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

9process of establishing whether forfeiture should follow'~ I agree wholly withthis exposition.The respondents have made it abundantly clear that their action is not aseizure or forfeiture but a preliminary "with-holding" pending their investigations.They have further invited the applicant to explain about the cigarettes that bearthe diamond impression. I am satisfied that they have not "seized" the cigarettesas contemplated in sections 87 and 88.Mr. Snyman emphasized the fact that the goods, having been in transithad not been "imported". My understanding of his submission is that beinggoods-in-transit the respondents did not have the locus standi nor power todetain the cigarettes.He may have been obliquely referring to the following statement byGoldstone J.A. in Tieber v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1992(4) SA844at 850 1- 851 A:" ... Goods in transit do not fall into either of those two categories. No purposewould be served in declaring goods in the hold of an aircraft or ship which arenot brought into the Republic. An indication that s.15(1) (of Act 59 of 1990)does not apply to such goods is also to be found in the provision there for acustoms officer to require the person declaring the goods to produce and openthem for inspection. In the usual situation such a requirement would beimpossible to fulfill in respect of goods in transit and not in the physicalpossession of the traveller”. (The underlining is mine). The facts in casu aresubstantially identical to those in the Tieber case - supra.There are several issues that stick out like the proverbial sore-thumb, inthis matter. The respondents acted in consequence of information concerning theillicit smuggling of cigarettes from Zimbabwe. That information concerned