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

Budget 2025 – Customs and Excise Taxation Proposals

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Budget Review 2025: Customs and Excise Implications

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Customs Weekly List of Unentered Goods

Customs
17 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Important information for importers from India

Sponsored
Customs
Imports and Exports
11 Mar 2025

WTO’s Trade Policy Review of Ukraine

Customs
03 Mar 2025
0 Comments

WHO, WIPO and WTO hold first Joint Briefing for Geneva-based Officials

Customs
03 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Nigeria goes live with its Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) Programme to Fast-Track Trade

Customs
03 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Prohibited and Restricted Import and Export List Amendment: Machine/Machinery Parts

Customs
03 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Customs Weekly List of Unentered Goods

Customs
03 Mar 2025
0 Comments

Active Yeast Anti-Dumping Duties Imposed for Zimbabwe

Customs
25 Feb 2025
0 Comments

General Note O to include Morocco, Burundi and Uganda as part of the AfCFTA Agreement

Customs
25 Feb 2025
0 Comments

Rules of Origin Appendix IV to Annex 2 Amendment

Customs
25 Feb 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