Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeEsselen J, Philips AJ and Zulman AJ
Judgment Date17 May 1984
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division
Hearing Date09 May 1984
Citation1984 (3) SA 892 (T)

Esselen J:

This matter was referred to this Court by GORDON J on the basis that it had been submitted by respondent in limine F in the Motion Court of the Witwatersrand Local Division that the matter constitutes an appeal which should be heard by a Full Court and that it would be advisable that this preliminary point be decided by a Full Court of the Transvaal Provincial Division.

GORDON J ordered that the merits of the application are to be G dealt with in accordance with the directions of this Court, and that the question of costs is reserved for decision of this Court.

On 18 December 1982 respondent, acting in terms of s 47 (9) (a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 as amended by s 6 (1) of Act 110 of 1979, made a determination that certain H electrical equipment, known as cable ties and supporting bases, are properly classifiable under Chap 39 of Schedule 1 of the aforesaid Act.

The applicant on the other hand contends that the equipment in question is properly classifiable under Chap 85 of Schedule 1 of the aforesaid Act.

On 9 May 1983 the applicant sought a declaratory order in I accordance with its aforesaid contention and a further order setting aside the determination of the respondent.

Annexed to the notice of motion and founding affidavit is an affidavit by an expert in the field of electrical and electronic engineering. The Court is informed that this application, save for the prayer setting the respondent's determination aside, is identical with the initial

Esselen J

application for a declaratory order which was launched on 30 A March 1983, but which was withdrawn by consent. The present application constitutes the appeal against the respondent's determination. The respondent consented, on 21 December 1982, to an extension of time within which the appeal was to be brought.

The respondent has filed an answering affidavit and affidavits by two experts. The applicant has filed a replying affidavit, B and the respondent has given notice that it will apply at the hearing for leave to file supplementary affidavits. It is unnecessary to consider whether there is a dispute of fact created by the expert evidence.

Section 47 (9) (b) of the aforesaid Act provides that:

"any determination so made shall subject to appeal to the Court C be deemed to be correct for the purposes of this Act..."

In terms of s 47 (9) (e) of the said Act:

"an appeal against such determination shall lie to the Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa having jurisdiction to hear appeals in the area wherein the determination was made or the goods in question were entered for home consumption".

In terms of s 47 (9) (f) of the said Act:

D "such appeal shall be prosecuted within a period of 90 days from the date of the determination".

It may be mentioned that in the case of International Business Machines SA (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for Customs and Excise - which came before VAN DYK J on 24 April 1983 in the Motion Court of this Division, he came to the conclusion after hearing E argument that the matter, being an appeal, should have been enrolled in the usual manner for hearing by a Full Court. He stated that such a Court consisted of at least two or more Judges but in this regard he was referring to the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, prior to the amendment thereof by Act 105 of F 1982. Thereafter this matter was heard by two Judges of this Division and judgment was delivered on 25 November 1983. During the course of his judgment GOLDSTONE J mentioned that he is not convinced that a single Judge is not competent to hear an appeal under s 47 (9) (e) of the Act. Both parties were however agreed that the matter should proceed before two Judges.

G It appears that an appeal under the aforesaid section was heard by a Full Court of two Judges in the Eastern Cape Division and, according to annexure "B1" to the respondent's written submissions, a notice of appeal was filed in that matter. Although the judgment in that Division is unreported, it appears from the judgment of the Appellate Division on H appeal that two Judges heard the matter. See Department of Customs and Excise v Maybaker (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3) SA 809 (A) at 810A.

A number of statutes confer a right of appeal from the decisions of certain quasi- judicial bodies to the Supreme Court having jurisdiction. These provisions are usually coupled with I a direction that such appeals must be noted and prosecuted as if they were appeals from magistrates' courts in civil cases or in the manner prescribed by law for appeals to the Provincial Division against a civil order or decision of a single Judge of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Distell Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
    • South Africa
    • North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
    • 3 Abril 2009
    ...a single judge and all the evidence is considered afresh in a hearing de novo (Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T); Autoware (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1975 (4) SA 318 (W) at 320 D - 321 d) The original legal sources applicable to Tari......
  • Emfuleni Local Municipality v Builders Advancement Services CC
    • South Africa
    • South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
    • 23 Marzo 2012
    ...of s 47(9) of Act 91 of 1964 should be heard by a single judge or full court (Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T)). The judgment in Airoadexpress(Pty) Ltd v Chairman LRTB Durban and Others 1984 (4) SA 593 (N) 606 D-H, provides an instance where a referr......
  • Commissioner for Customs and Excise v C I Caravans (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...heard by a single Judge, at the request of the parties, and on the authority of Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T). He upheld the appeal and substituted a determination that the applicable tariff heading was that designated by 87.14.70. The appellant n......
  • Commissioner for Customs and Excise v Capital Meats CC (In Liquidation) and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Oxygen Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1969 (3) SA 391 (T) at 397B—H Autoware (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T) at 320D—321F, 325B, 327G— E Commissioner for Customs and Excise v C I Caravans (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 138 (N) at 153I—J Commissioner for Inlan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Distell Limited v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
    • South Africa
    • North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
    • 3 Abril 2009
    ...a single judge and all the evidence is considered afresh in a hearing de novo (Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T); Autoware (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1975 (4) SA 318 (W) at 320 D - 321 d) The original legal sources applicable to Tari......
  • Emfuleni Local Municipality v Builders Advancement Services CC
    • South Africa
    • South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
    • 23 Marzo 2012
    ...of s 47(9) of Act 91 of 1964 should be heard by a single judge or full court (Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T)). The judgment in Airoadexpress(Pty) Ltd v Chairman LRTB Durban and Others 1984 (4) SA 593 (N) 606 D-H, provides an instance where a referr......
  • Commissioner for Customs and Excise v C I Caravans (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...heard by a single Judge, at the request of the parties, and on the authority of Metmak (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T). He upheld the appeal and substituted a determination that the applicable tariff heading was that designated by 87.14.70. The appellant n......
  • Commissioner for Customs and Excise v Capital Meats CC (In Liquidation) and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Oxygen Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1969 (3) SA 391 (T) at 397B—H Autoware (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise 1984 (3) SA 892 (T) at 320D—321F, 325B, 327G— E Commissioner for Customs and Excise v C I Caravans (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 138 (N) at 153I—J Commissioner for Inlan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT