South Africa Case Law

Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (13584/20)

Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (13584/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 745; [2021] 1 All SA 883 (GP); 83 SATC 477 (11 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13584/20

Judge

Selby Baqwa

The court found that SARS' decision to seize the 19 containers was procedurally unfair, irrational, and materially influenced by errors of law. SARS relied on Chinese Export Declarations that were illegible and unrelated to the containers in question, failed to verify the probative value of those documents, and ignored relevant information provided by the applicants. The questionnaires used by SARS were irrelevant and not fit for purpose. The applicants had provided all required documentation, and SARS did not conduct a physical examination of the goods as it had done previously. The court he…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Customs And Excise Act
• Judicial Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Transaction Value
• Seizure Of Goods

DKR Auto CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (42604/2012)

DKR Auto CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (42604/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 116; 76 SATC 279 (13 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

42604/2012

Judge

Murphy

The High Court dismissed DKR Auto CC’s challenge to SARS’s seizure of a Lamborghini, finding DKR failed to prove ownership and therefore lacked locus standi.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Locus Standi
• Seizure Of Goods
• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Customs-and-excise-act
• Locus-standi

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) v Saleem (21/07)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) v Saleem (21/07) [2008] ZASCA 19; [2008] 3 All SA 104 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 655 (SCA); 70 SATC 115 (27 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

21/07

Judges

Cameron, Combrinck, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the seizure of goods by SARS officials was lawful. The respondent and Mr Chen failed to produce any credible documentation or invoices to trace the goods to a legitimate importer, despite being given an opportunity to do so. Their conduct, including the provision of false VAT and tax numbers and inconsistent statements regarding ownership, further justified the officials' suspicion. The court found that the absence of documentation, coupled with the goods being marked as imported and the lack of any claim that they were locally manufactured, provided suff…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Seizure Of Goods
• Reasonableness Of Suspicion
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act