Summarise this case using the method below:

Case:Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Motion Vehicle Wholesalers (pty) Ltd

(link: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2006/157.pdf); I have also attached images of a case "summary" below - please ensure to summarise the correct case (Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Motion Vehicle Wholesalers (pty) Ltd)as previous tutors summarised the wrong case. THIS IS REALLY URGENT SO IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED IF YOU ANSWERED :)

Method: (please submit the answer with the relevant headings and the answers underneath)

1. introduction

2. facts - identify & summarise key facts or background info that gave rise to the case

3. issues - identify the legal question

4. rules of law - identify applicable rule of law that applies to the issue(s) that the court will use to decide the case (eg: a provision of the Constitution, a statute and/or an older case).

5. application - describe how the court applied the rule to the facts, describe how the court explained its reasoning and include a brief summary of any concurring and dissenting opinions in this section.

6. conclusion - what was the court's ruling, and how did the court answer the issue(s)

\fAll South African Law Reports December [1] 2007 [2007] 4 All SA 1207 (SCA) 1208 All South African Law Reports Commissioner, SA Revenue Service v Komatsu SA (Pty) Lid [2006] JOL 18350 ([2006] SCA 118) (SCA) ....... a 1209 Erf 3183/1 Ladysmith (Pry) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for Inland Revenue [1997] JOL 213 (1996 (3) SA 942) (A) ........... 1210 Mackay v Fey NO and Another [2005] 4 All SA 615 (2006 (3) SA 182) (SCA) ..... 1210 Maize Board v Jackson [2006] 3 All SA 511 (2005 (6) b SA 592) (SCA) ......... 1210 Secretary for Customs & Excise v Thomas Barlow & Sons Lid 1970 (2) SA 660 (A ) ......... 1210 LO 10 Judgment C 11 12 THERON AJA: 12.1 [1] The sole question in this appeal is whether the vehicles imported by the respondent are, for purposes of customs duty, to be classified as vehicles for the transport of either less than ten persons or of ten persons or more. d [2] The respondent is an importer of Toyota Land Cruiser 100 Series vehicles. The vehicles are manufactured by the Toyota Motor Corporation ("TMC") in Japan as eight-seater vehicles comprising two bucket seats in the front row and two bench seats for the second and third rows, with the latter two rows each providing seating for three persons. The third e row is attached to the base of the vehicle, by being clipped onto brackets, which are built into and form part of the base of the vehicle. Behind the third row is a luggage compartment. The third row is optional and can be removed. It is common cause that the vehicles, as described, fall to be 12.2 classified under tariff heading 87.03.' -h [3] After being manufactured in Japan, the vehicles are modified in Australia. Two additional seats are added in the luggage compartment at the rear of the vehicle, each facing the other. The vehicles are presented, on importation, with these two additional seats. It is common cause that the two additional seats are removed after customs clearance, returned g to Australia for re-use in the same manner and the vehicles are sold as suitable for the transport of eight persons. [4] On 21 March 1998 the appellant, acting in terms of section 47(9)(a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964,2 issued a determination that the vehicles were classifiable under tariff heading 87.02. Since that date the h 1 Heading 87.03 read at the time: "Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 87.02), including station wagons and racing cars." 2 The relevant portion of section 47(9)(a)(i) provides: "The Commissioner may in writing determine- (aa) the tariff headings, tariff subheadings or tariff items or other items of any Schedule under which any imported goods, goods manufactured in the Republic or goods exported shall be classified." CS 3 Heading 87.02 read as the time ScanMefor vehicles for the transport of ten or more persons, including the driver."All South African Law Reports December [1] 2007 [2007] 4 All SA 1207 (SCA) Theron AJA 1209 SCA Commissioner, SARS v Motion Vehicle Wholesalers respondent has imported more than 580 vehicles all of which have a been classified under heading 87.02. On 28 November 2003, the appellant revoked the determination and issued a new determination to the effect that the vehicles were classifiable under heading 87.03. [5] The respondent, in terms of section 47(9)(e),* appealed to the High b Court against the new determination. Claassen J found that the goods are to be classified under heading 87.02 and set aside the determination. The appellant appeals to this Court against such classification with the leave of this Court, the court a quo having refused leave to appeal. [6] The appellant's case is essentially that the vehicles were superficially C modified in Australia in a transparent attempt to bring them within the ambit of heading 87.02 thereby attracting a lower customs duty rate. It is common cause that for each vehicle classified under heading 87.02 instead of under heading 87.03, the respondent saved an amount of R135 000 in customs duties and VAT. [7] The question to be answered is whether the vehicles were designed for the transport of ten or more persons or whether they were disguised as such as part of a scheme to limit the respondent's liability in respect of the payment of customs duty? [8] In the accompanying judgment in Commissioner, SA Revenue Service v e Komatsu SA (Pty) Lid,' I discussed the general principles applicable to tariff classification and the manner in which they are to be applied and interpreted. I do not intend to add to what was stated therein. [9] Chapter 87, under which the disputed headings resort, covers various types of vehicles, including tractors, passenger vehicles, goods vehicles -h and special purpose vehicles. The different types of vehicles are grouped together under their respective headings according to their purpose. It is clear from the Explanatory Notes to heading 87.03 that all vehicles designed for the transport of persons reside thereunder, but for the exclusions. The exclusions relate g 4 S 47(9)(e) reads: "An appeal against any such determination shall lie to the division of the High Court of South Africa having jurisdiction to hear appeals in the area wherein the determination was made, or the goods in question were entered for home consumption.' 5 [2006] SCA 118 (RSA). [Reported at [2006] JOL 18350 (SCA) - Ed]. h 6 The Explanatory Notes to heading 87.03 reads: "This heading covers motor vehicles of various types (including amphibious motor vehicles) 87.02. designed for the transport of persons: it does not, however, cover the motor vehicles of heading The heading also includes: 1 Motor cars (eg saloon cars, hackney carriages, sports cars and racing cars). Specialised transport vehicles such as ambulances, prison vans and hearses. Motor-homes (campers, etc), vehicles for the transport of persons, specially equipped for habitation (with sleeping, cooking, toilet facilities, etc.). 4 Vehicles specially designed for travelling on snow (eg snowmobiles). 5 Golf cars and similar vehicles. CS Four-wheeled motor vehicles with tube chassis, having a motor-car type steering system (eg Scanned withascoring system based on the Ackerman principle)." (Emphasis added.) ScannerAll South African Law Reports December [1] 2007 [2007] 4 All SA 1207 (SCA) 1210 Theron AJA All South African Law Reports to vehicles falling under heading 87.02. All vehicles designed for the transport of ten or more persons fall to be classified under heading 87.02. a The distinguishing factor between the two headings is the number of persons the vehicle was "designed" to transport. In other words, the design of the vehicle determining the classification of the goods in this instance. [10] The respondent relies on Autoware (Pty) Lid v Secretary for Customs & Excise, for the contention that the intention of the manufacturer and b designer, the modifier and the importer of the vehicles is irrelevant. That is generally correct, but it should be noted that Autoware (supra) dealt with the difference between a panel van and a station-wagon. There was 12.5 no doubt that the vehicles, on importation, were panel vans. The only issue was whether the importer's intention to change them after import C into station-wagons meant that they had to be classified as the latter. They were indeed constructed and designed as panel vans. In any event, Colman J, with reference to Secretary for Customs & Excise v Thomas Barlow e Sons Lid,' accepted that depending on the headings under consideration, "purpose and intention" may be relevant.10 d [11] Where a court is confronted with an alleged simulation," it is entitled to take into account all the surrounding circumstances." It has been accepted by this Court that a taxpayer may minimise his or her tax liability by arranging his or her tax affairs in a suitable manner. But a court, in considering whether the taxpayer has properly achieved a reduction of the e tax, will give effect to the true nature and substance of the transaction and will not be deceived by its form." The same considerations apply to the determination of customs classifications. [12] . It is common cause that TMC manufactures five, six, eight, nine and ten-seater Land Cruiser 100 Series vehicles. It is also common cause that f 12.6 the vehicles at the centre of this dispute are originally manufactured as eight-seaters. This court is enjoined to determine whether the vehicles are designed for the transport of ten or more persons and not merely whether they are capable of doing so, as contended by the respondent. g 7 The Explanatory Notes to heading 87.02 reads: "This heading covers all motor vehicles designed for the transport of ten persons or more (including the driver)." (Emphasis added.) 1975 (4) SA 318 (W). 1970 (2) SA 660 (A). 10 At 322A-B. h 1 1 A simulation is "where parties to a transaction for whatever reason attempt to conceal its true nature by giving it some form different from what they really intend ... It is important to emphasise that a transaction which is disguised in this way is essentially a dishonest transaction; the object of ... which ... is to deceive the outside world". (Per Scott JA in Mackay v Fey NO and Another 2006 (3) SA 182 (SCA) para 26.) [Also reported at [2005] 4 All SA 615 (SCA) - Ed.] i 12 Erf3183/1 Ladysmith (Pty) Lid and Another v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1996 (3) SA 942 (A) at 9501-952C [also reported at [ 1997] JOL 213 (A) - Ed]; Maize Board v Jackson 2005 (6) SA 592 (SCA) para I [also reported at (2006) 3 All SA 511 (SCA) - Ed]; Mackay v Fey, above fn 11, op cit. 13 Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Conhage (Pty) Itd (Formerly Tycon (Pry) Lid) 1999 (4) SA 1 149 (SCA) para I [also reported at [1999] JOL 5363 (A) - EdJ. See the authorities cited in fn 12 above. CS Scanned w anner\f