Active complaints

Showing items 1 to 20 of 84
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-001-227 2024-08-01 Tanzania: Tunduma South Africa New View
Complaint: Certain African countries are now requiring annual renewal of all test reports for our safety footwear crossing their borders. Financially, this translates to approximately R55,000 per test per style. For manufacturers such as ourselves exporting multiple styles annually, the cost could potentially run into millions, significantly impacting our margins but also creating potential delays or disruptions.  
NTB-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-000-977 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-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-001-152 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-001-276 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.  
Progress: During the SADC regiomal workshop on resoltuion of NTBs held on the 14-15 April 2026, SARS indicated that VAT refunds are being processed through South African-based agents, with delays and backlog attributed to the transition from the pre-COVID system to a new system, as well as some claims being rejected due to incomplete or non-compliant documentation; approximately R93 million has been paid out regionally in batches. Botswana companies are encouraged to use reference numbers to track claims, while coordination between the private sector, local consultants, and South African agents will be strengthened, and SARS will provide guidance on documentation requirements to improve compliance and efficiency. Overall, the matter is partially resolved, with progress made but further follow-up required to clear outstanding claims and enhance system efficiency. BURS is also working on it and plans to have a meeting with SARS as soon as possible.  
NTB-001-357 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-03-30 Zambia: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member, Flo-Tek is currently facing trade barrier in Zambia, Flo-Tek raised concerns regarding the imposition of a mandatory entry permit fee of approximately USD 541 per truck shipment for Botswana-registered trucks transporting PVC and HDPE pipes. According to the company, the fee applies regardless of the size or value of the shipment and significantly increases the cost of exporting to the Zambian market, particularly for smaller and more frequent consignments. In addition, Zambia imposes a 20% Selected Goods Surtax (SGS) on PVC pipes, HDPE pipes, and fittings. While the surtax is reportedly intended to protect local manufacturers, Flo-Tek argues that Zambia does not manufacture the large-diameter pipes supplied by the company, meaning there is no local industry being protected in this particular market segment. The company therefore views the surtax as an unnecessary trade barrier that inflates infrastructure project costs and weakens the competitiveness of Botswana manufacturers in the regional market.

The NTB's undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore request resolution through bilateral and regional trade mechanisms. 		 
NTB-001-358 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-02-02 South Africa: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member -Flo-Tek has highlighted challenges relating to road transit bonds and cabotage restrictions. The company noted that South African authorities shifted responsibility for road transit bonds from transporters to the importer or owner of the goods. As a result, Flo-Tek is now directly responsible for administering and carrying the liability associated with transit bonds for shipments passing through South Africa. The company argues that this arrangement places an unfair financial and administrative burden on exporters, despite the transporter being in physical control of the cargo during transit. Flo-Tek also raised concerns about South Africa’s cabotage regulations, which prevent Botswana-registered trucks from completing deliveries in situations where the South African entity is the invoice holder or where goods are destined for onward export to neighbouring countries such as Lesotho. Consequently, cargo must be transferred to South African trucks before final delivery, resulting in additional transport arrangements, delays, cargo handling risks, and increased logistics costs. Flo-Tek believes these restrictions are largely protectionist in nature and hinder regional trade integration.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these South Africa undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. 		 
NTB-001-359 5.5. Import licensing requirements 2026-02-17 Zimbabwe: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member - Flotek has reported that In Zimbabwe, imports exceeding USD 5,000 require an import licence issued through the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). These licences are generally valid for only three months and must be secured before goods can enter the market. The company indicated that most of its consignments exceed the threshold, meaning nearly all exports to Zimbabwe are affected by the licensing requirement. Delays in obtaining or renewing licences can disrupt deliveries, delay customer projects, and create financial losses. In addition, Zimbabwe requires mandatory Bureau Veritas (BV) pre-shipment inspections for trucks entering the country, with inspection fees charged on a per-invoice basis rather than per shipment. Flo-Tek stated that the fees range between USD 250 and USD 300 per invoice, resulting in significant cumulative costs for shipments containing multiple invoices. According to the company, this creates unnecessary inefficiencies and increases the cost of exporting into Zimbabwe.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these countries undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore requested that relevant mechanisms be triggered to resolve this NTB. 		 
NTB-001-218 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2024-10-29 Tanzania: Dar es Salaam Kenya In process View
Complaint: Tanzania's Finance Act 2024 introduced an excise duty for ‘’imported’’ products under HS Code 32.08 (Paints and varnishes including enamels and lacquers) of T Shs. 500 per kilo. However, this excise duty has NOT been imposed on any local manufacturers of the same products.

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

Therefore we believe this excise duty represents a huge disincentive to Kenyan manufacturers and hindrance to free trade within the EAC.
After writing to the TRA for assistance in the above issue, we were told that the Excise duty is chargeable to all goods falling under that heading even if it is of Kenyan origin (see our letter and their response)
We therefore request your assistance on way forward for us to import items under the HS codes mentioned from Kenya without being subject to this new excise duty of 500 T Shs. Per kilo. 		 
Progress: 1. The SCTIFI of May 2025 noted that, although the Republic of Kenya had not provided transactional evidence on the reported excise duty, broader concerns remain regarding the misapplication of the term “imports” within the EAC context. Partner States were reminded that Article 15 of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment prohibits discriminatory treatment of goods originating from other EAC Partner States. The meeting therefore urged all Partner States to harmonize the interpretation and application of the term “imports” in national laws and practices with the EAC legal framework, in order to facilitate intra EAC Trade.
2.During 39th RMC,URT reported that they were still consulting will update by December 2025
3. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 		 
NTB-001-243 2.4. Import licensing
Policy/Regulatory 		2025-04-16 Kenya: Busia Uganda In process View
Complaint: Kenya charges a discriminatory excise duty of 10% on fish transferred from Uganda, but does not charge excise duty on fish in Kenya. This means fish transferred from Uganda is being treated as an import, which is against the CUP. Kenya also charges an additional 5% levy on fish.  
Progress: 1. The Republic of Uganda submitted that the Law refers to imported Fish, but Kenya is charging Uganda for transfers. During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that there are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the next financial year.
2.During the Bilateral meeting the two Partner States agreed treat originating goods as transfers. Kenya committed to Fastrack the review of the law.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that it will be resolved by 30th June 2026 after the review of the Tax Law. 		 
NTB-001-368 2026-03-06 Djibouti: Galafi Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The movement of goods through the Galafi border corridor is significantly constrained by poor road infrastructure between Ethiopian border and Djibouti, particularly around the Dikil town corridor, which stretches approximately 80 kilometers. Traders and transporters said that traveling within this route can take up to 19 hours for a relatively short distance compared to the same distance takes 4 hours in normal road infrastructure, mainly due to the poor condition of the road.
The prolonged travel time has several direct and indirect impacts on traders. First, delays in transportation often result in late arrival at the border post, which in turn leads to additional costs such as extended storage/container fees, and missed clearance schedules. These delays also significantly affect perishable goods, including agricultural products and livestock trade. Traders indicated that animals transported along this route sometimes suffer from stress, illness, or death due to the long and difficult journey, resulting in financial losses.
Another major concern is the health and safety of drivers. Spending nearly a full day to cover only 80 km exposes drivers to extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and limited access to medical or emergency services along the route. The difficult road conditions also increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and mechanical failures.
In cases of vehicle breakdown or accidents, transporters face additional burdens such as expensive car towing services, which further increase operational costs. Moreover, traders highlighted that insurance coverage for goods in transit is either unavailable or extremely expensive for this route. Because of the high risk associated with the road condition, many transporters are unable to afford insurance, leaving them financially vulnerable in the event of accidents, cargo or container damage, or loss.
Traders also emphasized that these challenges persist despite the existence of an alternative road that has already been constructed but is not yet operational. If this alternative route were opened and fully functional, it could significantly reduce travel time, lower transport costs, improve driver safety, and minimize losses related to perishable goods and livestock.
Overall, the poor infrastructure along the Galafi–Dikil corridor represents a substantial non-tariff barrier to trade, creating delays, increasing costs, and exposing traders and transporters to significant financial and safety risks. 		 
NTB-001-242 6.5. Variable levies 2024-12-27 Kenya: Ministry of Finance Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Through, the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024 of Kenya passed on 11 December 2024 and came into force on 27 December 2024, the Government of Kenya, among other things, introduced excise duty on various products such as marble, transformers, float glass, coal imported from outside Kenya including East African Community countries. Also, has increased the valuation rates in calculating tax on tiles when they are sold in the country. These challenges have affected production due to the decline in the market for the products in Kenya caused by competition after the prices of the products in question became high  
Progress: 1.On excise duty charged on originating goods from Tanzania, Kenya was urged to refrain from enacting discriminatory laws that treat EAC originating goods as imports. The RMC was informed by Kenya that, through the Supplementary Legal Notice, excise duty was removed from Glass and Transformer. Kenya provided the supplementary gazette removing the two products.
(b) On valuation rates on tiles from Tanzania and Uganda when they are sold in the country as per the complaint from Tanzania below, entries as evidence on valuation adjustments examined showed adjustments as noted in the Internal KRA Memo on valuation for tiles from Uganda & Tanzania. The meeting noted that valuation of goods is administrative and operational, hence the valuation matter be referred to the Sectoral Committee on Customs for Commissioners (SCOC) to consider and resolve. The EAC guided that Valuation in EAC is guided by Section 122 and Fourth Schedule of the EAC CMA.
2. The 38th RMC meeting referred the NTB on valuation to SCOC for consideration and resolution and report back to the next RMC
3.The 39th RMC noted that transformers, float glass, coal had been granted preferential treatment.
4. During the 40th RMC URT informed the meting that She is implementing the SCFEA Directives to review the tax law with the view to remove all discriminatory taxes, fees, levies and charges of equivalent effect. Hence the NTB will be resolved by 30th June 2026. 		 
NTB-001-362 2025-09-23 Ethiopia: Ethio-Dibouti Railway Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The Ethio-Djibouti Railway, in addition to providing transport services to the Dewele border, also offers freight forwarding services to exporters, either directly or through its agents. While the contractual agreement is established between the exporter and the railway operator, the actual service delivery is often carried out by third-party agents with whom exporters have no direct contact.
This arrangement limits the exporters ability to track consignments in real time. In several instances, exporters only become aware about the missing consignment at the border. So,the remaining/missing goods will be shipped separately through the same process, resulting in additional transport costs and delays. Consequently, there is a delay in meeting delivery deadlines, which affects the trader’s reliability and lead to financial losses as well. 		 
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-000-530 8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory 		2012-09-10 Zambia: Zambia Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is requiring all foreign tankers either delivering product to Zambia, or transiting Zambia, to comply with its Standards 371:2008 and 429-4:2008.
Furthermore, it is charging transporters to obtain a permit to certify that the tankers comply with the Standards. This requirement is affecting the free flow of goods into Zambia.

Zambia is requested to recognise the foreign vehicles national certificates of roadworthiness as it is difficult for Transporters operating tankers into Zambia to alter the design of their tankers at short notice.This is against the objectives of trade facilitation, will create monopolies and increase the cost of transport. 		 
Progress: 1. On 25 January 2018, Zambia Focal Point advised that the Zambia Bureau of Standards had taken into account the concerns raised. The standard (ZS 371:2008) is currently under revision to address concerns among other matters.
The matter had also been tabled under SADC in an effort to harmonize the standard in the region
2. During the 15th SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in May 2017, Zambia reported that this NTB had been resolved. However, South Africa Focal Point undertook to verify with complainant and provide feed back on the status.
3. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that through SADCSTAN and Tripartite Transit Transport Facilitation Programme had recently agreed on the standard on transportation of dangerous goods which covers fuel tanks that will resolve this matter.
4.During the SADC Regional NTbs workshop held in April 2026, Zambia reported that Zambia is yet to adopt the harmonized standards on tankers, however, the relevant authorities were currently reviewing.With regards to the issue of recognition of roadworthiness, Zambia will confirm after consultation with relevant authorities. SADC Secretariat to also confirm and update on the regional recognition aspect. 		 
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-000-769 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-05-05 Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco.  
Progress: 1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024.
17.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that the excise duty charged is not discriminatory. Kenya insisted on the bilateral agreements.
18. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 		 
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-000-818 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2018-05-17 Botswana: Ministry of Transport South Africa In process View
Complaint: Failure to implement Article 5.8 (6.2 Road Traffic Policy) leading to variable treatment of the transport of High Cube containers with height exceeding 4.3 metres.

The transport of High Cube Containers, on “standard” deck height (1.5 metres) vehicles and trailers results in overall height of approximately 4.5 metres.
Botswana: Imposes requirement for abnormal load permits for each load.
South Africa threatens to repeal moratorium on prosecution from 1 Jan 2019
Other countries ignoring “illegal” height, but “illegality” leaves insurance threats to operators.
Zambia (4.8), Zimbabwe 4.65), Malawi (4.6); Tanzania (4.6) have increased legal height to at least 4.6 metres.
Uncertainty in region is causing growing concerns regarding viability of international transport routes amid fears of further enforcement costs and barriers. 		 
Progress: 1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 in Gaborone reported that MCBRTA standards agreed at the TSMCI of 31 October 2029 maximum vehicle height of 4.6m which will resolve this NTBs if South Africa complies with this standard.
2. In December 2025, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that the MCBRTA Standards and model laws were due to be set before the TFTA Authority in February 2026.
3. During the SADC regional workshop held in April 2026, it was noted that there is need for harmonised regional standards and that there had been no further developments regarding progress under the MCBRTA on this matter.
4. Botswana Focal Points suggested that due to lack of harmonised on standard deck height for vehicle and trailers it is difficult to label this issue an NTB, the reported height average is the same.
5. However the absence of harmonised standards is the NTB in this case. SADC Secretariat to facilitate convening of the relevant organ to consider the matter . 		 
<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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