Mater Dei Hospital sues Zimra

MATER Dei Hospital in Bulawayo has taken the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) to court for rejecting its application for a rebate of duty on imported medical equipment and consumables that were ostensibly donated to the institution.

The goods comprising theatre equipment, digital mammography system, renal dialysis equipment, and consumables, were sourced from donors in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Mater Dei Hospital, through its lawyers Webb, Low and Barry Legal Practitioners filed an application for review at the Bulawayo High Court citing Zimra and its Commissioner of Customs and Excise Mr Batsirai Chadzingwa as first and second respondents respectively.

The Catholic Church-run hospital is challenging Mr Chadzingwa's decision to reject their appeal made against the revenue collector's Bulawayo port station manager's refusal to accept their application for duty rebate certificates.

In his founding affidavit, Mater Dei Hospital board of trustees' chairperson, Mr Raymond Maxime Smithwick said they are a charitable organisation performing welfare work hence they are entitled to duty rebate certificates for the donated goods in terms of section 124 of the Customs and Excise Act (General) Regulations, 2001 (SI154/2001).

"Zimra's refusal to grant Mater Dei Hospital duty rebate certificates was based on the mistaken interpretation of the regulations, which do require the hospital to be registered as a private voluntary organisation or charity organisation with the Department of Social Welfare," he said.

Mr Smithwick argued that a medical facility is specifically excluded from registration as a public voluntary organisation under the Private Voluntary Organisations Act.

"The hospital received donations of various hospital equipment and consumables from non-Zimbabwean entities. As an established practice, the Zimbabwe Association of Church-related Hospitals applied on behalf of Mater Dei Hospital for a duty rebate to be granted on each of the four consignments," he said.

"On 2 March 2023, Mater Dei Hospital's applications in respect of the first three consignments were denied by the Bulawayo station manager on the basis that the hospital was a commercial entity and not welfare entity."

Mr Smithwick said when the application was rejected, they lodged an appeal with Mr Chadzingwa who also denied them the rebate facility.

"The basis for the decisions rejecting the applications for duty rebate certificates for the consignments is erroneous. The regulations do not require that an applicant should be registered under the Private Voluntary Organisations Act," he said.

"In his decision of 23 March 2023, the regional manager misdirected himself as did the station manager of Bulawayo port. The second respondent (Mr Chadzingwa) in his decision of 27 April 2023, was also erroneous."

Mr Smithwick argued that the reliance on the requirements of registration as a PVO by the regional manager, station manager and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise is baseless and a misdirection.

"The applicant does not have to be registered as a PVO in order to seek and be granted the rebate of the duty on those consignments. The hospital is an approved charitable entity and as such, in terms of section 124 of the Customs and Excise Act (General) Regulations, 2001, is entitled to the duty rebate on the importation of goods," he said.

"In fact, once an applicant for duty rebate certificate satisfies the Zimra Commissioner of Customs and Excise that the goods are fully donated, and that the applicant is involved in welfare or charity work, the second respondent shall the grant the rebate of duty."

Mr Smithwick said Mr Chadzingwa's decision and declaration to deny the hospital rebate certificates is reviewable on the basis that he acted in a manner that contravened the duty to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in terms of section 3(1) (a) of the Administrative Justice Act.

"I am advised by our legal practitioners that in order for the Zimra Commissioner of Customs and Excise's action to stand, it must be within the framework of the empowering law, and should be taken after applying the criteria laid down in the empowering law," he argued.

Mr Smithwick said Mr Chadzingwa's actions are grossly irregular and a violation of the enabling provisions of the law.

"The evidence itself does not point to any reasonable or rational foundation for action taken. The second respondent's decision doesn't conform to the constitutional principle of legality," he said.

"There was also the risk of seizure of the goods for not clearing them timeously. This is medical equipment and was imported for use at the hospital, so an inordinate delay was inappropriate."

The respondents are yet to respond.