The instalment of this column published on May 20, 2011, titled ‘High Court reserves judgement in antidumping case’, stated that, from April 28 to 29, the North Gauteng High Court had heard the case between the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac), as the first applicant; the South African Revenue Service (Sars), as the second applicant; the Minister of Trade and Industry, as the third applicant; the Minister of Finance, as the fourth applicant; and Aranda Textile Mills and 74 others as the respondents.
The application arose from the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the case of Progress Office Machines vs the South African Revenue Service and Others, where judgement was passed on September 25, 2007. At the time, judgement in this case was reserved.
On May 16, Itac issued a press release relating to the High Court judgment passed on May 10, which was in favour of the applicants. The High Court declared Schedule 2 of the Customs and Excise Act invalid with respect to a number of affected products and dates.
The affected products are acetampinophenol from the People’s Republic of China, France and the US (the antidumping duties lapsed on April 9, 2004); acrylic blankets from China and Turkey (the antidumping duties lapsed on December 18, 2003); carbon black from Thailand (the antidumping duties lapsed on April 14, 2005); chicken meat portions from the US (the antidumping duties lapsed on July 5, 2005); door locks and door handles from China (the antidumping duties lapsed on August 31, 2006); flat glass from China and India (the antidumping duties lapsed on November 27, 2003); float glass from China and India (the antidumping duties lapsed on November 27, 2003); garlic from China (the antidumping duties lapsed on March 24, 2005); lysine from the US (the antidumping duties lapsed on July 30, 2006); bolts and nuts of iron or steel from China (the antidumping duties lapsed on February 5, 2004); nuts of iron or steel from Chinese Taipei (the antidumping duties lapsed on February 5, 2004); and paper-insulated lead-covered electrical cable from India (the antidumping duties lapsed on May 7, 2004).
The judge suspended the order of invalidity both retrospectively to the relevant dates before the antidumping duties on the affected products became invalid and prospectively for a period of three years.
As a consequence, the antidumping duties will remain in force and Itac will, thus, be able to review all the antidumping duties which have not been subject to review since the decision by the SCA.
It is evident that the judge, in his decision, took into account the fact that the domestic industries could be detrimentally affected should the antidumping duties be withdrawn, or removed.
Canned Tomatoes and Puree Duty
On May 18, Sars published a notice with respect to an increase in the ‘general’ rate of customs duty on canned tomatoes and tomato paste puree and concentrates in powder form, classifiable under tariff subheading 2002.90.
Canned Tomato and Puree Rebate
On May 18, Sars notified of the creation of rebate item 304.07/2002.90/01.06 on tomato paste in containers of 200 ℓ or more used in the manufacture of food preparations.
Artificial Turf Rebate
On May 18, Sars announced the creation of rebate items 320.04/5404. 1/01.05, 320.04/ 5404. 90/01.06, 320.04/5407. 20/01.06 and 320.04/5512. 19/01.06 for the manufacture of artificial turf.
On May 18, Sars published two correction notices in respect of Schedule No 3 of the Act and Schedule No 5 of the Act.
The amendment with respect to Schedule No 3 of the Act relates to the amendment of the check digit in rebate item 316.11/39.01. The amendment to Schedule No 3 of the Act relates to the amendment of the check digits in rebate item 304.07/2304.00 and the amendment to Schedule No 5 the Act relates to the amendment of drawback code and check digit in rebate item 537.02/87.00.
Edited by: Martin Zhuwakinyu
Creamer Media Senior Deputy Editor
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE