SARS will issue a notice of intent, this document will set out what SARS alleges is wrong, and in many cases will not fully detail the issues to be resolved. This is done as the SARS branch office misuses the notice to obtain information that the relevant office may wish to use against the importer. The document is rarely fair, open, and used to resolve disputes.

If this document is not responded to within the time limits set out in the letter, SARS will then issue a letter of demand. In certain circumstances, for example, referring the matter to the tariff determination office, the matter is removed from the branch officer’s hands and is then dealt with in a more professional manner with a view to resolving the issue.

If it is in circumstances where SARS disagrees with values declared on imported goods, or is of the view goods have been roundtripped and not entered for home consumption (i.e. duties have not been paid) SARS will generally ignore what is contained in the reply to the notice of intent and will issue a letter of demand.

Due process is always never followed, with SARS treating every client as if they have been dishonest, which can be a time consuming and emotionally draining issue to deal with.

Once a letter of demand is issued, the matter is then internally appealed.

In many instances, as the matter is then removed from the branch office, it can be resolved, as on many an occasion the committee that hears the matter (an internal committee) tends to apply objective reasoning to a dispute.

In some cases, these matters will not resolve on an amicable basis as the branch office will dispute the matter, and the committee will take their advice.

On many occasions this advice, on the part of the branch office, is incorrect, unreasonable, and based on false assumptions.

If the internal appeal process fails two options present themselves to clients, the first is two refer the matter to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where the process was designed to resolve a matter on a without prejudice matter, where an open and frank discussion takes place between SARS and the litigant.

Again, we find that in all circumstances, SARS is unwilling to listen, and/or budge, and simply repeat the demand as set out in their previous correspondence. In certain instances, this is the best point to offer a settlement to SARS in terms of Section 77M of the Customs and Excise Act, where SARS accepts an amount, under compromise, rather than continue with the pursuing the demand it had issued against the client.

If ADR proceedings are not finalised either in favour of the client, or by way of a settlement , the remaining option is to issue a notice in terms of Section 96(1)(a) of the Customs, and to review or appeal the demand (whichever applies dependent on circumstances).