The High Court has ruled in favour of Simbarashe Zingwe, a returning resident from the United Kingdom, halting an attempt by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) to seize his Range Rover TDV6.
Zingwe, entitled to a duty rebate as a returning resident, was granted the exemption by ZIMRA. However, the tax authority sought to confiscate the vehicle, alleging that Zingwe had breached customs regulations.
ZIMRA’s Allegations
ZIMRA claimed that Zingwe violated Section 105 (8) of the Customs and Excise General Regulations by leaving Zimbabwe for more than six months without obtaining prior written permission from the commissioner to leave his vehicle in the country. The authority also invoked Section 184 of the Customs and Excise Act, which criminalises the destruction, damage, or disposal of goods to avoid seizure.
ZIMRA officials reportedly visited Zingwe’s residence multiple times, finding the vehicle at his premises on two occasions but not during a third visit. They then requested that the vehicle be surrendered to their offices.
Zingwe’s Defence
In his application to the High Court, Zingwe argued that his absence from Zimbabwe was unintentional and due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, which delayed his return. He explained that he had only travelled to the UK to collect property and had intended to stay for a few weeks.
Zingwe contended that ZIMRA’s reliance on the cited regulations was unjustified, as he had no intention of violating customs rules or permanently removing his vehicle from the country.
High Court Ruling
Justice Priscilla Munangati Manongwa ruled in Zingwe’s favour, stating that there was no evidence or allegation that he had damaged, destroyed, or disposed of the vehicle.
“It has not been controverted that the applicant never intended to be away for six months,” she said. “The facts before me are such that there was, in my view, no violation of Section 105 (8) of the Customs and Excise Regulations.”
Justice Munangati Manongwa noted that Zingwe’s extended absence was beyond his control due to COVID-19 restrictions and that he had no reason to request written permission for his goods to remain in the country.
“There is no evidence that the applicant damaged, destroyed, or disposed of the goods,” she said. “Given that the goods were not disposed of, nor were they destroyed or damaged, the allegations cannot stick.”
Unlawful Seizure
The court further ruled that ZIMRA’s attempts to seize the vehicle were unlawful.
“I find that the applicant has established his case pertaining to the unlawful attempt to seize his motor vehicle,” the judge said. She added that while ZIMRA officials were justified in following up on beneficiaries of duty rebates, their actions in this case lacked legal merit.
The ruling is seen as a significant victory for returning residents seeking clarity and protection under Zimbabwe’s customs regulations.