Textile firm loses High Court bid

A LOCAL textile firm, Qingshang Investments (Pvt) Ltd, has lost a High Court bid for the immediate release of goods seized by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority over non-payment of duty amounting to over $2 million.

The firm is accused of mis-classifying imported goods in underhand dealings, prejudicing the tax collector of millions of dollars.

Justice Priscillah Chigumba threw out the application on the basis of preliminary points raised in objection by the tax collector and found no basis to hear the merits of the case.

“The balance of convenience favours allowing the appeal process to go through to finality,” said Justice Chigumba.

“There is no unlawful conduct which may properly be interdicted by this court even on an interim basis.”

Justice Chigumba said Qingshang, which trades as Rhino Blankets, was obliged to exhaust domestic remedies.

The firm appealed to the Zimra Commissioner-General and a substantive decision as to the misclassification of the goods, their alleged miscalculation of duty and the propriety of the embargo and seizure is still pending.

The textile firm rushed to the High Court demanding an immediate release of its goods.

“The applicant did not give the requisite 60 days’ notice before instituting these proceedings, rendering this application not properly before the court,” said Justice Chigumba.

“All the preliminary points raised are accordingly upheld. We do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the main matter.”

Zimra lawyer Mr Agmos Moyo of Kantor and Immerman raised several preliminary points objecting to urgency of the matter and relief, which Qingshang was seeking.

Qingshang, which was being represented by Mr Jonathan Samukange of Venturas and Samukange, failed to justify why its case deserved preference because there had been no unlawful act on its part

Zimra placed an embargo and seized Qingshang goods acting in terms of Section 193 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, which empowers its officers to seize goods on the basis of a reasonable belief that they were liable for seizure.

In this regard, Justice Chigumba found that Zimra demonstrated satisfactorily that it was entitled to place an embargo on the goods in question.

The case, which exposes massive corruption, spilled into the High Court last month, with Qingshang suing the tax collector for impounding its goods.