Home
FacebookTwitterSearchMenu
  • Subscribe
  • Subscribe
  • News
  • Features
  • Knowledge Library
  • Columns
  • Customs
  • Jobs
  • Directory
  • FX Rates
  • Categories
    • Categories
    • Africa
    • Air Freight
    • BEE
    • Border Beat
    • COVID-19
    • Crime
    • Customs
    • Domestic
    • Duty Calls
    • Economy
    • Employment
    • Energy/Fuel
    • Events
    • 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

Flat Rolled Products of Iron or Non-alloy Steel Dumping Investigation: Comment due

Customs
31 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Windscreen Anti-dumping Investigation: Correction Notice

Customs
31 Mar 2025
0 Comments

SARS’ Bonds Policy: Amended

Customs
31 Mar 2025
0 Comments

SARS’ Quick Reference Guide on Anti-Dumping, Countervailing, and Safeguard Duties: Amended

Customs
31 Mar 2025
0 Comments

A-CIP Programme Annual Coordinators Meetings focus on Sustaining Customs integrity

Customs
24 Mar 2025
0 Comments

10th Anniversary of the Accelerate Trade Facilitation Programme

Customs
24 Mar 2025
0 Comments

WCO Multi-Regional Pre-Accreditation Workshop on Time Release Study for Africa Regions

Customs
24 Mar 2025
0 Comments

USA Soda Ash Sunset Review – Comment Due

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Roasted Groundnuts Tariff Application Withdrawn

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Motor Vehicle Anti-Dumping Circumvention Investigation Initiated: Comment Due

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Motor Vehicle Anti-Dumping Circumvention Investigation Initiated: Comment Due

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Screws and Nuts Anti-Dumping Duties imposed

Customs
17 Mar 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