Tanke Haulages (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

The applicant, a South African registered transport company, sought the release of its haulage truck (a mechanical horse and two trailers) seized by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). The truck was impounded in Masvingo en route from South Africa after a roadblock search revealed smuggled goods comprising 31 refrigerators, 10 electric stoves and other items, in addition to the declared consignment of "novawood" boards. The seizure occurred on 19 May 2021. ZIMRA levied a penalty of ZWL 1,825,904.61 representing lost revenue and storage charges as a pre-condition for release. The applicant's appeal to ZIMRA's Commissioner was unsuccessful. The applicant filed the present application on 7 September 2021, seeking unconditional release of the truck. The applicant contended it was unaware that its driver had loaded and smuggled the additional goods without its knowledge.

• Whether the application was prescribed, having been filed more than three months after the notice of seizure
• Whether the Chief Justice's Practice Direction 7 of 2021 interrupted the running of prescription during the COVID-19 lockdown period
• Whether section 193(12) or section 196(2) of the Customs and Excise Act governs the time frame for instituting proceedings for recovery of seized goods
• Whether ZIMRA officials were empowered to seize the vehicle used for conveying smuggled goods outside of criminal proceedings
• Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proving it was unaware that its vehicle was used to smuggle goods

The application was dismissed with costs.

Section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:20] is the specific provision governing the time frame for instituting proceedings for recovery of seized goods (three months from notice of seizure), and prevails over the general provision in section 196(2) (eight months). The Chief Justice's Practice Directions issued during COVID-19 lockdowns validly interrupted the running of prescription periods. Section 193 of the Act empowers customs officers to seize vehicles used to convey smuggled goods outside of criminal proceedings. A person seeking to avoid liability for making a vehicle available for smuggling must prove lack of knowledge, and cannot discharge this onus through mere assertion without corroborating evidence such as statements from the driver or persons involved in loading.

The court observed that it would have been unconscionable and counter-intuitive for the applicant to falsely characterize the application as urgent to escape the consequences of Practice Direction 7 of 2021, as the applicant had nothing to gain by such false characterization and was in the interim pursuing internal remedies. The court noted that to set aside the Practice Direction, ZIMRA (an organ of state) would first need to seek a declaration of nullity of the government's national lockdown itself. The court also commented that the absence of the driver's statement confirming he embarked on a frolic of his own was "quite telling" in assessing whether the applicant had discharged its burden of proof.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean customs law for clarifying that section 193(12) of the Customs and Excise Act provides the specific prescription period of three months for proceedings to recover seized goods, not the general eight-month period in section 196(2). It also demonstrates the effect of COVID-19 pandemic-related Practice Directions on prescription periods and upholds the authority of the Chief Justice to issue Practice Directions that interrupt prescription during national emergencies. The case reinforces the principle that transporters claiming ignorance of smuggling activities using their vehicles bear a heavy evidential burden and cannot discharge this onus through mere assertion without corroborating evidence.