Sars responds on counterfeit goods issue

I refer to the article titled ‘Sars action on counterfeit goods raises industry eyebrows’ (FTW September 21, 2012). Firstly, Sars disputes the assertion that no-one from Sars could be found to comment on this matter. Your team has the contact details of the Sars spokesperson and his deputy, as well as other members of the Sars communications team. None of them are aware of any attempts to contact them. Secondly, while Sars acknowledges that it was unwise to put the small quantity of goods referred to on auction, we strongly challenge the suggestion that we are intentionally and knowingly breaking any laws. The 10 pairs of sunglasses and 24 packs of clothing, all with the labels of designer brands, were confiscated from street vendors by Sars. The relevant brand-holders did not engage with Sars to verify their authenticity given the small quantities involved. This is standard practice on the part of the brand-holders. It means that Sars had no confirmation that the goods were indeed counterfeit (as opposed to, say, being undeclared goods). As a result, Sars followed normal procedure in such cases by putting the goods up for auction with the binding proviso that they be exported off the African continent. Clearly however there was reason to doubt their authenticity. As such, they should have been treated as counterfeits and destroyed. The sale of the 10 pairs of sunglasses had not been completed. It has been reversed and the goods will be destroyed. However, the sale of the clothing has already been completed, and Sars will ensure that the goods are shipped out of the country (and indeed off the continent). Sars has always taken the view that where mistakes are made we acknowledge and learn from them. However, to be subjected to a one-sided article, without being given the opportunity to comment before publication, is deeply frustrating. Marika Muller, deputy spokesperson: media unit, South African Revenue Service. * The author of the article, Alan Peat, attempted to get response from Sars in Durban, since he felt this was a Durban-related issue. He did not contact head office.