Active complaints

Showing items 1 to 20 of 95
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-001-001 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-001-302 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-02-06 Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY Kenya In process View
Complaint: 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) Imposed by Zambia

Zambia has introduced a 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) on CIF value, identified only upon reviewing the attached ASYCUDA import entry for Kenya manufacturer Carbacid LTD recent CO₂ shipment. This surcharge was unexpected and has a significant commercial impact on our exports.
CO₂ Is COMESA Originating and Should Not Be Charged discriminatively.
Carbacid LTD food grade CO₂ (HS 281121) is fully COMESA originating, supported by a valid Certificate of Origin for every shipment.
Under COMESA Treaty Article 49(1), Member States must remove existing NTBs and refrain from imposing new restrictions on goods originating from COMESA countries.
The COMESA NTB Regulations (2020) prohibit new discriminatory or trade restrictive measures.
The SGS surcharge therefore constitutes:
• A discriminatory charge
• A trade restrictive NTB
The surcharge raises the Kenya manufacturer landed cost and undermines Kenya’s products competitiveness in Zambia. As CO₂ is essential for soft drink bottling, the measure operates as a protectionist NTB in violation of COMESA obligations.
Zambia to remove the 10% SGS surcharge on COMESA originating CO₂ and restores compliance with COMESA trade rules, ensuring Kenyan goods are not unfairly discriminated against. 		 
NTB-001-245 6.2. Administrative fees 2025-04-01 Democratic Republic of the Congo: From Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side Uganda In process View
Complaint: A review of the route from Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side revealed 24 Roadblocks.
The traders reported that they pay 300 dollars per roadblock; we wouldn't pick evidence of this payment because its illegal 		 
Progress: 1. During the 38th RMC, DRC reported that they would consult and revert
2.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB 		 
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-001-152 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-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-000-725 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-000-823 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-000-820 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-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-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-001-129 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-07-01 Kenya: Kenyan Government Egypt In process View
Complaint: Complain from Eagle Chemicals - Egypt
Subject: Excise duty on imports cancelling the effect of COMESA agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Refer Attachments)

  
Progress: 1. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Regional Forum , Kenya Focal point reported that they had contacted relevant authority and will provide feedback in the online system . Egypt requested that the bilateral meeting to consider this and other NTBs be schedule at the time Kenya would have completed their internal consultations .
2.Following the 3rd Regional COMESA NTB meeting and the 8th Meeting of Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee, Kenya was requested to provide feed back on NTB-001-129 on excise applied to products, 3905.19: Homopolymers 3903.20: Emulsion - Styrene Acrylic3905.91: Emulsion VAM 3907.50: Alkyd and3907.91: Unsaturated Polyester , It was proposed that Kenya and Egypt to hold a bilateral Meeting virtual with support of the Secretariat on 10th November 2023.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. Kenya to update the status report on outstanding NTBs with Egypt on the online reporting system by 26th April 2024.
4. On 18 June 2024, Kenya Focal Point reported that the Kenyan parliament was reviewing the Finance Bill 2024, with the intention of revising certain clauses as deemed necessary. Consequently, they were awaiting the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024 to determine whether there will be amendments to the specified non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
5. On 9 September 2024, Egypt and Kenya held a bilateral meeting on the outstanding NTBs emanating from the enactment of Kenya’s Finance Acts of 2021 and 2023. The two Member States agreed on the following:
a) The additional taxes are NTBs as its application is discriminatory as they only apply on imports and not domestically produced products.
b) Kenya to continue with her internal consultations with relevant policymakers and to follow up on the progress of resolving the NTBs, as requested by the Egyptian delegation.
c) The meeting agreed that the NTBs are policy issues and can be best addressed by the Joint Trade Commission (JTC) meeting, which is a higher level that is able to take decisions on this NTB and other trade related issues.
d) Both Kenya and Egypt continue with internal consultations with relevant stakeholders in preparation for the upcoming JTC meeting.
6. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
Products: 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms, 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion), 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms and 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid")  
NTB-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-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-001-310 2025-09-13 Tanzania: Uganda New View
Complaint: Currently, Tanzania Ports Authority (TPA) Tariffs (2023) and the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Act Cap 145 (2026) do not address recent developments in regional transport, particularly the introduction and operation of Roll-on Roll-off (RoRo) vessels within the East Africa lake transport corridor.

In particular, at Mwanza Port, port charges levied on RoRo cargo by TPA are considerably high, and in most instances, include stevedoring and cargo handling fees that are not actually incurred. Given that RoRo cargo is driven on and off vessels without manual handling, the application of such charges is inconsistent with the nature of service provided. Additionally, wharfage fees are assessed at high levels compared to other regional ports, that further increase the overall cost burden on customers.

Despite efforts to engage port officials in constructive dialogue and propose a case-by-case assessment framework that would more accurately align charges with the actual services rendered, there has been limited willingness to review and adjust the existing approach. Charges continue to be applied under the prevailing tariff structure without adequate consideration of the unique operational characteristics of RoRo transport.

The cumulative effect of these high and misaligned port charges is that prospective customers are discouraged from utilizing lake transport services. This is particularly concerning given that water transport offers a shorter, more cost-effective alternative to the long and less efficient road route via the Mutukula border between Uganda and Tanzania.

Furthermore, lake transport provides broader economic and environmental benefits. It is a more environmentally sustainable mode of transport, contributing to reduced carbon emissions, lower fuel consumption per-kilometer, and decreased road congestion. Increased utilization of water transport relieves pressure off regional road infrastructure, thereby reducing road maintenance costs and promotes the use of available multimodal transport corridors.

In light of the foregoing, there is a clear need for a review and modernization of the existing lake tariff framework to incorporate RoRo-specific provisions. Such reforms would promote fair pricing, encourage modal shift to more sustainable transport options, and the broader objectives of regional trade facilitation and infrastructure optimization`. 		 
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. 		 
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-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-001-092 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2022-12-01 Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: Egypt has received a complaint from one of our exporters who also intends to invest in Uganda and establish a manufacturing plant of the products ( processed food products ) he is currently exporting to Uganda and the importing company is “ Afromarket King – Imports &Exports LTD” . The complaint is concerned with the imposition of high taxes and duties , in addition to top ups on exported goods by Egypt of processed food in specific the following HS codes including :
200990 210330
210320 210390
210390 210320
210690 210390

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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