On May 28, the Supreme Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in respect of the case between the com- missioner of the South African Revenue Service (Sars) and LG Electronics, which it had heard on May 20.

The case pertains to a tariff determination (also known as a tariff classification) for screens (also known as video monitors) and tuners separately imported.

The court had to consider whether screens were incomplete reception apparatus for television in terms of the general rule for interpretation, that is, rule 2(a), and whether separate importation constituted a scheme to avoid paying legitimate customs duties.

According to the judgment, from 2004 to 2006, LG Electronics declared screens under tariff subheading 8528.21.20. The company continued to clear the screens under this tariff subheading until July 2006, after which, following an investigation, it was issued with a revised determination in terms of section 47(9)(d)(i)(bb) of the Customs and Excise Act in respect of the screens, classifying them under tariff subheading 8528.12.30.

Whereas the video monitors were liable for a customs duty of 25% ad valorem and enjoyed a full rebate of the customs duty on the grounds that they did not incorporate television reception apparatus, the screens, under the redeter- mined tariff subheading, were liable for the same rate of customs duty but without the benefit of a rebate of the customs duty.

In the initial court case, it was found that “the screens are complete video monitors and are used for that purpose”. Concerning the submission that the separate importation of screens and tuners was a cloak to disguise the reality of the entry of television sets into South Africa with the intention of evading the legitimate levying of the customs duty on such sets, the court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the facts negated that inference and clearly showed that “the applicant (LG Electronics) imported the screens and tuners in order to service two markets and imported them separately because that is how they are exported by the manufacturer worldwide”.

According to the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, the crux of the factual findings of the court was that the screens were designed to serve two markets – one for video monitors or information display panels and the other for television sets – and that LG Electronics supplied both markets. The appeal was, thus, dismissed with costs, including the consequent costs on the employment of two counsel.

Antidumping Sunset Review – Acetaminophenol
A notice appeared on May 21 in respect of the initiation of a sunset review of the antidumping duties on acetaminophenol originating in or imported from the People’s Republic of China and the US. The application was lodged by Fine Chemicals Corporation, which alleged that the expiry of the antidumping duties in respect of acetaminophenol would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury.
Comment is due by June 28.

Imminent Lapse of Antidumping Duties
A notice appeared in respect of the imminent lapse of antidumping duties for chicken meat portions originating in or imported from the US, carbon black originating in or imported from Thailand, paperboard originating in or imported from South Korea and drawn glass and float glass originating in or imported from Indonesia.

The application was lodged by the Interna- tional Trade Administration Commission of South Africa. Southern African Customs Union-based manufacturers of any of these products are required to submit substan- tiated information indicating that the expiry of the antidumping duty would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury.
Comment is due by June 30.