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

Customs Weekly List of Unentered Goods

Customs
25 Feb 2025
0 Comments

The Philippines Launches Safeguard Investigation on Corrugating Medium

Customs
18 Feb 2025
0 Comments

WCO supports the African Private Sector with Rules of Origin Competency Development

Customs
18 Feb 2025
0 Comments

Pharmaceutical Tariff Amendments

Customs
18 Feb 2025
0 Comments

Relocation of Vereeniging Branch

Customs
18 Feb 2025
0 Comments

Customs Weekly List of Unentered Goods

Customs
18 Feb 2025
0 Comments

Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO)

Customs
11 Feb 2025
0 Comments

SARS’ Prohibited and Restricted Imports and Exports List: Update

Customs
11 Feb 2025
0 Comments

China initiates WTO dispute complaint regarding US Tariff Measures

Customs
11 Feb 2025
0 Comments

WTO Statement: South Africa Launches Safeguard Investigation on Corrosion-Resistant Steel Coil

Customs
11 Feb 2025
0 Comments

WCO-INTERPOL Largest-ever Wildlife and Forestry Operation

Customs
11 Feb 2025
0 Comments

WCO Launches the Global Forum on Origin Interconnectivity to Enhance Trade Digitalisation

Customs
11 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