Kaj Pipes Fittings CC v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (57062/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1380 (22 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1380 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Kaj Pipes Fittings CC v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (57062/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1380 (22 December 2025) Kaj Pipes Fittings CC v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (57062/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1380 (22 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1380.html sino date 22 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.:  57062/2019 (1)  REPORTABLE:  YES / NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  YES / NO (3)  REVISED In the matter between:- KAJ PIPES & FITTINGS CC Applicant V THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Respondent Heard on: 21-22 May 2025 and 24 November 2025 Delivered: 22 December 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on  22 December 2025. Summary: 1. In affording an interpretation to tariff headings and subheadings in Schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act, and in accordance with the General Rules of interpretation a three-stage process is followed, namely the meaning of the words used in the subheading, the nature and characteristic of the pipe in issue and the selecting the most appropriate heading. Expert evidence is inadmissible to prove the meaning of the words. 2. The pipes in issue even though they are dual certified, meet the minimum API 5L standard. Inherent in the API 5L specification is that the pipe is a “line pipe” (API 5L Specification of the line pipe of the American Petroleum Institution). 3. The Explanatory Note to subheading 7304.19 covers all articles that inter alia includes the API 5L specification. 4. The objective characteristic of the pipes is that they are API 5L certified. This is the minimum standard for use in oil and gas pipeline. 5. Although the pipes may not have been imported for the use in oil and gas pipelines, there are of a kind used in oil and gas pipelines. 6. Both experts agree that the pipes are suitable for use in both oil and gas pipelines and in the plant piping. 7. The most appropriate heading is 7304.19. ORDER It is ordered:- 1. The application is dismissed with costs, consequent upon the employment of two counsel on Scale C. 2. The seamless steel pipes imported by the applicant is classifiable under tariff heading 7304.19 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964. JUDGMENT KOOVERJIE J [1]  This is a tariff appeal in terms of Section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (“the Act”) against the tariff determination made by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) in terms of Section 47(9)(a)(i) of the Act. [2]  Section 47(1) of the Act makes provision for the payment of customs duty on imported goods in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act.  The said Schedule provide for the classification of goods. [3]  The issue for determination is whether SARS had classified the pipes imported by the applicant appropriately, in particular, pipes identified as “seamless carbon steel pipes”. [4]  The applicant initially contended that they are classifiable under tariff heading 73.04.59.45 of Schedule 1 to the Act.  SARS holds the view that the pipes were correctly classified in terms of Tariff Heading 7304.19 . BACKGROUND [5]  The goods imported were described as “ SMLS Steel Tubes acc. to API 5/45 th B1 X4 PSL1/ASTM/ASME 106-101 SA 106-2010 Grb. SMLS Tube 273.0mm x 9.27mm and 2730mm x 12.7mm with single lengths, 12 meters .  The invoice listed 487 bundles totaling to 989 pieces. [6]  According to the information provided by the supplier, the product is a seamless carbon steel pipe which has multi-purpose functions and is not manufactured for a specific purpose. [7]  On 10 January 2018 the SARS determined the pipes are classifiable under tariff heading 7304.19, “other’ than steel pipes.  The applicant, dissatisfied with this classification instituted an internal administrative appeal in terms of Section 77A of the Act.  On 18 May 2018, the National Appeals Committee dismissed the appeal and maintained that the pipes fall under the tariff heading 7304.19.  This appeal was then instituted on 15 April 2020 and was set down for hearing on 2 September 2021.  The matter did not proceed as the court referred the matter to oral evidence. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION [8]  This court was seized with hearing the oral evidence of two experts and to make a final determination on the most appropriate tariff classification of the goods is issue. [9]  The specific issue referred to oral evidence was: “ whether the seamless steel pipes imported by the applicant are line pipes of the kind used for oil or gas pipelines as contemplated by TH7304.19 in Part 1 of the Schedule of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964.” [10]  At the hearing of this matter the court heard the evidence of two experts, Mr Swart, who is a professional mechanical engineer, specializing in the design of the process piping.  He filed his report in the form of an affidavit to which the court had access to.  Mr Van Rooyen similarly testified on the behalf of SARS.  The applicant disputed Mr van Rooyen’s expertise on the basis that he was not an expert and thus not qualified to give an expert opinion on pipelines. [11]  Ultimately the issue for determination before this court is whether the pipes referred to correctly fall under the subheading 7304.19.  This tariff appeal is brought as an application in terms of Rule 6 and is an appeal in the wide sense, hence the matter must be considered afresh. TARIFF CLASSIFICATION PROCESS [12]  The interpretation of any tariff heading or tariff subheading in part 1 of Schedule 1 is subject to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System as well as the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System. [1] [13]  In classifying goods, it is necessary to have regard to the General Rules of Interpretation, the Section Notes as well as the Explanatory Notes.  The General Rules of Interpretation requires that the product must first be classified in the appropriate 4-digit heading, then its appropriate 1-dash subdivision within that heading, and only thereafter to its appropriate 2-dash subheading and within the 1-dash subheading. [14]  Most headings contain a subheading and subheadings that provide for “other”.  “Other” is a residual subheading.  Goods are classified in “other” by default and when it is not classifiable in any of the circumscribed subheadings or subheading.  Section 47(8) of the Act endorses the classification in terms of the Harmonized System. [15]  The Tariff Classification in accordance with the General Rules of the Interpretation constitutes a three-stage process [2] namely: 15.1    the first stage of classification is ascertaining the meaning of the words used in the headings (and relative section and chapter notes) which may be relevant; 15.2    the second is then the consideration of the nature and the characteristics of the goods; and 15.3    third is the selection of the heading which is most appropriate to the goods. [16]  The heading TH7304 pertains to ‘tubes pipes and hollow pies, seamless of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel:  The meaning of these words are not disputed.  The parties agree that the goods fall under this subheading.  The tariff heading and subheadings relevant is found in Schedule 1 Part 1 Section XV [3] and appears as: Heading/ Subheading CD Article Description 73.04 Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, seamless, of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel: 7304.1 -   Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines: 7304.11 7304.19 9 9 --   Of stainless steel --   Other 7304.2 -   Casing, tubing and drill pipe, of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas: 7304.22 7304.23 7304.24 7304.29 1 6 2 4 --    Drill pipe of stainless steel --    Other drill pipe --    Other, of stainless steel --    Other 7304.3 -    Other, of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel: 7304.31 8 --    Cold-drawn or cold-rolled (cold-reduced) 7304.39 --    Other: 7304.39.35 7304.39.90 1 4 ---  Of a wall thickness exceeding 25mm or an outside cross-sectional dimension exceeding 170 mm ---    Other 7304.4 - Other, of circular cross-section of stainless steel: 7304.41 7304.49 2 3 --    Cold-drawn or cold-rolled (cold-reduced) --    Other 7304.5 -    Other, of circular cross-section, of other alloy steel: 7304.51 7 --    cold-drawn or cold-rolled (cold-reduced_ 7304.59 --    Other: 7304.59.45 7304.59.90 7304.90 8 3 9 ---   Of a wall thickness exceeding 25mm or an outside cross-sectional dimension exceeding 170 mm ---   Other -     Other [17]  The applicant contends that the appropriate classification is 7304.59.45 : 17.1 (73.04) - Tubes, pipes and hollows profiles, seamless, of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel; (7304.5) – of circular cross-section, of other alloy steel; (7304.59) – “other”; (7304.59.45) – of a wall thickness exceeding 25 mm or an outside corss-sectional dimension exceeding 170mm. 17.2     in the alternative the goods should be classified under 7304.39.35 as follows: (73.04) - Tubes, pipes and hollows profiles, seamless, of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel; (7304.3) – Other, of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel: (7304.39) – Other: (7304.39.35) – of a wall thickness exceeding 25mm or an outside cross-sectional dimension exceeding 170mm.” [18]  SARS contends that subheading 7304.19 is the appropriate classification: “ (73.04) – Tubes, pipes and hollows profiles, seamless, of iron (excluding cast iron) or steel; (7304.1) – Line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines: (7304.19) – Other.” [19]  The Explanatory Notes assist in interpreting inter alia the Section and Chapter Notes.  In this case the Explanatory Note to Chapter 73 covers the articles in headings 73.01 to 73.24. and gives the following meaning to the “tubes and pipes”, that is: “ Concentric hollow products, of uniform cross-section with only one enclosed void along their whole length, having their inner and outer surfaces of the same form.  Steel tubes are mainly of circular, oval, rectangular …. cross sections …” [20]  The Explanatory Notes to the subheading TH73.04 stipulates: “ The products of this heading include, in particular, line pipes of a kind used for oil or gas , casing, tubing and drill pipes of a kind used in drilling for oil and gas, tubes and pipes suitable for use in boilers, super heaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces, feedwater heaters for power stations, galvanised or black tubes (so-called gas tubes) for high or medium pressure steamed, or gas or water distribution for buildings, as well as tubes for water or gas street distribution mains.  In addition, tubes and pipes are used for the manufacture of parts for automobiles or for machinery of rings for ball bearings, cylindrical tapered or needle bearings or for other mechanical uses, for scaffolding, tubular structures or building construction.” [21]  The Explanatory Note to the subheadings that includes TH7304.19 stipulates: “ These subheadings cover all such articles irrespective of the standards or technical specifications which they meet [e.g. American Petroleum Institute (API) standard 5L or 5LU for line pipe and API standards 5A, 5AC or 5AX for casing, tubing and drill pipe] .” [4] [22]  In Secretary for Customs and Excise v Thomas Barlow and Sons [5] the court outlined the correct approach when interpreting the provisions of the Schedule and applying the Explanatory Notes.  In summary the court stated: 22.1     the titles of the sections, chapters and subchapters are provided for ease of reference only and the explanatory notes are there to assist; 22.2     for legal purposes, classification (as between headings) shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.  Consequently the relative headings, section and chapter notes are paramount in determining which classification as between headings should apply in any particular case. [6] [23]  In the interpretation exercise, it is further permissible to use authentic dictionaries in order to ascertain the meaning of the ordinary words used in the headings and subheadings. ANALYSIS [24]  The applicant holds the view that the API specification cannot dictate the purpose for which the product is to be used.  The pipes imported were correctly entered into as TH7304.59.45 and TH304.39.35 , being seamless pipes as described in the invoices. [25]  SARS erred in placing the goods under tariff 7304.19 .  On the bill of lading the notifying party was Sasol in Secunda, which indicated that the shipment was destined for Sasol in Secunda.  The applicant contended that as a result, SARS assumed that the pipes were used in the oil and gas industry and therefore applied a tariff classification 7304.19 being of a kind used in oil and gas pipelines.  It contended that this was not the use of the pipeline.  The project entailed the putting up of a pipeline from a plant to a waste dam, approximately kilometres away from the plant.  Therefore the pipeline was for the transportation of waste products, that is fine ash from the plant to the waste dam.  Consequently the pipes are not used for transportation of oil and gas. [26]  The applicant emphasized that the technical information on the product has relevance, namely that the pipes have a wall thickness exceeding 25 mm or an outside cross-sectional dimension exceeding 170 mm is relevant.  Objectively, therefore the pipes meet the criteria for classification under TH7304.59.45 . [27]  Even though TH7304.1 includes pipes imported to form a pipeline used for oil and gas transportation, the imported pipes were to be used in the fine ash project as Sasol and not for the use of oil and gas pipelines. [28]  The applicant emphasized the correct interpretation would be to look at the typical use of the product .   It was argued that the pipes imported are not of a type typically used for oil and gas pipelines.  The specifications, particularly the weldability properties, the lower grade of steel, as well as pipe being PSL1 illustrated that the pipes are not typically used for gas and oil pipelines.  The applicant further pointed out that the pipes in issue constitute piping and not line pipes. There is a clear distinction between these two products. Interpretation Process [29]  In interpreting the Tariff Heading, it is necessary to have regard to the necessary facts concerning the goods described in the tariff heading [7] and to give effect to the ordinary meaning of the words used. In essence the language used, the context in which it is used and the purpose of the subheading together with the Notes thereto must be taken into consideration. [8] I am further mindful that expert evidence is inadmissible to prove the meaning of the words used in the tariff headings and subheadings. [9] The first stage:  meaning of the words used in the headings [30]  SARS’ view is that the pipes fall under subheading TH7304.19. The “ Subheading Explanatory Notes” that applies to subheading 7304.1 finds application insofar as determining the meaning of the words used in the subheading . Line pipes envisaged in TH7304.1 are of a kind typically used in oil and gas pipelines. [31] The starting point is to determine what type of pipes is ordinarily used in oil or gas pipelines.  This is a factual enquiry.  T he subheading “Explanatory Note” stipulates that subheadings 7304.11, 7304.19 , 7304.22, 7304.23, 7304.24 and 7304.29 covers all articles that meet, among others, the relevant API specification.  Subheading 7304.19 makes reference to the API 5L specification, as one of the specifications. Consequently it entails that a pipe that meets the API Specification 5L would be classifiable in subheading 7304.19. [32]  It cannot be disputed that API Specification 5L is a specification for “ Line Pipe ”. This is expressly stated in the Specification. [10] Paragraph 1 of the said API 5L specification defines the scope of the standard: “ T his International Standard specifies requirements for the manufacture of two product specification levels (PSL1 and PSL2) of seamless and welded pipes for use in pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industries”. [33]  The API 5L is the standard issued by the American Petroleum Institute for all seamless and welded pipes for use in petroleum and gas industries. It constitutes the minimum requirement for pipes suitable for oil or gas. [34]  The fact that the pipes are dual certified under API 5L and ASME SA 06 GrB / ASIM A-106, does not excluded them from the kind of pipes typically used for conveying oil or gas, merely because they have been certified to comply with both standards.  They remain pipes of a kind typically used for the conveyance of oil or gas in pipelines.  The mill certificate issued by the manufacturer reflects that the pipes met the standards of , inter alia , API 5L Grade BX.42. [35] SARS therefore argued that the pipes in question are line pipes, and inherent in an API 5L certification that the pipe is a ‘line pipe’. [36] In this regard I have noted the court’s approach in HMT Projects (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service at paragraph 5.7 where the court expressed: “ Whilst the expert may be correct that the higher specifications do not specify ‘line pipe’, the argument as a basis for disqualification falls away in the present instance where the pipes have been certified as compliant with API 5L standards. The pipes in question have therefore per definition been certified as ‘line pipe’.” [11] [37]  Insofar as the argument raised by the applicant that reference is made to “petroleum and natural gas” and not “oil and gas”, SARS contended that they refer to the same products.  Although tariff heading 7304.19 refers to ‘oil and gas’, the specification to ‘petroleum or natural gas’ refer to the same category of products.  In any event, it was demonstrated that this difference is not relevant. As long as the imported pipes satisfy the API 5L standard and meet the industry‘s minimum standards, they fall under TH7304.19 . [38]  In HMT the court found that once the API 5L standard is satisfied, the appropriate tariff heading is 7304.19.  It expressed : [12] “ 4.10 As to the ‘kind’ of the line pipes to be used, the Applicant points out that the pipes need to meet industry minimum standards. In this regard the Applicant points out that the imported pipes satisfy the API 5L standard. This is an American standard for the American Petroleum Industry for steel pipes used in pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industry, specifying the minimum requirements and composition to be met to be suitable for ‘pipeline use’. 4.11 So, to sum up, the words in Tariff Heading 7304.1 refer to line pipe meeting the minimum standards for pipe used in pipelines whereby oil or gas can be conveyed. This interpretation, in my view, properly takes into account the language used in the Tariff Heading in context and gives meaning thereto in a sensible manner. ” [39]  Therefore the API 5L certification denotes that the pipe is a ‘line pipe’ designed and manufactured for use in a pipeline for the transportation of oil and gas. ### ### Second stage: Nature and characteristics of the pipes Second stage: Nature and characteristics of the pipes [40] It is not disputed that the products are seamless, carbon steel pipes which have multipurpose functions and are not manufactured for a specific purpose. [41] According to the supplier, the products can be manufactured according to the different international standards such as API 5L, ASTM, ASME, JIS, DIN, EN, etc.  The products could be intended for the transmission of petroleum, natural gas, and other gas and fluids including over a hundred specifications for various other applications and regular pressure submarine, low temperature, high temperature, corrosion resistant, and other pipelines. [42] It is settled law that the nature and characteristics of the goods in issue are to be assessed based on their objective characteristics, that is ‘as presented’ on importation thereof. The intended use thereof is not relevant. [43] The Supreme Court of Appeal in Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v The Baking Tin (Pty) Ltd [13] affirmed this said proposition and expressed : “ The last sentence of this passage is invoked by The Baking Tin in support of its argument that the intention of the designer, or the use to which the goods are put, may affect what appear to be the objective characteristics of the goods and thus change their classification. It seems to me, however, that the court was suggesting no more than that light may be thrown on the characteristics of the article by subjective factors. The principle remains the same: it is not the intention with which they are made, nor the use to which they may be put, that characterise the containers in question. It is their objective characteristics. Thus the mere fact that the containers are regarded as disposable by The Baking Tin, and perhaps other suppliers and manufacturers in the chain, does not necessarily make them disposable by nature.” [44] It is common cause that the pipes meet the API 5L standard.  In my view, it is the API 5L certification that denotes that the pipes are line pipes, and are of the kind used in transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industries.  This objective characteristic constitute sufficient evidence necessary to determine whether the pipes are ‘line pipes of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines’. [45] In these circumstances the nature and characteristics of the pipes does not pertain to the technical features of the pipe, that is the API 5L standard denotes that it is a kind used for oil and gas pipelines.  The pipes that were imported may not have been for the purpose of use in gas and oil pipelines but they are of a “kind used in gas or oil pipelines”. Third stage:  Selection of the most appropriate heading [46]  Rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation provides that when goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings then the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to a heading that provides a general description. [47]  On the facts the pipes met the API Specification 5L standard.  In terms of the Explanatory Notes, to the subheading 7304.19, the API 5L specification was included.  It was further disputed that the pipe is API 5L compliant and suitable for use in oil and gas pipelines.  The subheading 7304.19 “covered all articles irrespective of the standards or technical specifications which they met, which includes (API) standards 5L line pipe”.  However, since the pipes have not been manufactured from stainless steel, the appropriate heading is “ other ” as contemplated under TH7304.19 . [48]  The proposition that the pipe can be used in piping does not detract from the fact that it is “a line pipe of the kind used for oil and gas pipelines”.  This was affirmed in HMT . [14] [49]  I further had regard to the “Tariff Classification Guide on Line Pipe used in Australia” [15] where it was noted that the pipes would be classifiable in subheading 7304.1 if they comply with the API 5L standard.  It was explained at paragraph 3.3 that: “ Therefore the sub headings cover line pipe that is used in oil or gas pipelines and also line pipe that is of the same kind as that used in oil or gas pipelines, regardless of the intended use by the importer or an end-user of the product. Line pipe that has been manufactured to comply with all appropriate oil or gas pipelines standard, such as A AS 2885, or PI 5L, or multiple standards including an oil and gas pipelines standard, so that it can be used across multiple applications, is classified under these subheadings provided there are no other features (such as some coatings or being galvanised) that make it unsuitable for use in oil or gas pipelines.” [50]  Further at paragraph 3.2 the Guide defined the words “of a kind”, that is: “ The genus or class is line pipe used for oil or gas pipelines, i.e. high pressure long distance petroleum oils and gas transmission pipelines.  This is a specific specialized class of pipes.  Pipe that is the same in all respects to such pipe and fit for purpose for such use, even though it is not intended to be used, is of a kind to this genus or class and must be classified under the same line pipe subheading. [51]  Having considered both parties’ contentions, I am of the view that the most appropriate classification of the pipes in issue is tariff heading 7304.19 . ### ### EXPERT EVIDENCE EXPERT EVIDENCE [52] The applicant’s expert witness was Mr Swart and the respondent called Mr van Rooyen.  This court had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the said experts and will confine itself to their evidence. [53] It is appreciated that experts can assist courts and their opinions can be, by virtue of their expertise in a specific field, be admissible.  However, their opinions as to the meaning of the Tariff Headings are not permitted. [54] To the extent that reliance is placed on expert evidence, it is not in dispute that the pipes complied with API Specification 5L.  With reference to the Explanatory Notes, it has been established that a pipe is API Specification 5L compliant, and is suitable for use in oil and gas pipelines, makes it to be ‘of the kind’ used for such pipelines. The expert opinions however assisted this court in gaining a general understanding of the manufacturing process of the pipes , their compositions, specifications, different grades, and the use of the pipes in issue. [55]  In HMT the court noted how ‘line pipe’ is manufactured to the API specifications.  It made reference to the United States Court of International Trade matter, [16] the court explained that: “… We have addressed the like product question regarding standard pipes and tubes (standard pipe) and line pipes and tubes (line pipe) in prior investigations.  In those investigations the Commission recognised distinctions between standard pipe and line pipe. Standard pipe is manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications and line pipe is manufactured to American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications. Line pipe is made of higher grade steel and may have a higher carbon and manganese content that is permissible for standard pipe.  Line pipe also requires additional testing.  Wall thicknesses for standard and line pipes, although similar in the smaller diameters, differ in the larger diameters.  Moreover, standard pipe (whether imported or domestic) is generally used for low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, a more natural gas in plumbing, air-conditioning, automatic sprinkler and similar systems. Line pipe is generally used for the transportation of gas, oil or water in utility pipeline distribution systems .” [56]  The further evidence of the experts is also not in dispute, namely: 56.1     the pipes were API 5L Grade X42 certified; 56.2     they were manufactured from ‘non-alloy steel’, 56.3     their length, outside cross-sectional dimension and wall thickness were 12mm, 273mm and 9.27 respectively; 56.4     they can be used in pipelines for oil and gas, in pipelines for support purposes, or as piping in the refineries.  More particularly, in the joint minute the experts, (Mr Swart and Mr Van Rooyen) agreed that the pipes were suitable for use in both ‘oil and gas pipelines’ and in plant ‘piping’; 56.5     pipes used to construct a pipeline are ‘line pipes’.  Since the pipes were suitable for use in pipelines they were ‘line pipe’. [57]  It was noted that under cross-examination, Mr Swart confirmed that when a pipe is API 5L certified it is of a kind that is used in pipeline transportation systems in the petroleum and natural gas industry. [58]  Mr Swart however opined that there is a difference between “pipeline” and piping.  Piping generally refers to inside factory piping or piping in processing plant whereas pipeline refers to the transmission system used for transportation. [59]  He explained that the material specification for seamless pipes in ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials) is A 106.  However, he confirmed that there are also material specifications according to the American Petroleum Industry (API) and API 5L in respect of seamless pipes. [60] The court in HMT Projects [17] held that ‘pipeline’ includes ‘piping’. The fact that a pipe can also be used in piping does not detract from the fact that it is a line pipe of the kind used for oil and gas pipelines due to specification. [61]  He further testified that the pipes in issue are not of a type typically used for oil and gas pipelines.  The pipes imported are typically used for piping in processing plants and factories because of their weldability properties and lower grade of steel, which makes it more feasible to procure fittings of the same grade. [62]  There are different grades that refer to the strength.  For instance, Grade B is a lower strength, a higher grade would depict either X52, X60, X65 or X70 grades.  Grade B will be close to Grade X42.  Hence the pipes in issue are of a lower grade. He, however, could not dispute that even though the pipes were of a lower grade X42, it still fell within the API 5L specification. [63]  He further confirmed that API 5L material specifications are found in both seamless and welded pipes but A106 is only seamless pipes and that the pipes are dual certified, complying with both API 5L and A106. He explained that if you want to use seamless pipes you would specify A106, and if you want to use welded pipes one would use the API 5L specification. [64]  When considering the specifications on the invoice, he confirmed that they are seamless pipes that comply with more than one specification including API 5L.  He however opined that if oil and gas is being transported, there will be a need for PSL2.  In this instance, it is PSL1. [65]  Although Mr van Rooyen’s expertise was objected to, it cannot be disputed that he has practical experience in the manufacturing of steel line pipes used for the transportation of oil and gas. [66]  In summary, his evidence was the following: 66.1     steel pipes and tubes are generally produced according to standards and specifications published by a number of organisations, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and American Petroleum Institute (API); 66.2 The API 5L specification defines two products specification levels (PSLI and PSL2) for the manufacture of seamless and welded pipes for use in pipeline transportation in the petroleum and gas industries; 66.3     he opined that pipes used in the construction of pipelines for the transmission of oil and gas is referred to in the industry as “line pipe”; 66.4     line pipe is made of a higher grade of steel than standard pipe which is used for low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas in plumbing, air-conditioning and similar systems. His view was that Grade X42 is commonly used in oil and gas pipelines ; 66.5     in the transportation of oil and gas, higher specifications are necessary.  Although a pipeline constructed for API 5L line pipe is generally used for the transportation of gas and oil, it could be used for the transportation of other substances such as water.  A pipeline used for the transmission of oil or gas will be constructed from API 5L certified line pipes; 66.6     his view is that when a pipe is certified to comply with all standards API 5L, ASME SA-1-06, and ASTM A-106, it demonstrates that the pipe is designed for purposes of transporting petroleum or gas at high temperatures and pressures.   Furthermore, pipes with API specification can be used in both piping and in pipelines. Under cross examination Mr Van Rooyen agreed that as far as pipeline is concerned, it stretches over a long distance and in such a case one would use higher grade pipes such as X60 and X65 grades. CONCLUSION AND COSTS [67]  In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I find that the pipes were correctly classified under TH7304.19. Insofar as costs are concerned, there is no reason for me to deviate from the general principle that costs should follow the result. I therefore am of the view that the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent, consequent upon the employment of two counsel on Scale C. H. KOOVERJIE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances : Counsel for the applicant:              Adv.JA Venter Instructed by:                                 Des Naidoo & Associates 108 Victoria Avenue, Parkmore Sandton Counsel for the respondents:          Adv. JA Meyer SC Adv. CM Masilo Instructed by:                                  Klagsbrun Edelstein Bosman Du Plessis Inc. 220 Lange Street, Nieuw Muckleneuk Pretoria Date heard:                                     21-22 May 2025 & 24 November 2025 Date of Judgment:                          22 December 2025 [1] International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems done in Brussels on 14 June 1983 and explanatory notes to the Harmonized System  issued by the Customs Cooperation Council Brussels, now known as the World Customs Organisation [2] International Business Machines (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for Customs and Excise 1985 (4) SA 852A at 863F-H [3] My emphasis [4] “ Subheading Explanatory Notes: Subheadings 7304.11, 7304.19 , 7304.22, 7304.23, 7304.24 and 7304.29 These subheadings cover all such articles irrespective of the standards or technical specifications which they meet ( e.g., American Petroleum Institute (API) standards 5L or 5LU line pipe and API standards 5A, 5AC or 5AX for casing, tubing and drill pipe) ” .  (Emphasis added) [5] 1970 (2) SA 660 AD at paragraph  675F  to 676F [6] the court succinctly stated: “ It can be gathered from all the aforegoing that the primary task in classifying particular goods is to ascertain the meaning of the relevant headings and section and chapter notes, but, performing that task, one should also use the Brussels Notes for guidance especially in difficult and doubtful cases. But in using them one must bear in mind that they are merely intended to explain or perhaps supplement those headings and notes and not to override or contradict them .” [7] Smith Mining Equipment (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (728/12) [2013] ZASCA 145 (1 October 2013) at para 8; and Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Toneleria Nacional RSA (Pty) Ltd 2021 (5) SA 68 (SCA) In both the Toneleria and Smith Mining matters the court acknowledged that one cannot interpret the tariff heading and understand what it refers to without some facts about the object of goods described in the tariff heading which has to be established by evidence .  The relevant evidence therefore has to be placed before court, for instance in that matter the tariff heading under consideration refer to “work trucks … of the type used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or airports for short distance transport of goods”.  Of its own knowledge the court could not know what vehicles were used for that purpose in factories, warehouses, dock areas or airports.  Accordingly evidence need to be led to show what vehicles were used for purposes in those work environments.  Hence the court stated that material such as dictionaries, encyclopaedias, reference books and other publications together with the limited evidence led by the parties was presented. [8] National Joint Municipality v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA s93 SCA at para 18 [9] Selero (Pty) Ltd v Chauvier 1984 (1) SA 128 A at 139 D-G [10] “ API 5L Specification of Line Pipe of the American Petroleum Institute”, 46 th edition April 2018 [11] (1012/2019)[2023] ZAGPPHC 143 (10 January 2023) [12] HMT Projects paras 4.10 and 4.11 [13] 2007 (6) SA 545 (SCA), para [13] and my emphasis See also CSARS v Komatsu 2007 (2) SA 157 (SCA) at paragraph 8 [14] HMT Projects, par 5.5 [15] “ Tariff Classification Guide on Line Pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines”, para 3.3 [16] United States Court of International Trade in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd v United States and Wheatland Tube Co. Slip Op. No. 22-134; Court No. 1:21-00049 [17] HMT, para 6.5 sino noindex make_database footer start