A case study of the Customs Administrative Penalty Provision as contained in the Customs & Excise Act, No.91 of 1964 of South Africa, and a comparison of the South African regime with selected foreign customs penalty regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world of international trade has evolved over the centuries and, with this process of evolution, unique challenges have emerged over time. International trade, in essence, involves the movement of goods and services across borders; it is conducted mainly by private firms rather than governments. The suggested role of government is to create an environment that allows for efficient international trade. Such an environment is manifested in the provision of an adequate physical infrastructure and a transparent regulatory environment. Today, an organisation such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), whose members direct the vast bulk of international trade, plays an active role in advancing the agenda of a rules-based international trade regime. This same organization also provides, on an ongoing basis, initiatives directed to improving the facilitation of trade internationally. Examples of trade facilitation initiatives are the recent Bali-Agreement (The Trade Facilitation Agreement, 2013), signed by WTO members in 2013 in Bali, and the Revised Kyoto Convention of the World Customs Organization (WCO) which has, as its objective, the elimination of barriers to efficient international trade. This dissertation focuses on customs penalty regime as utilised by South Africa. The South African regime is compared with certain foreign and international customs penalty regimes (in this case, Canada, the United States of America and the European Union). The study further explores the appeal system available to transgressors of these regimes. The penalty - and appeal regimes is further analysed against recommendations and prescripts in international agreements to which these countries are parties, specifically the WTO Bali Agreement and the WCO Revised Kyoto Convention. A practical and transparent customs penalty regime will obviously support the agenda to improve trade facilitation, a situation that is desired by traders throughout the globe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".