A RETURNING resident, who worked in the United Arab Emirates for 11 years, had his goods, that include a 40-foot container, confiscated by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra).
Kennedy Masvikeni took Zimra to the High Court challenging the seizure of his goods, that include solar system for his farm in Nyabira.
He cited Zimra as the respondent in the application that was heard by Justice Samuel Deme.
Masvikeni returned to Zimbabwe in December 2019.
He alleged that Zimra on February 10, 2020, after assessment, concluded that he qualified for the returning resident duty-free rebate.
He stated that some of his goods, including a solar system, water pump, garden irrigation system and 40-ft container, were denied duty-free rebate.
Keep Reading
- Zimra seizes CCC campaign vehicle
- ZDI defends AK-47 rifles 'smugglers'
- Firearms smuggling suspect weeps in court
- Fresh calls to scrap 2% tax
The goods were, according to Masvikeni, supposed to be taken to his plot in Nyabira.
He claimed that he paid the duty for the other goods, but was not able to raise the duty for the container.
He said his household goods, solar system and water pump, which were supposed to be taken to Hillside, Harare, were granted duty-free rebate.
Dissatisfied with the decision to deny his goods duty-free rebate, he appealed to the station manager. He lost the appeal.
The reason for the dismissal of his appeal was that the goods were for commercial purposes.
He further appealed against the ruling and lost the case.
He approached the Commissioner for Customs and Excise for recourse and again lost the case.
On July 5, 2021, Masvikeni gave notice of his intention to sue Zimra.
He affirmed that the delay in filing the application for review within the prescribed time was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is Masvikeni’s argument that he intended to put the 40-ft container to personal use not commercial use, as alleged by Zimra.
The matter was opposed by Zimra.
The tax collector maintained that Masvikeni did not comply with section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, which says: “No civil proceedings shall be instituted against the State, the commissioner or any officer for anything done or omitted to be done by the commissioner or an officer under this Act or any other law relating to customs and excise until 60 days after notice has been given in terms of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:15].”
Zimra argued that Masvikeni ought to have given notice of intention to sue before making the application.
Masvikeni stated that he served Zimra with a notice of intention to sue on July 5, 2021 and that such notice was sufficient for the present application.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Deme said the Zimra Commissioner-General did not err by denying duty-free rebate on the 40-ft container.
“In terms of the Customs and Excise Act, the prescriptive period for claiming the property forfeited is eight months,” the judge said.
“Prescription is an absolute bar. In light of this, the main application has no prospects of success and hence, I saw it prudent to dismiss the present application as the application does not enjoy prospects of success.
“Having reached a conclusion that the main application was not going to succeed on the basis of prescription, it was no longer necessary for me to deal with the other point in limine raised by the respondent of failure to issue a relevant notice of intention to sue the respondent.
“. . . On the basis of this reasoning, I dismiss the present application.”