Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 54974 · R. 7690 · 2026-07-10
Provisional anti-dumping duties of 95–231% on ceramic building materials from India, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe
Effective from
10 Jul 2026
SARS Government Notice R. 7690 (PP/181), published in Gazette 54974 on 10 July 2026, imposes provisional anti-dumping payments under section 57A of the Customs and Excise Act on ceramic building bricks, tiles and finishing ceramics (tariff subheadings 6904.90, 6907.21, 6907.22 and 6907.40) imported from India (95.87%), Mozambique (132.65%), Zambia (132.82%) and Zimbabwe (231.62%). The duties are effective immediately and remain in force up to and including 9 January 2027. These rates will dramatically increase landed costs for affected goods and require immediate customs compliance adjustments by importers and clearing agents.
Who is affected
Importers of ceramic tiles, bricks and finishing ceramicsBuilding materials distributors and retailersCustoms brokers and clearing agentsConstruction companies sourcing ceramic materialsTrade and customs law practitioners What this means for practitioners
Notify importer and construction supply chain clients immediately of the new provisional duty rates effective 10 July 2026
Review current import orders and contracts for ceramic goods from India, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe against affected tariff subheadings (6904.90, 6907.21, 6907.22, 6907.40)
Update customs declarations and duty payment processes to reflect applicable provisional anti-dumping rates
Assess whether affected clients should participate in the underlying ITAC anti-dumping investigation as interested parties
Monitor for the final determination before the 9 January 2027 expiry of the provisional payments
Primary briefing · Judgment
medium impact North West High Court, Mafikeng · 2026-07-10
Dispro Tech SA (Pty) Ltd v Soot Science (Pty) Ltd and Others
Dispro Tech obtained an 18-month springboard interdict and ancillary confidentiality orders against Soot Science and individual respondents on 8 April 2026. The respondents applied for leave to appeal, which automatically suspended the interdict. By the time the s 18(3) enforcement application was heard on 29 June 2026, approximately three months of the 18-month interdict period had already been lost, with the leave to appeal hearing only enrolled for 24 July 2026.
The court held: The court granted partial enforcement, ordering compliance with the springboard interdict and confidentiality/return-of-information paragraphs but refusing enforcement of the costs order. It held that permanent forfeiture of a time-limited interdict through the appeal process constitutes exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm under s 18(3). The respondents' own denial of engaging in any restrained conduct was turned against them to negate their claim of irreparable harm from enforcement. The court applied the Tyte (SCA) holistic approach and distinguished Maritz, declining to refuse enforcement based on arguable prospects of appeal.
Legal impact: Confirms and applies the Incubeta/Jai Hind line of authority that loss of time-limited relief through appeal-driven delay is itself an exceptional circumstance under s 18(3). Provides directly actionable authority for employers enforcing springboard interdicts: a respondent who denies wrongdoing cannot simultaneously claim irreparable prejudice from an order prohibiting that conduct. Also illustrates that courts will sever time-sensitive from non-time-sensitive relief, refusing enforcement of costs orders absent separate exceptional circumstances.
Who is affected
Employers enforcing springboard interdicts or time-limited restraintsEmployment and competition litigation practitionersLitigants applying for or opposing s 18(3) enforcement pending appealFormer employees subject to post-employment interdicts What this means for practitioners
Cite this judgment alongside Incubeta and Jai Hind when applying for s 18(3) enforcement of any time-limited interdict
In opposing enforcement, avoid denying restrained conduct while simultaneously claiming irreparable harm from the interdict — the court will treat the denial as negating prejudice
Consider severing time-sensitive relief from non-time-sensitive components (such as costs) when framing s 18(3) applications