About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1995
>>
[1995] ZASCA 2
|
|
Sanachem (Pty) Ltd v Farmers Agri-Care (Pty) Ltd and Others (265/93) [1995] ZASCA 2; 1995 (2) SA 781 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 268 (A) (23 February 1995)
Case No: 265/93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPFLLATE DIVISION
In the matter between
SANACHEM (PTY) LTD Appellant
v
FARMERS AGRI-CARE (PTY) LTD First Respondent
RHONE POULENC AGRICHEM SA (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
MINISTER OF TRADE & INDUSTRY Third Respondent
COMMISSIONER FOR CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Fourth Respondent
CORAM
: JOUBERT, HEFER, NESTADT, FH GROSSKOPF, et VAN DEN HEEVER
JJA
Heard:
17 November 1994
Delivered:
23 Februarie 1995
J U D G M E N T
JOUBERT JA:
2
On 4 September 1992 the Appellant obtained in the Durban and
Coast Local Division a rule nisi, returnable on 24 September 1992, calling
on
the First and Second Respondents to show cause why they should not be
interdicted "from selling, distributing or otherwise disposing
of the
consignment of herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators
with diuron as active ingredient, imported
under Bill of Entry no 74573 dated 12
August 1992". The rule nisi was to operate as an interim interdict pending the
determination
of the application. The Third and Fourth Respondents applied
successfully to intervene in the proceedings. On 19 February 1993 LEVINSOHN
J
dismissed the Appellant's application and discharged the rule nisi. The
Appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the First and
Second Respondents.
Leave to appeal was granted to the Appellant by the Court
a quo
. The
Third and Fourth Respondents abide the judgment of this Court.
In terms of sec 2 (1) of the Import and Export Control Act No 45 of 1963
("the Import Act") the Minister of Trade and Industry and
Tourism "may whenever
he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest, by notice in the
Gazette prescribe that no goods
of a
specified class or kind
... (b)
shall
3 be imported into the Republic, except under the authority of and in
accordance
with the conditions slated in a
permit
issued by him or by a person
authorized
by him". (My underlining). A person who imports any goods in
contravention
of the provisions of any notice issued under sec 2 (1) commits
an offence (sec
4 (1) (a)). Upon conviction of the offence the goods in question may be
declared forfeited to the State. (sec 4 (2)).
On 23 December 1988 the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and
Technology, acting in terms of sec 2 of the Import Act, issued Government
Notice No R2582 and prescribed that
"(a) goods described in Schedule 1 shall not be imported into the Republic
except by virtue of an import permit issued in terms of
section 2 of the said
Import and Export Control Act, 1963";
"(Hi) hereby determine that an import permit, except for the conditions
specified in the permit, shall be subject to the following
conditions:
(a) That only goods of the class and kind specified in the permit may be
imported".
Schedule 1 makes no reference to Herbicides, Anti-sprouting Products, or
Plant-growth Regulators. Government Notice R2582 came into operation on
1 January 1989.
4 With effect from 4 August 1989 Government Notice R1635, issued
by
the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology in
terms of sec 2 of
the Import Act, amended Government Notice No R2582 by the deletion
of
Schedule 1 and the substitution thereof by Schedule 1 A. The latter has
three
columns, the first and third of which are headed "Description of goods"
(in
English and Afrikaans respectively) and the second of which is headed
"Tariff
heading/tariefpos". Furthermore the following commodities are listed:
"Herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators" (tariff
heading
3808.30) followed by "Disinfectants" (tariff heading 3808.40) and "Other"
(tariff heading 3808.90).
On 29 November 1991 Maybaker Agrichem (Pty) Ltd, the name by
which the Second Respondent was formerly known until it was changed to
its
present name as from 1 March 1992, applied to the Department of Trade and
Industry for an import permit. The application form was signed by a
certain
Pillay. Paragraph 4 thereof required details of the goods for which the
permit
was required. The description furnished was "H T 3808.30.90" and the
"actual
price" was Rl 189 000-00. Paragraph 8 which sought general remarks in
5
support of the application elicited the following information: "Goods
are
required for agrochemical business - not obtainable locally". Import
permit No
92/05081 was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry
authorising
Maybaker Agrichem (Ply) Ltd to import Herbicides 3808.30.90 from any
country to an amount of Rl 189 000-00. Upon the change of its name to its
present name permit No 92/05081 was on 3 March 1992 replaced by permit No
92/11919 which was issued in identical terms to the Second Respondent to
import Herbicides 3808.30.90.
After the said import permit was granted the Second Respondent, who
carried on the business of formulating and selling chemicals to the
agricultural
distribution trade, proceeded to import a consignment of herbicides into
the
Republic. On 12 August 1992 when the Second Respondent entered the
imported consignment of herbicides into the Republic it delivered in terms
of
sec 39 (1) (a) of the Customs and Excise Act No 91 of 1964 ("the Customs
Act") bill of entry No 74573 in the prescribed form to the Controller of
Customs and Excise. The bill of entry set forth the full particulars as
indicated
on the form and as required by the Controller of Customs and Excise.
The
6
imported goods were described therein as "Herbicides, anti-sprouting
products
and plant-growth regulators with diuron as active ingredient" and
the tariff code
was given as 3808.30.15. Reference was also made to permit
No 92/11919.
It is not disputed that the appropriate amount of duty was
levied and paid in
respect of the imported goods.
It is obvious that there is a great disparity between the import
permit
and the bill of entry as regards the goods to which they
are respectively
applicable. The
import permit
relates to "Herbicides 3808.30.90"
whereas
the
bill of entry
refers to Tariff Code 3808.30.15 and "Herbicides,
anti-sprouting
products and plant-growth regulators with Diuron as active ingredient".
In
order to decipher the code tariffs 3808.30.90 and 3808.30.15 it is necessary
to
consult the
Harmonized Customs and Excise Tariff Book
("the Tariff
Book"),
which is based upon the "International Convention on the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System". The latter according to the
provisions of sec 43 of the Customs and Excise Amendment Act No 84 of
1987
became part of Schedule 1 to the Customs Act on 1 January 1988. According
to an applicable excerpt from the bulky Tariff Book tariff code
3808.30.90
7 relates to "Herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth
regulators:
Other "i.e. herbicides
without diuron as an active
ingredient
, while tariff code
3808.30.15 refers to "Herbicides,
anti-sprouting products and plant-growth
regulators:
with diuron as an
active ingredient
". It is therefore clear that the
import permit
refers to herbicides
without diuron as an active
ingredient
while
the
bill of entry
relates to herbicides which
contain diuron as an
active
ingredient
.
Second Respondent sold and delivered the imported consignment of
herbicides to the First Respondent which carries on business as a retailer
of,
inter alia
, herbicides used in the agricultural industry. The First
Respondent
was a
bona fide
purchaser believing at all relevant times that the
Second
Respondent could lawfully dispose of the imported herbicides. During
August
1992 Mr. Holden, the Appellant's national marketing manager visited the
First
Respondent's depot at Stanger where he noticed that First Respondent was
in
possession of two containers of Diuron Wettable Powder 80% which formed
part of the consignment of herbicides imported by the Second Respondent.
The
First Respondent admits that it is still in possession of the hulk of the
imported
8 consignment of herbicides which contain diuron as an active
ingredient.
In its Founding Affidavit the Appellant alleged that it was the
sole
South African manufacturer of diuron which was extensively
used in the
production of Diuron Flowable and Diuron Wettable Powder for use in the
farming industry. The Appellant claimed in its Founding Affidavit that
the
Second Respondent had wilfully and unlawfully imported herbicides of
tariff
code 3808.30.15 without having the correct and proper import permit
therefor.
The Appellant's case was that the importation was unlawful since it was
contrary to the provisions of the Import Act and the Customs Act.
The First and Second Respondents in their Answering Affidavits maintained
that the import permit was valid and consequently the importation
was lawful.
Validity of the importation
The first question that falls for decision is the validity of the
importation.
In terms of sec 2 (1) (b) of the Import Act the Minister is empowered to
prescribe by notice in the
Gazette
that no goods "of a specified class
or
9
kind" shall be imported into the Republic except under the
authority of a
permit and in accordance with the conditions therein staled.
The First and Second Respondents in their Answering Affidavits maintained
that
the import permit was valid and consequently the importation was valid.
According to them the only description which was relevant
for the purposes of
the import permit was the reference to the "description of goods" in the 1st
column of Schedule 1 A in Government
Notice R1635 of 4 August 1989. The
reference in the 2nd column to "tariff heading" or code, namely 38.30.90, was
irrelevant for purposes
of the import permit and was relevant only to ascertain
the duty payable in the circumstances. The Court
a quo
upheld their
contentions by deciding that the "description of goods" and not the tariff
headings was decisive in deciding what category
of goods required import
permits.
I cannot agree with this conclusion. The Minister's function is to prescribe
and specify by notice in the
Gazette
a "class or kind" of goods in
respect of which his prescription and specification is to operate. There is no
provision in the Import
Act which restricts the Ministerial specification to
"description of goods" in words. The Minister's intention was to include
"tariff
10 headings" in digits to form part of each "class or kind". In my
judgment the
"tariff headings" constitute part of the specification of the "class or kind"
of
goods to which they relate. As such the "tariff headings" are relevant
in
deciding what category of goods require import permits.
I have dealt
supra
with the great disparity between the import
permit
and the bill of entry. The effect of the import permit is
that only herbicides
without diuron as an active ingredient
, may be imported, whereas the
bill of
entry relates to herbicides
with diuron as an active ingredient
. In
view of this
great disparity regarding the description and particulars of the goods in
the
import permit and the bill of entry, it follows that the entry of the goods
is
invalid in terms of sec 40 (1) (a) of the Customs Act which provides as
follows:
"No entry shall be valid unless -
(a) in the case of imported . . . goods,
the description and particulars
of the goods . . . declared in that entry correspond with the description and
particulars of the goods
... in any certificate,
permit
... by which
the importation ... of those goods is authorized". (My underlining).
The answer to the first question is therefore that the importation of the
11
consignment in question is invalid. The judgment of the Court
a quo
to the contrary cannot stand.
Permanent Interdict
The second question is whether the Appellant has on a balance of
probabilities succeeded in making out a case for a permanent interdict
against
the First and Second Respondents. At the outset I must point out that because it
is common cause that the Second Respondent
has sold and delivered the imported
consignment of herbicides to the First Respondent, there is no factual basis on
which a permanent
interdict could be granted against the Second Respondent. The
enquiry must accordingly be restricted to the First Respondent who
is at present
in possession of the bulk of the imported consignment of herbicides.
The requisites for a permanent interdict
(mandament poenaal
were
slated by INNES JA in
Setlogelo v Setlogelo
1914 A D 221
at p 227 as
follows: "The requisites for the right to claim an interdict are well known; a
clear right, injury actually committed
or reasonably apprehended, and the
absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy". These
requisites
12 are based on a passage by Van der Linden (1756-1835) in his
Koopmans
Handboek
3,1.4.7 which was translated into Afrikaans
by HIEMSTRA J in
Meyer v Administrator. Tvl.
1961 (4) S A 55
T
at p
57A-E.
The question which arises is whether the Appellant has a clear
right
which can be protected. The Appellant as the sole local
manufacturer of
herbicides containing diuron as an ingredient relies on a clear right at
common
law to carry on its lawful trade or business without unlawful interference
from
others (
Patz) v Greene & Co
1907 T.S. 427
at p 436). In modern
legal
terminology the Appellant has a subjective right to exercise its trade or
business
freely in the absence of special legal restrictions and agreements to the
contrary. Such right is, however, not an absolute right but is
ex pari
materia
subject to the right of others also to trade and to subject the Appellant to
lawful
competition. Per DE VILLIERS JA in
Matthews and Others v Young 1922
A
D 492
at p 507: "In the absence of special legal restrictions a person
is without
doubt entitled to the free exercise of his trade, profession or calling,
unless he
has bound himself to the contrary. But he cannot claim an absolute right to
do
so without interference from another. Competition often brings about
13
interference in one way or another about which rivals cannot
legitimately
complain. But the competition and indeed all activity must itself remain
within
lawful bounds. All a person can, therefore, claim is the right to exercise
his
calling without unlawful interference from others."
Can it be said that the First Respondent is an unlawful rival of
the
Appellant? Has it unlawfully interfered with the trade or
business of the
Appellant as a manufacturer of herbicides containing diuron as an
ingredient?
Or is there a reasonably apprehended unlawful interference by the First
Respondent with the trade or business of the Appellant? The First
Respondent
as a retail trader in herbicides containing diuron as an ingredient also has
at
common law a subjective right to exercise its right to trade in lawful
competition with the Appellant as manufacturer of the same type of
herbicides.
The Appellant has not established that it has monopolistic rights which
oust
lawful competition from rivals. There is no legislative provision which
deprives lawful rivals of their rights to lawful competition with the
Appellant.
Moreover, the mere fact that the importation of the consignment in question
is
invalid, as indicated
supra
, docs not
per se
taint the
consignment itself with
14
illegality in the absence of any steps in terms of the Import
Act and the
Customs Act to have the consignment declared forfeited to the State.
The
result is that the imported herbicides with diuron as an ingredient are
not
tainted with illegality. They are
res in commercio
and not
res
extra
commercium
. They are capable of being freely and lawfully
traded in the
Republic. Since the First Respondent acquired them
bona
fide
for value and
is in possession of them, it has a common law right to
trade with them in
lawful competition with the Appellant. It follows that the Appellant is, in
my
judgment, not entitled to a permanent interdict against the First
Respondent.
The appeal is dismissed with costs. Such costs in regard to the
Second
Respondent are to include the costs of two counsel.
C.P. JOUBERT JA CONCUR
HEFER JA NESTADT JA F H GROSSKOPF JA