A FORMER United Kingdom-based Zimbabwean unsuccessfully sued Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) to compel it to refund her the duty she paid on her goods despite being a returning resident.
Arreta Chidodo cited Zimra as the respondent in her court application seeking a declaratur before High Court judge Justice Never Katiyo.
Chidodo was also seeking the court to declare that she is entitled to an immigrant's rebate in terms of section 105 of Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, SI 154 of 2001 as at October 23, 2020, on her return from the UK.
She also sought the court to order Zimra to refund her customs duty paid in the sum of ZWL$80 366,83 for household goods and US$S17 223,61 for a Range Rover motor vehicle.
Chidodo was initially granted relief in default in February 2022 and the relief was rescinded on November 10 the same year after both parties were afforded the opportunity to argue their cases in court.
According to the background of the case, on October 21, 2020 Chidodo arrived at the Harare International Airport from the UK where she had been a resident.
She was accepted as a returning resident by the Zimbabwe Immigration Department which indicates such acceptance by an appropriate stamp on her passport.
On October 23, 2020, Chidodo sought to clear goods which she had imported from the United Kingdom under immigrant rebate and these were a Range Rover SP HE TDV6 and an assortment of household goods.
- National interest problematic: Zanu PF told to start own media houses
- War over super car stuck in river
- Zimra seizes CCC campaign vehicle
- Dorcas Moyo UK-bound
Keep Reading
On October 27, 2020, Zimra's Harare Port Station manager dismissed her application for an immigrant’s rebate accusing her of having allegedly alterated her passport.
Zimra argued that such alterations constituted a violation of section 174(1)(c) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:12]
Having made that finding, Zimra demanded payment of customs duty for the motor vehicle and the household goods and it pointed out that storage charges were accruing on her goods which had been detained.
Having been pressured by the threat of mounting storage charges, Chidodo was left with no option but to pay the customs duty levied by Zimra on the imported goods.
Chidodo did not accept responsibility for the alterations on her passport and she explained the circumstances under which the alterations were made in her founding affidavit.
No specific finding was made regarding her explanation on the circumstances under which her passport got tampered with. Zimra said the alterations constituted an offence without making any reference to her explanation.
Chidodo appealed to the respondent's Harare regional manager and to the Commissioner- General and both the appeals were dismissed on the basis that the passport was altered and that this constituted an offence.
After exhausting domestic remedies within Zimra, Chidodo applied to the High Court seeking a declaration of her rights together with consequential relief.
Chidodo argued that because she was accepted as a returning resident by the Immigration Department she should be given the rebate.
She submitted a statement of account for rentals which she paid for her stay at Flat 2 Beaminster House, London from March 31, 2008 to the time she decided to return to Zimbabwe in 2020, a copy of her last contract of employment with an organisation called Alpha Care in London which contract had commenced on January 10, 2016 and terminated on January 31, 2020, her bank statement reflecting transactions she carried out while in London and documentary evidence that the motor vehicle and household goods were in physical existence and fully paid for before she returned to Zimbabwe.
But Zimra opposed the application alleging that her passport did not have exit and entry stamps from the immigration departments of Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.
However on this point Chidodo argued that Zimra knows that the United Kingdom's Immigration Department does not physically stamp passports as happens in Zimbabwe, yet it maintained that her passport ought to have such stamps.
Zimra further alleged that her passport does not show when she left Zimbabwe for the United Kingdom and when she entered the United Kingdom.
However the judge said the court should determine on whether or not Chidodo managed to prove that she was resident in the United Kingdom for a period of not less than two years so as to entitle her to an immigrant's rebate at law.
The judge said proof of Chidodo's “extended” absence from Zimbabwe could not be established by Zimra through merely looking at immigration control stamps which only provide evidence of applicant's travelling.
“The law enjoined respondent to satisfy itself that Chidodo had produced proof of “extended” absence from Zimbabwe. Regrettably, Zimra began to inquire into matters which can only best be dealt with by the Immigration Department of Zimbabwe.
“Ironically, Zimra's attitude towards Chidodo's passport was not supported by Zimbabwe's Immigration Department, the responsible authority, which accepted her as a returning resident. More importantly, Zimra does not dispute or put in issue the evidence of her "extended" absence from Zimbabwe.
"In this regard, the appropriate Immigration stamp endorsing the applicant as a returning resident is not disputed. This is an aspect within the purview of the Immigration Department and not respondent. The respondent was shown this evidence," the judge said.
Justice Katiyo in conclusion concurred with Zimra that the application was a review because the basis for a declaratur is nowhere near this particular case.
"The applicant went on a frolic of her own, totally disregarding the issues before the court. She had gone through two administrative processes where decisions were made in terms of the law governing that functionary. It was a question of disagreeing with the decisions reached and there was nothing unlawful about it.
"Remedies of this nature can only be sought through reviews in the absence of clear grounds of declaratur being satisfied. The application before this court is wrongly placed in my view. So much has been submitted by the applicant but not anywhere close to the appropriate relief sought.
"I am persuaded by the respondent that this is a misplaced application and, therefore, it is ordered that after perusing and hearing counsel. The application be and is hereby dismissed," Justice Katiyo ruled.
