Active complaints

Showing items 1 to 87 of 87
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-001-400 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A9: SPS measures n.e.s. 		2026-09-25 Namibia: all borders Namibia New View
Complaint: Following the FMD outbreak in Namibia, Veterinary Public Notification No. 15 of 2026, announced the “Suspension of imports, exports and in-transit of all cloven-hoofed animals and their raw products.” Despite this notification specifically referring to raw products, Namibian exporters of fully tanned&processed leather are currently prohibited from exporting unless they provide written confirmation from the competent authorities of each importing country that finished leather from Namibia remains permissible. This restriction has already caused economic losses for Namibian leather exporters, resulting in short-time arrangements, layoffs and an increasing risk of permanently losing established international customers to alternative suppliers. Unless resolved urgently, the continued disruption threatens to cause irreversible damage to the Namibian leather industry, undermining years of market development, export competitiveness and employment. Although Section 13(7) of the Animal Health Act provides that a veterinary health certificate is not required where the competent authority of the importing country does not require one, subject to the exporter providing written proof thereof, a more fundamental question remains: On what legal basis is finished leather subjected to vet. export controls intended for animal products particularly when the importing country itself does not impose equivalent veterinary requirements? The responsibility for obtaining these government-to-government confirmations has effectively been placed on the private sector, requiring the Namibian leather industry to approach the authorities of every country to which it exports. On what legal basis is fully tanned and chemically processed leather being classified as a "raw product" under the current FMD restrictions, particularly when it has undergone extensive industrial processing and is fundamentally distinct from untreated hides and skins?  
Products: 4107.1: -Whole hides and skins :  
NTB-001-389 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-09-04 South Sudan: State Revenue Authority Uganda New View
Complaint: South Sudan – Reintroduction of Stamp Duty and Fire Safety Fees
The Government of the Republic of South Sudan, through the State Revenue Authority, has resumed the collection of stamp duty and fire safety fees from traders.
The reintroduction of these charges has increased the cost of conducting cross-border trade and may adversely affect traders engaged in commercial activities between Uganda and South Sudan.
The measure raises concerns regarding its consistency with the EAC integration framework, particularly the commitment to facilitate trade and promote free movement of goods among Partner States. The imposition of additional charges on traders has the potential to restrict market access, increase the cost of doing business and impede the development of intra-EAC trade. 		 
Progress: Upon submission of the complaint, Uganda requested that the matter be raised through the appropriate EAC NTB and bilateral mechanisms to seek clarification on the basis of the charges and assess their conformity with applicable EAC commitments, with a view to securing their removal or harmonisation where appropriate.  
NTB-001-382 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2026-08-24 South Africa: Maseru Bridge Lesotho In process View
Complaint: Members of CBW-Africa Lesotho Chapter, a group of Women are travelling to Botswana to participate in an Expo each one carrying different products - ranging from cosmetics to herbs and spices, for exhibiting at the expo, and give out as samples as necessary. We have faced a challenge whereby the clearing agent informed the group that we will need to pay R5000 as what she referred to as 'security bond', in addition to the 15% VAT we would have to pay at the Botswana border. As micro enterprises, we don't have these kind of funds, as we are already bootstrapping. This requirement for a M5000 security bond at the SA border therefore represents a barrier to us for accessing the potential intra-Africa trade benefits we are anticipating from our attendance of the Otshwereng Expo. We stand to lose immediate revenue from the Expo and future revenue-earning potential and trade linkages because we are not going to be able to raise this R5000 required by South Africa from us to transit to Botswana through their country. We are therefore requesting for a speedy resolution of our plight.  
Progress: On 25th August 2026, Botswana Focal Point advised that the reported VAT and R5,000 security bond are South African customs requirements and are therefore not charges imposed by Botswana.
For goods being brought into Botswana for exhibition purposes, there is a provision for a temporary admission of qualifying goods, including commercial samples owned abroad and imported for the purposes of being shown or demonstrated at an exhibition in Botswana.
To benefit from the applicable exemption/temporary admission facility, the exhibitors should write to the Director, Department of Trade Development in advance, providing details of the products and clearly stating that the products are being brought into Botswana solely for exhibition, display or demonstration purposes.
The exhibitors should ensure that the goods are not intended for commercial sale and comply with the applicable temporary admission requirements. Please note that Botswana’s standard VAT rate is 14%. 		 
Products: 0910.9: - Other spices :, 1901.90.90: -- Other, 3304.9: - Other :, 0902.10: Green tea in immediate packings of <= 3 kg and 2007.99: Jams, jellies, marmalades, purées or pastes of fruit, obtained by cooking, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. citrus fruit and homogenised preparations of subheading 2007.10)  
NTB-001-383 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-08-07 Burundi: Burundi Customs Uganda New View
Complaint: The Republic of Burundi, through the Surtaxe sur le Fer à Béton (SFB), is imposing a 10% surtax on imports from Uganda, particularly steel reinforcement bars with diameters ranging from 8mm to 32mm.
The measure appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of the EAC Customs Union Protocol, particularly the following:
• EAC Customs Union: Under Article 2(4)(a) and (b) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the EAC Customs Union, Customs duties and other charges of equivalent effect imposed on imports within the Customs Union are to be eliminated, while Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) to trade among Partner States are to be removed.
• National Treatment and Non-Discrimination against EAC Goods: The measure is also inconsistent with Article 15 of the EAC Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, which prohibits Partner States from applying legislation or administrative measures that directly or indirectly discriminate against like products originating from another Partner State. It further prohibits the application of internal taxation measures that impose a higher tax burden on products from another Partner State than that imposed on similar domestic products.
Conclusion:
The imposition of the 10% surtax may constitute a Non-Tariff Barrier to intra-EAC trade and appears to undermine the principles of the EAC Customs Union, particularly the principles of free movement of goods, national treatment and non-discrimination among Partner States.

  
NTB-001-381 1.8. Import bans
Policy/Regulatory 		2026-08-05 Rwanda: Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (RFDA) Tanzania New View
Complaint: On 5 August 2026, the Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (RFDA) suspended imports and ordered the recall of certain spirit products from several East African Community (EAC) Partner States, including Tanzania. This action appears inconsistent with the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which allows products certified to harmonized EAC standards and bearing the EAC Quality Mark to circulate freely within the Community.

The affected products have been certified by the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) and comply with the applicable EAC standards. If RFDA had concerns regarding their quality or safety, it should have followed the SQMT notification procedures before taking unilateral action. Tanzania therefore requests Rwanda to remove this non-tariff barrier and allow trade in the affected products to resume. 		 
Progress: During the 41st RMC, Rwanda reported that the matter arises from public health concerns and market surveillance findings.
• Certain products were found to have regulatory compliance concerns.
• Temporary measures were introduced to protect public health while investigations continue.
• Public health measures are permitted under WTO and EAC frameworks when scientifically justified.
• Any restrictions should be supported by scientific evidence
Furthermore, Rwanda clarified that the measures taken were in line with main objective No 1 of the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which is “protect and improve the health and safety of consumers and the public in general”, and this agrees with Article 22(1)(c) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. Where urgent safety or health problems arise or threaten to arise. This decision was an emergency and temporary measure to protect public health and consumer safety following serious health concerns, including prevention of further potential harm to consumers after reported cases of illness and death associated with the consumption/use of the alcoholic spirits. The measures undertaken by Rwanda cannot be classified as an NTB as Rwanda “like products” were affected by the same measures.
• Rwanda informed the RMC meeting that there are ongoing regional discussions regarding this matter. On 20 August 2026, the EAC Secretariat convened a consultative meeting attended by representatives from Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and the EAC Secretariat. They agreed on a couple of actions and way forward including Rwanda to submit scientific analysis as evidence.
• Rwanda Therefore updated the meeting that the investigation is still ongoing and requested enough time due to the complexity of this issue on public health and that the scientific analysis as evidence will be shared to the Secretariat before the Next RMC meeting.
The matter should continue to be addressed through relevant EAC technical and standards committees alongside NTB discussions. 		 
NTB-001-384 1.8. Import bans 2026-08-05 Rwanda: Rwanda Food and Drug Authority Uganda New View
Complaint: SUSPENSION OF IMPORTATION OF SELECTED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY RWANDA
On 5 August 2026, the Government of Rwanda, through the Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), announced a temporary suspension of the importation of selected alcoholic beverages.
The suspension has disrupted the normal flow of trade and trade-related activities between Rwanda and its trading partners, thereby creating a potential Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) to trade.
The measure is also inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) Customs Union and Common Market, particularly the commitment of Partner States to facilitate and promote the free movement of goods and enhance intra-EAC trade.
The Government of Rwanda is therefore requested to provide clarification on the basis and duration of the suspension and to consider appropriate measures to ensure that any regulatory interventions are implemented in a manner consistent with EAC obligations and do not unnecessarily impede legitimate trade among Partner States.

  
Progress: 1. On 22nd September 2026, the Secretariat reported that ; during the 41st RMC, Rwanda reported that the matter arises from public health concerns and market surveillance findings.
• Certain products were found to have regulatory compliance concerns.
• Temporary measures were introduced to protect public health while investigations continue.
• Public health measures are permitted under WTO and EAC frameworks when scientifically justified.
• Any restrictions should be supported by scientific evidence
Furthermore, Rwanda clarified that the measures taken were in line with main objective No 1 of the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which is “protect and improve the health and safety of consumers and the public in general”, and this agrees with Article 22(1)(c) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. Where urgent safety or health problems arise or threaten to arise. This decision was an emergency and temporary measure to protect public health and consumer safety following serious health concerns, including prevention of further potential harm to consumers after reported cases of illness and death associated with the consumption/use of the alcoholic spirits. The measures undertaken by Rwanda cannot be classified as an NTB as Rwanda “like products” were affected by the same measures.
• Rwanda informed the RMC meeting that there are ongoing regional discussions regarding this matter. On 20 August 2026, the EAC Secretariat convened a consultative meeting attended by representatives from Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and the EAC Secretariat. They agreed on a couple of actions and way forward including Rwanda to submit scientific analysis as evidence.
• Rwanda Therefore updated the meeting that the investigation is still ongoing and requested enough time due to the complexity of this issue on public health and that the scientific analysis as evidence will be shared to the Secretariat before the Next RMC meeting.
The matter should continue to be addressed through relevant EAC technical and standards committees alongside NTB discussions.
2. On 24 September 2026, Rwanda Focal Point reported that Rwanda does not consider this measure to constitute an NTB. The suspension was introduced as a public health measure and was applied equally to the affected products produced domestically and those imported from partner states and globally. The measure was therefore not targeting any country or product in specific. However, Rwanda also suspended the manufacture and distribution of the affected products by local manufacturers due to the same public health concerns. Accordingly, the measure should not be considered discriminatory, as it applied equally to locally manufactured and imported products. Rwanda therefore requests that NTB-001-384 be removed from the NTB Regional Online Reporting System. 		 
NTB-001-380 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2026-07-31 Zambia: Ministry Of Commerce Botswana New View
Complaint: BW transporters expected to pay combines border/road/toll fees in excess of $900 whilst other vehicles from neighbouring regions pay approximately $300. We are an exporter of Steel from Selebi Phikwe to Zambia at a rate of 1000+ tons that is 30+ trucks with planned demand increasing to 4000+ tons, this emplies cost differences up to $18,000 currently. This greatly inhibits Botswana transporters from uplifting our product significantly affecting our sales to Zambia.  
Progress: 1. On 21 September 2026, the Secretariat sent reminder to Zambia Focal Point to indicate timeframes regarding undertaking internal consultations on to resolve the matter.
2. On 23 September 2026, Zambia Focal Point reported that internal consultations and meetings with concerned stakeholders were being undertaken during the weeks 25 September - 02 August 2026 after which way forward on the matter would be communicated to the Secretariat . 		 
NTB-001-374 1.1. Export subsidies 2026-07-25 Botswana: Tlokweng Gate Botswana New View
Complaint: Customs officials dispute the invoice issued,saying the goods I bought are underprice and as a result my goods are detained.  
NTB-001-396 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-07-21 Tanzania: TRA Kenya New View
Complaint: Tanzania is subjecting a discriminative excise duty on Margarine - HS 1517.10.00 transferred to Tanzania, it charges an IMPORT Excise duty of Tsh. 540. This measure is in contravention of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC. Additionally, this goes against SCFEA and Summit directive directing Partner States to remove all discriminative charges and treat EAC goods as transfer does not import. We urge URT to remove these discriminative charges and treat Kenya Margarine products as locally produced not IMPORTED.  
Products: 1517.10: Margarine (excl. liquid)  
NTB-001-388 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-07-01 Kenya: Kenya Sugar Board Uganda New View
Complaint: Kenya – Excise Duty on Ugandan Sugar
Kenya, through the Kenya Sugar Board, increased the excise duty applicable to sugar imported from Uganda from KES 7.50 per kilogram (KES 7,500 per tonne) to KES 40 per kilogram (KES 40,000 per tonne), as provided under Part IV – Excise Duty, Section 36(a)(vi) of the Kenya Gazette Supplement.
The substantial increase in the excise duty has significantly raised the cost of Ugandan sugar in the Kenyan market, thereby reducing its competitiveness and negatively affecting market access for Ugandan sugar exporters.
The measure also has the potential to disrupt the long-standing trade relationship between Uganda and Kenya, which has been facilitated under the EAC integration framework. The increased duty may constitute a Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) and raises concerns regarding compliance with the EAC principles of free movement of goods, fair competition and non-discrimination among Partner States.
  
NTB-001-387 6.3. Special supplementary duties 2026-07-01 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority Tanzania New View
Complaint: Kenya has recently imposed excise duty on float glass originating from Tanzania under HS Code 7005, following the removal of the excise duty exemption previously applicable to float glass originating from EAC Partner States.

According to Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 157 (Acts No. 19) dated 26 June 2026, float glass imported into Kenya under HS Code 7005 is now subject to excise duty at the rate of 35% of the excisable value or KES 500 per square metre, whichever is higher, including float glass originating from Tanzania and other EAC Partner States.

This policy change has already had a direct and measurable impact on Tanzanian exports. Customs Entry Documents for recent shipments of Tanzanian-origin float glass to Kenya show that excise duty has been assessed and charged. For example, one shipment of 1,186.42 square metres was charged KES 593,208 in excise duty at KES 500 per square metre, while another shipment of 2,450.25 square metres was charged KES 1,225,125 in excise duty.

The measure significantly increases the cost of Tanzanian float glass entering the Kenyan market and creates an additional tax burden on goods traded within the East African Community. Kenya is currently the largest export market for Tanzanian float glass, and continued access to this market is essential for sustaining production, employment, export earnings and industrial investment in Tanzania.

Kenya currently does not have domestic float glass production, while Kenyan glass processors and secondary manufacturers rely on imported float glass as a key raw material. The imposition of excise duty therefore not only restricts market access for Tanzanian manufacturers, but also increases production costs for Kenyan downstream industries.

We therefore request the EAC Secretariat and relevant EAC organs to review this measure and facilitate its resolution, including the reinstatement of the excise duty exemption for float glass originating from EAC Partner States. 		 
Products: 7005.10.90: -- Other, 7005.21.13: --- Of a thickness not exceeding 2 mm (excluding optical glass), 7005.21.15: --- Of a thickness exceeding 2 mm but not exceeding 2,5 mm (excluding optical glass), 7005.21.17: --- Of a thickness exceeding 2,5 mm but not exceeding 3 mm (excluding optical glass), 7005.29.13: --- Of a thickness not exceeding 2 mm (excluding solar glass and optical glass), 7005.29.15: --- Of a thickness exceeding 2 mm but not exceeding 2,5 mm (excluding solar glass and optical glass), 7005.29.17: --- Of a thickness exceeding 2,5 mm but not exceeding 3 mm (excluding solar glass and optical glass) and 7005.30: Float glass and surface ground and polished glass, in sheets, whether or not having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, wired, but not otherwise worked  
NTB-001-390 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B81: Product registration/approval requirements 		2026-06-29 Rwanda: Rwanda FDA Kenya New View
Complaint: RFDA Mandatory Product Registration Requirements on 44 medicated cosmetics, 6 household chemical and 13 liquid detergent.
The Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (RFDA) has made it mandatory for all such products to undergo product registration and obtain approval before they can be marketed, distributed, or advertised in Rwanda. The registration process is lengthy, taking between 6 and 12 months, and requires submission of product samples, test reports, labels, and other technical documentation. In addition, Kenyan products that have already undergone conformity assessment, testing, and certification by competent authorities in Kenya are subjected to
duplicate testing, inspections, and additional charges in Rwanda. This increases the cost of doing business, delays market entry, and undermines the competitiveness of Kenyan manufacturers.
This requirement is inconsistent with the spirit of the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) which promotes mutual recognition of conformity assessment results and the EAC Regulatory Framework to facilitate cross-border trade of pre-packaged food and cosmetic products. The duplicative requirements also constitute a significant Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) that restricts the free movement of goods within the region and increases the cost of Kenya products which has valid standardization marks (SMarks) thus making the Kenya and regional goods to be uncompetitive. 		 
NTB-001-357 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-03-30 Zambia: Botswana In process View
Complaint: Business Botswana member, Flo-Tek is currently facing trade barrier in Zambia, Flo-Tek raised concerns regarding the imposition of a mandatory entry permit fee of approximately USD 541 per truck shipment for Botswana-registered trucks transporting PVC and HDPE pipes. According to the company, the fee applies regardless of the size or value of the shipment and significantly increases the cost of exporting to the Zambian market, particularly for smaller and more frequent consignments. In addition, Zambia imposes a 20% Selected Goods Surtax (SGS) on PVC pipes, HDPE pipes, and fittings. While the surtax is reportedly intended to protect local manufacturers, Flo-Tek argues that Zambia does not manufacture the large-diameter pipes supplied by the company, meaning there is no local industry being protected in this particular market segment. The company therefore views the surtax as an unnecessary trade barrier that inflates infrastructure project costs and weakens the competitiveness of Botswana manufacturers in the regional market.

The NTB's undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore request resolution through bilateral and regional trade mechanisms. 		 
NTB-001-370 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-03-17 South Africa: City of Ekurhuleni Zambia In process View
Complaint: FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCE TRANSPORT PERMIT
Regarding the permit, the issue is our trucks were instructed to obtain Fire Certificates from municipal authorities as a precondition for loading. This requirement was introduced for the first time, despite our longstanding operations transporting the same product without such a condition. We were required to apply for a permit that we already have through the Zambian government.

The responses received from those responsible was that the Certification from the Chief Inspector of Explosives (CIE) in South Africa authorising the transportation of explosives and hazardous materials is sufficient. Furthermore, it is not a requirement from CIE for our trucks to obtain Fire certificates, however the client we were loading for insisted that it is a requirement for them to load the trucks.

The duplication of regulatory oversight resulted in delays and inefficiencies as the trucks had to wait almost 4 weeks for the certificates to be issued. 		 
NTB-001-347 7.3. Corruption 2026-03-17 Zimbabwe: Zambia In process View
Complaint: Informal traders carrying small quantities of goods, such as fresh produce, cooking oil, rice, sugar and pasta cross the Victoria Falls border post by bike or foot.Over 50 traders cross the border per day,.
When entering Zimbabwe from Zambia, they get stopped by Customs and face arbitrary restrictions on quantities of goods that can enter (which change on a daily basis and depending on the specific officer on duty). When these arbitrary quantities are exceeded, the officers often confiscate all of the goods or demand bribes to release the traders. They also face threats when questioning the behaviour of the officer.
When returning after selling goods on the market in Zimbabwe, and after clearing the Zimbabwe Customs, they often get stopped by police or soldiers in the no-man's-land between the borders who demand further bribes from the proceeds of their sales.
If bringing merchandise from Zimbabwe back to Zambia, depending on the officers at the border and despite the small quantities carried, they will be asked to obtain an export license from Harare. Or to pay another bribe to be released. 		 
NTB-001-330 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-03-11 Mozambique: DGA - Mozambique SARS - South Africa Mozambique In process View
Complaint: Conferring of origin in a member state on non-originating material. This then affects the issuance of a SADC certificate for the issuing country being Mozambique.

Mozambique customs authority and DGA consider that the process taking place within Mozambique, does not confer origin.

The exact same process carried out in South Africa, receives a SADC certificate from SARS.

SARS as the importing country does not dispute or challenge that the process confers origin and is satisfied that the process under which a SADC certificate is issued, and therefore receives preferential duty in the importing country is sufficient and complies with the SADC trade agreement.

While the SADC agreement, lists simple processes, which do not confer origin, under chapter 63 there is a specific declaration made, where rags is included, before the word, except, and then it lists exceptions. It states that for chapter 63, origin is conferred, the requirement stated is " manufacture from materials of any heading except that of the product"

What is peculiar, is that the issuing country being Mozambique contends the conference of origin, but it has not been raised by the importing country being South Africa.

We know, with absolute certainty, that a SADC for the exact same process is issued by South Africa for exports to Mozambique and to Botswana, and neither of these countries have ever referred them back for investigation or referral on the back of the SADC certificate as is the protocol and possibility if there is a contention. 		 
Progress: On April 15th, 2026, Mozambique focal point reported that they are working with the relevant authorities to provide a response on this matter. Within 10 days, we will update the information.  
Products: 6310.10: Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted  
NTB-001-368 2026-03-06 Djibouti: Galafi Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The movement of goods through the Galafi border corridor is significantly constrained by poor road infrastructure between Ethiopian border and Djibouti, particularly around the Dikil town corridor, which stretches approximately 80 kilometers. Traders and transporters said that traveling within this route can take up to 19 hours for a relatively short distance compared to the same distance takes 4 hours in normal road infrastructure, mainly due to the poor condition of the road.
The prolonged travel time has several direct and indirect impacts on traders. First, delays in transportation often result in late arrival at the border post, which in turn leads to additional costs such as extended storage/container fees, and missed clearance schedules. These delays also significantly affect perishable goods, including agricultural products and livestock trade. Traders indicated that animals transported along this route sometimes suffer from stress, illness, or death due to the long and difficult journey, resulting in financial losses.
Another major concern is the health and safety of drivers. Spending nearly a full day to cover only 80 km exposes drivers to extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and limited access to medical or emergency services along the route. The difficult road conditions also increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and mechanical failures.
In cases of vehicle breakdown or accidents, transporters face additional burdens such as expensive car towing services, which further increase operational costs. Moreover, traders highlighted that insurance coverage for goods in transit is either unavailable or extremely expensive for this route. Because of the high risk associated with the road condition, many transporters are unable to afford insurance, leaving them financially vulnerable in the event of accidents, cargo or container damage, or loss.
Traders also emphasized that these challenges persist despite the existence of an alternative road that has already been constructed but is not yet operational. If this alternative route were opened and fully functional, it could significantly reduce travel time, lower transport costs, improve driver safety, and minimize losses related to perishable goods and livestock.
Overall, the poor infrastructure along the Galafi–Dikil corridor represents a substantial non-tariff barrier to trade, creating delays, increasing costs, and exposing traders and transporters to significant financial and safety risks. 		 
NTB-001-373 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-02-27 Malawi: Malawi Revenue Authority Kenya New View
Complaint: The Malawi Revenue Authority, through the New Customs and Excise Tax Measures for the 2026/2027 Financial year effective 27 February 2026, introduced import surcharges on various products including refined edible oils (10%), cane sugar (15%), sweets (20%), biscuits (20%), crisps (20%), vegetables (40%), chilli sauce (15%), beverages (15%), cement (30%), plastic household articles (20%), blankets (25%), polypropylene bags (20%), aluminium pots (15%), plastic furniture (20%), ballpoint pens (15%), among others, ostensibly to protect local industries.
The additional import surcharges increase the cost of Kenyan products entering Malawi, thereby eroding the Kenya COMESA preferential market access, reducing competitiveness of Kenyan exports.
Kenya and Malawi are both COMESA Member States. Kenyan products that meet COMESA Rules of Origin should enjoy preferential treatment. The imposition of protective import surcharges on products originating from COMESA Member States has the effect of nullifying or impairing tariff preferences and constitutes a measure equivalent to a non-tariff barrier, contrary to the principles of trade liberalisation and non-discrimination under the COMESA Treaty.
Kenya requests Malawi to:
1. Consider removing the import surcharges on COMESA-originating products
2. Restore full preferential treatment for eligible Kenyan products.
3. Engage Member States through COMESA before introducing trade-restrictive measures.
4. Ensure industrial protection measures are implemented in a manner consistent with COMESA obligations and do not undermine regional integration. 		 
Progress: 1. On 1st September 2026, Kenya Requested the Secretariat to facilitate bilateral consultations to resolve the issue.  
NTB-001-329 5.3. Export taxes 2026-02-20 Ethiopia: Galafi Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The Small scale cross border traders who were able to export different live animals and agricultural products to Djibouti through the Galafi Border are required to pay export tax per head of the livestock at the border. The total export amount allowed in a month is up to USD 1,000 per cross border trader that are found in different parts of the Afar region.
The export tax in Dewele border is not yet implemented and it is considered as a discriminatory compared to the Dewele border of the country. 		 
Progress: As at 10 July 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Ethiopia Focal Points  
Products: 0106.13: Live camels and other camelids [Camelidae], 0104.20: Live goats and 0703.10: Fresh or chilled onions and shallots  
NTB-001-359 5.5. Import licensing requirements 2026-02-17 Zimbabwe: Botswana In process View
Complaint: Business Botswana member - Flotek has reported that In Zimbabwe, imports exceeding USD 5,000 require an import licence issued through the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). These licences are generally valid for only three months and must be secured before goods can enter the market. The company indicated that most of its consignments exceed the threshold, meaning nearly all exports to Zimbabwe are affected by the licensing requirement. Delays in obtaining or renewing licences can disrupt deliveries, delay customer projects, and create financial losses. In addition, Zimbabwe requires mandatory Bureau Veritas (BV) pre-shipment inspections for trucks entering the country, with inspection fees charged on a per-invoice basis rather than per shipment. Flo-Tek stated that the fees range between USD 250 and USD 300 per invoice, resulting in significant cumulative costs for shipments containing multiple invoices. According to the company, this creates unnecessary inefficiencies and increases the cost of exporting into Zimbabwe.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these countries undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore requested that relevant mechanisms be triggered to resolve this NTB. 		 
NTB-001-369 2026-02-16 Kenya: Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: Under the East African Community (EAC) Vehicle Load Control Act, 2016, Kenya applies permissible maximum axle load limit of 28-ton along the Moyale–Nairobi (A2) corridor. In contrast, Ethiopian trucks are permitted to carry loads of up to 40 tons up to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP). Due to this regulatory mismatch, Ethiopian trucks cannot proceed further into Kenya and must offload their cargo at the border.

This process is further delayed by the limited availability of Kenyan trucks to take over the cargo, as well as a shortage of warehouse facilities at the border, which forces vehicles to wait longer with their goods. Conversely, Kenyan trucks are generally able to transport goods into Ethiopia without similar restrictions. 		 
NTB-001-302 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-02-06 Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY Kenya In process View
Complaint: 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) Imposed by Zambia

Zambia has introduced a 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) on CIF value, identified only upon reviewing the attached ASYCUDA import entry for Kenya manufacturer Carbacid LTD recent CO₂ shipment. This surcharge was unexpected and has a significant commercial impact on our exports.
CO₂ Is COMESA Originating and Should Not Be Charged discriminatively.
Carbacid LTD food grade CO₂ (HS 281121) is fully COMESA originating, supported by a valid Certificate of Origin for every shipment.
Under COMESA Treaty Article 49(1), Member States must remove existing NTBs and refrain from imposing new restrictions on goods originating from COMESA countries.
The COMESA NTB Regulations (2020) prohibit new discriminatory or trade restrictive measures.
The SGS surcharge therefore constitutes:
• A discriminatory charge
• A trade restrictive NTB
The surcharge raises the Kenya manufacturer landed cost and undermines Kenya’s products competitiveness in Zambia. As CO₂ is essential for soft drink bottling, the measure operates as a protectionist NTB in violation of COMESA obligations.
Zambia to remove the 10% SGS surcharge on COMESA originating CO₂ and restores compliance with COMESA trade rules, ensuring Kenyan goods are not unfairly discriminated against. 		 
Progress: 1.In March 2026, Kenya requested for an urgent interim measure to stop charging the new 10% SGS on Kenyan Co2 to ensure the continued and timely export of CO2 to Zambia required as a raw material by industries.
This surcharge was unexpected and presents a significant commercial impact on our exports. Kenya therefore sought Zambia support to suspend the application of the surcharge on Kenyan shipments and avoid disruptions to trade and ensure business continuity while the matter is being reviewed .
2. In April 2026, Zambia Focal point reported that this was a policy issue that required more time to process. The Ministry had initiated consultations with Zambia Revenue Authority and Ministry of Finance and will provide a comprehensive response as soon as possible. 		 
NTB-001-358 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-02-02 South Africa: Botswana In process View
Complaint: Business Botswana member -Flo-Tek has highlighted challenges relating to road transit bonds and cabotage restrictions. The company noted that South African authorities shifted responsibility for road transit bonds from transporters to the importer or owner of the goods. As a result, Flo-Tek is now directly responsible for administering and carrying the liability associated with transit bonds for shipments passing through South Africa. The company argues that this arrangement places an unfair financial and administrative burden on exporters, despite the transporter being in physical control of the cargo during transit. Flo-Tek also raised concerns about South Africa’s cabotage regulations, which prevent Botswana-registered trucks from completing deliveries in situations where the South African entity is the invoice holder or where goods are destined for onward export to neighbouring countries such as Lesotho. Consequently, cargo must be transferred to South African trucks before final delivery, resulting in additional transport arrangements, delays, cargo handling risks, and increased logistics costs. Flo-Tek believes these restrictions are largely protectionist in nature and hinder regional trade integration.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these South Africa undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. 		 
NTB-001-367 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2026-02-02 Djibouti: Djibouti sea port Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The importer experienced significant challenges during the customs clearance process at the Port of Djibouti. Upon arrival of the shipments (both containerized cargo and vehicles), they were informed of multiple documentation-request by customs authorities. These issues included minor discrepancies such as spelling errors in the Bill of Lading, as well as requirements to provide additional supporting documents that had not been communicated to them prior to the arrival of the cargo.
Importantly, these documentation requirement were not raised in advance, which prevented them from making the necessary corrections before the shipment has reached to the port. As a result, they were required to repeatedly amend and resubmit documents under a time pressure leading to delays in the clearance process.
Due to these combined challenges, the cargo remained at the port beyond the allowed free storage period. Consequently, the importers has incurred significant unplanned costs, including demurrage charges and other related port fees. 		 
Progress: Awaiting feedback from National Focal Point  
NTB-001-333 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-02-01 Zambia: Chirundu In process View
Complaint: ZIMRA is not clearing the products originated in Zambia using the STR Declaration even the products are under the Common List. The goods are subjected to the submission of Formal Customs Declaration and subject to pay customs duties, instead of granting preferential tariff treatment under the COMESA FTA.  
Progress: As at 10 July 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Zimbabwe and Zambia Focal Points  
Products: 2009.12: Orange juice, unfermented, Brix value <= 20 at 20°C, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. containing spirit and frozen)  
NTB-001-361 2026-01-14 Ethiopia: Dilla Customs Office Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The Dilla Customs Office has repeatedly delayed the clearance of export goods destined for the Moyale Border for extended periods, despite all required documents and formalities having been duly completed. These products were issued permits with specific validity periods, yet the delays persist, causing unnecessary disruptions. This issue has occurred several times at the same government institution.  
Progress: During the NMC meeting held on 26th May 2026, Ethiopia Customs explained that there is a standard operating procedures. Dilla is a customs check point , sometimes the delay at Dilla occurred until the customs officers verify the goods are for export , for some traders sometimes they moved the goods to Moyale and illegally export it  
NTB-001-366 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B82: Testing requirement 		2026-01-08 Ethiopia: Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: Imported tyres are subject to duplicated conformity assessment at destination, despite having undergone identical testing procedures in the country of origin. The absence of recognition of prior test results leads to unnecessary duplication and additional testing cost.  
Progress: Following the meeting with NMC, further discussions were held with the Ethiopian Conformity Assessment Enterprise and the Import and Export Quality Control Department regarding the reported NTB.
The consultations confirmed that, under the previous regulatory framework, tyres were included in the category of products subject to Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC) conducted in the country of origin. However, pursuant to a circular that came into effect in December 2025, tyres were removed from the list of products requiring PVoC.
According to the revised procedure, imported tyres are now subject to conformity assessment and inspection upon arrival by the Ethiopian Conformity Assessment Enterprise. It was established that the trader encountered the reported barrier due to delays and gaps in the immediate implementation and operationalization of the new circular during the transition period. 		 
NTB-001-309 7.4. Costly procedures 2025-12-13 In process View
Complaint: KEBS rejected the application to renew the Illovo's Diamond Mark certification which expired on 13Dec2025. The new requirement states that Illovo should appoint a Kenyan registered agent or open up a branch in Kenya. This agent will be awarded a Diamond Mark certificate on behalf of Illovo. This is costly and it also restricts product quality visibility through to the end-user.  
Progress: On 29 March 2026, Kenya Focal Point reported that:
a) All importers that have the Diamond Mark are required to have an Agent. Under our Diamond Mark scheme, the permit is issued to a local registered entity. The entity assume all responsibilities of the product. This is applied across all manufacturers under the Diamond Mark Scheme.
b) An imported/ Exporter can still ring the product in to the country without the agent under the normal import process procedure either through the PVOC Scheme or Destination Inspection. This will allow the visibility that client is seeking.
c) Illovo can still export the sugar to Kenya without an agent outside the Diamond Mark. Hence there is no NTB and the matter should be considered as resolved
2.Kenya advised that there is another option to faciloitate resolution of the NTB is where the importer can register his products and comply with the requirements. Once registered using the portal at KEBS they will be accepted without inspection. 		 
Products: 1701.99: Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form (excl. cane and beet sugar containing added flavouring or colouring and raw sugar)  
NTB-001-365 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B82: Testing requirement 		2025-12-10 Ethiopia: Moyale Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: There were delays in obtaining approval or certification for goods imported through the Moyale border. Samples are required to be tested in Addis Ababa before clearance can take place. As a result, importers are expected to obtain the necessary approval before the goods are shipped to Ethiopia. Otherwise, if the approval is sought after the goods arrive and undergo document verification, significant delays may occur.
Following the complaint received, a visit was conducted to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP), where these issues were confirmed. For instance, a Vaseline product with all the required specifications (five types) intended for import into Ethiopia was required to obtain prior approval. However, the process took up to two months. This approval or certification is essential for clearance.
If importers fail to secure the approval before the goods arrive at the border, they may face extended waiting periods to obtain the necessary authorization before clearance can proceed. This situation was observed at the Moyale OSBP and confirmed by officers responsible for document verification. 		 
NTB-001-348 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 2025-11-23 Democratic Republic of the Congo: Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM) Uganda In process View
Complaint: The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM), introduced an additional requirement mandating the acquisition of the OGEFREM Certificate. OGEFREM (Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal) is a real DRC agency involved in port/freight management and levies.This measure constitutes a Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB), particularly given that it’s paid for both in Uganda and DRC for the same product; apart from livestock, the fees aren’t standardised, and it’s not clear what value It adds. It constrains cross-border trade and undermines the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) agreement, which promotes free movement of goods and regional integration.
Furthermore, this whole process creates delays and extra costs for cross‑border trade.

Traders have therefore proposed that the requirement to have an OGEFREM certificate be removed, and to the least have the cost of the OGEFREM Certificate be standardized and reduced. They note that small-scale traders are disproportionately affected, as they are often subjected to varying and elevated fees for the certificate, in addition to paying further OGEFREM-related charges that aren’t documented upon entry into the DRC. 		 
Progress: 1.The 40th RMC was informed that DRC will consult on the double payment with the view to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
2. During the 48th SCTIFI, DRC informed the meeting that Consultations are ongoing to resolve the NTB by 30 June 2026.
3. During the 41st RMC, DRC reported that the senior management of OGEFREM was informed of the issue. A joint mission involving OGEFREM and the DRC Ministry of Foreign Trade was planned to assess the matter in Ituri Province. However, the mission could not take place due to the Ebola. 		 
NTB-001-363 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 2025-11-18 Ethiopia: Government Institutions at One Stop Border Post Kenya In process View
Complaint: There is a lack of coordination arising from the fragmented structure of the offices and the limited number of officers assigned to support operations. Offices are located in different buildings that are not interrelated, and staffing constraints further reduce efficiency. For example, only one officer is responsible for conducting standard inspections for both export and import goods, creating a bottleneck.

In addition, each institution operates independently under its own supervision, with limited cross-agency integration. While some services, such as agriculture-related offices, still rely on manual processes, others, such as customs, have fully adopted digital systems for clearing goods. However, customs procedures still depend on confirmations from these other agencies before goods can be cleared, leading to delays and inefficiencies.

Overall, these structural and operational challenges contribute significantly to the lack of coordination. 		 
Progress: Awaiting feedback from National Focal Points  
NTB-001-295 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-10-20 Uganda: Malaba Eswatini In process View
Complaint: We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty  
Progress: 1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter.  
NTB-001-288 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-08-20 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT imposition of discriminative Excise Duty on Unilever Soaps, detergents and bleaches -10%; Industrial Development Levy-5-15%
VAT Rate-18%
Impact to business
• Increased production costs due to excise and industrial levies.
• Reduced competitiveness against imported products, especially if inputs are taxed.
• Pressure on pricing, potentially leading to higher consumer prices or reduced margins.
Limited relief for manufacturers despite EAC integration goals.
This tax favours local Tanzania producers of whom do not pay the 10% excise duties, further distorting the market.
3401.11.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3401.19.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.50.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.90.00 Soap and detergents 10% 		 
Progress: 1. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is committed to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
2. During the 48th SCTIFI, The Meeting was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is finalising the legal and regulatory reforms to remove all discriminatory fees, levies and charges.
3. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that the excise duty was raised from 5-15%. Kenya requests URT to remove the discriminatory excise duty on Kenya products.
Tanzania reported that she has removed the Industrial Development Levy. 		 
NTB-001-272 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-07-08 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) Uganda In process View
Complaint: Kenya has introduced a 25% excise duty on Aluminium products falling under chapter 76 of the Harmonized System, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention o the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC.  
Progress: 1. During 39th RMC, Kenya informed the meeting that the matter is being handled internally, it is at the parliament level
2.During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB.
3. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that she is undertaking relevant legislative processes to remove the discriminative excise duty on EAC products
However, Uganda reported that the alluminium was still being charged. 		 
NTB-001-401 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-07-01 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority Uganda New View
Complaint: The Government of Kenya imposed a number of excise duty measures and other trade-related requirements affecting selected products originating from Uganda. The measures are considered discriminatory where they result in differential treatment of products from Uganda compared to domestic or other comparable products, and may constitute barriers to intra-EAC trade.
This hinders facilitation of free movement of goods among Partner States. It also increase the cost of accessing the Kenyan market and adversely affect the competitiveness of Ugandan products.
The affected products and measures include:
1. Ceramic tiles – Excise duty of 5% of the customs value or KSh 200 per square metre.
2. Ceramic sinks, bathtubs, sinks and cisterns – Excise duty of 5% of the customs value or KSh 50 per kilogram.
3. Sugar confectionery – Excise duty of KSh 85.82 per kilogram.
4. White chocolate – Excise duty of KSh 257.55 per kilogram.
5. LPG gas cylinders – Excise duty of 35%.
6. Eggs, excluding fertilized eggs for incubation – Excise duty of 25%.
7. Onions – Excise duty of 25%.
8. Potatoes and potato chips – Excise duty of 25%.
9. Fish – Excise duty of 10%.
10. Brown table sugar – Excise duty of KSh 40 per kilogram.
11. Cement – Excise duty of 10% of the value or KSh 1.50 per kilogram.
12. Furniture – Excise duty of 30%.
13. Cellular/mobile phones – Excise duty of 10%.
14. Paints and varnishes – Excise duty of 15%.
15. Cartons, boxes and cases of corrugated paper or paperboard, and imported folding cartons, boxes and cases Excise duty of 25%.
16. Virgin test liner paper – Excise duty of 25%.
17. Aluminium profiles – Excise duty of 25%.
18. Non-virgin fluting medium – Excise duty of 25%.
19. Wooden products – An inspection fee of US$250 per truck carrying wooden products from Uganda.
20. Sugar – Restrictions on import quotas and delays in the issuance of import permits.
21. Black tea (fermented and partly fermented) – A transit fee of KSh 7,000. 		 
NTB-001-292 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-07-01 Kenya: Mombasa sea port Egypt In process View
Complaint: It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement 		 
Progress: As at 10 July 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Egypt and Kenya Focal Points  
NTB-001-345 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2025-06-26 Djibouti: Djibouti sea port Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: A procedural inconsistency exists in the handling of export shipments from Ethiopia to the Djibouti Free Zone, whereby the acceptance of tarpaulin-covered trucks is applied inconsistently in comparison to containerized cargo. In practice, some shipments transported in tarpaulin-covered trucks are permitted entry into the Free Zone, while others are denied access and required to be containerized without clear justification or prior notice. This inconsistent enforcement creates uncertainty among traders and transport operators, leading to delays, additional handling and transportation costs, and operational inefficiencies.
As a result, exporters particularly small-scale traders face difficulties in planning their logistics and complying with requirements, which ultimately reduces their competitiveness and limits smooth market access along the corridor. 		 
Progress: As at 10 Jily 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Ethiopia and Djibouti Focal Points  
NTB-001-289 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-06-20 Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Rwanda has introduced a 39% excise duty on juice products manufactured in Kenya and transferred into Rwanda. The excise subjected to Kenya juice is a charge on import. EAC is a local market, additionally, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC.  
Progress: 1. The issue will be included in the list to be submitted for consideration by the 2nd Extra Ordinary SCFEA.
2. This issue was listed among the discriminatory charges imposed on Kenyan products by the Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda is treating Kenyan juice as an import and applying a charge, yet this movement is a transfer within the EAC Customs Union—not an import. As directed by SCFEA and SCTIFI, all discriminatory charges be removed, and therefore Kenya requests Rwanda to consider Kenya juice as a transfer and not an import and cease applying this levy.
3. During the 40th RMC Rwanda informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed as directed by SCFEA to resolve the NTB
4.During the 48th SCTIFI, The meeting was informed that, the Tax Law is under review to resolve the NTB by 30 June 2026.
5. During the 41st RMC, Kenya requested Rwanda to remove the discriminatory excise duty.
Republic of Rwanda reported that they were still consulting internally and it had prepared excise duty guideline to address the matter. 		 
NTB-001-264 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-05-24 Zimbabwe: Beitbridge Eswatini In process View
Complaint: Four (4) trucks with sugar to be delivered in Zimbabwe, was not able to enter because of a 30% surtax that had been introduced while the consignment was en route from Eswatini to Zimbabwe. Given this had come into effect after the dispatch, the consignment was not given a waiver.  
Progress: 1. On 3rd June 2025, The SADC NTB Unit advised that the NTB had been submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers of Trade meeting taking place in Harare. The outcome Ministers' meeting would provide further guidance on how to proceed .
2.The 34th CMT meeting held in June 2025 , CMT noted that the Senior Officials received a report by Eswatini, indicating that her exports of sugar and other products such as steel and cement to Zimbabwe are facing a surcharge of 30% since 15 May 2025. Eswatini indicated that the measure is against the SADC Protocol on Trade and requested Zimbabwe to remove the surcharge. The Committee of Ministers of Trade directed Zimbabwe and Eswatini to have bilateral engagement on the surcharge 		 
Products: 1701.13: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter, obtained without centrifugation, with sucrose content 69° to 93°, containing only natural anhedral microcrystals (see subheading note 2.) and 1701.14: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter (excl. cane sugar of 1701 13)  
NTB-001-279 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-05-19 Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board Kenya In process View
Complaint: Tanzania Dairy Board discriminatively charging 1.75% F.O.B value of on Kenya dairy produce on Pasteurized whole
Milk, Skimmed, Condensed, Yoghurt, ice cream and Powdered milk.

TDB is violating the Article 15 of the EAC Custom Union Protocol on national treatment. Same treatment as Tanzanian products in terms of charges. 		 
Progress: 1. During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that this is among the identified list of fees, levies and charges hence it is to be considered during harmonization process
2. On 26 March 2026, Kenya Focal Point further reported that The Tanzania Dairy Board (TDB) is discriminatively imposing a charge of 1.75% of the F.O.B. value on Kenyan dairy products—specifically pasteurized whole milk, skimmed milk, condensed milk, yoghurt, ice cream, and powdered milk. This measure cannot be justified as for ‘harmonisation’ as it clearly violates the EAC Treaty and the EAC Customs Union Protocol, which prohibit Partner States from applying discriminatory charges on goods originating from Kenya and other EAC countries.
Furthermore, both SCTIFI (Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment) and SCFEA (Sectoral Council on Finance and Economic Affairs) have expressly directed all Partner States to remove all discriminatory levies and consider EAC products as transfer and not import. In line with these directives, the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) should cease the application of this charge and fully comply with the established EAC legal framework and Council decisions.
3.The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is committed to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
4. During the 48th SCTIFI, The meeting was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is finalising the legal and regulatory reforms to remove all discriminatory fees, levies and charges.
5. During the 41st RMC, Kenya requested Tanzania to consider Kenya products as local and not imports regarding application of the charges.
Tanzania reported that the issue under consideration was the methodology of charging the fees in the region. There was a need for harmonization of the methodologies for charges. The charges were necessary and are not discriminatory, because all Partner States have these charges. 		 
NTB-001-243 2.4. Import licensing
Policy/Regulatory 		2025-04-16 Kenya: Busia Uganda In process View
Complaint: Kenya charges a discriminatory excise duty of 10% on fish transferred from Uganda, but does not charge excise duty on fish in Kenya. This means fish transferred from Uganda is being treated as an import, which is against the CUP. Kenya also charges an additional 5% levy on fish.  
Progress: 1. The Republic of Uganda submitted that the Law refers to imported Fish, but Kenya is charging Uganda for transfers. During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that there are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the next financial year.
2.During the Bilateral meeting the two Partner States agreed treat originating goods as transfers. Kenya committed to Fastrack the review of the law.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that it will be resolved by 30th June 2026 after the review of the Tax Law.
4.During the 48th SCTIFI, Kenya informed the meeting that , the Tax law is under review to resolve the NTB by 30 June 2026.
5. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that it is undertaking relevant legislative processes to remove the discriminative excise duty on EAC products. 		 
NTB-001-245 6.2. Administrative fees 2025-04-01 Democratic Republic of the Congo: From Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side Uganda In process View
Complaint: A review of the route from Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side revealed 24 Roadblocks.
The traders reported that they pay 300 dollars per roadblock; we wouldn't pick evidence of this payment because its illegal 		 
Progress: 1. During the 38th RMC, DRC reported that they would consult and revert
2.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB.
3.During the 40th RMC DRC informed the meeting that the Zone between Golli, Mahagi and Kisangani is a war zone and security is very tight, nevertheless, the central government's interior Minister instructed the governor to reduce the number of barriers and stop these payments because they are not official and illegal. DRC is organizing a consultation in June 2026 with the Ministry of Interior, Trade and Security organs to deliberate on the matter. The NTB also affects DRC as it makes goods more expensive in DRC. Furthermore, it was reported that on 7th - 10th May, 2026 the Republic of Uganda and DRC will hold a bilateral meeting on the same. The meeting urged DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
4. During the 48th SCTIFI, DRC informed the meeting that Consultations are ongoing in order to reduce roadblocks and resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 		 
NTB-001-274 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 2025-02-07 South Sudan: Nimule Uganda In process View
Complaint: RSS Charges a USD 40 weighbridge service fee per truck that crosses at Nimule weighbridge station at Jalie, as in the circular attached issued by weighbridge management 2. In the event of having an overload, they negotiate between USD600 and USD2,500 3. Road blocks between Nimule and Juba charge USD100 unreceipted. 4 . Between Juba and Torit, they ask for USD 50 VISA fees We request that South Sudan to immediately remove this NTB  
Progress: 1. The Republic of South Sudan informed the meeting that the weighbridge belongs to a private company, which charges money to recoup its capital investment.
RSS reported that she had reported the same to the Ministry of Transport for resolution.
Partner States noted that they also run investments and are not charged on EAC Citizens.
2. On 4 December 2025, RSS Focal Point advised that the NTB is not discriminating, but it does add cost to doing business, the Minister responsible is not ministry of Transport its the Ministry of Road and Bridges.
3. During 39th RMC,RSS informed the meeting the Company contracted by the Ministry of Roads and Bridges was still imposing the levy to recoup its capital investment until the arrangements to repay are made by the Ministry of Finance. RSS however is undertaking internal consultations to removed the NTB by 30th June 2026.
4. During the 48th SCTIFI, The meeting was informed that there are concerns related to trade facilitation at Elegu / Nimule OSBP due to among others, the introduction of the e - permit, multiplying road blocks and check points, Illegal and non-statutory charges imposed by different agencies; harassment, intimidation, extortion, and assault of drivers, Delays linked to unnecessary manifest and customs processing requirements, Detention of drivers and judicial-related concerns and Security concerns affecting cargo movement and regional trade flows.
Consultations are ongoing to resolve the matter.
5. During the 41st RMC,South Sudan reported that the matter was expected to be resolved by 30th October 2026.
Uganda reported that it was still experiencing the challenge. 		 
NTB-001-225 5.3. Export taxes 2024-12-28 Kenya: Malaba Uganda In process View
Complaint: The Kenyan government has violated the East African Community trade agreement and has begun to impose consumption taxes on products from other East African Community countries.  
Progress: 1.During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that There are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the financial year 2025/26
2.The 39th RMC meeting was updated that Kenya is reviewing the law.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB.
4. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that,It is undertaking relevant legislative processes to remove the discriminative excise duty on EAC products. 		 
NTB-001-242 6.5. Variable levies 2024-12-27 Kenya: Ministry of Finance Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Through, the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024 of Kenya passed on 11 December 2024 and came into force on 27 December 2024, the Government of Kenya, among other things, introduced excise duty on various products such as marble, transformers, float glass, coal imported from outside Kenya including East African Community countries. Also, has increased the valuation rates in calculating tax on tiles when they are sold in the country. These challenges have affected production due to the decline in the market for the products in Kenya caused by competition after the prices of the products in question became high  
Progress: 1.On excise duty charged on originating goods from Tanzania, Kenya was urged to refrain from enacting discriminatory laws that treat EAC originating goods as imports. The RMC was informed by Kenya that, through the Supplementary Legal Notice, excise duty was removed from Glass and Transformer. Kenya provided the supplementary gazette removing the two products.
(b) On valuation rates on tiles from Tanzania and Uganda when they are sold in the country as per the complaint from Tanzania below, entries as evidence on valuation adjustments examined showed adjustments as noted in the Internal KRA Memo on valuation for tiles from Uganda & Tanzania. The meeting noted that valuation of goods is administrative and operational, hence the valuation matter be referred to the Sectoral Committee on Customs for Commissioners (SCOC) to consider and resolve. The EAC guided that Valuation in EAC is guided by Section 122 and Fourth Schedule of the EAC CMA.
2. The 38th RMC meeting referred the NTB on valuation to SCOC for consideration and resolution and report back to the next RMC
3.The 39th RMC noted that transformers, float glass, coal had been granted preferential treatment.
4. During the 40th RMC URT informed the meting that She is implementing the SCFEA Directives to review the tax law with the view to remove all discriminatory taxes, fees, levies and charges of equivalent effect. Hence the NTB will be resolved by 30th June 2026.
5. During the 48th SCTIFI, Kenya informed the meeting that she is reviewing her tax law to remove discriminatory measures by 30th June 2026.
6. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that, She is undertaking relevant legislative processes to remove the discriminatory excise duty on EAC products.In the meantime, EAC exporters of float glass to Kenya were advised to inform their clients who are registered manufacturers to apply for exemption through the Cabinet Secretary responsible for Industry. 		 
NTB-001-271 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2024-12-01 COMESA Egypt In process View
Complaint: Unipak Nile Ltd., a subsidiary of INDEVCO Group in Egypt, export corrugated boxes to Kenya under the COMESA Agreement.

The Kenyan government imposed a 25% excise duty on corrugated boxes imported from Egypt, violating the principles of the COMESA Agreement and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Kenyan producers, some of whom do not pay the required taxes, further distorting the market.

This unilateral action undermines ability of Egyptian exporter to compete fairly and has halted UNIPAK Nile Ltd export operations and expansion plans in Kenya whose exports to Kenya reached $9–10 million annually, particularly in the agriculture and dairy sectors. 		 
NTB-001-218 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2024-10-29 Tanzania: Dar es Salaam Kenya In process View
Complaint: Tanzania's Finance Act 2024 introduced an excise duty for ‘’imported’’ products under HS Code 32.08 (Paints and varnishes including enamels and lacquers) of T Shs. 500 per kilo. However, this excise duty has NOT been imposed on any local manufacturers of the same products.

We intend to import items under this heading made in Kenya. Under the spirit of the EAC Trade protocols, which allows for free movement of goods, no duties, taxes or other non-tariff barriers should be imposed on any goods from a EAC partner country that a local manufacturer does not pay.

Therefore we believe this excise duty represents a huge disincentive to Kenyan manufacturers and hindrance to free trade within the EAC.
After writing to the TRA for assistance in the above issue, we were told that the Excise duty is chargeable to all goods falling under that heading even if it is of Kenyan origin (see our letter and their response)
We therefore request your assistance on way forward for us to import items under the HS codes mentioned from Kenya without being subject to this new excise duty of 500 T Shs. Per kilo. 		 
Progress: 1. The SCTIFI of May 2025 noted that, although the Republic of Kenya had not provided transactional evidence on the reported excise duty, broader concerns remain regarding the misapplication of the term “imports” within the EAC context. Partner States were reminded that Article 15 of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment prohibits discriminatory treatment of goods originating from other EAC Partner States. The meeting therefore urged all Partner States to harmonize the interpretation and application of the term “imports” in national laws and practices with the EAC legal framework, in order to facilitate intra EAC Trade.
2.During 39th RMC,URT reported that they were still consulting will update by December 2025
3. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is committed to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
4. During the 41st RMC, the meeting noted that the NTB is still unresolved. 		 
NTB-001-204 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2024-10-01 Rwanda: Gatuna Uganda In process View
Complaint: Republic of Rwanda is charging un harmonized flat rates for vehicles transiting through the Rwanda borders. This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicles.
Uganda is upholding the principle of distance*weight.
  
Progress: 1.The RMC of 17th October 2024 was informed that the NTB on discriminatory road user charges was considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favours big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load/weight and distance but also considering other factors that favour all of us as a region
f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the SC TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of SC TCM on harmonisation of Road User Charges.
The Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
• Buses;
• Trucks of three or less axles; and
• Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles/semi-trailers);
d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonised rates between themselves to continue doing so;
e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonised charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
g) Secretariat to mobilise funds for the study in (vi) above;
h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
j) Partner States to prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC/CM 45/ Directive 56). As per the directives of TCM, there are two Road User Charges adopted in the Community.
(i) distance + weight (axles) rates
(ii) COMESA harmonised rates of USD 10 per 100 KM
The Republic of Rwanda committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC.
2.Directives from 18th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.

The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:

United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.

Uganda
Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.

Burundi

Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighbouring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.

Rwanda
Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.

Kenya
Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.

Conclusion
Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
3. During the 48th SCTIFI, Rwanda informed the meeting that it is maintaining the status quo as directed by the Council while awaiting finalisation of the study by EAC on harmonization of road user charges.
4. During the 41st RMC, Rwanda informed the meeting that the Council Directive while awaiting the study on the harmonization of road user charges. 		 
NTB-001-197 1.8. Import bans 2024-09-11 Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade Uganda In process View
Complaint: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) suspended the transfer of soft drinks and beer from other countries, citing that only products from nations with bilateral agreements will be accepted. This suspension directly contravenes the spirit of the East African Community (EAC) and its commitment to fostering free trade and economic cooperation among Partner States.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that limits acceptance of products to those from countries with bilateral agreements undermines the EAC's principles of regional integration and free movement of goods. It creates unnecessary trade barriers and hinders the seamless exchange of goods between EAC Partner States, which is fundamental to the EAC Customs Union's objectives.
Addressing this issue is critical to ensuring that all EAC partner States can trade without restrictions and continue to benefit from the shared economic goals outlined in the EAC Treaty. 		 
Progress: 1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.
The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
2.Democratic Republic of Congo informed the meeting that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries which were dying as a result of transfers from Partner States. The meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, Democratic Republic of Congo had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to Democratic Republic of Congo factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a member of EAC, and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on soft drinks and beer from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 51).
3.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed.
The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB.
4.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB.
5. During the 40th RMC DRC commited to identify the underlying causes of these decisions by the Minister of Trade and to find solutions to strengthen the competitiveness of protected Congolese businesses in December 2026 because these measures have just been extended for 6 months, it is difficult to suspend it before 6 months. The meeting guided DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the issue by 30th June 2026 and issue a decree to remove this by June 2026.
6. During the 48th SCTIFI, DRC requested to resolve the NTB by December 2026. but due to the Summit Directive to resolve all outstanding NTBs by 30th June 2026, commitment was made to resolve it by 30th June 2026.
7.During the 41st RMC, DRC reported that, the issue was addressed through the temporary measures introduced by the Minister of Foreign Trade.The measures have a six-month duration and are expected to be lifted at the end of the year.The matter was also considered during the DRC - Uganda Joint Commission.
However, Uganda requested DRC to issue an official communication on the matter. 		 
NTB-001-227 2024-08-01 Tanzania: Tunduma South Africa In process View
Complaint: Certain African countries are now requiring annual renewal of all test reports for our safety footwear crossing their borders. Financially, this translates to approximately R55,000 per test per style. For manufacturers such as ourselves exporting multiple styles annually, the cost could potentially run into millions, significantly impacting our margins but also creating potential delays or disruptions.  
NTB-001-296 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2024-07-30 Madagascar: Mauritius In process View
Complaint: Madagascar has imposed a duty of 24% on imports of cartons which it referred to as a 'safeguard duty'. However, Mauritius is of the view that the duty cannot be considered as a safeguard duty given that Madagascar has not taken binding commitment on these products at WTO level. It has simply imposed duties on these products including on the SADC and COMESA Member States. It is violating its regional market access commitments.
Mauritius has requested bilateral consultations with Madagascar on this issue and is still awaiting same. 		 
Progress: 1. On 10 April 2026, Mauritus Focal Point reported that the two countries held several bilateral consultations and where Mauritius informed Madagascar that the imposition of the duty to protect its domestic industry is violating its commitments taken at regional level, namely at SADC and COMESA whereby Members have taken commitments to eliminate duties on all intra-regional trade. Mauritius is therefore of the view that Madagascar is using the safeguard measure as a barrier to intra-regional trade. The measure should have been discussed and negotiated at regional level before imposition.
2.Following bilateral consultations held during the SADC Regional NTBs meeting in April 2026, an e-mail was sent to the Ministry of Trade of Madagascar as well as to the ANMCC to explain that the imposition of the safeguard duty violated Madagascar's regional market access commitments at SADC level. It was also highlighted that Mauritius was not the main exporter of these products to Madagascar and yet Madagascar was exempting the main exporters and was discriminating against Mauritius. Mauritius shared the trade data, from TradeMap, which shows that the main suppliers of these products to Madagascar. Mauritius requested that the discriminating duty be eliminated immediately against its exports. The Ministry of Trade of Madagascar agreed to consult with ANMCC with a view to resolving the NTB and a response will be provided to Mauritius by 24 April 2026.
3. In a letter dated 6 April 2026, Mauritius informed the COMESA Secretariat that, through the Mauritian Embassy in Madagascar, three bilateral meetings had been held with Madagascar on 17 December 2025, 20 January 2026, and 3 April 2026. Mauritius further indicated that an additional bilateral meeting was facilitated by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) on 19 March 2026.
4. During a bilateral meeting on 2nd April 2026 Madagascar proposed to waive the 24% tariff for Mauritius but replace it with a tariff rate quota (TRQ).
5. On 6 AUgust 2026, Mauritius Focal Point reported that ,Following bilateral consultations between Mauritius and Madagascar, Madagascar agreed to exempt Mauritius from the safeguard duty on cartons given that the share of imports from Mauritius has fallen within the threshold of 3%. 		 
NTB-001-251 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2024-07-05 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT is subjecting full CET of 35% on ZESTA JAM manufactured in Kenya by Trufoods. The Zesta Jam is manufactured using locally sourced sugar.
We request Tanzania and Kenya to conduct on spot verification on June 2025 to ascertain origin as the jam transferred is using locally manufactured sugar and qualify under the EAC Preferential treatment.
Kenya communicated to TRA vide letter ref: C&BC/HQ/8 Dated 24/9/2024 requesting Tanzania for application for Zesta Jam to be granted preferential treatment. 		 
Progress: 1. During 47th SCTIFI, noted that the matter is administrative and referred to Customs Committee where the two Partner States agreed to conduct bilateral verification to ascertain the origin criteria by end of February 2026
2.The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Kenya have convened a verification mission to be undertaken by 11th May 2026 to ascertain the origin of the product.
3. During the 48th SCTIFI, The meeting was informed that a verification has been commissioned to facilitate resolution of the matter.
4. During the 41st RMC the meeting noted that the verification was undertaken and the report will be presented to SCTIFI through Customs Committee for consideration. 		 
NTB-001-199 1.8. Import bans 2024-06-20 Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade Uganda In process View
Complaint: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has instituted a suspension on the transfer of grey cement and clinkers to its Western and Eastern regions. This action raises concerns as it disrupts trade flows and hinders the movement of these essential construction materials within the region.
Such a suspension could have broader implications for trade and economic cooperation within the region, affecting both producers and consumers. The measure may also contravene regional trade agreements aimed at facilitating the free movement of goods, as outlined in the East African Community (EAC) protocols, and could undermine the spirit of regional integration.
A review of this suspension is essential to ensure the continued trade of critical materials and to uphold the principles of regional cooperation.
  
Progress: 1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
2.The meeting observed that when the Democratic Republic of Congo joined the Community a roadmap was developed to help the Democratic Republic of Congo to be integrated into EAC Projects and Programmes. Democratic Republic of Congo should commence implementation of the roadmap and comply with EAC Laws, among others, the Customs Union Protocol to allow free movement of goods. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on cement and clinker from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 52).
2.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed.
The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB.
3.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB.
4. During the 40th RMC DRC commited to identify the underlying causes of these decisions by the Minister of Trade and to find solutions to strengthen the competitiveness of protected Congolese businesses in December 2026 because these measures have just been extended for 6 months, it is difficult to suspend it before 6 months. The meeting guided DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the issue by 30th June 2026 and issue a decree to remove this by June 2026.
5. During the 48th SCTIFI, DRC requested to resolve the NTB by December but due to the Summit Directive commitment was made to resolve it by 30th June 2026.
6.During the 41st RMC, DRC reported that, the issue was addressed through measures introduced by the Minister of Foreign Trade. The measures are temporary and were set for a period of six months. They are expected to be lifted at the end of the year.The matter was also discussed during the DRC - Uganda Joint Commission.
Furthermore, Uganda requested DRC to issue an official communication on the matter. 		 
NTB-001-156 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2024-03-09 Rwanda: Rusumo Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Republic of Rwanda is charging USD 270 from Rusumo border to Kigali which is equivalent to USD 80.83 per 100KM, while Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM.This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicle.  
Progress: 1. On 29 April 2024, Rwanda Focal Point reported that : 'Considering the financial implication of these rates, Rwanda was still reviewing this proposal pending the finalization of the EAC study on harmonization of RUC. However, Rwanda will engage URT bilaterally to discuss how to resolve this outstanding issue.
2.The 36th RMC was informed that the charge amounts to 70 USD and is also affecting the Republic of Kenya. The RMC also noted that it is an obligation of the Government to offer security in the Country and it should not be at the expense of the traders. RSS should stop collecting this fee which is not in the RSS Laws and do not attach it to the process of the RTF on the fees, levies and charges.
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
4.During the 39th RMC meeting, Rwanda reported that they maintain the Status quo as Directed as awaits the finalization of the study.
5.During the 48th SCTIFI, Rwanda informed the meeting that ,it is maintaining the status quo as directed by the Council while awaiting finalisation of the study by EAC on harmonization of road user charges.
6. During the 41st RMC, Rwanda recalled previous Council of Ministers' decisions maintaining the status quo pending completion of a regional study on harmonization of road user charges. 		 
NTB-001-239 6.6. Border taxes
Policy/Regulatory 		2024-03-01 Kenya: KAJIADO COUNTY Burundi In process View
Complaint: THE COUNTY OF KAJIADO CHARGES TRANSIT FEES OF 2000 KSH PER FOREIGN TRANSIT TRUCKS  
Progress: 1. Kenya informed the SCTIFI that the Amendments to be effected in the 2025 / 2026 Financial year by 1st July 2025
2.During the 39th RMC , Kenya committed to continue engaging internally to resolve the matter and report to the next RMC.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB.
4.During the 48th SCTIFI, the meeting was informed that Kenya is implementing SCFEA Directives and is reviewing tax law to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
5. During the 41st RMC, Burundi reported that,her traders are still being charged when transiting at Kajiado County.
Kenya reported that, following the Summit Directive, the National Government engaged the Kajiado county on amendment of the Finance Act to remove transit fee and settled on a positive commitment.
The National government would undertake a follow up meeting to the County Government on the matter. 		 
NTB-001-152 8.8. Issues related to transit 2024-02-07 Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port Zambia In process View
Complaint: All the Private Inland Container Depot Operators at Dar Port are refusing to discharge the vessel Ladonna MV for onward delivery of shipment to Zambia and DRC. Private Inland Container Depot Operators that were willing to discharge the vessel have been threatened by trading competitors to the current vessel owner/trader who is a new entrant in the regional market with total loss of current business if they discharged this vessel Dar Port. This is a clear violation of the WTO-TFA (World Trade Organization Trade Facilitation Agreement), AU (African Union), Comesa/SADC Regional protocols and agreements as well as individual Bi-lateral agreements relating to Trade Facilitation. Zambia has worked hard to secure this business to supply chemicals to the World Largest Copper Producer DRC in order to boost regional exports and promote continental economic growth. However, the private sector in Tanzania are now blocking these efforts despite the government working so hard to restore Dar Ports Image as the preferred port of choice on the Eastern Coast of Africa. These actions have potential to make serious negative impact to all 3 countries Tanzania, Zambia & DRC and overall the African Continent and therefore should be addressed to minimize the high costs of doing business.  
Products: 2503: Sulphur of all kinds, other than sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur.  
NTB-001-169 7.2. Discrimination 2024-01-01 Burundi: Rugerero Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Republic of Burundi is charging USD 152 Flat rate on Road user Charges from Kobero/Kabangato Bujumbura which is equivalent to USD 65.5 per 100KM, While Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM. This discriminatory charge is contrary to directives made on the 18th Meeting of Sector Council on Transport,Communication and Meteorology  
Progress: 1.The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
2. Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
3. The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
4. The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:
United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.
Uganda
5. Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.
Burundi
6. Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighboring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
7. Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.
Kenya
8.Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
9.The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.
Conclusion
10. Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
11. The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
12.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
13.During 39th RMC, Burundi informed the meeting that, she is still waiting for the outcome of the study.
14. During the 40th RMC Burundi informed the meeting that they are implementing the status core directed by the 46th Council and hence considers the complaint resolved as Council lagalised the charges each Partner State was charging at that moment. Other Partner States, however, were of the view that status core as directed by the Council does not solve the challenge for harmonised road user charges and hence insisted on the finalisation of the study on Harmonisation of EAC Road User Charges.
15. During the 48th SCTIFI, Burundi informed the meeting that She is maintaining the status quo as directed by the Council while awaiting finalisation of the study by EAC on harmonization of road user charges.
16. During 41st RMC, the meeting noted that Partner States are implementing the Council Decisions as they wait for Road Under Harmonization Study. 		 
NTB-001-155 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory 		2023-11-03 Egypt: Egyptian Tax Authority Zambia In process View
Complaint: On November 3, 2023, the Egyptian Official Gazette published Law No. 177 of 2023 amending provisions of the Value Added Tax Law promulgated by Law No. 67 of 2016, including the provisions related to the tiers of cigarette taxation. The amendments to Serial 1/B of Law No. 177 of 2023 bluntly prohibits imported cigarettes from of the first tier and restricts them to “cigarettes produced by local factories”, which favors and gives preferential treatment to local products.

It is worth noting that the addition of the aforementioned provision has significant repercussions on the competitive ability of other companies, especially that the first tier has the lowest priced cigarettes in the market and are more economical for citizens. Consequently, this contradicts COMESA national treatment article, causing harm through the discrimination of specific products that may lead to market monopolization.

Various companies manufacture their brands in factories in COMESA member states and import and sell it in Egypt. However, the recent tax amendments that imposed a value-added tax on low-priced cigarettes prevent companies from importing cigarettes and limits sales to local production. 		 
Progress: 1. Egypt to respond on the NTB with Zambia on the online reporting system by 1st Week of June 2024
2. During the NTBs workshop held from 17 -19 April 2024, the Egypt and Zambia agreed that this issue would form part of the agenda for the proposed bilateral meeting. The dates for the bilateral meeting to be facilitated by the Secretariat would be determined by the two Countries.
3. On 7 May 2024, Egypt Focal Point reported that consultations with the relevant national authorities were ongoing, and Egypt would provide updates as soon as possible.
4. On July 22, 2024, the Secretariat had a meeting with the exporter after receiving a reminder on the NTB dated 3rd July 2024. The aim of the meeting was to get the gist of the NTB and share other necessary information to start facilitating the resolution of the NTB.
5. As a policy issue, the NTB was escalated to Stage 1 on cooperation and elimination of NTBs under the COMESA Regulations on NTBs Elimination and on 26 August 2024, Zambia was advised to formally request the Secretariat to facilitate the bilateral meeting on behalf of the exporter. This comes after Zambia reported that she wrote to the Egyptian Embassy regarding the NTB but there was no immediate response and that was concerning as the matter was very urgent.
6. In a letter dated 2 September 2024, Zambia requested the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two countries. The Secretariat has started preparation for the bilateral meeting including drafting a letter to Egypt and developing a draft agenda for the bilateral meeting between the two Member States.
7. On 24 September 2024, Zambia and Egypt convened a bilateral meeting and recommendations from the discussions as presented in the draft report were as follows"
i) Zambia will engage Roland Imperial Tobacco Company to consider selling their products under Tier 1 for favorable market conditions in Egypt.
ii) Egypt will consult with its Ministry of Health on the health requirements for importation of cigarettes and communicate with Zambia in due course.
iii) Egypt will further start the process of reviewing the Law 177 to remove elements of discrimination between imported and local products.
iv) Egypt will look into the possibility of allowing the 15 consignments in transit from the Tobacco Company to ascertain if there is a possibility of a rebate and if the rebate can be held over for the period until the Law is revised.
8. On 4th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting and the following updates were received:
i. Egypt is to consult with the Ministry of Finance on the NTB which has the elements of discrimination between the imported and local products; and
ii. The Secretariat to facilitate the next bilateral meeting between the two Member States, by October 2025.
9. On 25th August 2025, the representative of Tobacco informed the Secretariat that Egypt has gazetted legislative amendment to its Value Added Tax (VAT) Law in relation to tobacco under Law No. 157 of 2025, dated July 17, 2025. The key changes introduced by the amendment include:
i. Increased VAT rates on cigarettes.
ii. Structured annual increases of 12% to both minimum and maximum retail price thresholds for cigarettes, beginning November 5, 2025, and continuing through 2028.
The new cigarette price thresholds are as follows:
i. Local cigarettes priced below EGP 38.88 will increase to EGP 48.
ii. Cigarettes priced between EGP 38.88 and EGP 56.44 will increase to a range of EGP 48 to EGP 69.
iii. Imported brands priced up to EGP 56.44 will increase to EGP 69.
10. On 31 October 2025, Secretariat sent a reminder to Egypt on the outstanding discussions on the matter, however on 3 November Egypt updated that they has started taking the necessary steps to coordinate with the relevant national authorities from the Ministry of Finance and the Tax Authority to consider the proposal to amend the law. 		 
NTB-001-108 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B9: TBT Measures n.e.s. 		2023-05-02 Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: A South African Exporter has reported that the Kenyan authorities have issued notification on new requirements for exporters and importers to record all trademarks in aid to protect intellectual properties and prevent importation of counterfeit goods into Kenya under the Anti-Counterfeit Act, No. 13 of 2008. This requirement, while it is , has cost implications to the Wine industry of South Africa who have to incur additional costs to enforce it. Further, it is not clear how it will work in practice or how it will be managed especially that applications are done on line and that the registration has 1 year validity, after which it has to be renewed annually.The cost to record is estimated at USD25 000 for the Brands exported to Kenya. The exporters also have the same products analyzed by ISO 17025 labs and pay USD265 per container to confirm full compliance.

The Exporter is of the view that whenever products are to be exported, are certified by SGS as to who the proprietors of the products are. The annual required registration would result in increased cost of the products. 		 
NTB-001-203 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory 		2023-04-12 Malawi: Malawi Revenue Authority Zambia In process View
Complaint: Malawi Laundry & confectionary imports into Zambia are levied MK20,000 to MK25,000 per invoice, where
Zambian products going to Malawi are charged with 13-27% (MBS, Surcharge, Excise duty). 		 
Progress: 1. NFPs for the two countries to hold bilateral meeting by August 2024. This issue was also discussed during bilateral meeting held in Addis Ababa at the 4th NTBs Forum . Malawi to report progress from internal consultations.
2. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, Zambia requested Malawi to confirm if the export subsidies is still implemented. However, Malawi did not provide an update on the status of the NTB. 		 
NTB-001-105 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues
Policy/Regulatory 		2023-03-01 Zambia: Ministry of Home Affairs Mozambique In process View
Complaint: New Migration Fees Introduced by The Republic of Zambia
The Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Mozambique, has received a complaint/ notification from the Mozambican private sector regarding to the introduction of migration fees by the Zambian Government Authorities. The referred fees are applicable only to foreign citizens, promptly implementing the respective price list, since the beginning of June 2022.
From a practical point of view, and with regard to the resulting costs, for road freight transporters in particular, the introduction of these fees means that, for the fee valid for 1 year, the amount to be paid is approximately US$1250.For one way trip (immediate validity), the amount to be paid is approximately US$490.This fee apply only to foreign road freight transporters, including Mozambicans, and does not apply to locals.
Other measures which Zambia introduced and are adding to cost of doing business are (1). the introduction of a ban on filling fuel reserve tanks for foreign trucks, with a view to obliging them to purchase fuel in Zambian territory, (2). the introduction of road charges and, (3). the obligation to send 50% of the transported cargo to the Republic of Zambia.
We believe that the way which the Government of Republic of Zambia acts violates the Agreements signed by it in relation to the policies adopted by SADC, in the field of road transport, for which the Member States agreed to develop a harmonized transport policy that safeguards the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, reciprocity, fair competition, harmonized operating conditions that promote the creation of an integrated road transport system in the region.
In this regard, Mozambique requests the intervention of the Zambian Authorities, with a view to the immediate elimination of the Migration fees, introduced in this country, as well as other deterrents to carrying out the cargo transport activity in the Country, and applicable only to carriers foreigners or alternatively, and if the country is not available to do so, immediately use the principle of reciprocity, by applying the same measures to carriers in that country, if they are in transit or enter the national territory
  
Progress: 1. During the SADC regional workshop held in April 2026, Mozambique and Zambia Focal Points agreed that Mozambique will look for proof of the fees, if not then it was agreed that this matter be regarded as resolved. Zambia we will reach out to relevant authorities to establish the nature and status of the fees and provide feedback.
2. On 21 September 2026, Zambia Focal Point requested the Secretariat to regard this matter as resolved as agreed between the two countries during NTB regional forum in SA in April, 2026 that if there will be no proof of fees then the NTB is resolved. 		 
NTB-001-342 8.1. Government Policy and regulations
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2023-01-01 Zimbabwe: Kariba Zambia In process View
Complaint: Administrative arbitrary ban of buses using Kariba border by ZIMRA AND ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY previously buses were Administratively suspended to use Kariba border siting strength of the the bridge now it has come with another angle prior to the suspension Kariba border was doing well in terms of facilitating trade for small scale cross border traders  
Progress: As at 10 July 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Zimbabwe and Zambia Focal Points  
NTB-001-092 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2022-12-01 Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: Egypt has received a complaint from one of our exporters who also intends to invest in Uganda and establish a manufacturing plant of the products ( processed food products ) he is currently exporting to Uganda and the importing company is “ Afromarket King – Imports &Exports LTD” . The complaint is concerned with the imposition of high taxes and duties , in addition to top ups on exported goods by Egypt of processed food in specific the following HS codes including :
200990 210330
210320 210390
210390 210320
210690 210390

The incident of imposing high tax , duty values and top ups has been repeated on two separate occasions:

1- On Entry no. C116891: (latest incident )

A consignment of foodstuff (Ketchup and BBQ sauce HS codes : 2103200010; 2103900090) of a value of USD 5672.64 (five thousand six hundred seventy two dollars and sixty four cents ) was subjected to very high values of tax and duty of UGX 25,979,379 which was paid on 1/12/2022. However, before the goods were released a top up of UGX 18,508,223,57 was imposed ( still not paid ) .
This shipment has not enjoyed the COMESA preferential rates , despite the fact it is accompanied by a COMESA certificate .

2- ON ENTRY NUMBER C58313 AND C58340 : (earlier incident)
The first assessment for both the entries was for C 58313 amounting to 14,351,118 with a delivery terms F.O.B and C 58340 amounting to 9,272,169shs with a delivery term CIF , that is a total of 23,623,287shs. Despite the amount was too much the importing company paid off the tax( paid on 18/6/2022, it was also noted to him that this high valuation was a mistake made by the clearing agent according to the officer. It is worth mentioning that the total value of goods in both entries was USD 3982 (three thousand and nine hundred eighty two US dollars).

After clearing all dues, a top up of 38,755,713shs was imposed, delaying the release of the goods. Yet, the importing company paid the top up amount to release the goods on 2/7/2022.
The reasons given at the time for the top up:
i. Alternative values had to be used as the primary method of determining the customs value of imported goods.
ii. As stated by the officer, “the information availed to customs shows that we are first-time importer of the assorted goods from Egypt. The sales contract No: UG-001 of 10/03/2022 indicates payment terms of 60days from Bill of Lading date. They wondered how the supplier can allow such terms to a first time buyer without a letter of credit or a bank guarantee”. It is worth mentioning that the importing company has a manufacturing all these food stuff in Egypt.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the importer submitted a COMESA certificate to qualify for the COMESA rates he was informed that goods don’t qualify for COMESA since they are sensitive products being manufactured by the local communities.
Having reviewed the Circulation of Uganda’s current Sensitive List to COMESA Member STATES(attached), it is evident that none of those products are in the sensitive list except for nectar juices (HS code 200990) which are subject to the EAC common external tariff of 35%.

It is worth mentioning that on the two occasions of the above mentioned cases “ Afromarket King – Imports &Exports LTD” made an Appeal to the Assistant Commissioner Trade , Uganda Revenue Authority , Head Office. Yet, no reply was received to date.
In light of the above , Egypt respectfully requests that the Ministry of Trade ,Industry &Cooperatives acting as the Focal point of Uganda looks into the reasons of imposing such high taxes and duties in addition to top ups , in coordination with Uganda Revenue Authority . The imposition of such high taxes , duties and top ups have the effect of discouraging new Egyptian exporters and investors from accessing Uganda’s market.
Egypt is looking forward to the explanation and clarifications of the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Cooperatives , as soon as possible, with respect to the taxes , duties and top ups noting that the first case consignment Entry no. C116891 (latest incident ) is not released yet and pending the payment of the top-up which is unjustifiable in Egypt's view .

 
Progress: 1. During the consultations held during the 12th TWG on TBT-SPS- NTBs , Uganda and Egypt Focal Points agreed to organise a bilateral consultative meeting between the Focal Points , Revenue Authorities and affected companies on Tuesday 24th Januray 2023
2. A bilateral meeting between the two countries was held on 1st Feb. 2023 where it was observed that Uganda Revenue Revenue Authority had not granted preferential treatment to the goods in accordance with COMESA rules
and therefore charged the high duties . In that regard, the meeting agreed, among other things, that Uganda provides the sensitive list of products exempted from receiving preferential treatment by 3rd Feb. 2023 to establish if the affected products were on the sensitive list of products or not. Subsequently, the Secretariat uploaded onto the online system the following documents forwarded by Uganda to the Secretary General:
a. EAC CET 2017
b. Finance Act 2014 and
c. Uganda Finance Bill 2016
3. The Secretariat convened a stakeholders bilateral consultative meeting to take place on 22 August 2023. However the meeting could not take place because stakeholders from Uganda were not available.
4. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , it was agreed that this NTB will be considered resolved subject to Uganda providing evidence in the online platform of the following : .
i. The sensitive list has been revised and goods from Egypt are granted COMESA preferencies ;
ii. URA is applying valuation for the goods in according to the WTO rules;
iii. The process to refund duties and other charges has commenced and the client was officially notified accordingly; and
iv. Uganda to share the revised sensitive list and also evidence on communication to client.
5. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024 in Nairobi, it was agreed that Uganda to upload sensitive list of products by 30th April 2024. Further, Uganda is requested to inform Egypt whether or not the refund to the Egyptian exporter has been paid by 30th April 2024.
6. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, the following updates were received:
i. Egypt requested Uganda to provide an update regarding the refund to the importer, however Uganda did not provide an update at the time.
ii. With regards to the updated Sensitive List, the Secretariat sent Uganda a reminder email to submit the updated list as per the decision by the 45th Meeting of the Council of Ministers. 		 
NTB-001-095 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2022-11-29 Zambia: Mwami Malawi In process View
Complaint: Exporters from Malawi are being charged for any transit goods at Mwami border by Chipata City Council in Zambia. The fees and charges for various commodities have been posted at Mwami border.  
Progress: 1. During the COMESA Regional Capacity Building workshop for National Focal Points held on 3-6 April 2023 it was agreed that Zambia should engage its Ministry of Local Government and provide an update in the online system by 16 April 2023.
2. Subsequently, during a bilateral meeting between the Government of the Republic of Malawi and the Government of the Republic of Zambia on the STR which was held in Chipata on 13-14 April 2023, it was agreed that Zambia should verify if indeed the Chipata Council had stopped collecting the fees and provide feedback to Malawi and COMESA Secretariat BY 30 April 2023.
3. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum , it was agreed that :
i) Zambia will provide feedback on the outcome of their internal consultations in the online system by 30th October 2023; and
ii) Both agreed that this NTBs be resolved by 31st December 2023.
4. On 25th September 2023, Zambia Focal Point reported that the matter was escalated to higher structures with the aim of having it resolved. The would continue providing updates on new developments with respect to progress made on the matter.
5. During the capacity building workshop held on 17- 19 April 2024, Zambia Focal Point reported that the fees had been lifted through a directive issued by the Ministry of Local Government. However , Malawi Focal point advised that the Malawi traders were still being charged the fees. The workshop was informed that the counterpart Municipality in Malawi was planning to introduce a retaliatory fees for Zambian traders bringing goods into Malawi. Zambia Focal Point was requested to upload the relevant Statutory Instrument or Directive to assist with implementation at the border.
6. During an NTBs consultative Meeting with the Secretariat on 9th April 2024, Zambia stated that the Ministry of Local Government and Development has since instructed local authorities to desist from charging those fees as they were hindering the free flow of trade.
7. During an NTBs workshop on 17th - 19th April 2024, Malawi NFP reported that their traders are still charged by the Chipata local government which has resulted in Malawi’s retaliation. Malawi is now also charging Zambian traders. Meanwhile, Zambia NFP agreed to make a follow-up on the issue and post a feedback on the system.
8. On 9th April 2025, Malawi NFP confirmed that their traders were still paying charges to the Chipata municipality
9. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, Zambia requested Malawi to confirm if the traders are still subjected to the charges and fees as payable to the Chipata Municipality. However, Malawi did not provide an update on the status of the NTB at that time.
10. On 14 August 2025, Zambia Focal Point reported that Zambia's National Trade Facilitation Committee set up a Committee to review levies being imposed by Local Authorities. The committee is therefore expected to submit a report on the same in the month of September, 2025.
The Ministry was in touch with Ministry of Local Government to obtain the instrument/instruction issued for uploading onto the system
11.During the Bilateral Meeting between Zambia and Malawi on the Simplified Trade Regime (STR), held from 18th to 20th November 2025, the Zambian delegation reported that, through the implementation of the Coordinated Border Management (CBM) system, the number of border agencies operating at Zambian borders has been reduced to six. As a result of this restructuring, local councils no longer conduct operations at the border and have delegated their fee-collection functions to the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA). The councils were accordingly instructed to suspend all fees on products. At present, the only fee that ZRA collects on behalf of the councils is the motor vehicle fee applicable to commercial clients. In contrast, it was noted that Malawian councils continue to collect fees on products at their borders.
12. On 18 November , Zambia Focal Point reported that during the Bilateral Meeting between Zambia and Malawi on the Simplified Trade Regime (STR), held from 18th to 20th November 2025, the Zambian delegation reported that, through the implementation of the Coordinated Border Management (CBM) system, the number of border agencies operating at Zambian borders has been reduced to six.
As a result of this restructuring, local councils no longer conduct operations at the border and have delegated their fee-collection functions to the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA). The councils were accordingly instructed to suspend all fees on products. At present, the only fee that ZRA collects on behalf of the councils is the motor vehicle fee applicable to commercial clients. In contrast, it was noted that Malawian councils continue to collect fees on products at their borders. 		 
NTB-001-110 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory 		2022-07-01 Kenya In process View
Complaint: United Republic of Tanzania subject a discriminatory treatment to Kenyan export/transfer on products of animal and animal products despite their commitment in the bilateral meeting to amend the Act to resolve the discriminatory charges on the Kenya animal and animal products by June 2022.

Tanzania charges descriminatory meat products an import fees of Tshs 3,000 per kilogram (Kg) for imports consignment. The fees is contained in the animal diseases (animals and animal products movement control) .(amendment) regulations, 2022 of the United Republic of Tanzania that came into operation on 1st July 2022. These charges have rendered Kenyan exports especially milk and milk products, meat and meat products including sausages uncompetitive in the Tanzanian market while Kenya facilitates Tanzania meat and meat products sausages into Kenya without any discrimination.

These charges contravene the GATT 1994 Art III on National Treatment, Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 1 (1) (definition of imports) and 15 (1) (a) and (2) (National Treatment) of the Customs Union Protocol and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.

The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect.

Kenya urges:-
a)Tanzania to abolish these prohibitive discriminatory charges and treat our animal and animal products as from the local market and accord same rate as their own without discriminating not to call it import as import is from outside EAC.
b) URT to abolish the discriminatory charges as per the customs union protocol.
d) URT to treat Kenya meat and meat products as local and not as an import.
C)URT to stop restricting the quantities to be imported/transfered by the Kenya companies.

In addition URT charges xthe following discriminative charges:
1) URT charges import fee of 2% FOB by Tanzania Meat Board
2) 0.4% on FOB by Tanzania Atomic Energy
3) 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measure Agency

Kenya request URT to consider abolishing the discriminatory charges which are equivalent import duty prohibited in the EAC Protocal.

On the contrary Kenya facilitates Tanzania sausages without any charge.

This is really unfair practices where URT is charging import charges to Kenya products despite Kenya being in the EAC Customs union where we transfer products and not import 		 
Progress: 1. Kenya recognized the effort made by URT in reducing the fee from 5,000 Tshs to 3,000 Tshs per kg of meat. The Republic of Kenya indicated that the fee is still very high, discriminative, and amounts to import duty. The Kenyan companies exporting meat products to URT have been negatively affected by a sharp decline in the volume of meat products exported to URT, since the imposition of these charges. A consignment of 25,000 kgs exported from Kenya to URT is charged Kshs 3,750,000. In addition, it is charged an import fee of 2% FOB by the Tanzania Meat Board, 0.4% FOB by the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, and 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measures Agency. A similar consignment exported to Kenya from URT is charged Kshs 3,000. Thus, Kenya proposes that the two Partner States engage and harmonize these regulations to either charge per kg or per consignment.
Tanzania Meat Board had also denied market access to beef products imported from Kenya and thus Kenya urges URT to address this matter.
2. The 34th RMC noted that the NTB was new. URT reported that they would consult the relevant stakeholders and revert during the 35th RMC
3.During the 36th RMC Kenya reported that the NTB was considered during a bilateral meeting between Republic of Kenya & the United Republic of Tanzania whereby the two Partner States agreed to harmonization of all conditions, levies, fees and charges related to import / exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024
4. During the 38th RMC meeting, Kenya agreed to send a formal invitation to URT for the Bilateral Meeting.
The two Partner States held their meeting in July 2025. An update shall be provided during the RMC.
5. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 		 
NTB-001-070 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2022-06-30 Tanzania: Namanga Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT charging Kenya an import discriminatory Excise Duty introduced vide URT Finance Act 2022. Additionally, some consignments are discriminatively subjected to Tsh.1000/kg not anywhere in the URT Finance Act 2022. The same excise duty is not applicable to the same or like products produced in URT hence creating unfair competition between the Partners States Originating products.  
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States. 
Section 2 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 defines import as to bring or cause to be brought into the Partner States from a foreign country, and export as to take or cause to be taken out of Partner States. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Treaty for Establishment of East African Community, EAC Community Laws take precedence over similar national laws on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Treaty 		 
Progress: 1. During the Regional NTBs Forum,URT informed the meeting that the complaint is not an NTB but a charge of equivalent effect which is like what is in the Kenya’s Finance Act of 2022. This is a result of non-harmonization of domestic taxes in the Region. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the Kenya Finance Act is not discriminatory and hence the Charge on Confectionary Sugar by URT is an NTB and should be resolved by abolishing the discriminative fees. The Trade Committee meeting recommends that the process of harmonizing the fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. During the 41st SCTIFI meeting Kenya observed that confectionary products from Kenya should not be treated differently from confectionery products produced in Tanzania. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya observed that NTB-001-070: “URT discriminatory charges of import TSh.700 and unfounded charges of Tsh.1000 to Kenya confectionary, sugar and sugar products.” The EAC TBP submissions has referred to the excise duty as fees and subsequently recommended the process of harmonizing the Fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. Kenya’s submission is that the description of the charges as fees is erroneous. The charge is an excise duty as contained in the United Republic of Tanzania Finance Act of 2022 and the custom entry presented as evidence. This measure is therefore disciplined under Article 15 of the Protocol establishing the EAC Custom Union and not subject to the process of harmonization of fees, levies and charges. The excise duty discriminates transfers of confectionary, sugar and sugar products from Kenya which are levied Tshs 700 per kilogram against locally produced like-products which are levied Tshs 500 per kilogram. This measure is a violation of Article 15 on National Treatment which prohibits Partner States from imposing, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Partner States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products In addition, in the custom entry presented as evidence, the Kenya exporter has been charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya therefore requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
2. During the 42nd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that Kenya exporters were charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya, therefore, requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
The United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that there was an error in the Law that had since been reviewed through a Government Notice number 478(1) of 4th July 2022. The meeting noted that in the reviewed Law, locals are charged NIL while exports are charged 1,000 Tshs. URT to consult on the application of the new law and revert.
3.During the 35th RMC URT informed that the NTB will be resolved in accordance with the SCTIFI Directive on harmonization of domestic taxes, especially excise duties.
On the other hand, Kenya informed as follows:
(a) Goods produced within the EAC should be considered local and therefore, not treated as imports.
(b) Partner States align their internal Acts to define imports and exports in accordance with EAC CMP
4.The 36th RMC that took place from 1st - 4th May 2024 was informed that the NTB is being addressed under the Bilateral engagements where the two Partner States agreed to the harmonisation of all discriminatory taxes, conditions, levies, fees, and charges related to imports/exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024.
5.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that they are still in consultations and will update by December 2025
6. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is committed to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026
7. During the 48th SCTIFI, the meeting was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is finalising the legal and regulatory reforms to remove all discriminatory fees, levies and charges.
8. During the 41st RMC,Kenya reported that, Tanzania has increased excise duty on confectionery and biscuits from Tsh. 1000/kg to 1080/kg.Kenya requested Tanzania to remove the discriminatory charge.
However, Tanzania reported that internal consultations on issues of excise duties were still in progress. 		 
NTB-001-312 5.10. Prohibitions 2021-12-01 Zimbabwe: Kariba Zambia In process View
Complaint: Republic of Zimbabwe maintains a ban on Eggs entering Zimbabwe from Zambia at all shared borders. Zambia is yet to see any documentation/legislation that supports this measure to date. Considering the spirit of the shared COMESA vision and Oneness, this measure has affected traders who export Eggs into Zim, considering also that this product is on the agreed STR common list.


Selected Commodities: Zimbabwe has reportedly prohibited the importation of the following commodities from Zambia; Eggs, Milkit, Biscuits, Kombucha, Mazoe juice and other beverages and Second-hand clothes.
 
Progress: As at 10 July 2026, there was no response form the National Focal Points. This NTB is awaiting processing by Zambia and Zimbabwe Focal Points  
NTB-001-129 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-07-01 Kenya: Kenyan Government Egypt In process View
Complaint: Complain from Eagle Chemicals - Egypt
Subject: Excise duty on imports cancelling the effect of COMESA agreement

TARRIFF BARRIERS UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT (EXCISE DUTY TAX IN KENYA AS A BARRIER)

COMESA AGREEMENT:
Republic of Kenya and Egypt are signatories to COMESA AGREEMENT on removal of tariff (tax) barriers towards FREE TRADE between themselves and among the signatory member countries.
Since the establishment the COMESA AGREEMENT several years ago, the Republic of Kenya and Egypt have enjoyed this free trade environment and trade between the two countries has grown by leaps and bounds (UNTIL JULY 2021)
KENYA----FINANCE ACT 2021----IMPOSITION 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX (TARRIFF BARRIER)
In July 2021 and for the first time ever since signing of COMESA AGREEMENT, the Kenya Government imposed unilaterally and without consultation with COMESA Secretariat or with the Republic of Egypt a 10% Excise Duty (tariff Barrier) on Resins manufactured and exported from Egypt and / imported into Kenya.
This was an act in bad faith noting the mutual relationship between Egypt and Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---FINANCE ACT 2023----IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS (TARRIFF BARRIER).
In July 2023, the Kenya Government introduced an additional 10% Excise Duty Tax on resins imported from Egypt bringing total Excise Duty Tax to 20% and this again without consultation with COMESA Secretariat and neither / nor a humble advance notification to Republic of Egypt as a sign of good faith under the mutual COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---THE 20% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS--- PURPORTED PURPOSE
This tax is applying only on all imported resins (from COMESA and from Non-COMESA countries) BUT is not applied on locally manufactured resins.
Consequently, and from a COMESA perspective, this Excise Duty Tax is an IMPORT DUTY TAX camouflaged as a local excise duty tax hidden behind the purported protection of one local commercial resin manufacturer (SYNRESINS) whose capacity is below 15% of Kenya market resin usage / requirement.

AGGRAVATED BAD FAITH AGAINST MUTUAL TRADE AGREEMENT UNDER COMESA.
The above developments are acts in bad Faith by Kenya Government against a friendly free trade partner (Egypt) under the COMESA AGREEMENT.

Please note no other country / signatory to the COMESA AGREEMENT has imposed an excise duty tax on resins from Egypt.

IMPORT DUTY TAX ON RESINS ARE AND REMAIN AT NIL IMPORT DUTY TARRIFF TODATE UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT ON TARRIF BARRIERS TOWARDS FREE TRADE.
Please note IMPORT DUTY TAX on resins from Egypt to Kenya remain at NIL % import duty and is at NIL on imports by other COMESA countries.
Import duty on resins into Kenya from NON-COMESA COUNTRIES is and has always been at 10% since inception of COMESA AGREEMENT

REQUEST
Republic of Egypt has obligation to protect their manufacturers of resins who export to Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT against such unjustified TARRIFF TAX BARRIERS imposed by Republic of Kenya by requesting their removal for benefit of mutual trade growth both ways.

(Refer Attachments)

  
Progress: 1. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Regional Forum , Kenya Focal point reported that they had contacted relevant authority and will provide feedback in the online system . Egypt requested that the bilateral meeting to consider this and other NTBs be schedule at the time Kenya would have completed their internal consultations .
2.Following the 3rd Regional COMESA NTB meeting and the 8th Meeting of Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee, Kenya was requested to provide feed back on NTB-001-129 on excise applied to products, 3905.19: Homopolymers 3903.20: Emulsion - Styrene Acrylic3905.91: Emulsion VAM 3907.50: Alkyd and3907.91: Unsaturated Polyester , It was proposed that Kenya and Egypt to hold a bilateral Meeting virtual with support of the Secretariat on 10th November 2023.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. Kenya to update the status report on outstanding NTBs with Egypt on the online reporting system by 26th April 2024.
4. On 18 June 2024, Kenya Focal Point reported that the Kenyan parliament was reviewing the Finance Bill 2024, with the intention of revising certain clauses as deemed necessary. Consequently, they were awaiting the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024 to determine whether there will be amendments to the specified non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
5. On 9 September 2024, Egypt and Kenya held a bilateral meeting on the outstanding NTBs emanating from the enactment of Kenya’s Finance Acts of 2021 and 2023. The two Member States agreed on the following:
a) The additional taxes are NTBs as its application is discriminatory as they only apply on imports and not domestically produced products.
b) Kenya to continue with her internal consultations with relevant policymakers and to follow up on the progress of resolving the NTBs, as requested by the Egyptian delegation.
c) The meeting agreed that the NTBs are policy issues and can be best addressed by the Joint Trade Commission (JTC) meeting, which is a higher level that is able to take decisions on this NTB and other trade related issues.
d) Both Kenya and Egypt continue with internal consultations with relevant stakeholders in preparation for the upcoming JTC meeting.
6. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
Products: 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms, 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion), 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms and 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid")  
NTB-001-031 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-06-30 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.

• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…

• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.

• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place. 		 
Progress: 1. On 8th August 2023, Kenya Focal Point reported that the finance bill of 2023 undergone through the public participation and through the Parliament and that Excise duty on Pasta is not discriminatory as per section 43 (iv) that underwent through parliament process and public participation process.
2. During the 3rd Meeting of the NTBs Forum, Egypt reported that the excise duty on pasta , although it was not applied indiscriminately, affected trade as the rate was very high . The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB be reinstated . Kenya responded that duty on pasta is not discriminatory therefore resolved in the system . Kenya to submit proof that excise duty is imposed on both locally and imported goods. It was agreed that Kenya to arrange bilateral meeting with Egypt to address the issues raised by Egypt.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution.
4. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025.
5. During the 11th meeting of the Trade & Trade facilitation Sub Committee held in July 2026, Kenya reported that the excise duty had been removed by an amendment to the finance Act.
6. Egypt requested Kenya to upload the Amended Act indicating the removal of the tax on imported pasta.
7. On 26th August 2026, Kenya Focal point uploaded the 'Tax laws Amendment Act 2024' which shows that excise duty has been lifted under section 27 (a) , Part I Amendment to CAP 472 : The First Schedule to the Excise Duty Act. 		 
NTB-001-031 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-06-30 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.

• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…

• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.

• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place. 		 
Progress: 1. On 8th August 2023, Kenya Focal Point reported that the finance bill of 2023 undergone through the public participation and through the Parliament and that Excise duty on Pasta is not discriminatory as per section 43 (iv) that underwent through parliament process and public participation process.
2. During the 3rd Meeting of the NTBs Forum, Egypt reported that the excise duty on pasta , although it was not applied indiscriminately, affected trade as the rate was very high . The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB be reinstated . Kenya responded that duty on pasta is not discriminatory therefore resolved in the system . Kenya to submit proof that excise duty is imposed on both locally and imported goods. It was agreed that Kenya to arrange bilateral meeting with Egypt to address the issues raised by Egypt.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution.
4. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025.
5. During the 11th meeting of the Trade & Trade facilitation Sub Committee held in July 2026, Kenya reported that the excise duty had been removed by an amendment to the finance Act.
6. Egypt requested Kenya to upload the Amended Act indicating the removal of the tax on imported pasta.
7. On 26th August 2026, Kenya Focal point uploaded the 'Tax laws Amendment Act 2024' which shows that excise duty has been lifted under section 27 (a) , Part I Amendment to CAP 472 : The First Schedule to the Excise Duty Act. 		 
NTB-001-001 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 2021-01-19 Namibia: NRST Head Office / Innovation Hub Cnr, Louis Raymond & Grant Webster Street Private Bag 13253 Windhoek Tel: +264 61 431 7000/99 Fax: + 264 61 216 531/+ 264 61 235 758 Email: info@ncrst.na South Africa In process View
Complaint: 1. GMO thresholds - Namibia is 1% and South Africa is 5%

2. The above then has implications on what should be labeled.

3. The prescribed GMO wording is also different

4. Namibia also requests additional information from the rights owner (GMO Tech developers), which users do not have in South Africa.

All of this adds up to South African manufacturers/exporters being unable to meet the application requirements, thereby not obtaining the required import permits.

CGCSA members revised applications 3 times, but were still unable to complete the applications to the specifications expected.
  
Progress: 1. On 12 October 2021 , Namibia Focal Point reported that they will consult the relevant authorities and submit feedback as soon as possible.
2. On 31 March 2022,Namibia Focal Point updated as follows:
Namibian GMO labeling regulations (0.9%) – Vs 5% for South Africa. The Namibian Biosafety regulations (No 6116), 2016 Biosafety Act No. 7 of 2006, were developed nationally through a consultative process, taking into account trading partners with different labeling requirements. As per the Biosafety regulation (17) (c), 2016, exemptions to genetically modified food or feed labeling requirements:
“any processed food or feed including one or more substances produced through genetic modification, subject thereto that the genetically modified food or feed in the aggregate does not account for more than 0.9 percent of the processed food or feed or such other percentage or quantity as the Council may from time to time determine”;
This part of the regulations ‘labeling requirements’ will remain in place until such a time the regulation is amended 		 
NTB-001-244 6.5. Variable levies 2020-10-13 Uganda: URA Kenya In process View
Complaint: Uganda is subjecting Kenya manufacture furniture to discriminative excise duty of 20% that it is not subjected to Uganda manufactured furniture.
Uganda is requested to remove the discriminative excise taxes on Kenya furniture transferred to Uganda as it is prohibited in the EAC Customs Union Protocol; Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.
The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect. 		 
Progress: 1. During 39th RMC, noted that the matter is under bilateral discussions and will be handled as per the agreement.
2.The 40th RMC was informed that the NTB was resolved through a letter dated 30th September 2025 submitted to the meeting.However, the matter to be resolved by 30th June 2026.
3. During the 48th SCTIFI, Kenya informed the meeting that her Tax law is under review to resolve the NTB by 30 June 2026.
4. During the 41st RMC, Kenya reported that, the excise duty is still charged on Kenyan furniture. Kenya requested Uganda to remove the excise duty.
Uganda reported that it was in the process of amending the law. 		 
NTB-000-987 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2020-09-26 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry Botswana In process View
Complaint: Zambia Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA)charges Botswana trucks 541 US Dollars per each entry into Zambia, while other SADC Countries are charged per distance. South Africa trucks are charged 110 US Dollars from Kazungula Ferry to Lusaka, Namibia trucks are charged a fixed 209 US Dollars per truck anywhere into Zambia. Zimbabwe and Tanzania pay a the same as South Africa.

Botswana trucks again have to pay RTSA K469 for identity cards per unit which becomes costly for Botswana truckers while other SADC Countries do not pay for identity cards. As Esmail Carriers (PTY) LTD we have 12 trucks that are crossing into Zambia and this has been going on for over 8 years. Per trip we spend more than P6765 per truck and per month the cumulative costs amount to more than P80 000.00 (RTSA charges). For identity cards is about P12 600.00 per month. Furthermore, Zambia has introduced new inland road tolls which we are paying in addition to existing charges.

This has become detrimental to our business as we lose more revenue on a daily basis. We currently request the Zambia government, Botswana government and SADC Secretariat to resolve this issue. 		 
Progress: 1. On 8th December 2020, Zambia Focal point reported that they were making follow up with the Road Transport and Safety Agency ( RTSA) and provide feedback as soon as possible.
2. During the SADC Regional Meeting on Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) held from 14–15 April 2026 Botswana Focal reported the NTB requires Bi- National engagement, The Ministry of International relations to facilitate a meeting between the Ministries responsible for transport in both countries. Furthermore, Business Botswana and Zambian Chamber of Commerce to collaborate to push their respective governments to resolve this issue. 		 
NTB-000-977 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2020-08-10 Ethiopia: South Africa In process View
Complaint: Requirement to submit Certificate of Free sale for Grain products such as cereals, baked goods etc  
NTB-001-276 VAT Refunds 2020-08-03 South Africa: South African Revenue Services Botswana In process View
Complaint: Business Botswana has received from seven (7) of its member companies (see attached list) with concerns regarding delays in claiming VAT refunds from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These companies have collectively reported that they are owed a total of R51,838,696.82in VAT refunds, dating as far back as 2020 to August 2024. The core issues involve prolonged processing times, document rejections without the ability to resubmit, and tight deadlines for compiling and submitting the required paperwork.  
Progress: During the SADC regiomal workshop on resoltuion of NTBs held on the 14-15 April 2026, SARS indicated that VAT refunds are being processed through South African-based agents, with delays and backlog attributed to the transition from the pre-COVID system to a new system, as well as some claims being rejected due to incomplete or non-compliant documentation; approximately R93 million has been paid out regionally in batches. Botswana companies are encouraged to use reference numbers to track claims, while coordination between the private sector, local consultants, and South African agents will be strengthened, and SARS will provide guidance on documentation requirements to improve compliance and efficiency. Overall, the matter is partially resolved, with progress made but further follow-up required to clear outstanding claims and enhance system efficiency. BURS is also working on it and plans to have a meeting with SARS as soon as possible.  
NTB-000-970 2.4. Import licensing 2020-07-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture Egypt In process View
Complaint: We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ we cannot take risk. I want to import only after having a clear official approval.  
Progress: 1. On 25 March 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that this issue is currently being resolved. Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to resolve via import parity is underway.
2. On 30 July 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the exporter was advised to visit the Zambia Trade Information Portal for details on the export of wheat to Zambia using the following link:
https://www.zambiatradeportal.gov.zm/index.php?r=tradeInfo/view&id=7439 .Further information from can also be obtained from the Director, Agribusiness and Marketing department on +0211 250417. The email address is as follows: yoanness18@yahoo.co.uk or peter.zulu2@gmail.com.
2. On 6 September 2023, Egypt Focal Point reported that they tried to communicate with the contacts provided by Zambia focal point, and as per the feedback of the concerned exporter. However, " NO emails are responded to. The Ministry of Agriculture, say it's not allowed to import wheat flour."
3. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries should conduct a bilateral meeting to review the matter by 30th November. Consultations between the Focal Points and NMC to continue using the online system and that Zambia to provide feedback regarding the ban of wheat imports in the online .
4. During the NTBs workshop 17 -19 April 2024, Egypt NFP reported that they were willing to hold a bilateral meeting with Zambia MNC in case Zambia NFP did not upload the national authority decree No. 24 of the year 2024 by end of April 2024.
5. During a virtual bilateral meeting between the two Member States held on 24th September 2024, it was agreed that in the immediate term, Zambia to conduct consultative meetings to ascertain the possibility of having the ban lifted or have the wheat import window extended in accordance with the Control of Goods Order of 2009.
6. On 6 January 2025, Egypt wrote to the Secretary General to advise that the Egyptian wheat exporter is still experiencing the same problem even after the validity of the SI of 24 April 2024 had expired on 30 August 2024. They request Zmbia Focal Point to make follow up and facilitate Egypt exportation of wheta flour into Zambia.
7. During a bilateral meeting held on the 4th June 2025, the two Member States received the following updates:
i. Zambia informed the meeting that the ban had been lifted temporarily.
ii. Exporter from Egypt reported challenges in completing online registration of their company in the ZRA ASYCUDA System.
iii. Zambia to continue, in the immediate term, to conduct consultation with the relevant Ministry on the issue of the timelines to have the prohibition lifted or possible extension by October 2025.
iv. Zambia will, in the long term, consider a comprehensive review of the measure, which was initially imposed to protect infant industry, to assess its justification and subsequently communicate the outcomes to Egypt in due course by 1st quarter 2026.
v. Egypt to share the wheat imports statistics from the affected companies as evidence that they are utilizing the open window period to inform Zambia’s consultation with the relevant Ministry on the impact of the measure by October 2025.
6. On 23 August 2025, and also during the 11th Meeting of the Trade & Trade Facilitation Sub Committee held in July 2026, Zambia reported that the Ministry of Agriculture had confirmed that it is possible for Egypt Companies to export wheat into Zambia.
9. Egypt , acknowledge the feedback and requested that Zambia uploads evidence that Egyptian traders now can apply easily apply wheat permit and get feedback on their application 		 
NTB-000-957 5.8. Embargoes 2020-05-13 Kenya: Mombasa sea port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Clause 16 of the Government Gazette Notice No. 3530, ban the Bounded Houses where goods are stored until cleared on duties.

With reference to our discussion earlier on the Gazette by Kenya Government for cessation of warehousing of goods including wine.

The timing of the gazette could not have come at a more terrible time. As we all know Covid 19 has had a crippling effect on business globally and economies especially Tourism in Kenya. With the current closure of all camps, lodges, hotels, restaurants pubs and eateries, importers have seen a huge dip in sales of wine as the whole food and beverage industry has been shut down. With no end in sight on the pandemic, this puts added pressure on importers to pay for goods upfront when they simply do not have the cash at the moment. Kenya has also set specific rules on minimum duty payable - so for a 20ft container that is 3 million shillings or $30000.So if an importer is bringing in multiple containers monthly as most importers do , the cash flow required it just simply not feasible because they are operating on very low revenue at the moment.

I think what importers and exporters seek is clarity on this gazette, what was the rationale and was there industry consulted?

Does this mean come mid- August, all goods must be duty paid and are goods imported now can still go on bond and what happens to goods that are all currently in bond.

I also would like to bring to your attention the following implication for South African wine exported to Kenya.

1. Cashflow challenges for traders with upfront payment
2. Unfavourable trade terms which will impact on trade relations.
3. Delays in delivery of products due to readiness of the Custom Officials of efficiently enforcing the new rule without glitches.
4. Cross Border of illicit products

I therefore request your intervention in tabling these concerns and proposal for exemption of South African wine from the rule
  
Products: 2204: Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines; grape must other than that of heading 20.09.  
NTB-000-936 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2019-11-19 Zambia: Chirundu Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Sunny Yi Feng Tiles (Pvt) Ltd a Zimbabwean company with both SADC and COMESA certificates of origin. The company is being charged USD8.30 per box (VAT) in Zambian market which is a member of COMESA and SADC Free Trade Area, instead of the invoice price of USD3.80 per box (VAT). In addition the company is being charged 5% surtax at the Zambian Border. This problem is being faced only with the Zambian market  
Progress: 1. On 21 January 2020, Zimbabwe Focal point sent a request to their counterpart in Zambia to follow up on the issue . A response is being awaited from Zambia .
2.During the Zambia NMC verification mission to Chirundu held on 11-12 June 2020, ZRA advised that the surtax is Customs Valuation matter and hence a tariff matter and not an NTB. With regard to the problem of customs the uplifting values for duty purposes and disregarding the invoice value , the client is advised to appeal to department of International and Policy to have the valuation matter reviewed and possibly resolved
3. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021 Zambia reported that the NTB is a tax policy issue and internal consultations with relevant authorities were in progress and they will provide feed back by July 2021.
4. In September 2022, Zambia Focal Point reported that Surtax on imported tiles was a tax policy issue that was presented to the Ministry of Finance for resolution. On the issue of uplifts on the declared values of the imported tiles, the Zambian law provides a channel for aggrieved clients to appeal.
5. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries to hold a bilateral meeting to consider the matter by 31st October 2023.
6. During the NTBs workshop 17th – 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss the additional taxes.
7. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, Zimbabwe updated the meeting that national consultations and engagements with Zambia towards the resolution of the outstanding NTBs were ongoing. Zambia confirmed the engagement with Zimbabwe and the Secretariat will be updated on the outcomes from the consultations. 		 
Products: 6904: Ceramic building bricks, flooring blocks, support or filler tiles and the like.  
NTB-001-103 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2019-02-01 Botswana: Pioneer Gate South Africa In process View
Complaint: Since 2019, goods exported from S. Africa to Botswana require additional certification from a Certified Accreditation Body ( see attached ) This is now over and above documentation from an ILAC accredited test house that has always been acceptable in the past.
This is an additional cost that must be passed on the consumers ( inflationary aspect )
Measures such as this are puzzling as they are not in the spirit of the African Continent Free Trade Agreement and actually restrict the free flow of goods
It is a questionable move as with Botswana being a member of SACU, the country relies on S. Africa to disburse shares of import duties collected at S. African ports 		 
NTB-000-818 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2018-05-17 Botswana: Ministry of Transport South Africa In process View
Complaint: Failure to implement Article 5.8 (6.2 Road Traffic Policy) leading to variable treatment of the transport of High Cube containers with height exceeding 4.3 metres.

The transport of High Cube Containers, on “standard” deck height (1.5 metres) vehicles and trailers results in overall height of approximately 4.5 metres.
Botswana: Imposes requirement for abnormal load permits for each load.
South Africa threatens to repeal moratorium on prosecution from 1 Jan 2019
Other countries ignoring “illegal” height, but “illegality” leaves insurance threats to operators.
Zambia (4.8), Zimbabwe 4.65), Malawi (4.6); Tanzania (4.6) have increased legal height to at least 4.6 metres.
Uncertainty in region is causing growing concerns regarding viability of international transport routes amid fears of further enforcement costs and barriers. 		 
Progress: 1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 in Gaborone reported that MCBRTA standards agreed at the TSMCI of 31 October 2029 maximum vehicle height of 4.6m which will resolve this NTBs if South Africa complies with this standard.
2. In December 2025, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that the MCBRTA Standards and model laws were due to be set before the TFTA Authority in February 2026.
3. During the SADC regional workshop held in April 2026, it was noted that there is need for harmonised regional standards and that there had been no further developments regarding progress under the MCBRTA on this matter.
4. Botswana Focal Points suggested that due to lack of harmonised on standard deck height for vehicle and trailers it is difficult to label this issue an NTB, the reported height average is the same.
5. However the absence of harmonised standards is the NTB in this case. SADC Secretariat to facilitate convening of the relevant organ to consider the matter . 		 
NTB-001-247 6.2. Administrative fees 2018-01-03 Tanzania: Diary board,Ministry of Agriculture,Atomic Council Uganda In process View
Complaint: Multiple requirements and fees upon transfer of milk into Tanzania. These are;
(a) Charges of T. Shs. 2,000 per Kg of milk transfers by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Tanzania
(b) 1% FOB by Tanzania Dairy Board plus Tsh. 30,000 as application fees
(c) The Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission charges 0.4 % FOB 		 
Progress: 1. The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was discussed in the bilateral meeting between the two Partner States but was not resolved.Tanzania requested Uganda to provide evidence for her to review and revert on the matter.
Uganda indicated that traders are not currently engaging in this business due to the multiple charges
2.The 39th RMC meeting agreed that the fees to be considered during the harmonization/removal of fees, levies and charges
3. Tanzania informed the 40th RMC that the discriminatory charge and charges of equivalent effect were submitted as part of the list to be reviewed under SCFEA and has been factored in the budget for 2026/2027 to be resolved by 30 June 2026.
4. During the 48th SCTIFI, the meeting was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is finalising the legal and regulatory reforms to remove all discriminatory fees, levies and charges.
5. During the 41st RMC, Tanzania reported that the issue under consideration was the methodology of charging the fees in the region. There was a need for harmonization of the methodologies for charges. The charges are necessary and are not discriminatory, because all Partner States impose these charges.Tanzania requested Uganda to accept the charges.
Uganda requested Tanzania not to discriminate Ugandan Products and also requested Tanzania to share the list of charges which are charged byTanzania and other traders outside URT.
The two Partner States reported that they were discussing the matter under Bilateral engagements. 		 
NTB-000-769 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-05-05 Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco.  
Progress: 1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024.
17.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that the excise duty charged is not discriminatory. Kenya insisted on the bilateral agreements.
18. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is committed to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026.
19.During the 41st RMC,Kenya requested Tanzania to remove the discriminatory excise duty on Kenya cigarettes.
Tanzania reported that the SCTIFI had provided guidance, bilateral meetings have taken place but still the NTB is outstanding.
Tanzania further reported that this matter should be removed because its not discriminatory as well as that Tanzania is observing the RoO. 		 
NTB-000-742 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade 		2017-02-20 Uganda: Port Bell Lake port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Verification Agencies (SGS) apply standards that are higher than International accepted standards requiring additional tests and certificates which is of high costs. Additional tests include tests for copper, iron, manganese, lead and coliforms which are expensive tests adding to the costs of doing business. The additional tests last for a week in addition to the export process. The Agency offers Route B or C product registration. Product meant for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are tested once a year Route C is a security factory audit for wine export to the abovementioned countries  
Progress: This matter was brought to the attention of the Uganda Focal Points along the margins of the 23rd EAC NTBs forum on 6 May 2017 . Uganda private sector Focal Point reported that consultations had been initiated with the Ministry of Trade , Industry and cooperatives to try and resolve the matter amicably. They will provide feedback in due course .  
NTB-000-781 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2015-11-19 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road) Eswatini In process View
Complaint: An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar.  
Progress: 1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward.

2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible..

3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously. 		 
NTB-000-530 8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory 		2012-09-10 Zambia: Zambia Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is requiring all foreign tankers either delivering product to Zambia, or transiting Zambia, to comply with its Standards 371:2008 and 429-4:2008.
Furthermore, it is charging transporters to obtain a permit to certify that the tankers comply with the Standards. This requirement is affecting the free flow of goods into Zambia.

Zambia is requested to recognise the foreign vehicles national certificates of roadworthiness as it is difficult for Transporters operating tankers into Zambia to alter the design of their tankers at short notice.This is against the objectives of trade facilitation, will create monopolies and increase the cost of transport. 		 
Progress: 1. On 25 January 2018, Zambia Focal Point advised that the Zambia Bureau of Standards had taken into account the concerns raised. The standard (ZS 371:2008) is currently under revision to address concerns among other matters.
The matter had also been tabled under SADC in an effort to harmonize the standard in the region
2. During the 15th SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in May 2017, Zambia reported that this NTB had been resolved. However, South Africa Focal Point undertook to verify with complainant and provide feed back on the status.
3. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that through SADCSTAN and Tripartite Transit Transport Facilitation Programme had recently agreed on the standard on transportation of dangerous goods which covers fuel tanks that will resolve this matter.
4.During the SADC Regional NTbs workshop held in April 2026, Zambia reported that Zambia is yet to adopt the harmonized standards on tankers, however, the relevant authorities were currently reviewing.With regards to the issue of recognition of roadworthiness, Zambia will confirm after consultation with relevant authorities. SADC Secretariat to also confirm and update on the regional recognition aspect.
5. On 27th August 2026, Zambia Focal Point reported that Zambia recognizes roadworthiness certificates from other SADC member states, however , they were requested to upload evidence . 		 
NTB-000-420 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2011-05-01 Zambia: Nakonde Kenya In process View
Complaint: Since early May 2011, one of our Association member companies(Bidco Oil Refefineries) product's(palm based cooking oil) has been stopped from entering the Zambian market by Zambia Revenue Authority with the reason that the product do not meet 35% value addition criteria as required under COMESA product on the rules of origin. Zambia government Authorities including the officials of the Zambia revenue Authority have visited in the past Bidco oil refeneries and confirmed that palm based cooking oils meets 35% value addition criteria. Kenya Revenue Authority had also in May did a fresh verification mission on the affected product which we understand was sent to ZRA. To date ZRA has not responded to verification report of KRA on the company's product and meanwhile the company continue incurring losses due to lost market share Zambia. Our submission is that Zambia Revenue Authority respond to Kenya Revenue Authority verification report and follow the laid down procedures in the COMESA Protocol on the rules of origin if the Authority is still disputing the fulfillment of 35% value addition in regard to the product. This is happening at the border points. The importer has now stopped importing palm oil cooking oils consignments from Kenya after dealer paid the CET rate of 25% instead of 0% and incurred very heavy loss.  
Progress: 1. On 16 July 2020, Kenya focal point reported that this issue was raised again during the recent 8th COMESA NTBs Focal Points meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
2. The TTFSC recommended to 40th meeting of Council of Ministers that the Secretariat compiles a record of Council decisions and all the interventions that have been undertaken to facilitate way forward and fast tracking of resolution of the NTB. The Secretariat will circulate the record by 15 March 2020.
3. During the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, Zambia Focal points reported that, with regard to the audit report by KPMG, had requested for additional support documents which have not been availed by Kenya. Zambia and Kenya bilaterally engaged during the NTBs focal point meeting and Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. Kenya further requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for.
4. The 2nd meeting of the COMESA Heads of Customs Sub Committee which met from 19-20 June 2015, noted that KPMG report had confirmed that Palm Oil from Kenya met the COMESA RoO and that KRA had written to its counterpart ZRA on 28 February as per recommendations of the extra - ordinary meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs committee held on 9-11 February 2015. Zambia confirmed receipt of the required information informed the meeting that the issue was under consideration .
5. On 16 January 2015, Kenya Focal point reported that according to KAM consultant on edible oils, the NTB was discussed and an audit was carried out independently on Bidco by KPMG and communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International and COMESA Secretariat in 2014. KAM was advised that the audit found that palm oil exported to Zambia by Kenya had 40% value addition.KAM was now waiting for their edible oils KAM consultant to advise whether the exports of these products were receiving preferential tariff treatment in Zambia.
6. As at 26 September 2013, the COMESA secretariat was yet to provide progress report.
7. On 16th July 2013, Kenya Focal point requested Zambia to indicated progress made since their report to the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring & Eliminating Mechanism meeting and SMS Reporting Tool Launch on 9th and 10th April 2013 in Lusaka Zambia. At this meeting, the Republic of Zambia indicated that the bilateral meeting would be held within a month’s time from the date of this meeting. Kenya proposes that, in view of the delays in bilateral consultations, the COMESA Secretariat facilitates a meeting where they will act as an arbitrator in helping the two partner states resolve the NTBs and enable industry to benefit from the inherent market access for their products.
8.At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia,Kenya and Zambia requested the COMESA Secretariat to organise a bilateral meeting between the two countries in order to arbitrate between them. COMESA Secretariat was also requested to provide guidance on the proper interpretation of the Rules of Origin for this product.
9.On 1 November 2019, Kenya focal point reported that : As a follow up to the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, where Kenya and Zambia bilaterally engaged, Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. However, to do this, Kenya had requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for, to finalize on this issue. We are therefore kindly requesting for the same.
10. On 16 July 2020, Kenya Focal Point reported that this issue was raised again during the EAC- COMESA NTB Meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
11. On 25 February 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the issue is work in progress and the required information documents would be shared soon.
12. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021, it was agreed that Zambia will send a request to Kenya within 30 days to submit cost structure of the inputs used to produce the final product (cooking oil) for determination of origin status under the value addition origin criterion after which a verification mission to Kenya will be organized.
13. On 30 July 2021, Zambia reported that, as previously submitted following the KPMG Malawi Audit report, not all components of value addition could be verified from the report due to the following:
i) Absence of raw material/blend mix to accurately determine actual quantities of raw materials used in the processing of a specific volume of crude oil.
ii) No documentary evidence to verify other operating costs such as water, electricity, spares and consumables and their source.
iii) No documentary evidence to verify labour costs.
In this regard, the value addition criterion as provided for under Rule 2 (1) (b) (ii) of the COMESA Rules of Origin could not be independently determined due to the absence of vital information.The outstanding information should therefore be availed in order to accurately determine the value addition of the oil produced by BIDCO.
14. During the 2nd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia F reported that the 9th session of Kenya – Zambia Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation (JPCC) resolved that Zambia should write to Kenya to request for an appropriate date for another verification visit to resolve the outstanding matter. A letter was done to make the request for another verification visit.
15. During the Kenya National Workshop on development of a National Strategy on Elimination of NTBs held from 5-7 July 2023 it was agreed that the Secretariat to share with Kenya the request from Zambia for additional information which will be relevant as proof for satisfying the value addition origin criterion under the COMESA Rules of Origin. Please find attached the communication from Zambia. Further, the National Focal Point from Zambia, also requested for the additional information using this online system on 30 July 2021.
16. The Kenya and Zambia Focal Points submitted progress reports to the 3rd meeting of the NTB Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 which it was agreed that both countries undertake verification missions between 27th and 30th November 2023. The Secretariat would provide support to Member States to undertake the activity.
17. During an NTBs Workshop 17th – 19th April, 2024 both countries agreed to a market access bilateral meeting as the verification mission has been overtaken by events and the palm oil manufacturer is no long operating.
18. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting which agreed as follows:
i. Kenya is still interested in market access for exports of palm-based oil.
ii. Kenya informed the meeting that there was a need to still consider recommendations and findings of previous verification missions on the basis that the conditions were still the valid hence no need for another verification.
iii. Zambia indicated that verification reports have certain shelf-life after which the conditions and circumstances on the issues under verification may have changed hence the need for a fresh verification.
iv. Both Member States to share documentation, review and make comments in preparation for the next meeting in August 2025.
19. On 2 September 2025, the Secretariat shared documents at its disposal including the KPMG Report on the cooking oil to support the bilateral engagements between the Member States. 		 
Products: 1511.10: Crude palm oil  
NTB-000-820 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A12: Geographical restrictions on eligibility
Policy/Regulatory 		2010-12-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Kenya In process View
Complaint: Brookside Dairy Ltd of Kenya, exports of UHT milk are denied entry into Zambia for reasons that, an inspection audit of the source of milk, export facility, milk product and relevant standards in use in Kenya by the Zambian authorities raised sanitary concerns pointing out that Zambia cannot accept milk products from the raw milk that did not meet the Zambian milk standard. The Zambian standard on raw milk for use in production of milk products is a maximum of 200,000 colon forming units (cfu) whereas Kenya legislation allows for a maximum of 2, 000,000 cfu in raw milk used in making UHT milk, which is above the 200,000 cfu allowed in Zambia. Kenya applies the EAC graded standards which allow for a maximum of 2,000,000 cfu and a minimum of 200,000 cfu and below for raw milk.  
Progress: 1. Various bilateral meetings and technical audits have been undertaken between the two countries in an attempt to resolve the NTB. The thirty-Third Meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs Committee held on 15-17 September 2017 recommended that :
i) COMESA should harmonize SPS measures through implementation of the COMESA Green Pass (CGP) to facilitate trade in agricultural products.
ii) Member States should adhere to the NTB resolution time frames set out in the COMESA Regulations on Elimination of NTBs to ensure timely resolution of NTBs and enhance intra-regional trade.
2. In August 2019 Zambia Focal point reported that Zambia and Kenya held a bilateral meeting during the 5th TFTA focal points meeting held in Nairobi in August, 2019 during which Zambia proposed to have the complaint removed from the online platform in view of the fact that the issue was now in the hands of COMESA Secretariat who are expected to facilitate the harmonisation of the SPS standards. However, Kenya was still of the view that the complaint be maintained on the platform. Zambia therefore sought the guidance of COMESA Secretariat whether it is in order to maintain an issue which has been determined to be a legitimate SPS requirement following a recommendation for COMESA Secretariat to facilitate the harmonization SPS standards.
3. On 30 July 2021, COMESA NTB Unit requested Kenya to provide progress on the request to furnish Zambia with testing methods as agreed during the 1st meeting of the COMESA NTB Forum in March, 2021.
4. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 thatBoth countries to undertake verification missions between 27th – 30th November 2023. The Secretariat will provide support to Member States to undertake the activity
5. During the NTBs workshop, 17 – 19 April 2024 in Nairobi both countries agreed on the bilateral meeting for market access to increase trade between the two countries rather than focusing on this product.
6. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting where both Member States agreed that there was a need for a technical review of the documentation (Standards, audit and other reports) that had been prepared towards resolution of the NTB to inform the way forward on the resolution.
i. Kenya and Zambia to provide information on their milk standards for the review by the Technical Committee to prepare a concept note for the next bilateral meeting by August 2025..
ii. Secretariat to share reports and documents that can help with the resolution of the milk NTB including records of initiatives undertaken to resolve the issue in the past by August 2025.
iii. Both Member States to submit names of experts to be members of the Technical Committee to develop a technical brief for consideration by the next bilateral meeting by August 2025.
iv. Technical Working Group to examine the provisions on the conformity requirements in the standards for raw milk and UHT (finished product) and make recommendations to the next bilateral meeting, by September 2025. 		 
<< Previous Next >>
Contact us |  Related terms

Maintained by: Octoplus Information Solutions
African Development Bank
COMESA-EAC-SADC
COMESA-EAC-SADC