Ginimbi’s Bentley costs him US$58k extra duty

8

H,This comes after Kadungure rushed to court for recourse after Zimra sought to impound the car on the basis that he had undervalued it in a bid to pay less customs duty. Kadungure’s lawyer Brighton Pabwe yesterday told the Daily News that the order was handed down by consent of both parties. “He was made to pay US$58 465, 95. The money was ordered to be paid on or before the 24th of January 2020 and each party was ordered to pay its own costs,” Pabwe said. Kadungure had initially paid US$81 450 as duty for the motor vehicle before he agreed to make an additional US$58 464, 95 last Friday. In the application, Kadungure cited Zimra commissioner-general Faith Mazani and Finance and Economic Development minister Mthuli Ncube as respondents. “On January 11, 2019 officers of the first respondent (Zimra) accompanied by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police vehicle theft squad arrived at the applicant’s house in Domboshawa threatening to seize the vehicle on the basis that the vehicle was undervalued for purposes of customs duty. The applicant has declined to
surrender the vehicle and the first respondent, through her officers, has threatened to take unspecified action against him,” Kadungure told the court. After some negotiations Kadungure said they agreed that he should drive the vehicle to their offices at Kurima House where they would then further resolve the issue. He said he later went to Kurima House but did not go with the motor vehicle and had a meeting with loss control officers, who told him
to surrender the car. Kadungure said he had to call his lawyers from Venturas & Samukange so that he could be properly advised of his rights. “The meeting continued now in the company of my legal practitioners and during discussions it turned out that there was no proper basis to allege that incorrect duty had been paid other than a bare assertion that some Internet websites valued the car higher than that which it had been actually bought for.
“(Mr) Mabiye (Zimra loss control officer) was asked whether the extent of the prejudice to Zimra was known and he said they were still investigating. He was also asked whether they had anything on paper to show that there was prejudice at all and he responded that they did not have anything yet. He could not also explain the basis upon which they needed to seize the vehicle other than saying that the law empowers them to seize it if they so wished,” Kadungure said.
He said the meeting was concluded with Zimra officers threatening to take unspecified action if the motor vehicle was not surrendered to them. “I submit that the balance of convenience lies in my favour. I paid duty for my vehicle that had been duly assessed by the first respondent and the vehicle was properly released to me. Should there have been any errors on such assessment by the first respondent, it should not be to my prejudice. In the meeting we held with Zimra authorities I told them I was willing to pay any shortfalls that are properly justified. Notwithstanding, there is an insistence to want to seize the vehicle which makes me wonder whether the rationale is revenue collection or there are other ulterior motives. “I am a known business person in this country and I import goods on a very regular basis. The first respondent does not need to hold my vehicle and have it incur charges whilst she carries out her investigation. She is free to carry out her investigation without seizing my vehicle. Should she need to re-inspect the vehicle, she can do so without seizing it. There is no basis upon which she needs to seize my vehicle other than to embarrass me. The balance of convenience therefore clearly lies in my favour,” he said.

Comments are closed.