Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVinti, Clive
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-06T06:19:53Z
dc.date.available2018-11-06T06:19:53Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1727-3781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/31655
dc.description.abstractThis paper evaluates the scope of the powers of the Minister of Finance upon a request from the Minister of Trade and Industry to amend Schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (hereafter, CEA) in respect of imported goods as provided by section 48(1)(b) of the CEA. This assessment entails a case analysis of the High Court decisions in South Africa Sugar Association v the Minister of Trade and Industry 2017 4 All SA 555 (GP) and Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance 2017 ZAWCHC 110 (29 September 2017). These two cases offer for the first time, clarification on the nature of the power conferred on the Minister of Finance by section 48(1)(b) of the CEA. The High Court in these two cases rejected the argument that the role of the Minister of Finance in respect of the power conferred upon him/her by section 48(1)(b) is that of a "registrar" who merely 'rubberstamps' the decision of the Minister of Trade and Industry. Consequently, the High Court in both matters held that a veto power is conferred on the Minister of Finance which permits him/her to either accept or decline the request of the Minister of Trade and Industry to amend Schedule 1 of the CEA.To the contrary, this paper argues that if the Minister of Finance declines the request of the Minister of Trade and Industry, s/he is not 'giving effect' to the request of the Minister of Trade and Industry as required by section 48(1)(b) of the CEA and is thus acting ultra vires because s/he is assuming powers which never conferred on him/her by the legislature. This paper also argues that the High Court in both matters, misconstrued the relationship between section 48(1)(b) and the "public interest" provisions in section 48 and thus unjustifiably stripped the Minister of Trade and Industry of his/her power to implement an amendment to Schedule 1. In the final analysis, this paper explores the impact of the Customs Duty Act 30 of 2014 on the Minister of Finance's powers in this regard.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherVinti, C. 2018. The scope of the powers of the minister of finance in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the customs and excise act 91 of 1964: An appraisal of recent developments in case law. Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad = Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2018(21):1-25. [http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a4268]en_US
dc.subjectCustom dutiesen_US
dc.subjectrequesten_US
dc.subjectdiscretionen_US
dc.subjectexpedienten_US
dc.subjectpublic interesten_US
dc.subjectseparation of powersen_US
dc.titleThe scope of the powers of the minister of finance in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the customs and excise Act 91 of 1964: An appraisal of recent developments in case lawen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record