The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Fascination Wigs (Pty) Ltd

Fascination Wigs (Pty) Ltd imported synthetic hair products, specifically wefts (weaves) and braiding fibres. On 6 December 2005, the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service determined that these products should be classified under tariff heading 6704.19 of Schedule 1 to the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, which covers completed products of false hair and attracts customs duty. Fascination Wigs appealed this determination, contending that the products should be classified under tariff heading 67.03, which covers materials prepared for use in making wigs or the like and attracts no duty. The wefts were imported for attachment to hair by braiding, weaving into natural hair, or gluing to the scalp. The high court (Prinsloo J) upheld Fascination Wigs' appeal. The Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal with leave.

• Whether imported synthetic hair wefts and braiding fibres constitute materials 'prepared for use in making wigs or the like' under tariff heading 67.03 (non-dutiable), or completed products of false hair under tariff heading 67.04 (dutiable)
• The correct interpretation and application of tariff headings 67.03 and 67.04 under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964
• The relevance of the method of attachment and the complexity of the hairdressing process to tariff classification
• Whether the objective characteristics of the goods at the time of importation are determinative of their classification

The appeal was upheld with costs including those of two counsel. The order of the high court was replaced with an order dismissing Fascination Wigs' appeal in terms of s 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 with costs, including the employment of two counsel.

For purposes of tariff classification under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, the distinction between tariff headings 67.03 and 67.04 turns on whether goods are materials or components prepared for use in making wigs or the like (67.03), or completed articles of false hair (67.04). Classification is determined by the objective characteristics of the goods at the time of importation. Synthetic hair wefts that are complete products, not subject to further processing themselves but merely attached to hair or scalp, fall under tariff heading 67.04 as completed articles of false hair, notwithstanding that: (a) the process of attachment may be complex and time-consuming; (b) the final appearance may resemble a wig; or (c) explanatory notes to 67.03 may refer to wefts in general. The essential question is whether the imported goods are themselves changed or processed after importation, not whether they are used in a complex installation process.

The court noted that explanatory notes to tariff headings are guides to classification and interpretation but are not worded with the linguistic precision characteristic of statutory precepts; rather they consist mainly of discursive comment and illustrations. The court observed that the term 'weft' on its own has no significance for classification purposes – wefts may be used to make wigs (falling under 67.03) or may themselves be complete products (falling under 67.04). The court also noted that 'postiche' means false hair, defined as 'an imitation substituted for the real thing'. Lewis JA commented that the products in question are used as attachments to a person's hair or head 'in the same way as are switches or chignons', drawing a parallel with other completed articles of false hair.

This case provides important guidance on the interpretation and application of tariff classifications under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, particularly in relation to hair products and articles of postiche. It reinforces the principle that tariff classification is determined by the objective characteristics of goods at the time of importation, not by subsequent processes or uses. The judgment clarifies the distinction between components or materials prepared for use in making finished articles (non-dutiable under 67.03) and completed articles themselves (dutiable under 67.04). The case demonstrates that the complexity of attachment or installation processes, and the transformation in appearance that may result, are not determinative if the imported goods themselves undergo no further processing. The decision has implications for the customs treatment of hair extension products and similar items in the beauty industry.