Home
FacebookTwitterSearchMenu
  • Subscribe
  • Subscribe
  • News
  • Features
  • Knowledge Library
  • Columns
  • Customs
  • Jobs
  • Directory
  • FX Rates
  • Categories
    • Categories
    • Africa
    • Air Freight
    • BEE
    • Border Beat
    • COVID-19
    • Customs
    • Domestic
    • Duty Calls
    • Economy
    • Employment
    • Energy/Fuel
    • Freight & Trading Weekly
    • Imports and Exports
    • Infrastructure
    • International
    • Logistics
    • Other
    • People
    • Road/Rail Freight
    • Sea Freight
    • Skills & Training
    • Social Development
    • Technology
    • Trade/Investment
    • Webinars
  • Contact us
    • Contact us
    • About Us
    • Advertise
    • Send us news
    • Editorial Guidelines

Customs

Chemical Rebate Court Case Judgement

Publish Date: 
04 Sep 2019

On 28 August the South African Revenue Service (Sars) revealed details of the judgement of 15 August, in the case of Acti-Chem SA (Pty) Ltd versus the Commissioner for Sars (CSARS) [(8540/2017) [2019] ZAKZPHC 58 (15 August 2019)] relating to whether the rebate claimed by Acti-Chem in terms of rebate item 306.07 was warranted.

Schedule No 3 to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, involves “Industrial Rebates of Customs Duties”, Part 1 “Goods Used in the Manufacture of Other Goods”, 306.00 “Products of the Chemical and Allied Industries”, 306.07 “Industry: Polishes and Creams”. Rebate item 306.07/34.04/01.04 “Prepared waxes, not emulsified or containing solvents”, for which the extent of rebate is full duty.

The crux is in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgement:

Paragraph 22. The language of the provisions, the context of the CSARS, the powers in question, and the purpose of rebates are to show that the ultimate, exclusive use of the imported goods must be for the manufacture of polishes or creams. Also, that the polishes and creams must be manufactured by a rebate registrant. This interpretation is consistent with the constitution. No argument to the contrary has been raised by Acti-Chem. Since Acti-Chem does not manufacture polishes and creams and the entities to which Acti-Chem sells Quecolin are not rebate registrants, the rebate claimed by Acti-Chem does not apply.

 Paragraph 23. In the result, the application is dismissed with costs which include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel wherever this was done.

Story by: Riaan de Lange

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • E-mail
  • Print

SA Customs Buzz

Rock Drilling Parts Tariff Increase: Comment due

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Grooved Couplings Proposed Increase in the Duty: Comment Due

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Renewable Energy Value Chain Tariff Review: Comment due

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Initiation of Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

ITAC’s Guidelines for the Rebate on Solid Caustic Soda

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

SACUM-EU EPA Tariff Rates Quotas: 2025

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

SADC-EU EPA Tariff Rates Quotas: 2025

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

SACUM-EU EPA Tariff Rates Quotas: 2024

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

SADC-EU EPA Tariff Rates Quotas: 2024

Customs
29 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Customs Weekly List of Unentered Goods

Customs
23 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Alert! Scamsters are pretending to be Customs inspectors from SARS Customs

Customs
23 Apr 2025
0 Comments

Wheat and wheaten flour variable tariff formula increase

Customs
23 Apr 2025
0 Comments
  • More

Tariff Book (S1 P1)

Browse by Tariff Headings
  • © Now Media
  • Privacy Policy
  • Freight News RSS
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Send us news
  • Contact us