Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 55342 · R. 7889 · 2026-09-07
Anti-dumping duties up to 129.15% imposed on Chinese-origin automotive windscreens
Effective from
07 Sept 2026
Government Notice R. 7889, published under section 56 of the Customs and Excise Act 1964, amends Part 1 of Schedule No. 2 to impose anti-dumping duties on front windscreens (tariff heading 8708.22.10) imported from or originating in China. Three duty tiers apply: 12.92% for products from Xinyi Automobile Glass (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd and Dongguan Benson Automobile Glass Co. Ltd; 28.39% for products from Dongguan Kong Wan Automobile Glass Limited; and a residual rate of 129.15% for all other Chinese producers not specifically named. BSG Auto Glass Co. Ltd and Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. Ltd are excluded from the residual tier but no specific rate is assigned to them in this notice. No sunset date is stated. The amendment took effect on the date of publication.
Who is affected
Importers of automotive windscreens from ChinaMotor vehicle manufacturers and OEM assemblersAutomotive glass distributorsCustoms brokers and clearing agentsTrade and customs law practitioners What this means for practitioners
Immediately verify the identity of the Chinese producer for all current and pending windscreen imports under tariff heading 8708.22.10 to determine the applicable duty tier.
Adjust landed-cost models and sourcing strategies: imports from unnamed Chinese producers now attract a 129.15% anti-dumping duty on top of existing customs duties.
Review existing supply contracts for price-adjustment or force-majeure provisions triggered by new duties.
Ensure customs declarations correctly identify the producer to avoid default classification at the residual rate.
Consider whether ITAC sunset-review or new-shipper-review procedures may apply for producers not yet named.
Primary briefing · Judgment
medium impact Labour Court (Cape Town) · 2026-09-07
National Student Financial Aid Scheme v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others
An NSFAS employee was dismissed for forwarding confidential work emails to a personal email account in breach of the employer's information security policy. The CCMA commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered retrospective reinstatement with backpay exceeding R1 million, reasoning that the employee had not disclosed the information to an external third party and that harm was improbable.
The court held: The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award. It held that the mischief targeted by the information security policy is the removal of information from the employer's controlled environment, regardless of the identity of the recipient or whether onward disclosure occurred. The commissioner answered a question the charge did not pose and left undecided the question it did. This constituted a reviewable irregularity distinct from mere unreasonableness, and the range-of-reasonableness standard applicable to sanction reviews had no purchase on a finding reached by asking the wrong question. The dispute was remitted to the CCMA for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner.
Legal impact: The judgment develops the law in three respects: (1) it clarifies that forwarding work data to a personal account breaches an information security policy by removing data from the employer's control, without requiring proof of onward disclosure or harm; (2) it confirms that employers with rational data-protection policies need not prove probable harm to sustain a disciplinary charge for policy breach; and (3) it limits the reach of the Mondi deference standard by holding that a commissioner who misconceives the nature of the enquiry commits a reviewable irregularity to which sanction-review deference does not apply. This strengthens the hand of employers enforcing acceptable-use and data-security policies at the CCMA.
Who is affected
Employers with information security or acceptable-use policiesPublic entity employersLabour law practitioners advising on CCMA reviewsEmployees facing disciplinary action for data-policy breachesHR and compliance professionals What this means for practitioners
Review information security and acceptable-use policies to ensure they clearly define the prohibited conduct as removal of data from the employer's controlled environment, not merely disclosure to third parties.
When drafting disciplinary charges for data-policy breaches, frame the charge around the act of forwarding or removing data, not around harm or onward disclosure.
In CCMA proceedings, be prepared to argue that a commissioner who imports a harm or disclosure requirement into a policy-breach charge has misconceived the enquiry, attracting correctness review rather than reasonableness deference.