The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Mining Pressure Systems (Pty) Ltd (565/2023) [2026] ZASCA 21 highlights the often-overlooked complexity of customs tariff classification — particularly where technical specifications intersect with legal interpretation.
Predominantly in the context of high-risk products, such as tobacco, being exported or in transit through South Africa, the question frequently arises as to whether the goods were indeed exported. Over time, illicit trade is costing the fiscus billions of rand, and it is therefore understandable if the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“the Commissioner” or “SARS”) examines or questions the actual export of such goods. However, SARS cannot disregard or reject compelling evidence of the export in order to claim duties, penalties, and forfeiture amounts.
Two noteworthy High Court judgments have emphasised the substantial financial and adverse repercussions resulting from non-compliance with the onerous obligations imposed on licensees of customs and excise warehouses under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (“the Act”).
Although section 103 of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (“the Act”) is not a new provision, SARS’ reliance on the provision has become increasingly prominent.
Shepstone & Wylie (S&W) will not change its banking details. Any communication you receive stating we have done so will be false - please contact us immediately.
If you bank with Standard Bank, Nedbank, Investec, FNB or Absa Bank you are encouraged to pay us using the bank approved beneficiary: Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys.
If you don’t use the bank approved beneficiary option, you must always call us to verify our banking details before making any payment.