DKR Auto CC - HC 42604/2012 NG - 13 March 2014
17 March 2014
Posted by: Author: SAIT Technical
Author: SAIT Technical
The High Court delivered its judgement in the case between DKR Auto CC and the Commissioner for South African Revenue Service - HC 42604/2012 NG on 13 March 2014.
The applicant, DKR Auto CC, made an application for an order setting aside the seizure of a luxury vehicle by the respondent, the Commissioner of South African Revenue Service. The seizure was effected in terms of section 88(1)(c) of the Customs Duty Act of 91 of 1964.
The Commissioner detained the vehicle on 23 March 2011, at the time the vehicle was detained, it was registered on the E-Natis system in the name of one Mr Ryan Drake, but was kept at an address of Mr Radovan Krejcir, the husband of Ms Krejicrova who is the sole member of DKR. Subsequent to the detaining of the vehicle, there was an exchange of information and correspondence between DKR's attorneys and the Commissioner, followed by the attachment of the books and documents of DKR as part the of investigation.
The Commissioner addressed a letter to DKR's attorneys informing them that he had decided to seize the vehicle in terms of section 88(1)(c) and advising them inter alia of the rights of an owner in terms of section 93 of Customs Duty Act.
The Commissioner has cast doubt about the accuracy, completeness, and authenticity of the explanation and the various transactions in relation to the vehicle as furnished by DKR regarding the ownership of the vehicle. The Commissioner contended that DKR is not the owner of the seized vehicle and consequently lacks locus standi to bring the application.
The case put up by DKR in support of its claim of ownership does not establish that it is in fact the owner. There is no evidence confirming DKR's ownership of the vehicle and therefore it has accordingly not discharged the onus to prove its locus standi. Further, DKR has shown no sufficient, personal and direct interest in permitting it to claim the vehicle or to review the Commissioner's decision to seize it.
The application was dismissed with costs.
Please click here to access the full judgement.