ITAC trade-remedy rules open for comment; Full Bench curbs SARS transfer pricing pleadings

National Gazette 54319 carries proposed amendments to both the ITAC Safeguard Regulations and the Anti-Dumping Regulations, introducing substantive changes to investigation procedures, public interest hearings, and confidentiality provisions — with a hard four-week public comment deadline from 13 March 2026. The same gazette extends the implementation date for Group I and Group II hazardous substances declarations by 18 months from publication, resetting compliance timelines for regulated entities. ECSA's identification of engineering work rules create new registration obligations: unregistered persons performing identified engineering work must apply for registration within 36 months of commencement, and transitional authorisation applications must be submitted within 6 months. Additional items include pension benefit increases under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (4.3% CPI increase effective 1 April 2025), the AIIB host agreement granting immunities and tax exemptions, Legal Practice Council rule amendments, land restitution claims with 30- and 60-day comment periods, and a 30-day comment period on a derogation application for the agricultural remedy Halosulfuron-methyl.

BASF challenged two Tax Court orders in a transfer pricing dispute concerning the 2011 year of assessment. SARS sought to amend its Rule 31 statement by introducing three entirely new benchmarking studies and an MNE Group Synergies adjustment. The Tax Court had allowed SARS's amendments and refused BASF's Rule 32 amendments. BASF appealed both orders.

The court held: The Full Bench upheld BASF's appeal. It held that SARS's three new benchmarking studies constituted a fundamental change of case — not a refinement — and were an impermissible novation under Rule 31(3). Section 31(2) as it read in 2011 confines adjustments strictly to 'consideration' and does not extend to collateral economic concepts such as MNE group synergies. The court further held that BASF's Rule 32 amendments were permissible because a taxpayer who has objected to the whole of an adjustment may advance new or alternative grounds provided they do not dispute an amount or part not previously contested. SARS was refused leave to amend its Rule 31 statement; BASF was granted leave to amend its Rule 32 statement.

Legal impact: Develops transfer pricing procedural and substantive law in three respects: (1) SARS cannot use Rule 31(3) amendments to introduce fundamentally different benchmarking analyses — this constrains SARS's ability to pivot its case mid-litigation; (2) section 31(2) (2011 wording) is confined to adjustments to 'consideration', foreclosing separate MNE synergies adjustments; (3) the scope of permissible taxpayer Rule 32(3) amendments is clarified — the test is whether the disputed amount was placed in issue in the objection, not whether the specific ground was raised. This directly affects pleadings strategy for all multinationals in Tax Court transfer pricing proceedings.