Savanna Tobacco Company (PTY) Ltd. v. Minister of Finance, et al.
A cigarette company sought an order from the High Court for the release of cigarettes that were detained after South African officials suspected the cigarettes were being smuggled into the country. The company contended that the cigarettes were manufactured in Zimbabwe and were in transit through South Africa. The High Court dismissed the application and determined the activity was an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes into the country since, among other reasons, the detained cigarettes bore the marks that clearly prove the cigarettes were destined for South Africa.
Savanna Tobacco Company (PTY) Ltd. v. Minister of Finance, et al, 23708/2005, High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division (2005).
South Africa
Aug 16, 2005
High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"I revert to the· quotation by Goldstone J.A. in the Tieber case. In my view the underlined words in the quotation indicate that the learned judge did not intend and in fact did not lay down an immutable legal principle. In the Tieber case the goods were definitely in transit. It is my considered view that the export of the cigarettes was not bona fide but an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes into this country. Not only has the applicant failed to explain why the detained cigarettes bore the marks that clearly and unequivocally prove that the cigarettes were destined for this country but has likewise failed to explain why the cigarettes eligible for export were packed at the door of each container. The inference that the intention was to deceive a causal inspection into believing that all the cigarettes in each container were for export is irresistible. This was clearly a case of simulated "export". That being so, the cigarettes were not "in transit". The respondents were entitled to detain the goods whilst conducting investigations. In this regard sections 88(1)(a) and 107(2) of the Act authorize such detention."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A cigarette company sought an order from the High Court for the release of cigarettes that were detained after South African officials suspected the cigarettes were being smuggled into the country. The company contended that the cigarettes were manufactured in Zimbabwe and were in transit through South Africa. The High Court dismissed the application and determined the activity was an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes into the country since, among other reasons, the detained cigarettes bore the marks that clearly prove the cigarettes were destined for South Africa.