The Determination of the “Origin” of Products in South African and SADC Law
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-2-88-111
Abstract
This article analyses the landmark case of Commissioner: SARS v. Levi Strauss SA (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter Levi), in which the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa decided on the issue of the “origin” of goods in international trade. In South Africa, this issue is regulated by the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 (CEA). The origin of a product is easy to establish when a product is wholly produced in one country. But when the production of a good occurs across different countries, then the rule usually is that the origin of goods is determined based on the “last substantial transformation” of the product. However, in the Levi ruling, the court made this decision without any consideration of South Africa’s international obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and misinterpreted the origin test set out in the Protocol on Trade in the South African Development Community. Moreover, the court also failed to adequately contextualise its reasoning in relation to the default position on the determination of origin in South African law under the CEA. This paper critiques the court’s approach in this regard and assesses its broader implications for origin determinations.
About the Author
C. Vinti
Oliver Schreiner School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
South Africa
South Africa
Clive Vinti– Associate Professor of Trade Law, Oliver Schreiner School of Law
1 Jan Smuts Ave., Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2017
References
1. Asakura, H. (1993). The harmonized systems and rules of origin. Journal of World Trade, 27(4), 5–22.
2. Balassiano, A. W. (2020). Rules of Origin in Brazil. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 15(3/4), 202–204.
3. Botha, N. (2000). Treaty making in South Africa: A reassessment. South African Yearbook of International Law, 25, 69–96.
4. Dugard, J. (1997). International law and the South African Constitution. European Journal of International Law, 1, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a015563
5. Dugard, J., & Coutsoudis, A. (2019). The place of international law in South African municipal law. In J. Dugard et al. (Eds.), Dugard’s international law: A South African perspective (pp. 58–126). Juta.
6. Ferreira, G., & Ferreira-Snyman, A. (2014). The incorporation of public international law into municipal law and regional law against the background of the dichotomy between monism and dualism. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 17(4), 1471– 1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v17i4.08
7. Hirsch, M. (2002). International trade law, political economy and rules of origin. Journal of World Trade, 36(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.54648/404618
8. Khanderia, S. (2017). The compatibility of South African anti-dumping laws with WTO disciplines. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(3), 347– 370. https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2017.0199
9. Kim, J. B., & Kim, J. (2009). RTAS for development: Utilizing territoriality principle exemptions under preferential rules of origin. Journal of World Trade, 43(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.54648/trad2009005
10. Kim, J. B., & Kim, J. (2011). The role of rules of origin to provide discipline to the GATT Article XXIV exception. Journal of International Economic Law, 14(3), 613–638. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgr027
11. Lacey, S. (2012). Multilateral disciplines on rules of origin: How far are we from squaring the circle? Global Trade and Customs Journal, 7(11/12), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2012058
12. Lakshmikumaran, S. (2020). Rules of Origin and the FTAs: Major issues in India. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 15(3/4), 146–149.
13. Mabrouk, H. (2010). Rules of origin as international trade hindrances. Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal, 5(1), 97–176.
14. Phooko, M. (2021). Revisiting the monism and dualism dichotomy: What does the South African Constitution of 1996 and the practice by the courts tell us about the reception of SADC community law (treaty law) in South Africa? African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 29(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2021.0356
15. Saluste, M. (2017). Rules of origin and the anti-dumping agreement. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 12(2), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2017010
16. Schlemmer, E. (2020). International trade law. In H. Strydom (Ed.), International law (pp. 491–515). Oxford University Press.
17. Silveira, M. (1997). Rules of origin in international trade treaties: Toward the FTAA. Arizona Journal International and Comparative Law, 14(2), 411–464.
18. Stubbs, M. (2011). Three-level games: thoughts on Glenister, SCAW and international law. Constitutional Court Review, 4(1), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.2989/CCR/2011.0006
19. Sucker, F. (2013). Approval of an international treaty in Parliament: How does section 231(2) ‘Bind the Republic’? Constitutional Court Review, 5, 417–434. https://doi.org/10.2989/CCR.2013.0019
20. Tladi, D. (2018). The interpretation and identification of international law in South African courts. South African Law Journal, 135(4), 708–736.
21. Van den Bossche, P., & Zdouc, W. (2018). The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, cases and materials (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
22. Vinti, C. (2016). A spring without water: The conundrum of anti-dumping duties in South African law. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 19, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/v19n0a723
Review
For citations:
Vinti C. The Determination of the “Origin” of Products in South African and SADC Law. BRICS Law Journal. 2025;12(2):88-111. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-2-88-111
Views:
94
Email this article 