Poseidon vs SARS: When Your Paper Trail Fails, So Does Your Case

This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.

Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd v CSARS and Others (23278/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 539 (26 May 2025)

In a customs penalty case that puts documentation under the spotlight, the High Court ruled against Poseidon Operations (Pty) Ltd, finding that its explanation for diverted goods didn’t hold up in court.

What happened?

Poseidon was penalised by SARS for diverting goods that were meant to return to a bonded warehouse. The company tried to get the penalties and forfeiture cancelled by arguing they had good cause under section 93(2) of the Customs and Excise Act.

Their reason?

Poseidon claimed they couldn’t return the goods to the warehouse because of a “locked boom gate” and that they instead stored the goods at their own facility nearby. They provided:

• A blurry CCTV image showing a truck’s arrival

• A typed but unsigned delivery note

• A vague internal inspection sheet referencing other items

• An argument that they "always intended" to return the goods.

What did the court say?

None of this stood up to scrutiny. The court found that:

• There was no signed, verified document linking the goods to the warehouse

• The CCTV footage didn’t prove anything conclusive

• Poseidon's own staff seemed unaware of when—or if—the goods were returned

• Simply claiming an intention to comply is not enough.

Key lessons for tax practitioners and customs advisors

✅ Always document warehouse entries and exits with signed, verifiable records
✅ Physical excuses (like gates or site issues) don’t justify skipping customs rules
✅ To overturn penalties, evidence, not assumptions is what counts.

Poseidon had a story, but no proof. And when it comes to SARS, courts need more than explanations, they need proper paperwork.