Although Judge Mali marked her judgment in the recent IT 24852 Tax Court case as neither reportable nor of interest to other judges, the decision provides important clarification regarding the deductibility of ‘losses’ under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act (‘the IT Act’).
The recent Western Cape High Court judgment in Ocean Ark Shipping Ltd and Another v C:SARS (April 2026) is likely to attract considerable attention within the maritime, logistics and energy sectors. The case concerns SARS’ detention and seizure of the tanker MT Essien in connection with alleged contraventions under the Customs & Excise Act, 1964 (‘the Act’) and Value-Added Tax Act, 1991, arising from coastwise trade operations in South African waters.
The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Mining Pressure Systems (Pty) Ltd (565/2023) [2026] ZASCA 21 highlights the often-overlooked complexity of customs tariff classification — particularly where technical specifications intersect with legal interpretation.
Predominantly in the context of high-risk products, such as tobacco, being exported or in transit through South Africa, the question frequently arises as to whether the goods were indeed exported. Over time, illicit trade is costing the fiscus billions of rand, and it is therefore understandable if the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (“the Commissioner” or “SARS”) examines or questions the actual export of such goods. However, SARS cannot disregard or reject compelling evidence of the export in order to claim duties, penalties, and forfeiture amounts.
Two noteworthy High Court judgments have emphasised the substantial financial and adverse repercussions resulting from non-compliance with the onerous obligations imposed on licensees of customs and excise warehouses under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (“the Act”).
Although section 103 of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (“the Act”) is not a new provision, SARS’ reliance on the provision has become increasingly prominent.
Shepstone & Wylie (S&W) will not change its banking details. Any communication you receive stating we have done so will be false - please contact us immediately.
If you bank with Standard Bank, Nedbank, Investec, FNB or Absa Bank you are encouraged to pay us using the bank approved beneficiary: Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys.
If you don’t use the bank approved beneficiary option, you must always call us to verify our banking details before making any payment.