The High Court has ordered the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) to return a truck it had seized. The truck, along with its cargo, belonged to Silverline Chemicals (Pvt) Limited, which had been accused of importing an undeclared chemical into Zimbabwe. The court also directed Zimra to reimburse Silverline for the sold cargo and cover any costs, fines, charges, or storage fees incurred by the company.
The case hinged on whether Zimra had reasonable grounds to seize the truck and the chemical cargo. Justice Sunsley Zisengwe of the Masvingo High Court presided over the matter, highlighting critical discrepancies in the chemical tests conducted on the cargo. The first test by the National Oil Infrastructure Company (NOIC) indicated that the cargo was diesel, while a subsequent test by the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (Zera) suggested it was paraffin. These conflicting results supported Silverline’s claim that the chemical was neither diesel nor paraffin, but methanol.
Justice Zisengwe pointed out that Zimra failed to explain the contrasting test results. He emphasized the importance of fairness, impartiality, and objectivity in the actions of administrative bodies like Zimra. He noted that the authority should have considered a retest or given Silverline the benefit of the doubt.
The court found it concerning that Zimra was eager to dispose of the chemical cargo before conducting thorough tests. Justice Zisengwe stated that Zimra had not provided valid grounds for the seizure of Silverline’s truck and cargo. He ordered Zimra to release the truck and compensate Silverline for the sold cargo and any associated costs.
The dispute began on April 7 when Silverline imported a hydrocarbon chemical through the Beitbridge Border Post. Silverline declared the chemical as methanol and followed the usual procedures. The truck was initially cleared at the border but was later stopped by the police at Bubi, about 120 kilometers from Beitbridge. The police alleged that the truck crew used fake documents to import the chemical, leading to the truck’s return to Beitbridge, where Zimra took custody of it.
Zimra issued two notices of seizure, one for 38,000 liters of diesel and another for the truck. Silverline argued that the seizure was unjustified, while Zimra maintained that its actions were above board. Silverline first approached the court with an urgent chamber application to recover both the truck and the chemical cargo but abandoned it when Zimra quickly disposed of the chemical cargo. The company then filed an application to recover its truck.
In court documents, Silverline described the sequence of events leading to the seizure. After the truck was stopped at Bubi, it was escorted back to Beitbridge, where Zimra’s manager ordered the truck and chemical cargo to be impounded. Samples of the chemical were taken, and interviews were conducted. Subsequently, notices of seizure were issued for both the truck and the chemical cargo.
Silverline contended that there was no basis for the seizure. They insisted that the chemical was methanol and had been properly declared. The company argued that Zimra’s actions were based on erroneous assumptions and conflicting test results. Justice Zisengwe noted that Zimra’s failure to address the conflicting test results lent credibility to Silverline’s claim that the chemical was methanol.
Justice Zisengwe ruled that Zimra should have granted Silverline’s request for a retest of the chemical cargo. Alternatively, Zimra should have given Silverline the benefit of the doubt. The judge emphasized that administrative bodies wielding significant power, such as Zimra, have a duty to act fairly and impartially. He criticized Zimra’s determination to dispose of the chemical cargo before ensuring accurate testing.
