There have being allot of rumors regarding the applicability of a COO (Certificate of Origin) form over the past few years. Some say that SARS have done away with the need to produce a DA 59 (the form traditionally used to as a COO).
But first, a generic COO form is different from an “origin certificate” related to trade agreements, i.e. EUR1 Form, SADC Certificate, and so forth. I have often seeing people confuse a COO form for a EUR1 certificate, thereby using it to benefit from a preferential rate of duty when not entitled to such. This is a classical mistake because the COO forms issued by some foreign Chambers of Commerce look similar to those used in trade agreements. The secret is to read what the respective form actually stands for, i.e. EUR1 versus Certificate of Origin. Do not take the look of the form for granted.
The SARS DA 59 or COO does in fact still exist and is still in use. My understanding of what happened which led to the confusion regarding the use of the DA 59 came when SARS published a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) containing minimum Invoice Requirements (the most recent revision is number SC-CF-30 dated 31 March 2011). The SARS SOP states that the “country of origin” must be reflected on the commercial invoice as a minimum requirement. Therefore, in industry circles it became generally accepted that the origin of goods may be specified on the invoice in lieu of a DA 59.
In some ways, the invoice can be regarded as a certificate of origin, although SARS do still reserve the right to verify the authenticity of origins.
In specific instances, the DA 59 Form may still be requested by SARS in order to verify such things as anti-dumping, safeguarding and countervailing duties, and import restrictions.