Ver-Bolt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner For South African Revenue Service (005878/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1322 (30 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1322 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Ver-Bolt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner For South African Revenue Service (005878/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1322 (30 December 2025) Ver-Bolt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner For South African Revenue Service (005878/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1322 (30 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1322.html sino date 30 December 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2024-005878 DOH: 09 June 2025 DECIDED: 30 December 2025 1) REPORTABLE: NO 2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO 3) REVISED. 30 December 2025 In the matter between: VER-BOLT (PTY) LTD Applicant And COMMISSIONER FOR SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Respondent This judgment has been handed down remotely and shall be circulated to the parties by way of email / uploading on Caselines. The date of hand down shall be deemed to be 30 December 2025. ORDER 1. The application is dismissed with costs, with counsel’s fees on Scale C. JUDGMENT Bam J 1. This is an appeal against the tariff determination made by the respondent’s Customs and Excise National Appeal Committee (the Committee)  on 14 October 2022 in terms of which the respondent finally classified the products imported by the applicant, under Tariff Heading 7308.90.99. The products are: (i) Part No:120106 Mining Equipment Safety Side C/W 25.5 Centre Hole (ii) Part No:120107 Mining Equipment Indicator Side C/W 25.5 Centre Hole           (collectively referred to as the parts, Camlock parts or products). 2. In its notice of motion, the applicant seeks the following relief: 2.1 The Respondent’s determination that the products under issue be classified under TH 7308.40.90 be set aside and replaced with tariff heading 7308.40.10 2.2 The decision by the Customs and Excise National Appeal Committee determining that the products under issue be classified under tariff heading 7308.40.99 be set aside and replaced with a tariff heading 7308.40.10 2.3 The respondent pay the costs of the application. 3. The appeal is opposed by the respondent. Appeals against determinations made by the Commissioner are provided for in Section 47(9)(e)  of the Customs and Excise Act [1] (Act). It is trite that the appeal is one in a wide sense, in that a complete re-hearing of the merits, with or without additional evidence, is envisaged.  As such, the court steps into the shoes of the Commissioner and makes a new determination. In this judgment, I use the abbreviation TH for tariff heading in conformity with the parties’ papers. Parties 4. The applicant is a private company duly incorporated in terms of South African laws with its principal place of business at 2, De Villiers Avenue, Vereeniging, Gauteng. 5. The Respondent is the Commissioner for South African Revenue Service, with his Head Office located at Lehae La SARS, 299 Bronkhorst Street Muckleneuk, Pretoria, Gauteng. The Commissioner is charged with, amongst others, the administration of the Act. I use the word respondent when referring to the Commissioner or SARS with the necessary adjustments. Summary of the parties’ contentions 6. When reduced to its bear essence, the applicant’s case is this:  Tariff  Heading 73.08 makes provision for parts of structures and the Camlock parts are parts of a propping structure. Further, there is no requirement for classification in Sub Tariff Heading 7308.40.10 that the parts must be stand-alone propping parts. Thus, given that the Explanatory Note to Tariff Heading 73.08 explicitly refers to parts of structures, the most appropriate subheading under which the parts must be classified is 7308.40.10. The respondent submits the applicant’s approach is simply wrong because it ignores the principles of tariff classification. To arrive at its chosen classification, the applicant interprets tariff heading 73.08 to mean that a product and its parts are classifiable in the same heading, which is incorrect. There is according to the respondent no legal justification for the applicant’s adopted approach. It is now appropriate to set some background details. Background 7. In brief, the applicant has been operating in the mining industry for 40 years. One of the products it deals in is the Camlock Safety Prop, a type of equipment used in the mining sector as temporary support. The applicant imports certain components or parts which are utilised in the manufacture of the Camlock Safety Prop. It is these parts or products that are the subject of this appeal.  During September 2021, a consignment carrying the products was stopped by the respondent’s officials. The respondent queried the applicant’s use of TH 7308.40.10 under which the products had been cleared. Arising from that event, the applicant applied for a tariff determination. The respondent, through its head office, determined that the products fell to be classified under TH 7308.40.90. The applicant was aggrieved by the determination because it had imported the goods under TH 7308.40.10 over a protracted period. Thus, it lodged an internal appeal to the National Appeal Committee. 8. The appeal was decided on 14 October 2022 wherein the Committee disagreed not only with the applicant’s contentions, but with the earlier determination under which the goods were classified, i.e., TH7308.40.90. The goods were finally classified as Other: Other under TH 7308.90.99. The appeal to the Committee, as the respondent sets out in their answering affidavit, was an appeal in a wide sense in that the merits of the matter were determined de novo . As such the Committee’s determination superseded the earlier determination. Consequently, and notwithstanding that the applicant in its papers assails both the earlier determination of January 2022 and the determination by the Committee, the only determination that falls to be considered in these proceedings is that of 22 October 2022. The parties are agreed that in the event this court were to determine that the goods fall to be classified under the TH 7308.40.10, as contended by the applicant, the letter of demand issued by the Commissioner in May of 2023 would have no force or effect as its legal basis will no longer exist and vice versa in the event the Commissioner’s determination is left undisturbed. Issue 9. The sole controversy between the parties is whether the products fall to be classified under Tarriff Heading (TH) 7308.90.99 or TH 7308.40.10. Applicable legal principles 10. Section 47 (1) of the Act provides that duty shall be paid for the benefit of the National Revenue Fund on all imported goods, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 at the time of entry for home consumption of such goods. The Process of and the principles governing Tariff Classification 11. The process of and the principles governing tariff classification are summarized in Commissioner: SARS v Toneleria Nacional RSA (Pty) Ltd : ‘ [4] The proper approach to questions of classification between different headings is well-established. It follows a three-stage process: ‘ Classification as between headings is a three-stage process: first, interpretation – the ascertainment of the meaning of the words used in the headings (and relative section and chapter notes) which may be relevant to the classification of the goods concerned; second, consideration of the nature and characteristics of those goods; and third, the selection of the heading most appropriate to such goods.’ ‘ In terms of s 47(8)(a)(i) of the Act the interpretation of any tariff heading or any tariff subheading in Part 1 of Schedule 1: 'shall be subject to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System done in Brussels on 14 June 1983 and to the  Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System issued by the Customs Co-operation Council, Brussels (now known as the World Customs Organization) from time to time …’ ‘ The Explanatory Notes do not have an overriding function, in that the primary task of the court is to ascertain the meaning of the relevant headings and section and chapter notes, but they are a helpful guide in explaining or perhaps supplementing the headings, without overriding or contradicting them.’ [2] General Rules for Interpretation (GRI) 12. The General Notes to Schedule 1 of the Act provides that classification of goods in Schedule 1 is governed by the General Rules for Interpretation of this Schedule (GRI). The general rules for interpretation are the same as those governing the Harmonized System. For present purposes, I refer to the following rules: Rule 2(a) which reads: ‘ Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this Rule), unassembled or disassembled.’ The explanatory note to GRI 2(a) reads: ‘The first part of Rule 2(a) extends the scope of any heading which refers to a particular article to cover not only the complete article but also that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, it has the essential character of the complete or finished article.’ Rule 6 reads: ‘ For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading Notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above Rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this Rule the relative Section and Chapter Notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.’ According to GRI 6, classification is to be undertaken hierarchically, i.e., a product must first be classifiable in the heading before being classified in any of the one-dash subheadings can be considered. The rule necessarily applies to classification in two-dash subheadings. 13. Important for present purposes is the principle espoused in Silverback Technologies CC & Others v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service regarding the meaning of essential characteristics of a product. There the court said: ‘‘ In Autoware (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Customs and Excise Colman J had occasion to consider, for purposes of customs duty, whether a certain type of vehicle was a panel van or an incomplete station wagon. The learned Judge found that the relative simplicity and low-cost modification was not a decisive criterion, because the enquiry does not turn on what the product was going to be or what it will be adapted to be. ‘Rather, the court must consider what the product was at the time of importation. [33] Colman J continued to say that the issue– '. . .must be decided on the basis of the presence or absence, in the unmodified vehicle, of the essential features or components of a station wagon. . .What I mean by an essential feature of a station wagon is not a feature which is important, for one reason or another, or even one which is necessary for the proper functioning of a station wagon. I mean a feature which is essential in that it embodies the essence of a station wagon, and differentiate such a vehicle from others which are not station wagons.’ [3] 14. Furthermore, the nature and characteristics of the goods in issue are to be assessed based on their objective characteristics as presented on importation, Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v The Baking Tin (Pty) Ltd [4] . Tariff 73.08 reads: Heading/Subheading CD Article Description 73.08 Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading 94/06) and parts of structures (for example, bridges and bridge-sections, lock-gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs, and thresholds for doors, shutters, balustrades, pillars and columns), of iron or steel; plates, rods, angles, shapes, sections, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structures of iron or steel: 7308.10 Bridges and bridge-sections 7308.20 Towers and lattice masts: 7308.20.05 7308.20.15 7308.20.20 Lattices masts for telegraph lines Lattice masts for electric power lines Towers for electric power lines (including transmission towers or pylons) 7308.20.90 7 Other 7308.30 Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 7308.30.10 7308.40.90 3 6 Doors or gates for lifts Other 7308.40 Equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit-propping: 7308.40.10 7308.40.90 8 6 Mining appliances Other 7308.90 Other 7308.90.30 7308.90.50 5 4 Spiral chutes; smoke stacks Other electric power line structures and electric substation structures; parts thereof 7308.90.9 Other: 7308.90.91 7308.90.99 7 2 Roof tiles, with dimensions not exceeding a width of 397 mm, a length of 1675mm and a thickness of 0.45 mm Other Classification of the products 15. Following the IBS process, the first stage of interpretation requires this court to ascertain the meaning of the words used in the headings (and relative section and chapter notes that may be relevant). The explanatory note to TH 73.08 reads in the relevant parts: ‘This heading covers complete and incomplete metal structures, as well as parts of structures. What this informs is that, somewhere under the subheadings, parts of structures are covered. Subheading 7308.40 provides for equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit-propping. Both parties refer to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word equipment in subheading 7308.40. The definition according to the dictionary includes, ‘things that are needed for a particular purpose or activity’; or ‘implements used for a particular activity’. The definition of appliance includes, ‘an instrument or device designed for a particular function’ or  ‘a thing applied as means to an end’. This is as far as the parties’ agreement goes. From here onwards, they part ways. Applicant’s case 16. Applicant’s case, as set out in its founding affidavit and emphasized in its submissions, proceeds from the premise that: (i) The notes to Section XV and Chapter 73 do not contain any definitions which may aid in the classification of the products under this section. More importantly, there is no distinction between what would be regarded as equipment and what would be regarded as appliance. (ii) Following the definition of appliance as, ‘a thing applied as means to an end’, the applicant submits that there is no reason why the components imported cannot be said to be ‘things applied as means to an end’, namely to permit the Camlock Safety Prop to perform its task. (iii) The tariff heading, submits the applicant, provides for parts of structures. (iv) Finally, the applicant submits that one must question why the Harmonised System would place the word ‘mining’ in subheading 7308.40.10 as part of the heading Structures and parts of Structures if it did not intend for classification of those exact parts under the section, heading and subheading.  On this basis, the applicant suggests that the decision of the Committee is incompatible with the words used in the heading and subheading and stands to be set aside. 17. There is something legally unsound about the applicant’s submissions on interpretation. The terms of the heading do not direct that the structures provided for are classifiable along with their parts under the same heading, nor do the explanatory notes support an interpretation to that effect. Accordingly, the principles of tariff classification must be followed to classify the Camlock parts. That the  definition of the words equipment and appliance include similar products is not in dispute. Thus, based on the structure of the subheading, 7308.40, mining appliance in subheading 7308.40.10 means one of four types of equipment, which is for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit-propping. In practical terms, mining appliance therefore means equipment for either scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit-propping. Second stage: Nature and characteristics of the product 18. The following is  common cause: (i) The products are parts of the Camlock Safety Prop. They were designed exclusively to be incorporated in and function as part of the Camlock Safety Prop. They are not the complete Camlock Safety Prop. (ii) The Camlock Safety Prop is temporary support used exclusively in underground mining operations. (iii) The Camlock Safety Prop is a mining appliance. (iv) The products are part of a mining appliance, i.e. Camlock Safety Prop. Third stage: Selection of the most appropriate heading 19. The applicant submits that the nature and characteristics of the products coupled with the definition of equipment, places them squarely within subheading 7308.40 and by implication excludes 7308.90 as well as 7308.90.99 on the basis that the products are ascertainable and have distinguishing characteristics. I do not agree with the submission. I have already said that the approach is fallacious as it assumes, without providing legal justification, that a product, including its parts, is classifiable under the same heading. 20. With reference to Tariff subheading 7308.40.10, the applicant submits that the World Customs Organization, WCO, envisaged that mining equipment as well as mining appliances could be included under this tariff heading which is the exact reason why mining appliances are expressly contained under this section and heading. Relying on Rule 6 of the GRI, which reads: ‘ the scope of the two subheadings shall not extend beyond that of the one-subheading to which the two-subheading belongs’, Applicant submits that ‘appliance’ must be narrower than ‘equipment’ and the Camlock Safety Prop in terms is described in the one dash subheading. Therefore, the products are most suitably classified under TH7308.40.10. 21. The question to be answered in selecting the most appropriate subheading is simply this: Are the products equipment for propping or pit-propping, as provided for in subheading 7308.40. If they are, then they are classifiable under subheading 7308.40 and only then does it become necessary to determine whether they are mining appliances. If they are not equipment for propping, they must be classified under the residual one-dash subheading 7308.90. The objective characteristics of the product according to the applicant’s evidence are: (i) The products were designed and manufactured to be used and are used as part of the Camlock Safety Prop. (ii) They are not on their own equipment for propping and were not designed to do the propping. They are therefore not used for propping. 22. Importantly, the applicant has not introduced any evidence to the effect that the parts have the essential characteristics of equipment for propping. Had that been the case of the applicant, then by application of GRI 2(a), the products would be classifiable under subheading 7308.40. Thus, a classification under subheading 7308.40 is excluded which means, classification under subheadings 7308.40.10 or 7308.40.90 does not arise. The only other remaining one-dash subheading under TH73.08 is 7308.90, which provides for Other. What remains to be considered is under which of the two or three dash subheadings. The products are not the type identified in subheadings 7308.90.30 or 7308.90.50. They are therefore classifiable under subheading 7308.90.9. As the products are not the type described under subheading 7308.90.91, they are classifiable under the residual subheading 7308.90.00, other. Conclusion 23. I find that the applicant has failed to make a case. I find no basis to disturb the  Commissioner’s determination as per the CENAC. Delay in handing down the judgment 24. In the interest of completeness and transparency, I mention that this judgment was delayed due to my sudden illness. The recovery period was way longer than anticipated and is regrettable. Order 1. The application is dismissed with costs, with counsel’s fees on Scale C. N.N BAM JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Date of Hearing:                                  09 June 2025 Date of Judgment:                              30 December 2025 Appearances : Counsel for the Applicant:                 Adv C.E Puckrin SC with Adv K Kollapen Instructed by:                                        Shesptone & Wylie c/o Klagsbruin, Edelstein, Bosman Du Plessis Inc New Muckleneuk, Pretoria Counsel for the Respondent:            Adv J.A Meyer SC Instructed by:                                        VDT Attorneys Waterkloof Ridge, Pretoria [1] Act 91 of 1964. [2] (Case No 445/2020) [2021] ZASCA 65 (1 June 1  2021), paragraph 4; Commissioner for Customs and Excise v Capital Meats CC (In Liquidation) and Another (529/96) [1998] ZASCA 80 ; 1999 (1) SA 570 (SCA); (25 September 1998), paragraph 2; Commissioner, SA Revenue Service v Komatsu SA (Pty) Ltd [2006] SCA 118 (RSA), paragraph 8; CSARS v Coltrade International (54/2015) [2016] ZASCA, 53 (1 April 2016), paragraphs 6-7; Silverback Technologies CC & Others v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (301/2022) [2023] ZASCA 128 (09 October 2023), paragraph 16. [3] Note 1 supra , paragraph 32. [4] 2007 (6) SA 545 SCA, paragraph 13. sino noindex make_database footer start