I initially planned to lead this instalment of this column with a discussion of the 2008 judgment in the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Sars) vs Fascination Wigs case. However, when I walked into a Sasol delight store recently, I had a change of mind.

While making payment for my purchases at the store’s counter, I met Zakumi. For the uninitiated, Zakumi is the 2010 soccer World Cup mascot. On the counter, I was faced by numerous Zakumi figurines, those that some people hang on the interior mirror of their cars.

As I assume any attentive South African consumer does, I searched and then found the label for the ‘Made in . . .’ reference. What I read might not be a surprise to you, but it was to me. It is not that I am been oblivious to the influx of imports of Chinese origin – it is just that, somehow, I expected the 2010 soccer World Cup to be ours. Yes, ours. Only ours. I was really expecting to see a ‘Made in South Africa’ label and was, thus, quite shocked with the discovery I made. This is not Ayoba (apologies to MTN).

With the hosting of a World Cup, which was such a hard-won affair for our nation, should we not have derived the optimal benefits from the hosting? What concerns me is the extent to which the infrastucture development spend has benefited South Africa and its citizens, and the extent to which these same citizens will benefit from the sale of products and merchandise.

I am thinking of, for example, the loss of skills. Do not get me wrong – I am not referring to the so-called ‘brain drain’. Rather, I am thinking about the fact that South Africa is losing most of its production capabilities, and this contributes to the loss of knowledge and the demise of skills transfer, since our factories are no longer employing and the skills are simply lost – forever.

What will South Africa’s competive advantage be in the years to come? It seems that our country’s citizens are generally living off accumulated resources, be it through their own means or those of their parents. Quite simply, how will these resources be generated in future if we are not even proudly South African in the sense that we are not ensuring that the mascots for a World Cup held in our country are made locally?

Sars vs Fascination Wigs
On February 16 an appeal against the Commissioner for Sars vs Fascination Wigs ruling is scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The case relates to a dispute in terms of Section 49(9)(a)(i)(aa) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 as to whether certain synthetic hair products imported by the respondent are classifiable under tariff heading 67.03 or 67.04 of Schedule No 1, Part 1.

Readers will recall that Schedule No 1, Part 1, of the Act relates to ‘ordinary customs duty’, that tariff heading 67.03 refers to ‘human hair, dressed, thinned, bleached or otherwise worked; wool or other animal hair or other textile materials, prepared for use in the making of wigs or the like’, and that tariff heading 67.04 refers to ‘wigs, false beards, eyebrows, and eyelashes, switches and the like, of human or animal hair or of textile materials; articles of human hair not elsewhere specified or included’.

In the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria), Judge Prinsloo referred to the submissions made to the court that the essential difference between products classifiable in the tariff headings mentioned was the use of the product in its completed state. He, after considering all arguments, came to the conclusion that the goods could not be used as final, ready-to-wear products, that they were prepared for making wigs or the like and could not be used as a final, ready-to-wear product.

The product was declared to fall under tariff heading 67.03 of Part 1 of Schedule No 1 of the Act. (A future instalment of this column will deal with the Appeal Court’s judgement, once it is published.)

Sacu Agriculture Policy Framework Tender
The Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) has put out a request for tenders for a study to develop a Sacu Agriculture Policy Framework. The request for tender closes at 15:00 on February 5.