Rentreag Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner of Customs and Excise

E M Gaertner Trading CC (later Rentreag Marketing (Pty) Ltd) imported consignments of cheese from Australia (manufactured by Lactos (Pty) Ltd) and Canada during 1996. The importers classified the cheese as 'other cheese' under tariff sub-heading 0406.90.90 of Schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, attracting a lower duty. The Commissioner of Customs and Excise determined that the Australian cheese was Gouda, falling under tariff sub-heading 0406.90.35, which attracted a substantially higher duty. Rentreag was wound up, and its members, Patrick Gaertner and Rory Klemp, faced personal liability for additional duty under s 103 of the Act. Expert evidence was led on the characteristics of Gouda cheese, including fat content, manufacturing process, presence of eyes, maturation period, consistency and flavour. The dispute ultimately concerned whether the Australian cheese was properly classifiable as Gouda at the time of importation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The Commissioner’s classification of the Australian cheese as Gouda under tariff sub-heading 0406.90.35 remained effective.

The case is significant for South African customs law as it clarifies the approach to tariff classification of goods involving technical or specialist terminology. It confirms that classification depends on the essential character of goods at importation, interpreted through expert evidence, and that incomplete maturation or later changes do not necessarily alter classification. It also affirms that appeals under s 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act are appeals in the wide sense and provides guidance on how appellate courts should deal with conflicting expert evidence in customs disputes.