South Africa Case Law

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

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

Pahad Shipping CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (529/08)

Pahad Shipping CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (529/08) [2009] ZASCA 172; [2010] 2 All SA 246 (SCA); 72 SATC 35 (2 December 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

529/08

Judges

Streicher, Brand, Snyders, Malan, Bosielo

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there were serious reservations about the credibility of the appellant's factual averments regarding its relationship with Al Ajwad International LLC, as the documentary evidence did not support the appellant's version. The inconsistencies between the affidavits and the documents were not adequately explored, and the respondent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent to the founding affidavit. The court held that, given the doubts about the correctness of the appellant's allegations and the potential for injustice, the matter should be…

Source excerpt

• Customs Duty
• Transaction Value
• Commission Vs Finance Charges
• Appeal Procedure
• Credibility Of Affidavit Evidence

Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service v Delta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd. (279/2001)

Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service v Delta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd. (279/2001) [2002] ZASCA 114; 65 SATC 165 (23 September 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

279/2001

Judges

Howie, Olivier, Brand, Nugent, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the EST charges paid by the respondent to Opel were not part of the price of the imported CKD kits for customs duty purposes. The evidence established that the EST charges, comprising engineering, styling, and tooling portions, were royalties paid for the right to assemble, sell, and service Opel vehicles, and not directly related to the imported kits. The contractual arrangements made the EST charges payable in respect of vehicles sold, not as a condition of sale of the imported kits. The 1998 amendment clarified, rather than altered, the existing positi…

Source excerpt

• Customs Duty
• Royalty Payments
• Transaction Value
• Licence Fee
• Contractual Interpretation

Samcor (Manufacturing) (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (265/2000)

Samcor (Manufacturing) (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (265/2000) [2002] ZASCA 19; [2002] 3 All SA 260 (A); 65 SATC 25; 2002 (4) SA 823 (SCA) (27 March 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

265/2000

Judges

MPATI, HOWIE, HEHER

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a 1997 letter was not a new customs determination, but only a refusal to amend an existing 1983 determination binding on Samcor.

• Customs And Excise Duty
• Transaction Value
• Royalties And Licence Fees
• Determination Under Customs Act
• Appeal Procedure
• Binding Effect Of Determination