court appeal over customs forfeiture and remission denied; court upheld SARS’s demand and dismissed Mat Chem CC’s appeal with costs.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Rebate Of Duty
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Mitigation Of Penalties
• Administrative Discretion
• Customs-and-excise-act

Auto Haus Car Hire and Tours (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner South African Revenue Services and Another (18077/2015)

Auto Haus Car Hire and Tours (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner South African Revenue Services and Another (18077/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 167; 77 SATC 248 (2 April 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18077/2015

Judge

N M Mavundla

Urgent application to stop the sale of a Rolls Royce was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove ownership and a prima facie right.

• Interim Interdict
• Customs And Excise Act
• Urgency
• Ownership Dispute
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Urgent-interdict

S v Chakoma (A18/15)

S v Chakoma (A18/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 13 (22 January 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A18/15

Judges

E.M. Kubushi, A.M.L. Phatudi

High Court review confirming a conviction for contravening the Counterfeit Goods Act, but correcting an excessive sentence from 48 months to three years.

• Counterfeit Goods Act
• Sentencing Irregularity
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Firearms Control Act
• Counterfeit-goods-act
• Sentencing-irregularity

Henta's Verspreiders CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (22826/11)

Henta's Verspreiders CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (22826/11) [2013] ZAWCHC 215 (6 March 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22826/11

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court found that SARS's continued detention of the applicant's cigarettes was based on a misinterpretation of the Customs and Excise Act. SARS incorrectly placed the onus on the applicant to prove lawful importation and payment of duties, relying on section 41(2), which applies only to importers and manufacturers, not downstream owners or traders. The applicant provided all available documentation regarding the origin and acquisition of the cigarettes, and SARS failed to establish within a reasonable period that the goods were irregularly dealt with or liable to forfeiture. The court held…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Onus Of Proof
• Release Of Detained Goods
• Import Duties
• Excise Duties

Minister of Trade and Industry, National Government and Others v Eastern Eagle Home Textile (SA) CC (A677/08)

Minister of Trade and Industry, National Government and Others v Eastern Eagle Home Textile (SA) CC (A677/08) [2011] ZAGPPHC 100 (25 May 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A677/08

Judges

Fabricius, Msimeki, Matoja

The High Court held that SARS lawfully seized a container under the Customs and Excise Act, upheld the evidence relied on, and dismissed the review application.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Judicial Review
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Customs-and-excise-act
• Administrative-review