IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSVAAL ... - saflii

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10the applicant directly. The documents presented by the applicant weresuspicious, in most cases bearing no significance and viewed in totalitycontradictory and suspect. There were specific instances of trucks with cigarettesfor export being "hijacked". The Certificate of Marine Insurance (Annexure "H'') isstrange in various important respects. It was tendered and is referred to as beingfor the benefit and security of "Control of Customs and Excise at Beit Bridge". Thedocument is unsigned. The date on it corresponds with the date when the truckswith the containers were detained. The document is ambiguous and if it meansanything at all it limits insurance benefits to "FCD, theft following and hijack",whatever that might mean. In my view the document was correctly rejected by therespondent.In addition to the above there is no explanation forthcoming from theapplicant on a crucial issue, namely the presence of the diamond impression andhealth hazard warning. In the unsigned letter McCroft state that the applicant'sexplanation of these features “... is herewith accompanying this letter'~ No suchletter was annexed to the papers and no explanation has been made by theapplicant. This, to my mind, is devastating to the applicant. I am satisfied thatwhatever onus the respondents bear has been discharged.I revert to the· quotation by Goldstone J.A. in the Tieber case. In my viewthe underlined words in the quotation indicate that the learned judge did notintend and in fact did not lay down an immutable legal principle. In the Tiebercase the goods were definitely in transit. It is my considered view that the exportof the cigarettes was not bona fide but an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes intothis country. Not only has the applicant failed to explain why the detainedcigarettes bore the marks that clearly and unequivocally prove that the cigaretteswere destined for this country but has likewise failed to explain why the cigaretteseligible for export were packed at the door of each container. The inference thatthe intention was to deceive a causal inspection into believing
11that all the cigarettes in each container were for export is irresistible. This wasclearly a case of simulated "export". That being so, the cigarettes were not "intransit". The respondents were entitled to detain the goods whilst conductinginvestigations. In this regard sections 88(1)(a) and 107(2) of the Act authorizesuch detention.I have dealt with this matter on the basis of economic urgency. Strictlyspeaking no case for urgency was made out at all.The application is dismissed with costsG. WEBSTERJUDGE IN THE HIGH COURTDate of hearing 21 July 2005Counsel for the ApplicantInstructing AttorneysCounsel for the RespondentsInstructing AttorneysAdv. SnymanPeter SapireAttorneysJohannesburgAdv. StiasThe State AttorneyPretoria
Page 1 and 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICATR
Page 3 and 4: 3impression and health warning cont
Page 5 and 6: 5explanation in an unsigned letter
Page 7 and 8: 7(c) ....s.87. Goods irregularly de
Page 9: 9process of establishing whether fo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSVAAL ... - saflii

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?