Supreme Court of Appeal Tariff Classification The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has just delivered its judgement on the matter between the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Sars) versus LG Electronics pertaining to a tariff classification (also known as a tariff determination) for screens (also known as video monitors) and tuners separately imported. The court had to consider: (i) Whether screens are incomplete reception apparatus for television in terms of General Rules for Interpretation i.e. Rule 2(a); and (ii) Whether the separate importation constitutes a scheme to defeat payment of legitimate customs duties. The matter was heard on 10 May 2010, and judgement delivered on 28 May 2010. According to the judgement, during the period 2004 to 2006 LG Electronics declared screens (video monitors) under tariff subheading 8528.21.20. LG Electronics continued to clear the screens (video monitors) under this tariff subheading until July 2006, after which, following an investigation, it was issued with a revised determination in terms of Section 47(9)(d) (i)(bb) of the Customs and Excise Act in respect of the screens (video monitors), classifying them under tariff subheading 8528.12.30. Whereas video monitors were liable for a customs duty of 25% ad valorem, and enjoyed a full rebate of the customs duty on the grounds that they do not incorporate television reception apparatus, the screens (video monitors), under the redetermined tariff subheading, were liable for the same rate of customs duty, but without the benefit of a rebate of the customs duty. In the initial court it was found that “on the facts the screens are complete video monitors and are used for that purpose”. As to a submission that the separate importation of screens and tuners was a cloak to disguise the reality of the entry of television sets into South Africa with the intention of evading the legitimate levying of the customs duty on such sets, the court examined the evidence and concluded that the facts negated that inference and clearly showed “that the applicant (LG Electronics) imported the screens and tuners in order to service two markets and imported them separately because that is how they are exported by the manufacturer worldwide”. According to the SCA judgement, the crux of the factual findings of the court were that the screens (video monitors) were designed to serve two markets. One for video monitors or information display panels and the other for television sets, and that LG Electronics supplied both markets. The appeal was thus dismissed with costs. Imminent Lapse of Anti-Dumping Duties – Comment Due Southern Africa Customs Union (Sacu) manufacturers have until 30 June 2010 to comment on the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) application in respect of the imminent lapse of anti-dumping duties for: (i) chicken meat portions, classifiable under tariff subheading 0207.14, originating in or imported from the United States of America (USA); (ii) carbon black, classifiable under tariff heading 28.03, originating in or imported from Thailand; (iii) paperboard, classifiable under tariff subheading 4810.92, originating in or imported from South Korea (Korea); and (iv) drawn glass and float glass, classifiable under tariff subheading 7005.29, originating in or imported from Indonesia.
