The South African Poultry Association (SAPA) has called for an investigation into alleged under‑ and over‑pricing of chicken imports in the first half of 2026.
Their press release raises concerns about leg quarter values, offal prices and mechanically deboned meat (MDM) consignments, suggesting that some imports may have been declared below typical value.
A detailed review of SARS trade data, industry benchmarks and the workings behind SAPA’s examples shows that several of the claims do not align with the available evidence.
Some figures match 2025 records rather than 2026, others reflect normal market dynamics, and several appear to be simple data entry errors rather than indicators of duty evasion.
SAPA’s statement claims up to “50% of imports may have been under-declared” that could be “costing South Africa thousands or even millions of rand in unpaid import duties,” but provides no tariff codes, no volumes, no consignment counts and no workings behind its claims. Without the underlying method, these figures cannot be independently verified.
“The under-pricing is on chicken products subject to import tariffs, while the over-pricing happens on duty-free consignments of mechanically deboned meat (MDM). The gains on MDM would compensate foreign producers for losses on underpriced dutiable products,” SAPA states.
This claim would require evidence that the same buyers and sellers were involved in both sides of the trade. Yet, in the same statement, SAPA concedes that “there is nothing to prove that this is a deliberate strategy.”
Referring to AMIE, the Association affirmed that it would support any SARS investigation into genuine irregularities and assist in verifying the underlying data, while emphasising that public commentary must be based on verified information.
SAPA Uses an Incorrect Benchmark for Assessing Import Prices
SAPA compares the import price of individual cuts such as leg quarters and offal with Wageningen University’s cost of producing a whole chicken. This benchmark is not appropriate for evaluating import values.
Published poultry export data confirms that dark meat (such as leg quarters) and edible offal routinely trade below whole-bird values. This persistent pricing discount is a core mechanical reality of global poultry trade, driven by domestic consumer preferences in major exporting countries like the United States and Brazil.
In global markets such as the EU, USA, and Brazil, the pricing gap is highly structured. While high-value white meat (breasts) and whole birds fetch premiums, dark meat and offal are often treated as secondary commodities in the local market. As a result, they seek premium markets outside the domestic market to achieve better value.
A leg quarter priced below whole bird production cost is normal and does not indicate under declaration.
Typical Export Price Benchmark
| Product Type | Typical Brazilian Export Benchmark |
| Whole Birds | $1,800 – $1,980 per metric ton |
| Leg Quarters | $900 – $1,150 per metric ton |
| Offal (Livers, Hearts) | Subject to volatile regional demand (Asia/Africa) |
| Chicken Paws/Feet (China Market) | $3,000 – $3,500 per metric ton |
| Chicken Feet (Africa Market) | $450 – $1200 per metric ton |
Source: ABPA Export Data
SAPA’s Own “Anomalies” Indicate Data Errors, Not Duty Evasion
Several of SAPA’s examples cannot be found in the 2026 SARS data and match 2025 records. In addition, the press release lists both unusually low and unusually high prices:
- Brazilian leg quarters at R2.07 per kilogram
- Argentine offal at R4.00 per kilogram
- Brazilian livers at up to R14.96 per kilogram
- Dutch leg quarters at R102.67 per kilogram
Errors in both directions are consistent with data entry mistakes rather than a pattern of duty evasion.
The R2.07 Brazilian leg‑quarter value was flagged by the Association for Meat Importers and Exporters (AMIE) and duly reported to SARS in 2025.
The R102.67 Dutch leg‑quarter line is most likely a misclassification or unit‑of‑measure mistake.
It’s important to note that through the SARS Poultry Industry Forum, organisations including AMIE and SAPA can flag potential data-entry errors, possible misdeclarations, and other irregularities for SARS to investigate and verify. SARS may then revise its published aggregate trade statistics retrospectively for up to five years. AMIE uses this process to report flagged data-entry errors such as those described above.
These examples do not support SAPA’s theory that foreign producers are offsetting losses on dutiable cuts with gains on duty‑free MDM. They show inconsistent data quality.
Why Data Accuracy Matters for Policy and Industry Credibility
Customs declarations are the primary official record of trade. Once filed, they feed directly into tariff schedules, anti‑dumping cases, carbon border measures and industry analysis.
Errors do not correct themselves downstream. They travel into every dataset and model.
This is why any organisation publishing price anomalies has a responsibility to verify the underlying entries before drawing conclusions. Incorrect data does not automatically imply duty evasion, and presenting it as such risks undermining legitimate concerns that deserve investigation.
A more constructive approach is to ensure that all public commentary is based on validated SARS data for the correct year. When anomalies appear, they should be checked against transactional records and raised with SARS for clarification.
Speaking to ChickenFacts, AMIE affirmed its support for SARS investigations into genuine irregularities and will assist in verifying the underlying data.
Ensuring accuracy protects both the fiscus and consumers, who rely on imported chicken as an affordable source of protein.
ChickenFacts remains committed to transparent, evidence‑based discussion and encourages all stakeholders to uphold the same standard so that industry debates are informed by facts and verified data.
