Time, time, time; See what’s become of me; … Look around; Leaves are brown; And the sky is a hazy shade of winter . . .” – with all due acknowledgment to The Bangles’ cover of the Simon & Garfunkel classic. So, what’s on my mind on this hazy winter column-writing day? In two words: tariff investigations. Surprised? Confused? Well, you and I both. Just when one thought the long-running saga of tariff investigations had finally run its course, alas, there is still some way to go.

On July 8, an ‘addendum’ appeared, not once but twice: ‘Addendum to Report 735’, a 693-day (1.9-year) investigation, and ‘Addendum to Report 692’, a 1 645-day (4.5-year) investigation. How many times in excess of the ‘generally’ four to six months? An addendum is a supplemental document attached to a report that clarifies or updates the original report without altering its core. One would expect it to be published alongside the reports or attached to them. But alas.

The 12-page Report No 735, ‘Increase in the general rate of customs duty on conical steel drums, of steel, of a capacity of 210 li or more but not exceeding 234 li, classifiable under tariff subheading 7310.10.90’, dated February 21, 2025. The 11-page Report No 692, ‘Amendment of Rebate Item 316.01 and Rebate Item 316.09 to allow for the inclusion of additional components for cooking and cooling appliances’, dated August 22, 2022.

The addenda to International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) reports consisted of two letters from the chief commissioner to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The first, related to Report No 735, was dated September 26, 2025, and the second, related to Report No 692, was dated March 18. Why were these released only now, when the tariff amendments for Report No 735 were published by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) on April 17 and for Report No 692 on June 19?

Itac’s decision to amend the reports was in terms of Section 48(a) of the International Trade Administration Act, 2002, which provides that, inter alia, “the commission may vary or rescind a recommendation or decision in which there is an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that error or omission”.

What are the reasons that Itac cited for varying or rescinding the recommendations in its reports?

The addendum to Report No 735 was to correct a technical error. The Minister approved Itac’s recommendation on April 25. While implementing the amendment, SARS established that the tariff subheadings were subject to different liberalisation provisions under the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement. At its meeting of June 8, 2025, Itac considered SARS’ revised description, which could be implemented without reopening the investigation. An obvious question: Why did Itac not consider this in its investigation? And why did Itac only send the addendum letter on September 26, 2025, and then, nearly seven months later, when the tariff amendments were published, not publish it, waiting nearly three months before doing so?

The addendum to Report No 692 provides for the inclusion of additional components in the rebate items for the manufacture of cooking and cooling appliances. Itac’s report, containing the recommendation, was forwarded to the Minister, who accepted it on August 22, 2022. The report was forwarded to the Finance Minister for consideration and then to SARS for implementation.

While processing Itac’s recommendation for implementation, SARS determined that the descriptive rebate items’ amendments were no longer aligned with the initial SARS descriptions. This was “due to the complex nature of the amendments sought”. Defy Appliances had drafted an annexure to simplify them; however, the “unintended result” was that the proposed descriptions were not harmonised with SARS descriptions, rendering them “unimplementable”.

After several engagements among Defy, Itac and SARS, a resolution was reached on September 2, 2025, to proceed with the implementation of the rebate items. During Itac’s December 15, 2025, meeting, it considered the updated rebate items. The obvious question, as before, is: Why did Itac send the addendum letter only on March 18 and then not publish it on its website when the tariff amendments were published?

The concerns expressed in earlier columns about the protracted nature of tariff investigations remain, with addenda now becoming a contributory factor.