Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Active complaints

Showing items 1 to 125 of 125

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status New Complaint registered with REC In process Resolved Non-actionable	Actions
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-000-479	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2011-12-30	Tanzania: Mtwara	Mozambique	In process	View
Complaint:	Impose Import Tax from Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development in Tanzania on raw seafood coming from Mozambique accompanied by SADC Certificate and all other relevant documents from Mozambican Authorities.
Progress:	1. On 20th July 2013, SADC secretariat requested Tanzania Focal Point to provide progress report on this issue. Response is being awaited. 2. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Tanzania reported that the matter would be taken to relevant authority.
Products:	0306.24: Crabs, even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. crabs in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0306.21: Rock lobster and other sea crawfish "Palinurus spp., Panulirus spp. and Jasus spp.", even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0307.51: Octopus "Octopus spp.", live, fresh or chilled and 0307.41: Live, fresh or chilled, not smoked, cuttle fish "Sepia officinalis, Rossia macrosoma, Sepiola spp." and squid "Ommastrephes spp., Loligo spp., Nototodarus spp., Sepioteuthis spp.", with or without shell
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.
NTB-000-662	8.8. Issues related to transit	2015-02-19	Mozambique: Weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor	Zimbabwe	In process	View
Complaint:	Zimbabwean truck drivers are now facing police harassment near the weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor. The police are taking Zimbabwe drivers licence and their passports, supposedly to check the authentication of the driver holding the documents. The driver is released in order to go and off load and is briefed that the police will have an answer for him on his return. On his return driver is told that the licence is a fake and the driver is to pay a spot fine of ZAR5000.00. It appears that the police are rubbing the metal disc with something, so that certain information is now very faded, and not legible. When the driver produces his international drivers’ licence, to confirm the validity that is taken away by police, who only return it after some hours, with the expiry date is now illegible. The ZAR 5000.00 rand fine is enforced. The language is a convenient barrier, as the police claim not to be able to speak English. All fines in Mozambique seem to be ZAR 5000.00. Drivers are detained for days until they come up with some sort of cash ranging from ZAR400.00 upwards if they are lucky. This problem is more prevalent during weekends. Please can we have a stop put to this practice? Defacing a Government document I believe is an offence, and should not be tolerated. Business is challenging enough as it is, without trade barriers being further forced upon the transport industry.
Progress:	During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee held in May 2017, the Secretariat reported that the SCCC made general observations on similar issues where receipts are not issued. SCCC recommended that border authorities should put measures in place such as hidden cameras etc to identify culprits. Member States will report on progress regarding the recommendation.
NTB-000-670	8.6. Vehicle standards	2015-05-08	Tanzania: Tunduma	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	Despite the passing and acceptance of EAC Vehicle Overload Bill of 2012, whereby it states under the Fourth Schedule s.5 (1) (c) - VEHICLE DIMENSIONS, AXLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS AND VEHICLE COMBINATIONS, that the maximum vehicle combination length permissible is 22 m and which includes and covers the South African designed and developed Interlink combination of 22 m maximum. Tanzania are still insisting on abnormal vehicle permits to be issued to these vehicles on entry into Tanzania at Tunduma Border Post at a cost of US $20 per entry or face heavy penalties including the impounding of vehicles if they are not in posesion of an abnormal permit. This is in breach of the Bill which has been accepted by all EAC Member Countries including Tanzania and this policy needs to be revoked ASAP.
Progress:	Awaiting feedback from Focal Points
NTB-000-676	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2015-07-31	SADC	Mauritius	In process	View
Complaint:	The 2 stage transformation needed on clothing is too stringent as it stifles investment in manufacture of clothing due to economic reason and prices. Our company would want to invest in Bio organic fabrics. We invest in stock form India for knitted fabric jersey 100% but with this fabric we have issues to get the SADC certificate of origin as in the rules of origin it does not have 2 value added process. But we are a brand, we produce the garment here in Mauritius we do also the printing at our factory. Therefore there is two process, the cloth is cut here, and then printing.Please can our case be studied as we are a SME factory and for our survival we need to export to Africa. Can this case be study for the rules of origin be modified if the printing process is big part on the value of this product
Progress:	1. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Subcommittee on Trade facilitation, the Secretariat reported that work is underway to review the Rules of origin. This matter was on the agenda of the next meeting on rules of origin for consideration. 2. On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that Mauritius proposal is that negotiations would have to be undertaken on the review of the SADC rules of origin in order to have more flexible rules of origin for Textiles and Apparel under the SADC FTA 3. On 19 March 2024, Mauritius Focal Point recommended that more flexible rules of origin for apparel need to be negotiated at the level of SADC. A meeting on the review of the SADC rules of origin should be considered
NTB-000-689	8.6. Vehicle standards	2016-03-23	Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana. The trailer manufacturers states the GVM to be 36 000 kg per unit (see attached vehicle registration papers) This is the combined weight of the front and back link. However that is not what is reflected on the disc. What it should say on the disc, is that the carrying capacity: a) on the front link is 13000 kg. b) The rear link is 23000kg. c) The combined weight is thus 36 000kg. We all know that it is not possible to carry 36000kgs on the front link and 36000kgs on the rear link. The axle configurations do not permit this to say the very least. The problem arises on entry into Botswana at the border posts. They charge their road user fees per disc weight on the front and rear trailer. therefore we end up paying for 36000kgs for the front trailer and 36000kgs for the rear trailer, this is 72 000kgs per unit. To change the SA disc the following procedure will have to be followed. 1) W/bridge 2) Road worthy 3) Registration certificate 4) Certificate of compliance 5) Certificate model 6) Builders certificate 7) Ten days to change details of GVM per trailer. a) It is very costly b) it is very time consuming c) it is not practical d) It defeats the object of standardization and harmonization in the SADC region. In this day and age where we are all trying to tighten our belts in order to survive, we can ill afford such additional costs. This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached.
Progress:	This issue was discussed during the Botswana / South Africa Bi-National Commission, which was held in Gaborone in November 2017. As per item 3.2.2.1 bullet point number one (1), the Republic of South Africa was to formerly request for a waiver from Botswana on the matter, while South Africa is still sorting out the system that causes the problem. Botswana is still awaiting correspondence from South Africa to that effect. We kindly advice the South African Focal Point to consult the Department of Transport in South Africa for further clarifications.
NTB-000-725	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2016-11-01	Angola: Port of Luanda	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	Angola has Cumbersome and costly documentation and export/import requirements. The following is list of documentation required for a single consignment : i) 2x1 Original Bill of Landing; (ii)Original stamped and signed Commercial invoice; (iii) Original stamped and signed packing list; (iv) Analysis certificates if so required by consignee; (v) Loading Certificate (known as ARC or CNCA) PIP number prior to loading (required to do the pre-inspection) - not compulsory ; (vi) Voluntary pre-shipping control of merchandise (to be done at place of origin by inspector that issued the PIP number) Certificate of Origin( if so required by consignee) transport documents, full load container have to be sealed; (vii) letter from consignee nominating Orey as his forwarder agent; (viii) letter of responsibility from consignee to the carrier accepting full responsibility for demurrages and eventual container damages; (ix) copy of tax payer card of consignee; (x) Ministry of Commerce to issue license upon presentation of the commercial invoice; (xi) Ministry of Commerce to provide DU number, each invoice has different DU number. The expected time frame is 72 hours (3 days) to get a DU number. CNCA certificate can only be issued upon presentation of the DU number for each specific shipment. Cost to produce DU number is 10 USD per invoice + Process DU (MINCO) FOB value 0.2%. Costs There is Fixed delivery and clearance rates in Luanda. Transport costs of 25% as from 15/1/2016, plus other additional chargers. Lab analysis costs 3000 USD per invoice. Analysis are mandatory to any imported edible goods, from water to beverages. Delivery costs to Luanda per 20" + - 800 USD + 250 USD per night time delivery within city limits. overtime applies all the time due to restriction on delivery during the day due to traffic. Exporters are forced to pay incentives costs to EHO by OREY for DDP shipments. 20" => 150 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey, 40" => 170 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey. Other fees charged are: Shipment tracking & dispatch, BL Validation 160 per unit, Container deposit 1000 per unit Delivery order 25 USD per unit. Port Tax 93.00 per unit, Wharfage 280.00 USD per unit, Tracking fee 100 USD per unit, Clearance transport and petties 350 USD per unit, delivery between Luanda /Soyo 3500.00 USD, return empty 400 USD per unit, transport between Luanda and Cabinda 11000.00 USD per unit, co-ordination 2.5% minimum USD 50.00. Consumption Tax of 5% service costs rendered in Angola. Taxes in all alcohol beverages is high 30% Cocktail 50% Ciders 51% We believe this costs makes it difficult for investors to do business in Angola, most of them amount to tariff and non-tariff barriers we would like Regulators to review them.
Progress:	During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, the Secretariat requested Angola to submit names of its Focal points to enable processing of reported NTBs. Angola reported that : (i) based on their research, the documents are necessary and that these are part of universal documents required for import permit. (ii) South AFrica was also imposing more cumbersome procedures than Angola as evidenced by the fact that the documents she require are the same as those required by Angola therefore this does not constitute NTB.; (iii) the Ministry of Trade is the focal point and there is a national secretariat for SADC through which all SADC Affairs are channeled ; (iv) . Angola was working on establishing the Trade facilitation committee after which focal points will be appointed; (v) she was in the process of revising its commercial legislation that considers trimming the number of import/export documentation; (vi) The ministry would undertake consultations with Ministry of Transport to simply the procedures . 3. In response, South Africa reported that consultations will be made to find out the reasons for the complaint. South Reported that she does not require numerous documentation.
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-000-745	6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies	2017-01-19	Zambia: Kazungula Ferry	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	“SARS received an escalation in January 2017 from Deloitte, regarding a complaint by fuel exporters from South Africa. The complaint is regarding Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) Circular No. 9 of December 2016, notifying its officers “that all fuel imported from South Africa under preferential arrangements should be subjected to payments of a monetary deposit equivalent to the full customs duty payable. The modalities of collection of the said deposit will be temporarily suspending both SSA and SDC preferential rates against goods of HS 2710.12.10 and 2710.19.10 until the Origin verification process is finalised”. SARs is of the view that the collection of the monetary deposits on fuel imported from South Africa is against the spirit of the SADC Protocol on Trade and the WTO, as this treatment applies only to oil imported from South Africa. It pre-supposes that the ZRA is nullifying the SADC Protocol on Trade relating to those specific products without following the proper procedures regarding derogation on infant industries. SARs has tried several times to get answers from Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to explain their reasoning behind the circular and so far, they have not provided any correspondence to this matter.
Progress:	1. On 25th January 2018, Zambia Focal Point reported that the deposit was a temporal measure pending origin inquiry. The inquiry has reached advanced stage and will soon be concluded and stakeholders will be fully advised on the way forward. This is consistent with the provisions of the protocol on trade which allow for collection of such deposits where necessary, while origin verification is underway. 2. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, Zambia reported that consultations will be undertaken with relevant authorities and report back. 3. During the 2nd Meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia reported that the 33rd Meeting of Ministers of trade held in Malawi from 4th to 9th July 2022 resolved that Zambia submit correspondence to RSA on readiness to grant preferential treatment for petroleum products from NATREF (Sasol, Total, Puma). Zambia has complied with the directive, hence no deposits on imports of petroleum products from RSA under preferential treatment is being collected
NTB-000-751	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees	2017-05-01	Zambia: Ministry of Trade	Botswana	In process	View
Complaint:	Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia. On the 11th November 2016, Zambia issued SI 85 of 2016, The Tolls Act in which the Second Schedule Section A and B outlines Entry Tolls for COMESA/SADC and other Countries. Botswana was not included under SADC and awarded tolls higher than other SADC States. On the 1st May 2017, Botswana retaliated by issuing an Amendment of the Road Traffic and Road Transport (Permits) regulations, 2017. Under this Amendment, tolls were increased and in turn, Zambian Transporters handed a hefty penalty. The result is that as a Zambian Transporter our Transit Fees through Botswana increased by 70%. This makes the Botswana route unattractive and given the congestion at Kazungulu, we have had to run through Zimbabwe again. We are delayed here by congestion, delays in ZIMRA electronic sealing processes and run the gauntlet as described above. Surely the whole idea of building the Kazungula Bridge is to improve the flow of traffic through Botswana and create economic advantage? With the increase in the tolls in a tit for tat manner, building the bridge is a waste of time. Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC.
Progress:	1. On 11 January 2019, Zambia Focal Point reported that the two parties (Zambia and Botswana) are undertaking consultations on the matter in order to resolve the issue. 2. On 02 June Secretariat was advised to organise virtual meeting between the Focal Points to recommend way forward
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.
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-000-803	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2018-02-28	Tanzania: Importation into Tanzania	Malawi	In process	View
Complaint:	CORI Ltd visited Tanzania last year to look for export markets for cooking oil in Tanzania. CORI was informed that the government in Tanzania does not promote/support importation and that Tanzania has a 15% surcharge on the importation of cooking oil.
Progress:	1. The SADC Secretariat is advising the Malawi should provide additional information to assist resolve the NTB. Malawi was therefore requested to provide information on the origin of the goods or where it is manufactured and any other relevant information . 2. On 23rd June 2020, Malawi Focal point responded that the cooking oil is wholly produced in Malawi and therefore meets the SADC rule of origin for exportation into Tanzania .
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:	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.
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.
NTB-000-823	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2018-06-01	Botswana: BURS	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	Botswana government is imposing daily double tax on imported alcohol beverages to Botswana. The motivation for imposing the excise and not imposing on local manufacturers is that local manufacturers create jobs and have manufacturing plant in the country. It is the Wine Industry submission that wine as a commodity cannot be manufactured in Botswana due to the weather conditions. SA Wine Companies, pay excise in South Africa and do not expect to pay another excise in Botswana for the very same products. We appeal for the repeal of the Regulations to allow both local and importers to be treated the same. Locals have more competitive edge compared to importers. Furthermore, the methodology as per Regulations is different from what is practically implemented. Enclosed self explanatory email clarifying the differences. Botswana is in breach of the WTO GATT Agreement, Article 34
NTB-000-830	8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.)	2018-07-16	Botswana: Martins Drift	Zambia	In process	View
Complaint:	A Zambian Registered Tanker carrying sulphuric acid from South Africa was weighed at the Martins Drift weighbridge with the following axle masses: Steer axle - 5200 kg (legal limit 8000 kg); Drive axles - 18200 kg (legal limit 18000 kg); Trailing axles - 22800 kg (legal limit 24000 kg). Tolerance is 5% on an axle set or on GVM, in this case it would be 900 kg on the driving axle set. The weigh bridge official instructed the Driver to Park telling him that his driving axle was overloaded without the application of the 5% tolerance. It is observed that only at this weigh bridge there is no application of the 5% tolerance. In the spirit of harmonization South Africa, Zambia and Botswana the legal limits are the same with a 5% tolerance except at Martins Drift weighbridge. Kindly assist to resolve this issue at Martins Drift which is causing unnecessary loss of transit time and charges. Please note that this is not a one off incidence.
Progress:	1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that SADC has set up a Task Force to look into this matter among other NTBs. 2. On 22nd June 2020, Botswana Focal Point reported that they have contacted the relevant institution and they stated that they are still investigating on the matter and will give their feedback sometime during week 30 June - 4 July 2020
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-000-938	3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) B31: Labelling requirements	2020-02-08	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Zimbabwe	In process	View
Complaint:	Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained.
Progress:	1. On 11 February 2020, ( 12:13hrs) South Africa Focal point advised that they were undertaking consultations with relevant authorities and will report back as soon as possible . 2. On 12 February 2020, the exporter advised that the truck had been released on condition that Port Health officials will collect samples for laboratory testing. However, when the truck arrives in South Africa, the company cannot distribute the consignment until samples are collected by the nearest Port Health Officials for lab tests.
Products:	1905.31: Sweet biscuits
NTB-000-953	7.4. Costly procedures	2020-04-11		Namibia	In process	View
Complaint:	At Katima Mulilo border post between the Republic of Namibia and the Republic of Zambia, Zambian Authorities/ Command centres, specifically the Zambia Police Service and the Ministry of Health Officials stationed at Katima Mulilo border post from the Provincial Administration in Western Province tasked to screen truck drivers at the border post, are charging Namibian transporters and truck drivers to meet logistical costs of escorting their respective quarantined truck drivers to Kazungula, Livingstone, Lusaka and Kasumbalesa transits especially perishables and other essential commodities such as medicines, clearly at variance with World Customs Organisation (WCO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Protocols on Trade, destined for the Republic of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo via the Walvis Bay - Ndola - Lubumbashi Development Corridor (Namibia, Zambia, DRC). In the Republic of Zambia and other SADC Member states, and in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) Public Health Protocols, screening, testing and quarantining of truck drivers for covid - 19 are State operations and are at variance with the agreed SADC Guidelines on Harmonisation and Facilitation of Cross Border Transport Operations during the covid - 19 outbreak. This is an added cost of doing business, unnecessary cross border delays without prior notification to transporters and a Non - Tariff Barrier to Trade. This is unprecedented, Namibian transporters are being charged as much as K800 for each Police Officer for at least 3 days and each convoy of trucks has at least 3 Police officers. The cost is meant to cover lodging and subsistence allowance for the officers. This is an encumbrance to trade, against the SADC Guidelines on movement of goods and services in the region amid covid - 19 and adds to the cost of doing business, against WCO, WTO, and WHO best practices on global trade facilitation and Public Health.
NTB-000-957	5.8. Embargoes	2020-05-13	Kenya: Mombasa sea port	South Africa	New	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 $30000.So if an importer is bringing in multiple containers monthly as most importers do , the cash flow required it just simply not feasible because they are operating on very low revenue at the moment. I think what importers and exporters seek is clarity on this gazette, what was the rationale and was there industry consulted? Does this mean come mid- August, all goods must be duty paid and are goods imported now can still go on bond and what happens to goods that are all currently in bond. I also would like to bring to your attention the following implication for South African wine exported to Kenya. 1. Cashflow challenges for traders with upfront payment 2. Unfavourable trade terms which will impact on trade relations. 3. Delays in delivery of products due to readiness of the Custom Officials of efficiently enforcing the new rule without glitches. 4. Cross Border of illicit products I therefore request your intervention in tabling these concerns and proposal for exemption of South African wine from the rule
Products:	2204: Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines; grape must other than that of heading 20.09.
NTB-000-970	2.4. Import licensing	2020-07-01	Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture	Egypt	In process	View
Complaint:	We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ 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.
NTB-000-977	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2020-08-10	Ethiopia:	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	Requirement to submit Certificate of Free sale for Grain products such as cereals, baked goods etc
NTB-000-982	1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers	2020-08-24	Botswana: Ministry of Trade and Industry	Zimbabwe	In process	View
Complaint:	On 24 August 2020, Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry released a statement that the country would be restricting the importation of baked goods. This will affect products such as pastries, cookies, muffins and other products derived from some form of grain. The statement was supported by S.I 102 of 2020. The Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry highlighted that the move is meant to protect the domestic producers.
NTB-000-985	1.8. Import bans	2020-10-12	South Africa: Grobler's Bridge	Zambia	New	View
Complaint:	Certified organic honey that is American Foulbrood Disease (AFB)free, complete with Certificate of Analysis from accredited lab Intertek in Germany (accredited by the German National Accreditation body DAkkS - national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany) they are also ISO/IEC 17025 certified and they do engage in proficiency testing) has been banned from entering SA unless irradiated. 2015 bilateral agreement allowed Zambian honey into SA without irradiating due to there being no AFB in Zambia. SA claims that their ARC lab has tested samples from Forest Fruits and others and found them to be positive for AFB. The ARC lab has always produced inconsistent results and they cannot replicate the results. Sometimes positive and after a retest it is negative. ARC lab is not even SANAS accredited, has no ISO certification and does not engage in proficiency testing for AFB tests. On 23 October 2020 at a round table meeting of SA honey importers and various DAFF departments - meeting called by DAFF NPPO, it was clearly stated and admitted that ARC has performance "gaps". DAFF scientists have to make decisions based on faulty science and results. The Intertek results consistently come back as negative for AFB disease. The result is in Non Compliance notices being sent to Zambia for samples that get retested and are negative! As recent as last year, Zambia Veterinary Services did a national survey and found no AFB disease in Zambia. SA DAFF NPPO is creating haphazard barriers to Zambian honey. All Zambian exports are now affected. Since 2015 a considerable amount of business with South African companies has developed in Zambia exporting honey to them. This ban affects the livelihoods of over 140,000 subsistence villagers.
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:	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.
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	New	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-001-014	1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies Policy/Regulatory	2021-03-17	South Africa: Rhodes Quality, Cape Town	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	We are a freight logistics company based in Gaborone, Botswana(100% citizen). During registration on supplies portals in South Africa they require us (Foreign freight logistics companies without branches in South Africa ) to be BBBEE compliant despite we providing them with all company documents verifying that we are foreign based with Head Offices out of South Africa borders. Because of the nature of our business which compels us to conduct cross border transportation, South African supplies would immediately inform us we can't do business with them on the basis of non - compliant on BBBEE requirements. Arrangement in place promotes South African transporters to do cross border and prohibits foreign transporters to haul commodities back to country of operation. Please note we are not issued with any documents as a dispensation on our Head offices out of South African borders. Kindly assist in the best possible way.
NTB-001-023	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2021-07-26	Democratic Republic of the Congo: The DRC government. Ministry of Transport	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	The DRC has just published legislation prohibiting foreign vehicles from loading mining products and to remove (export) them from the DRC. The unofficial translation of the new DRC amendment:Article 4-It is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo to load goods, in this case mining products from the national territory; In the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk. According to an unofficial translation of article four of the amendment affecting the DRC's road freight sector, "it is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the DRC to load goods, in this case mining products, from the national territory”. The article continues, saying "in the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk”. The decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on exports out of the DRC's Copperbelt region, with some transporters going so far as to say that it's wholly impractical and a protectionist strategy that is bound to boomerang against the government in Kinshasa.
NTB-001-026	8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.)	2021-08-18	Zimbabwe: Beitbridge	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	There has been noticeable decrease in the volume of traffic crossing the Beitbridge border on the Zimbabwean side of the border for a few months now. On a normal working day +/- 1 500 trucks can cross the North South Corridor Border. The crossing entails Customs releases with the verification of other Government agencies to test and verify safety and security of the goods (Consignment). However, in the last few months, the number has reduced to a maximum of +/- 400 trucks crossing the North South corridor. The drop in the movement of cargo is a combination of many factors and cannot be blamed solely on the hard infrastructure layout. An alignment with clear roles, responsibility, risk management profile , screening and removing of old outdated manual processes is required. The challenge emanates from lack of harmonisation by enforcement Government agencies operating at the border which creates a huge bottleneck with minimal peace of mind, i.e SAPS on the South African side, Zimbabwe with its multiple Other Government Agencies involvement and linkage to a Private security company controlling the flow of cargo movement.
NTB-001-028	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2021-09-07	South Africa: SARS	Mauritius	In process	View
Complaint:	On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced. Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal
Progress:	1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius reported that: The processing and submission of preferential certificates of origin are effected electronically and are issued on a consignment basis in compliance with SADC Protocol on Trade and Section 14(4) of the SADC Rules of Origin Regulations. Our national legislation is in line with the former. The proposal to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments should be addressed to the proper organ of SADC 2. On 20 October 2021, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARs: a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/ b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making. 3. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point recommended that the NTB be considered resolved on the basis of above . 4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved.
NTB-001-029	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2021-09-07	South Africa: South Africa Revenue Services ( SARS)	Mauritius	In process	View
Complaint:	On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced. Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal
Progress:	1. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided the response by SARS below and recommended that the NTB be resolved on that basis: a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/ b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making. Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved 2.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved.
NTB-001-030	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2021-08-17	South Africa: SARS Customs	Mauritius	In process	View
Complaint:	On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council (SADC BC) convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges with variances in alignment of HS codes between Mauritius and South Africa(RSA). 1. …For exports from Mauritius to RSA, where a SADC is applicable, an exporter can insert 10 HS CODES on one SADC certificate. This is because the SADC certificate has now become electronic while before it was manual. 2. When it was manual, if someone had a nice handwriting, the person could insert more than 10 HS CODES as long as it legible. 3. When importing from RSA, Mauritian importers receive SADC certificates with 1 HS CODE only. Meaning RSA issues SADC certificates with ONE Line HS code only. 4. Thus if a Mauritian exporter is sending 10 different items to RSA and SADC is applicable, only one SADC certificate will be issued by Mauritian Revenue Authourity CUSTOMS. 5. On the other hand, if a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter sends only 3 different items to Mauritius, and of course SADC is applicable, SARS will issue THREE sadc certificates. 6. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT: SADC certificates are payable at both ends. Meaning a local broker will charge an exporter when issuing a SADC certificate and SARS will charge a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter when issuing on their side. If a Mauritian exporter has 18 ITEMS to be exported out of Mauritius and a SADC certificate is applicable, he/she will have to have TWO SADC certificates only WHILE on the other hand, if a Mauritian imports 18 ITEMS from RSA, he/she will have 18 SADC certificates with each certificate obtained at a cost which represents a huge amount for the one who pays for these certificates.
Progress:	1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius Focal Point reported that: HS Codes are harmonized at 6 digit level internationally. However, at national level, as from 7th digit onwards, each Customs administration under the SADC are using their nationally-defined HS Codes. With respect to paragraph 6, it is to be noted that the SADC Certificate of Origin are processed electronically for multiple items (up to 10 items per certificate) and are issued by the MRA Customs Department in hard copy, free of charge. 2. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARS and recommended that the NTB be resolved on those basis : a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/ b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making. Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved 3.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved.
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.
NTB-001-048	3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) B31: Labelling requirements	2022-01-03	Tanzania: Standards Authority	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	Vague Labelling requirement "Statutory Warning" Clause 12 (k), rejection of the UK Chief Medical Warning which is accepted in other African countries such as Uganda, Kenya without any objection in addition to their requirement.
Progress:	The stakeholder consultative meeting organized by the SADC Business Council which was attended by the concerned parties from South Africa and Tanzania and SADC Secretariat on 7 march 2022, agreed that the UK Chief Medical Officers Guidelines labelling should be retained (The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend adult do not regularly drink more than 14 units per week) provided that the Wine producer affixes an additional sticker which covers all missing information on the product package. The additional sticker (label) should be legibly and indelibly marked. The additional sticker should be submitted to the Tanzania Bureau of Standards for approval accompanied by the declaration letter from the Manufacturer stating that additional label originating from them and products imported in Tanzania will be labelled as such.
NTB-001-059	7.10. Other	2017-03-07	South Africa:	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	A Botswana based company, MOTOVAC reporting challenges is struggling to get payment of its Value Added Tax (VAT) import refunds from the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in time. It is reported, VAT refunds are not processed by SARS. The outstanding payments date back as far as 2017 with the company owed BWP 3,528,278.07 in VAT refunds by SARS.
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.
NTB-001-072	Misclassification of Product and subsequent wrongful incursion of tax (Sugar tax)	2021-09-21	Mauritius: Mauritius Revenue Authority and customs, upon clearing consignmnet	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	Misclassfication of Sweetened Condensed MILk as a beverage. Misuse of tariff code - where others use 0402.99.90 MRA uses 0402.99.10. Furthermore; Post the 2020 budget, we were made to understand by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry that sweetened condensed milk (SCM) doesn’t attract sugar tax. Thus, we wrote to the Director of Excise duty to seek clarifications on the application of sugar tax. The director requested us to apply for a ruling without giving any further explanations. We filled in the ‘Request for ruling on H.S Classifications of goods’ form in Dec. 2020 and submitted all relevant technical documents requested on the form and a sample of SCM to MRA. However, we didn’t hear from MRA since there was a lockdown in March. We have cleared 3 consignments of SCM in March, June and July without paying the sugar tax and only received the MRA - Customs Declaration Form in August while clearing SCM consignments, and we were asked to pay for the sugar tax. We took cognizance of the ruling only in August and this is when we started the objection process.
Progress:	1. On 24 August 2022, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the Customs Dept of Mauritius is looking into the matter and will submit a report as soon as possible. 2. Mauritius Customs reported that : Under the Customs Act whenever a person is dissatisfied with a ruling may object to the ruling.in this case, an objection has been made on 27.09.2021.The objection is being dealt with independently by the objection directorate. An update has been requested from them. 3. On 30th August 2022, Mauritius provided further update that: The Objection Directorate has maintained the tariff classification under HS Code 0402.99.10 as provided by the Mauritius Revenue Authority Customs Department and the objection was disallowed. A Notice of Determination was issued to this effect on 15/11/2021.Applicant (Nestlé’s Products (Mauritius) Ltd ) made representations to the Assessment Revenue Committee (ARC) on 10/12/2021.The case was called Pro Forma before the ARC on 01/07/2022. Hearing by ARC on this case is still awaited. An update will be provided upon availability. 4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the case was still before the Assessment Review Committee (ARC).
Products:	0402.99.90: --- Other
NTB-001-074	7.1. Arbitrariness	2022-08-19	Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients: i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2 ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products. b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other. d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio.
Progress:	During a bilateral meeting facilitated by the SADC Business Council held on 10 October 2022, it was agreed that the issue was not related to misclassification of Cremora but rather, the introduction of import permits by Namibia. The SADC BC will engage the Namibia Ministry of Industry representatives to set up a follow up meeting with the Ministry of Veterinary (Namibia) who will provide clarity on the introduction of import permit as there relate to Nestle and to Cremora
NTB-001-080	2.2. Arbitrary customs classification	2022-09-07	Zimbabwe: Chirundu	Zimbabwe	In process	View
Complaint:	Simplified Trade Regime system no longer viable most traders preferring to use trucks instead of declaring using STR system, when declarations are done values are being lifted despite invoices produced , revaluation is done by the Supervisors making it difficult and most challenging for traders to use the system , and this is causing traders to use clearing agents .only a few with small quantities using STR with buses, traders are now preferring to use Commercial clearance instead of STR, giving a negative impact to why STR was put in place, there is need for orientation to Officer coming from Inland to the borders so that they understand how STR system operates. Prior to covid pandemic traders used to use some small trucks with consolidated goods and declarations would be made as to the individual trader's quantities in a truck at the point of exit. During covid pandemic Customs gave a ruling that all goods to be cleared through the agents to reduce human interface, after the pandemic and all the lockdowns and restrictions CUSTOMS no longer want traders to consolidation system in transportation of goods saying its now a broken consignment. this arbitrary declaration is a trade restriction and a barrier TO TRADE
Progress:	1. The NTB Unit brought this NTB to the attention of the Zimbabwe Focal Point to undertake internal consultations. A response is still being awaited. 2. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Zimbabwe reported that the STR regime is fully functional at the Chirundu border post. The meeting requested Zimbabwe to provide feedback on the overvaluation of the goods under STR regime. 3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss NTBs affecting both counties and this issue will form part of the Agenda as it affects Zambia’s trade. 4. 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.
NTB-001-090	8.8. Issues related to transit	2022-10-19	Zambia: Katima Mulilo	Namibia	New	View
Complaint:	Issuance of exorbitant transit permit fees by the Zambian Government went up from K3700 to K11200 and is only imposed at the Katima Mulilo Border post and not at any other borders around Zambia. The Permit was supposed to only apply to those entering Zambia for the purpose of doing business and not those in transit such as drivers transporting the goods through/via Zambia. the permit is therefore deemed to be discriminatory (no other SADC/COMESA countries are imposing a similar measure)and, the permit hinders the movement of goods as truck drivers are delayed in trying to source money to fund the permit.
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
NTB-001-103	2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections	2019-02-01	Botswana: Pioneer Gate	South Africa	New	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-001-105	7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues Policy/Regulatory	2023-03-01	Zambia: Ministry of Home Affairs	Mozambique	Complaint registered with REC	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
NTB-001-106	6.5. Variable levies	2022-07-05	Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Revenue Authority	Zambia	New	View
Complaint:	Zambia exports into Zimbabwe on beverages attracts additional duty of $ 0.05/Litre.Lengthy Compliance processes, Multiple agency approvals and complex certification requirements further discourage sincere exporters as these layers increase the product turnaround time and further increase RTM cost and delivery time. For example: - COC, Inspection, Route plan B, Importer licenses & various agency registrations (Multiple window clearance, COMESA certificate)
Progress:	1. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss NTBs affecting both counties and this issue will form part of the Agenda. 2. On 17 April 2024, Malawi Focal Point reported that they were following up with the agencies involved in this issue to resolve the NTBs and gave assurance the this issue was being discussed at length and feedback on the outcomes of the consultations would be provided as soon as possible. 3. 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.
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-001-110	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
NTB-001-118	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees	2023-05-16	Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mitaka, Lualaba province Democratic republic of Congo	Namibia	In process	View
Complaint:	DRC authorities in Mutaka, Lualaba province are charging 100 United states dollars for scanning each commercial truck loaded with cargo. Cumbersome barriers, lengthy procedures have caused unprecedented congestion of hundreds of trucks in Mutaka area. Truck drivers no sanitation, no wellness facilities, power security. One truck driver died in his truck on the due to Kasumbalesa border.
Progress:	1. On 22 May 2023, DRC Focal Point reported that the complaint had just been submitted to the competent service (Ministry of Foreign Trade) and that investigations would be undertaken as soon as possible for resolution.
NTB-001-120	7.5. Lengthy procedures	2023-06-12	Democratic Republic of the Congo:	Zambia	In process	View
Complaint:	SADC Truck drivers at all Borders with DRC are experiencing cumbersome payment procedures for the scanner costing $100 and forced parking costing $30 which has led to congestion (long queues) subjecting drivers to as; no sanitation, delayment on average by 8 days and serious security concerns; and Delayed document processing by mining houses i.e. It takes an average of 14 - 30 days to be cleared after loading.
Progress:	1. On 19th June 2023, the Focal Point for DRC advised that the matter will be submitted to the competent authorities in order to find an appropriate solution. 2. COMESA Secretariat facilitated a trilateral meeting held on 21 August between DRC, Malawi and Zambia during which DRC informed the meeting that the scanner and parking fees would be reviewed with the aim to get them scrapped off. DRC would also look into the lengthy and costly processing of documentation by mining houses with a view to improve the processes . 4. Following this meeting the Secretariat wrote to DRC requesting progress on feedback regarding implementation of the agreed actions to resolve the issues raised . 3. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Zambia reported that DRC had scrapped the scanner fees however , the scrapping of fees for scanner charges could only be considered resolved upon receipt of documentary evidence (Letter from DRC). Zambia reported that they were waiting for official communication from DRC confirming suspension of scanner charges. 4. In May 2025, Malawi updated that they convened a meeting with the cross-border truck drivers and confirmed that the drivers were still experiencing challenges in DRC borders. 5. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025 the following updates were received: i. DRC informed the meeting that there was no information on the current status of the reported NTB and requested the affected Member States to provide the information if their traders are still experiencing challenges. ii. DRC, Malawi and Zambia to update information in the Online System on the status of the NTB.
NTB-001-125	2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures	2023-06-01	Democratic Republic of the Congo:	Malawi	In process	View
Complaint:	Cross Border truck drivers from Malawi, Zambia and other COMESA Member States face cumbersome procedures of clearing goods and other transit issues at the relevant border post in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In particular the following is reported: 1. Scanner at Mutaka- Cumbersome payment procedures for the scanner ($100) and forced parking ($30) which has led to congestion for the drivers as well as serious security concerns. 2. Unnecessary stoppages along Kasumbalesa-Kolwezi Corridor causing massive delays. 3. Delayed document processing by Mining houses. 4. Unfair treatment of drivers in an event of accidents, sickness and death.
Progress:	1. On 19th June 2023, the Focal Point for DRC advised that the matter will be submitted to the competent authorities in order to find an appropriate solution. 2. COMESA Secretariat facilitated a trilateral meeting held on 21 August between DRC, Malawi and Zambia during which DRC informed the meeting that the scanner and parking fees would be reviewed with the aim to get them scrapped off. DRC would also look into the lengthy and costly processing of documentation by mining houses with a view to improve the processes . 4. Following this meeting the Secretariat wrote to DRC requesting progress on feedback regarding implementation of the agreed actions to resolve the issues raised . 3. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Malawi reported that stakeholders were still experiencing the challenges but conformed that DRC had scrapped the scanner fees however , the scrapping of fees for scanner charges could only be considered resolved upon receipt of documentary evidence (Letter from DRC). 4. d) During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, DRC Focal Point confirmed that the scanner and parking charges have been lifted. However, Malawi NFP reported that their truck drivers are still paying for these services and the NTBs has not been resolved. 5. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, the following update was received: i. DRC informed the meeting that there was no information on the current status of the reported NTB and requested the affected Member States to provide information if their traders are still experiencing challenges. ii. DRC, Malawi and Zambia to update the status of the NTB on the Online System.
NTB-001-127	8.8. Issues related to transit	2023-07-25	Mozambique: Beira Route	Malawi	In process	View
Complaint:	Professional Drivers Union in Malawi are concerned with reduced transit limit time to 21hrs by Mozambique - Initially the transit time was 72hrs. This change brings about healthy and safety concern to drivers. Drivers are concerned on road conditions, mechanical faults and time to rest on the road which makes it difficult to meet this newly set time limit. They opt for the 72hrs as it were because this time limit gave an allowance to delays encountered in transit and it was good for safe driving.
NTB-001-128	2.4. Import licensing	2023-06-23	Zimbabwe: Johannesburg/Pretoria	South Africa	In process	View
Complaint:	Reference is made to a resolved complaint with number NTB-000-966, which pertained to a problem with import licensing requirements into Zimbabwe. The complainant was a Zambian exporter of yeast that was experiencing challenges in obtaining import permits from the Authorities in Zimbabwe, which permits were not issued when requested. This complaint is similar to the problem experienced by Rymco (Pty) Ltd, trading as Anchor Yeast, being hindered in exporting yeast from South Africa to Zimbabwe. The date of resolution is indicated as 06 April 2023. A status note pertaining to the complaint reads as follows: “During the COMESA Regional Capacity Building Workshop for NMCs and National Focal Points held from 3 to 6 April 2023, Zimbabwe Focal Points reported that import permits were no longer required as the products have been placed on open general import license. This NTB was therefore resolved.” South Africa requests confirmation on whether the lifting of the import licensing requirement on yeast also applies to SADC countries, specifically South Africa.
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:	3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms, 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms and 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion)
NTB-001-134	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2023-05-08	Kenya:	Egypt	In process	View
Complaint:	The Middle East Glass Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries: 1) Misr Glass Manufacturing and 2) Middle East Glass Containers in Sadat. Being largest glass container manufacturer in the Middle East & North/East African region located in Egypt. The company has maintained strong business relation with Republic of Kenya over the last decade(s) being key glass supplier for more than 12 years to most of big manufacturing companies (some of them are big multinational companies) with superior track record of commitments in terms of quality standards and satisfying customer demands, continuity of supply, meeting their expectations and needs of glass container. Egypt is member state of COMESA trade agreement (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), which support enhancing the relation and volume of trade between the company and Kenyan customers. Below table shows the amounts that has been exported to Kenya in the last 5 years: 2019 = US$ 10,325,336 2020 = US$ 10, 929, 362 2021 = US$ 8, 122, 525 2022 = US$ 8, 848, 972 2023 = US$ 7,322,062 Starting March 2020, Kenya has applied Extra Excise of 25% on all imported glass bottles (excluding pharmaceutical glass bottles) – copy attached - which limit the advantage given to all COMESA countries. This law has been already appealed by other glass container manufacturer in Tanzania and they successfully were able to remove it. In addition, Starting September 2023, Excise duty applied on imported glass bottles has been increased to be 35% instead of 25% with no clear reason or justification. This additional duty applies by the Finance Act No. 4 of 2023 – copy attached - has prevented Middle East Glass from its fair competition against other glass manufacturers in the region and also against the agreement of COMESA. We believe the main reason behind all these amendments is to support the local producer Milly Glass Works Ltd. Address: Liwatoni Road, Mvita, Road, Mombasa, Kenya, Near the Mombasa Yacht Club. Hence, we seek support to waive all the glass exported from Egypt to Kenya from implementation of the excessive Excise Duties similar to the case of Tanzania case.
Progress:	1. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, Egypt reported that the legislation is still providing a barrier to Egypt exports to Kenya. The two countries agreed that this issue will form part of the agenda for the proposed bilateral meeting by 28th June 2024. 2. On 28 August 2024, Egypt requested the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between themselves and Kenya regarding this NTB. After the Secretariat initiated the bilateral meeting, on 3 September 2024, Kenya agreed to hold the bilateral meeting, following a stakeholder consultative meeting held on the same day. 3. 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.
NTB-001-151	8.8. Issues related to transit	2023-09-13	Mozambique: Beira Port	Malawi	New	View
Complaint:	The Malawi pigeon pea export consignment to India has been detained at Beira port in Mozambique for the following reasons: 1. 275Mt for Grey Matter - Investigation on issues of origin. However, the consignment bears Malawi custom seals and documents, emphasizing its Malawi origin. 2. 1500MT for Africa Fertilizer Ltd – Rules regarding fumigation. All the consignment loaded in trucks in Malawi, and stuffing was done in containers in Beira. 3. 3275MT for Afrisian Ltd – Customs verification if the cargo is in transit.
NTB-001-152	8.8. Issues related to transit	2024-02-07	Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port	Zambia	New	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-001-153	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-01-26	Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY	Tanzania	In process	View
Complaint:	The ZB Card company shipped a shipment to Zambia at the end of January which is subject to the original SADC laws. When you arrived at ZRA, they refused to allow it, claiming that the HS Code is incorrect, so they ordered ZB Card to change it. ZB Card did that but ZRA has rejected the CoO claiming that it is not authentic. We have contacted TCCIA so that they can confirm its authenticity and TCCIA has done so but since 10/02/2024 there has been no success
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-001-156	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)
NTB-001-165	6.2. Administrative fees	2024-03-01	Kenya: Kajiado	Burundi	New	View
Complaint:	Namanga/Kajiado Country charges 2,000Ksh for all Burundi cargo trucks transition Kenya
NTB-001-167	5.5. Import licensing requirements	2024-05-16	South Africa: All border crossings by road, air or sea	Namibia	New	View
Complaint:	Nakara (pty) , a Namibian company formally requests a dispensation from the South African Veterinary (SA VET) import permit required for imports of Namibian finished leather. Nakara (pty) Ltd, a Namibian tannery, has maintained an unblemished record and has never been implicated in any wrongdoing in the past. However, due to the current regulatory framework, we find ourselves inadvertently impacted by the necessity of the SA VET import permit on Namibian leather exports. It is important to note that no other country imposes such a requirement on imports of finished leather into South Africa. South Africa is Nakara's biggest export market and the aforementioned unnecessary NTB puts Nakara into a competitive disadvantage. A disadvantage that hinders further growth in the trade relationship between Namibia and South Africa in the leather sector, both being members of the SADC region.
Products:	4107.99: Leather "incl. parchment-dressed leather" of the portions, strips or sheets of hides and skins of bovine "incl. buffalo" or equine animals, further prepared after tanning or crusting, without hair on (excl. unsplit full grains leather, grain splits leath
NTB-001-168	3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) B11: Prohibition for TBT reasons	2024-05-14	South Africa: Maseru Bridge	Lesotho	New	View
Complaint:	We have been told by Port Health via SAHPRA that as per regulations 6 & 7 of the Medicines Control Act of 1965, we are no longer allowed to transport medications to our customers in Eswatini by road In- transit through South Africa. This is despite the fact that we have done so since May of 1990 up 13 May 2024. We have 2 order ready, packed and waiting to be supplied, but we are being prevented from making declarations to deliver to our customers. This summary decision to prevent Trade with Eswatini is totally unacceptable. We ask for your help to resolve this issue urgently!
Products:	3003.10: Medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale, 3003.20: Medicaments containing antibiotics, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale (excl. medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof) and 3003.31: Medicaments containing insulin, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale
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. 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 neighboring 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). 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) 2.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)
NTB-001-180	1.15. Other	2024-06-17	South Africa: Maseru Bridge	Lesotho	New	View
Complaint:	MG Health Ltd cultivates and manufactures cannabis products for the European market. We started exporting Cannabis and transiting via Maseru Bridge since September 2020. On the 17 July 2024, after getting all export documents and submitting them to SARS on the South African side we were informed that Cannabis cannot be exported via Maseru Bridge as it not amongst designated ports according to South African law. MG Health's truck was then returned to Lesotho. MG health initiated Meetings thereafter and the response that MG Health received was that this practice that MG Health and others who are in the same industry are accustomed to was a measure adopted during COVID-19 restrictions. It was explained to SARS that Lesotho is landlocked as a result the consignment will have to be flown out to get to OR Tambo. Secondly, given the quantities that are exported, using available flights will require multiple flights for just one consignment thus making the export process difficult and expensive. SARS response was that Medical Cannabis must be exported using designated ports irrespective of whether it is in transit or it is being exported to SA as the SA law is very clear on this matter and MG Health cannot make reference to Article 16 SACU Agreement.
Products:	5302.90: True hemp "Cannabis sativa L.", processed but not spun; tow and waste of hemp, incl. yarn waste and garnetted stock (excl. retted hemp)
NTB-001-184	8.8. Issues related to transit	2024-08-09	Zimbabwe: Forbes	Zambia	In process	View
Complaint:	On 10 August 2024, Zimbabwe imposed a requirement enforcing payment of duty on fuel in transit at the Port of Entry at all border posts ‘in order to secure duty and levies on fuel imported under Removal in Transit Facility’. Such duty and levies shall be recovered on acquittal at the Port of Exit. Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) advised that the payment of duty for fuel in transit was to mitigate against transit fraud. With effect from 10 August 2024 all fuel, petrol, diesel, paraffin and jet A1, in transit imported through ports of entry by road is now required to pay duty and levies on entry. The duty and levies will be refunded at the port of exit upon compliance with all the transit procedures, including submission of proof that the fuel has been exported. Consignee’s and/or their representatives should approach ZIMRA at the port of entry to initiate the fuel clearance and payment process. For the refund process, once the fuel has been exported, they should approach ZIMRA at the port of exit to initiate the requisite refund process. This requirement increases cost of transport. The refund procedures are not clear, and the risk of delayed refunds is very high negatively affecting cashflows for transporters. Also this requirement is treating compliant and non-compliant transporters without distinction and is penalizing the transporters who have been compliant to the Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS) where the alleged abuse has been detected. We therefore request The Minister to urgently reconsider improving this measure to facilitate movement of fuel at reasonable costs.
NTB-001-191	1.15. Other	2024-05-20	South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge	Lesotho	New	View
Complaint:	I am writing on behalf of Mind Health, a Lesotho-registered company actively engaged in the research and development of medicinal products. We are currently collaborating with the University of the Free State (UFS) in South Africa to conduct studies on one of our products. This relationship is critical for advancing our work in the medicinal sector, a key area of growth for Lesotho. However, we have encountered significant challenges due to the implementation of Section 4.8 of the Guideline for the Importation and Exportation of Medicines (Regulatory Compliance Unit) by SAHPRA. The guideline requires the use of specific ports of entry, namely Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and OR Tambo International Airport, for the export of medicines. Consequently, we are prohibited from using more practical and geographically closer border posts such as the Maseru Bridge or Ficksburg Bridge. Given Lesotho's landlocked nature and the fact that the University of the Free State is only 227 km from our facility, this regulation has drastically inflated the cost of exporting small quantities of medicinal samples. For instance, we are now compelled to fly samples from Maseru to OR Tambo, have them cleared by customs, and then transport them by road back to the university—a total of 424 km. What would have cost us a few hundred rand using nearby border posts now costs several thousand rand. Additionally, this significantly increases shipment times, delaying our research and impacting the efficiency of our studies.
NTB-001-193	3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) B14: Authorization requirements for importing certain products	2023-12-10	Botswana: Instructions provided to the Rwanda's commercial agent based in Botswana	Rwanda	New	View
Complaint:	Requirement by Botswana authority in charge of food imports that Rwanda needs to provide a " Free Sale certificate" prior to exporting coffee to Botswana. The issue is that such certificate is not required in 20 countries where Rwanda is exporting coffee globally. In addition, there is no institution in Rwanda that issues such certification.
Products:	0901: Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated; coffee husks and skins; coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion.
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.
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.
NTB-001-200	2.4. Import licensing	2024-07-16	Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade	Malawi	New	View
Complaint:	In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets. Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702. However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible. On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse. As of today, the import license has still not been secured.
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-001-204	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)
NTB-001-209	2.9. Issues related to transit fees	2024-10-13	Kenya: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	Additional fees are charged on timber in transit. Kenya charges Ksh 48000 on transit vehicles carrying forest and timber products from Uganda that transit through Kenya to destinations outside the EAC. Transit vehicles are charged fees for a transit license in addition to payment of road user fees. The timber products are extracted from forests in Uganda and not Kenya. This additional fee is wrongly charged and causes additional costs to trade in forest products from Uganda.
Progress:	1. During the RMC of 17th October 2024, the Republic of Kenya committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC. 2.The Senior Officials were informed that the Republic of Kenya is in consultation with Forestry Services to address the matter and will report back by the 46th SCTIFI. 3.During the Senior Officials Session, Kenya reported that: This is a consolidated charge for movement permits for timber on transit for 18 trucks. The fees and charges are contained in the Fourth Schedule of Legal Notice No. 21 of 2016 (item 9) as follows: Movement permit per consignment- 2000 VAT 16% 320 E citizen fee 50 Total 2370 The movement permits are meant to provide control, traceability as well as monitoring the movement of forest products till they reach the required destination.
NTB-001-210	2.9. Issues related to transit fees	2023-05-02	Kenya: Mombasa County	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	Agricultural Produce Cess on tea into Mombasa County Mombasa county charges charges Cess on tea in transit to the auction market. Mombasa County is charging the cess on all tea destined for Mombasa at the rate Kshs 7000, for a truck of seven tonnes and above.Charging the cess on tea being trucked into Mombasa Countyincreases the cost of doing business. This tea is dstined outside Kenya.
Progress:	1. During the RMC of 17th October 2024 the Republic of Kenya committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC. 2.The Republic of Kenya reported that they have initiated discussions with the County and committed to revert during the Ministerial Session. Also, Kenya has embarked on sensitisation of Counties on EAC Procedures to facilitate trade. The SCTIFI noted that the NTB was still affecting Uganda traders and urged the Republic of Kenya to waive the KSHS 7,000 Cess by 31st December 2024 and report to the 46th SCTIFI (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 53). 3.During 38th RMC, Kenya informed the meeting that it is committed to resolve the matter by the financial year 2025/2026
NTB-001-214	6.6. Border taxes	2024-10-01	Tanzania: Rusumo, Mutukula, Kabanga	Rwanda	In process	View
Complaint:	Through Port Health at Rusumo, Kobero / Kabanga and Mutukula/Mutukula, the United Republic of Tanzania charges the Republic of Rwanda and the Republic of Burundi Trucks 5 USD or the equivalent in Tshs as Free Pratique which is not in the EAC legal framework for free movement of cross-border trade.
Progress:	1.The United Republic of Tanzania submitted that Free Pratique is an internal health practice for taking samples, inspections, maintenance, vaccination, and sanitising at points of entry and exit. The fee which is charged once per vehicle per journey, is charged based on the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 http://elibrary.osg.go.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/1006/01-2009%20The%20Public%20Health%20Act%2c%202009%20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and International Health Regulations 2005. Free Pratique in the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 Definition: "free pratique" means permission for a ship or an aircraft to enter a port embark or disembark, discharge or load cargo or stores; When is it granted: Section 40 (3) Where the Port Health Officer is satisfied that - a) a communicable or infectious disease is not on board; b) The Responses on the Maritime Declaration of Health Form are negative: c) the Ship Sanitation Control Certificate or Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate is valid; and d) there is no other reason for the ship to be further inspected he shall grant a certificate for free pratique and allow the ship to enter the port as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Act. Section 43: Except in the case of danger, the Master of a vessel arriving at any port or place in the country and a person on board the vessel, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with the shore or any other vessel, other than by signal, until a certificate for free pratique has been granted to that vessel in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any other relevant laws. Partner States expressed their concern on the discriminatory fee charged at Rusumo, Kabanga and Mutukula OSBPs only and is demanded on truck drivers without any service being provided to them. 2.The United Republic of Tanzania submitted that Free Pratique is an internal health practice for taking samples, inspections, maintenance, vaccination, and sanitizing at points of entry and exit. The fee which is charged once per vehicle per journey, is charged based on the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 http://elibrary.osg.go.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/1006/02009%20The%20Public%20Health%20Act%2c%202009%20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and International Health Regulations 2005. Further, the United Republic of Tanzania reported that the charges are not confined to regional trade only and not discriminative as they are applied to all borders and all vehicles including those registered in Tanzania. In that view, the United Republic of Tanzania considers that the charges are not qualified to be NTB. In addition, the United Republic of Tanzania reported that the charges are 5 USD for buses / trucks and other surface vehicles; and USD 20 for trains. Other Partner States noted that the charge of 5 USD is only imposed at Rusumo, Kabanga and Mutukula OSBPs and hence, it is discriminatory. The meeting emphasized that the fee is an NTB because it impedes trade in goods and services and increases the cost of doing business in the region thus it should be removed. The United Republic of Tanzania requested for time to undertake consultations on the matter and report resolution by 28th February 2025. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the internal processes on the removal of the charges related to conveyance inspection and resolve the matter by 28th February 2025 (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 48). 2.Tanzania through the Ministry of Health undertook a consultative meeting and agreed to consider the matter during the financial year 2025/26
NTB-001-217	1.1. Export subsidies	2024-09-24	Tanzania: Kabanga	Burundi	In process	View
Complaint:	URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024.
Progress:	1. Free Pratique in the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 Definition: "free pratique" means permission for a ship or an aircraft to enter a port embark or disembark, discharge or load cargo or stores; When is it granted: Section 40 (3) Where the Port Health Officer is satisfied that: - (a) a communicable or infectious disease is not on board; (b) The Responses on the Maritime Declaration of Health Form are negative: (c) the Ship Sanitation Control Certificate or Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate is valid; and (d) there is no other reason for the ship to be further inspected he shall grant a certificate for free pratique and allow the ship to enter the port as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Act, Section 43. Except in the case of danger, the Master of a vessel arriving at any port or place in the country and a person on board the vessel, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with the shore or any other vessel, other than by signal, until a certificate for free pratique has been granted to that vessel in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any other relevant laws. When is it applied: Section 46. The Port Health Officer may, upon arrival of- (a) any vessel, train, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing from infected area or suspected to be from that infected area; or (b) any vessel, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing which has during the voyage been in transit in an infected area with plague, cholera, yellow fever or any other communicable or infectious disease, order the implementation of the measures to deal with that vessel, vehicle, train, aircraft or any other article or thing in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The United Republic of Tanzania requested time to undertake consultations on the matter and report the progress by 28th February 2025. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged the United Republic of Tanzania to remove the charges related to free pratique as it impedes trade in goods and services and increases the cost of doing business in the Region and report progress by 28th February 2025 (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 49). 2. Tanzania through the Ministry of Health undertook a consultative meeting and agreed to consider the matter during the financial year 2025/26
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:	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.
NTB-001-224	2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures	2024-11-22	South Africa: South African Revenue Authority	Mauritius	New	View
Complaint:	Mauritius Customs is unable to accept the SADC Certificate ZA PQ 56085 issued by Customs in South Africa due to missing of specimen signature at their level. The Mauritius Customs sent a request to RSA Customs to get a confirmation of the signature .Up to date they have not yet received any reply.
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:	During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that There are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the financial year 2025/26
NTB-001-226	1.1. Export subsidies	2024-11-20	Lesotho: Maseru Bridge	Lesotho	New	View
Complaint:	Samples being sent by road-freight to South Africa for testing at an accredited laboratory were refused passage. Company was informed that the only way to send the samples for testing was to send via air. The challenges are that bulk orders do not fit on an Airlink flight and therefore would require a specific mode of chartered transport .This increases costs significantly and could potentially be the cause that orders are cancelled
NTB-001-228	2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures	2025-01-16	Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Ministry of Minerals	Zambia	New	View
Complaint:	Tanzania Revenue Authority has introduced a new system for copper imports whereby the Ministry of Minerals must stamp the export permit. Only once this is done can the assessment be completed and the vehicles cross the border (Nakonde/Tunduma) to Tanzania. Once the vehicle is on the Tanzania side, the Ministry of Minerals must stamp the assessment. After the assessment is stamped, it must be scanned to the TRA HQ in Dar es Salaam for approval. The Approval is then scanned back to the border, and the T1 can be generated and the vehicles cleared for movement. This is time-consuming and leads to further congestion at this border post, where containerised cargo to Zambia takes a fortnight to cross between Tunduma and Nakonde.
NTB-001-229	1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions	2025-01-16	Madagascar: other	Tunisia	New	View
Complaint:	The Tunisian company "Société des Boissons du Cap Bon" has entered into a partnership with a Madagascan distributor, "4 Seasons", represented by Mrs. Safa Hamdi, for the distribution of its products, in particular juices, soft drinks and cheeses. The Tunisian company agreed to an annual forecast of 12 to 15 containers and in return granted the distributor exclusive rights to distribute its products on the Madagascan market. The Tunisian company began working with this distributor with a first shipment on March 23, 2024, consisting of a total of four containers: three of juice and one of cheese. Attached are photos of the "Délice" brand products distributed by 4 Seasons in gas stations, supermarkets and traditional markets. Our distributor has also made considerable efforts to promote the products through sponsorship campaigns, urban billboards and a strong digital presence, demonstrating its commitment. However, the Tunisian company encountered a problem: a company called IBC, which we understand is in the construction business and is neither a distributor nor a juice producer, registered the "Délice" brand in Madagascar under the name "Délice de Fruit" using our logo. It has since contacted the distributor of the Tunisian brand to try to persuade it to work with IBC using its trademark registration. It should be noted that the "Délide de Fruits" trademark has been registered with the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) since December 2022 and with the National Institute for Standardization and Industrial Property (INNORPI) since 2006, 2019 and 2022 (all documents are attached).
NTB-001-231	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2024-12-12	EAC	Rwanda	New	View
Complaint:	Illegal fees on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month.$100 is charged on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month, this was identified by the Central Corridor Team during a survey from Rusumo to Dar es Salaam port.
Progress:	During the 38th RMC, Tanzania informed the meeting that the fee is not illegal, but it is a special pass paid once in 90 days to all EAC Citizens. However, if the person exits URT within 90 days and wants to re-enter URT the person will again be charged $100. The meeting agreed that the matter be referred to the Regional Implementation Committee on the Common Market Protocol for further discussion and resolution
NTB-001-238	1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation	2025-02-16	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Zimbabwe	New	View
Complaint:	Our delivery truck (ADS 3378, AFQ 8744, AFQ 8746) destined for South Africa was detained at Beitbridge border post last night by South Africa Port Health authorities due to concerns regarding a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe and the potential risk of contamination in the water.
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:	Kenya informed the SCTIFI that the Amendments to be effected in the 2025 / 2026 Financial year by 1st July 2025
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. The 38th RMC meeting referred the NTB on valuation to SCOC for consideration and resolution and report back to the next RMC
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:	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.
NTB-001-244	6.5. Variable levies	2020-10-13	Uganda: URA	Kenya	New	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.
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:	During the 38th RMC, DRC reported that they would consult and revert
NTB-001-246	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-11-01	Tanzania: Ministry of Agriculture	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	Quantitative restrictions on Ugandan Sugar transfers to Tanzania only up to 20,000 MT, are accepted These Quotas have been subject to bilateral negotiations to allow market access for Uganda Sugar. We request that Tanzania to remove quantitative restrictions.
Progress:	During the RMC Uganda submitted that engagements with URT on the NTB had not achieved results and would seek the issue to be escalated to the Policy level. During the SCoT URT submitted that Uganda requested the quota and was granted through a bilateral agreement and hence discussions to resolve the NTB should be continued bilaterally
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:	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
NTB-001-249	6.5. Variable levies	2025-02-04	Kenya: KRA	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	Excise duty being charged on onions, potatoes, potato crisps and potato chips transferred from Uganda to Kenya. This means they are being treated as imports. This was effective 1st July 2022, at a rate of 25% imposed against the EAC CUP. Kenya is requested to consider removing the excise duty with immediate effect
Progress:	During the RMC, Uganda submitted that the Law refers to imports, but Kenya is charging Uganda for transfers. Uganda requested that Kenya to adhere to the definition of imports as per the EAC Laws and stop charging Uganda transfers. The NTB is to be resolved in the financial year 2025/2026.
NTB-001-251	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-07-05	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	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.
NTB-001-253	8.8. Issues related to transit	2025-05-11	Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	While in transit from BBR to Nyamapanda with a load destined for Malawi, our truck had to divert off the predetermined statutory route through Harare due to roadworks/congestion by no more than 400m. The Zimra tracking seal picked up this diversion and thus, we have been punished with a $2000 fine we which feel is incredibly excessive, especially with proof that the truck was not stationary at all while off-route. This punishment does not seem to fit the crime.
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:	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 .
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-001-265	8.8. Issues related to transit	2025-06-03	South Africa: Lebombo	South Africa	New	View
Complaint:	In relation to Complaint NTB-000-632, "Copper Moon Trading, the company that is running the Lebombo dry port at Komatipoort, near the Lebombo/Ressano Garcia border post, is forcing transporters to use and pay for its parking facilities in Komatipoort. Transporters' vehicles are required to visit the SARS customs clearing offices at the Lebombo dry port and so parking should be provided for them, free of charge, by SARS. If parking is not provided, then trucks must be allowed to park along the roadway." The complaint was resolved in 2016, is this still the case? Attached is a receipt.
NTB-001-268	6.2. Administrative fees	2025-03-13	Kenya: Busia	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	The EAC Simplified certificate of origin is issued to cross-border traders at a fee charged for a photocopy (10 KES) without giving a receipt. This is to request the Regional Monitoring Committee (RMC) to urge Partner States to issue EAC Simplified Certificates of Origin free of charge to small-scale cross-border traders.
NTB-001-269	6.2. Administrative fees	2025-06-12	Kenya:	Tanzania	New	View
Complaint:	Cross-border traders trading under the EAC simplified trade regime apply for the port health inspection certificate. The cost for the port health inspection certificate is Ksh. 500 (USD 5) per vehicle entering TAVETA. The certificate is issued, but no receipt is provided. We request the EAC Regional Monitoring Committee to urge EAC partner states to waive this fee or have a transparent payment method with charges displayed for cross-border traders of cereals and horticulture trading under the EAC simplified trade regime at all OSBPs.
NTB-001-270	2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures	2025-06-09	Kenya:	Tanzania	New	View
Complaint:	EABC undertook a practical case study on trading cereals and horticulture products under the EAC Simplified Trade Regime. Findings on Trading Consignments of Horticulture under the EAC Simplified Trade Regime at the Holili/Taveta One Stop Border Post (OSBP) from Tanzania to Kenya is as below 1) Procedural Complexity: The 11-step process spans multiple agencies, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Atomic Commission Agency (i.e., TAEC and KNRA), KEPHIS, TPHPA, Port Health, Police, AFA, KRA, and Customs Authorities, contradicting the STR’s promise of streamlined trade. Each step adds time and administrative hurdles. 2)High Costs: Cumulative fees and taxes disproportionately erode profits for small consignments. For example, exporting 1,000 kg of onions incurs of the USD 2,000 threshold. This financial burden negates the STR’s duty-free benefit. approximately USD 682 in inspection fees, excise duties, and road tolls—approximately one-third 3)Redundant Certifications: Phytosanitary requirements overlap unnecessarily. Tanzania’s TPHPA issues a certificate, yet Kenya’s KEPHIS demands its own inspection and certification, duplicating efforts and costs. This is coupled with the requirement for a Radiation certificate for goods traded in EAC. 4)Transparency Gaps: Cash payments for inspections (e.g., police fees of Kshs. 200–500, Port Health’s Kshs. 500) often lack receipts, exposing traders to potential exploitation and undermining accountability. 5)Cross border traders are afraid to report NTB reporting due to risk of retaliation: NTB reporting requires the reporter to submit evidence of the NTB/complaint) with women and youth Small Cross border traders expressing fear of retaliation from regulators as their personal information will be shared when they submit evidence of the complaint..
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-001-272	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2025-07-08	Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA)	Uganda	New	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.
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.
NTB-001-275	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2025-08-18	Tanzania: Namanga	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Customs has raised doubts regarding the Certificate of Origin issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). However, TRA has failed to provide any written explanation for its objections and has refused to verify the certificate directly with KRA via email. As a result, the goods have been held at the Namanga border, causing delays and financial losses to the consignee. This action by TRA Customs constitutes a violation of the EAC Protocols and Regulations, undermines the rights of the importer, and damages the legitimate business interests of Kenyan enterprises engaged in intra-EAC trade.
NTB-001-276	VAT Refunds	2020-08-03	South Africa: South African Revenue Services	Botswana	New	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.
NTB-001-279	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-05-19	Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board	Kenya	New	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.
NTB-001-281	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-08-08	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Tanzania imposition of discriminatory Excise Duty on exports/Transfers that hinders Chocolate export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to chocolate manufactured in Tanzania
NTB-001-282	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-05-13	Tanzania: Dar es salaam City Council	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Tanzania imposition of multiple road toll charges at the border, Dar Esalaam City Council on exports/Transfers that hinders ice cream, Chocolate etc exported from Kenya into Tanzania.
NTB-001-283	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-07-07	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Tanzania imposition of discriminatory EXCISE DUTY OF TZS 400/KG on exports/Transfers that hinders ON SAFETY MATCHES export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to SAFETY MATCHES manufactured in Tanzania.
NTB-001-284	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-07-01	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	The Tanzania government imposed a 10% excise duty on soap detergents transferred/exported by Kenya into Tanzania, violating the principles of the EAC Protocal article 15 & 75 and creating an unfair competitive environment. 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%
NTB-001-285	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-07-01	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	The Tanzania government imposed a 10% Discriminatory Levies: Industrial Development Levy excise duty on Road tractor for semi-trailers transferred/exported by Kenya into Tanzania, violating the principles of the EAC Protocal article 15 & 75 and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Tanzania producers/assemblers of whom do not pay the 10% Industrial Development Levy, further distorting the market. Road tractor for semi-trailers 10% for HS 8701.21.90 8701.22.90 8701.23.90 8701.24.90 8701.29.90
NTB-001-286	5.10. Prohibitions	2025-05-23	Tanzania: TBS	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Tanzania ban of Kenya juice products with Sugar and Nonnutritive sweetener combination. Kenya products are being seized from retail customer outlets. This restriction of market access is going against the spirit of the SQMT Act as the products has the KEBS standardization Mark manufactured using the EAC harmonised standard that allows for sugar reduced drinks.
NTB-001-287	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2025-09-04	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	URT denial of the preferential treatment to blankets that have been manufactured in Kenya and instead subjecting the blankets to full CET of 25% duty on the blankets transferred from Kenya into URT by Spinner and Spinners LTD with reason that the company is benefitting from DRS. The raw material used in the manufacture of the blankets is EAC wide remission on HS Code 5402.33.00 as a regionally eligible code under the DRS. The affected consignment is Assessment Ref: TRA Namanga, Entry Ref. 158254115-25-9900817 subjecting to 25% duty. This creates an unfair trade barrier, distorts competition, and frustrates intra-EAC trade integration goals. URT to grant preferential treatment to blankets enjoying regional DRS
NTB-001-288	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-08-20	Tanzania: TRA	Kenya	New	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.
NTB-001-289	1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies	2025-06-20	Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority	Kenya	New	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.
NTB-001-290	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2025-01-01	South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Non-recognition of EAC Certificates of Origin: Despite South Sudan’s membership in the East African Community (EAC), goods are taxed as if they originate from outside the region, such as Asia or Europe. The East African Community Customs Management Act (EACCMA) is not fully recognized, even though it provides guidance and reference. Instead, sections of the East African Community Regulation are selectively used for matters related to the Electronic Cargo Tracking device, with the Community service provider enforcing the new tax collection requirements.
NTB-001-291	1.2. Government monopoly in export/import	2025-01-01	South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority	Kenya	New	View
Complaint:	Double Taxation: Traders are required to pay taxes in both USD at the point of loading and South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) at the entry point. This is contrary to WTO/International Chamber of commerce global trade facilitation norms and other incoterms. It is untenable to calculate taxes using two different currencies.
NTB-001-292	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2025-07-01	Kenya: Mombasa sea port	Egypt	New	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
NTB-001-293	2.4. Import licensing	2025-10-12	Botswana: Ministry of Lands and Agriculture	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	Our company is unable to be productive in our business due to shortage of chick supply in the market, caused by delays by the Government (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture) to approve us to import chicks and fertilized eggs for broiler farming.
NTB-001-294	1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions	2025-10-28	Botswana: Tlokweng Gate	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	BOBS Division Closing their service times during Holidays, weekends and festive days while Cross-border traders and Borders run through out. We urge that there be service aligned with all borders operating times and services. Consignments are then detained until their working times. we then loose revenue, standing times, conditions or goods be affected and further be exposed to risks.
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-001-296	2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures	2024-07-30	Madagascar:	Mauritius	New	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.
NTB-001-298	7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof)	2025-03-14	Zambia: Kazungula Ferry	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	On the 14th of March 2025 i encountered challenges when crossing to Zambia for business purposes. The immigration officer at the border enquired on the purpose of my visit to Zambia and i informed her that i was travelling for business and requested for a Business Visit (BV) stamp. The officer indicated that BV is only used when someone is travelling to Zambia to sell not to buy as i had intended to go and purchase sweet potatoes. I informed her that we had previously had challenges with law enforcement officers as they insist that whoever is coming to Zambia for business purposes should have a BV stamp not visitors stamp. The officer solicited a bribe amounting to BWP500.00 in order to give me the BV stamp. This contraction of information between immigration officers and the police officers in Zambia cost us as traders lots of money as well as time. It also compromises our safety when we go to Zambia
Products:	0714.20: Sweet potatoes, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets
NTB-001-299	Congested Empty container Depots	2025-09-01	Kenya: Mombasa sea port	EAC	New	View
Complaint:	The Kenya Transporters Association (KTA) reports a critical and ongoing operational barrier at the Port of Mombasa: the systemic failure of shipping lines to repatriate empty containers, leading to severe congestion at their nominated Empty Container Depots (ECDs). As the legal owners of these containers, shipping lines are responsible for ensuring their designated depots can receive them. However, these facilities are now operating beyond capacity and are routinely turning away trucks, creating a landside bottleneck that paralyzes the logistics chain and nullifies the port's efficiency. This failure has triggered a devastating cascade of consequences. Transporters' trucks and drivers are physically immobilized for days, unable to offload containers and redeploy for new cargo. This directly results in massive financial losses from lost revenue, skyrocketing operational costs (fuel, wages, parking), and the unjust threat of demurrage charges from the very shipping lines causing the delays. The immobilization of a significant portion of the trucking fleet disrupts national supply chains, harms the environment through unnecessary pollution from idling vehicles, and threatens the viability of transport businesses. KTA places the responsibility for this crisis unequivocally on the shipping lines. Their failure stems from a fundamental neglect of their asset management and logistical duties, including the inadequate evacuation of containers and the poor management of their contracted depot infrastructure. This operational failure is now being unfairly transferred to transporters in the form of financial losses and penalties, a cost-shifting practice that is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately by the responsible parties.
Products:	9801.00.45: - For motor vehicles for the transport of goods of heading 87.04, of a vehicle mass exceeding 2 000 kg or a G.V.M. exceeding 3 500 kg, or of a mass exceeding 1 600 kg and of a G.V.M. exceeding 3 500 kg per chassis fitted with a cab (excluding shuttle cars

<< Previous Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Active complaints