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-001-333 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-02-01 Zambia: Chirundu COMESA New View
Complaint: ZIMRA is not clearing the products originated in Zambia using the STR Declaration even the products are under the Common List. The goods are subjected to the submission of Formal Customs Declaration and subject to pay customs duties, instead of granting preferential tariff treatment under the COMESA FTA.  
Products: 2009.12: Orange juice, unfermented, Brix value <= 20 at 20°C, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. containing spirit and frozen)  
NTB-000-987 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2020-09-26 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry Botswana In process View
Complaint: Zambia Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA)charges Botswana trucks 541 US Dollars per each entry into Zambia, while other SADC Countries are charged per distance. South Africa trucks are charged 110 US Dollars from Kazungula Ferry to Lusaka, Namibia trucks are charged a fixed 209 US Dollars per truck anywhere into Zambia. Zimbabwe and Tanzania pay a the same as South Africa.

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

This has become detrimental to our business as we lose more revenue on a daily basis. We currently request the Zambia government, Botswana government and SADC Secretariat to resolve this issue. 		 
Progress: On 8th December 2020, Zambia Focal point reported that they were making follow up with the Road Transport and Safety Agency ( RTSA) and provide feedback as soon as possible.  
NTB-001-106 6.5. Variable levies 2022-07-05 Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Zambia New View
Complaint: Zambia exports into Zimbabwe on beverages attracts additional duty of $ 0.05/Litre.Lengthy Compliance processes, Multiple agency approvals and complex certification requirements further discourage sincere exporters as these layers increase the product turnaround time and further increase RTM cost and delivery time.
For example: - COC, Inspection, Route plan B, Importer licenses & various agency registrations (Multiple window clearance, COMESA certificate) 		 
Progress: 1. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss NTBs affecting both counties and this issue will form part of the Agenda.
2. On 17 April 2024, Malawi Focal Point reported that they were following up with the agencies involved in this issue to resolve the NTBs and gave assurance the this issue was being discussed at length and feedback on the outcomes of the consultations would be provided as soon as possible.
3. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, Zimbabwe updated the meeting that national consultations and engagements with Zambia towards the resolution of the outstanding NTBs were ongoing. Zambia confirmed the engagement with Zimbabwe and the Secretariat will be updated on the outcomes from the consultations. 		 
NTB-001-253 8.8. Issues related to transit 2025-05-11 Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda South Africa New View
Complaint: While in transit from BBR to Nyamapanda with a load destined for Malawi, our truck had to divert off the predetermined statutory route through Harare due to roadworks/congestion by no more than 400m. The Zimra tracking seal picked up this diversion and thus, we have been punished with a $2000 fine we which feel is incredibly excessive, especially with proof that the truck was not stationary at all while off-route. This punishment does not seem to fit the crime.  
Progress: 1. On 02 February SADC Secretariat facilitated a bilateral meeting between South Africa and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe committed to consider the issue as per the attached documents which give more clarity to the reported NTB. Zimbabwe to provide response by Friday 06 February.
2. On 12 march 2026, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that movement of transit cargo passing through Zimbabwe is controlled through the use of designated routes from ports of entry to ports of exit, on which diversion is not allowed and when diversion occurs there is a fine of US$2.000.00 charged. However, in cases of diversions caused by other government agencies (e.g VID), clients can keep receipts as proof and where there is no such proof can notify Electronic Cargo Tracking System Control Room immediately to avoid diversions without authorisation. The use of designated routes is in terms of section 60 (5) (f) of the Customs and Excise General Regulations (Statutory Instrument 154 of 2001). The fine of US$2,000.00 is charged in terms of section 60 10) (d) of same statutory instrument as amended by paragraph (e) of statutory instrument 113 of 2017. In this case, transporter diverted for more than 7km from designated route and the road had no road works as averred and as a result fine was charged. They went on to use another road that is specifically restricted from entry by heavy commercial vehicles with a violation penal provision of another US$2,000.00 as per statutory instrument 124 of 2021, but this fine was not charged. When charged, an appeal for the review of the decision can be lodged but in this case the transporter did not exhaust the internal appeal process. 		 
NTB-000-970 2.4. Import licensing 2020-07-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture Egypt In process View
Complaint: We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ we cannot take risk. I want to import only after having a clear official approval.  
Progress: 1. On 25 March 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that this issue is currently being resolved. Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to resolve via import parity is underway.
2. On 30 July 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the exporter was advised to visit the Zambia Trade Information Portal for details on the export of wheat to Zambia using the following link:
https://www.zambiatradeportal.gov.zm/index.php?r=tradeInfo/view&id=7439 .Further information from can also be obtained from the Director, Agribusiness and Marketing department on +0211 250417. The email address is as follows: yoanness18@yahoo.co.uk or peter.zulu2@gmail.com.
2. On 6 September 2023, Egypt Focal Point reported that they tried to communicate with the contacts provided by Zambia focal point, and as per the feedback of the concerned exporter. However, " NO emails are responded to. The Ministry of Agriculture, say it's not allowed to import wheat flour."
3. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries should conduct a bilateral meeting to review the matter by 30th November. Consultations between the Focal Points and NMC to continue using the online system and that Zambia to provide feedback regarding the ban of wheat imports in the online .
4. During the NTBs workshop 17 -19 April 2024, Egypt NFP reported that they were willing to hold a bilateral meeting with Zambia MNC in case Zambia NFP did not upload the national authority decree No. 24 of the year 2024 by end of April 2024.
5. During a virtual bilateral meeting between the two Member States held on 24th September 2024, it was agreed that in the immediate term, Zambia to conduct consultative meetings to ascertain the possibility of having the ban lifted or have the wheat import window extended in accordance with the Control of Goods Order of 2009.
6. On 6 January 2025, Egypt wrote to the Secretary General to advise that the Egyptian wheat exporter is still experiencing the same problem even after the validity of the SI of 24 April 2024 had expired on 30 August 2024. They request Zmbia Focal Point to make follow up and facilitate Egypt exportation of wheta flour into Zambia.
7. During a bilateral meeting held on the 4th June 2025, the two Member States received the following updates:
i. Zambia informed the meeting that the ban had been lifted temporarily.
ii. Exporter from Egypt reported challenges in completing online registration of their company in the ZRA ASYCUDA System.
iii. Zambia to continue, in the immediate term, to conduct consultation with the relevant Ministry on the issue of the timelines to have the prohibition lifted or possible extension by October 2025.
iv. Zambia will, in the long term, consider a comprehensive review of the measure, which was initially imposed to protect infant industry, to assess its justification and subsequently communicate the outcomes to Egypt in due course by 1st quarter 2026.
v. Egypt to share the wheat imports statistics from the affected companies as evidence that they are utilizing the open window period to inform Zambia’s consultation with the relevant Ministry on the impact of the measure by October 2025. 		 
NTB-001-295 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-10-20 Uganda: Malaba Eswatini In process View
Complaint: We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty  
Progress: 1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter.  
NTB-000-689 8.6. Vehicle standards 2016-03-23 Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road South Africa In process View
Complaint: We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana.

The trailer manufacturers states the GVM to be 36 000 kg per unit (see attached vehicle registration papers)

This is the combined weight of the front and back link. However that is not what is reflected on the disc.

What it should say on the disc, is that the carrying capacity:

a) on the front link is 13000 kg.
b) The rear link is 23000kg.
c) The combined weight is thus 36 000kg.

We all know that it is not possible to carry 36000kgs on the front link and 36000kgs on the rear link. The axle configurations do not permit this to say the very least.

The problem arises on entry into Botswana at the border posts. They charge their road user fees per disc weight on the front and rear trailer.

therefore we end up paying for 36000kgs for the front trailer and 36000kgs for the rear trailer, this is 72 000kgs per unit.

To change the SA disc the following procedure will have to be followed.

1) W/bridge
2) Road worthy
3) Registration certificate
4) Certificate of compliance
5) Certificate model
6) Builders certificate
7) Ten days to change details of GVM per trailer.

a) It is very costly
b) it is very time consuming
c) it is not practical
d) It defeats the object of standardization and harmonization in the SADC region.

In this day and age where we are all trying to tighten our belts in order to survive, we can ill afford such additional costs.

This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached. 		 
Progress: This issue was discussed during the Botswana / South Africa Bi-National Commission, which was held in Gaborone in November 2017. As per item 3.2.2.1 bullet point number one (1), the Republic of South Africa was to formerly request for a waiver from Botswana on the matter, while South Africa is still sorting out the system that causes the problem. Botswana is still awaiting correspondence from South Africa to that effect. We kindly advice the South African Focal Point to consult the Department of Transport in South Africa for further clarifications.  
NTB-000-742 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-001-048 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements 		2022-01-03 Tanzania: Standards Authority South Africa New View
Complaint: Vague Labelling requirement "Statutory Warning" Clause 12 (k), rejection of the UK Chief Medical Warning which is accepted in other African countries such as Uganda, Kenya without any objection in addition to their requirement.  
Progress: The stakeholder consultative meeting organized by the SADC Business Council which was attended by the concerned parties from South Africa and Tanzania and SADC Secretariat on 7 march 2022, agreed that the UK Chief Medical Officers Guidelines labelling should be retained (The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend adult do not regularly drink more than 14 units per week) provided that the Wine producer affixes an additional sticker which covers all missing information on the product package.
The additional sticker (label) should be legibly and indelibly marked.
The additional sticker should be submitted to the Tanzania Bureau of Standards for approval accompanied by the declaration letter from the Manufacturer stating that additional label originating from them and products imported in Tanzania will be labelled as such. 		 
NTB-001-251 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2024-07-05 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT is subjecting full CET of 35% on ZESTA JAM manufactured in Kenya by Trufoods. The Zesta Jam is manufactured using locally sourced sugar.
We request Tanzania and Kenya to conduct on spot verification on June 2025 to ascertain origin as the jam transferred is using locally manufactured sugar and qualify under the EAC Preferential treatment.
Kenya communicated to TRA vide letter ref: C&BC/HQ/8 Dated 24/9/2024 requesting Tanzania for application for Zesta Jam to be granted preferential treatment. 		 
Progress: During 47th SCTIFI, noted that the matter is administrative and referred to Customs Committee where the two Partner States agreed to conduct bilateral verification to ascertain the origin criteria by end of February 2026  
NTB-001-288 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-08-20 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT imposition of discriminative Excise Duty on Unilever Soaps, detergents and bleaches -10%; Industrial Development Levy-5-15%
VAT Rate-18%
Impact to business
• Increased production costs due to excise and industrial levies.
• Reduced competitiveness against imported products, especially if inputs are taxed.
• Pressure on pricing, potentially leading to higher consumer prices or reduced margins.
Limited relief for manufacturers despite EAC integration goals.
This tax favours local Tanzania producers of whom do not pay the 10% excise duties, further distorting the market.
3401.11.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3401.19.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.50.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.90.00 Soap and detergents 10% 		 
NTB-001-070 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2022-06-30 Tanzania: Namanga Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT charging Kenya an import discriminatory Excise Duty introduced vide URT Finance Act 2022. Additionally, some consignments are discriminatively subjected to Tsh.1000/kg not anywhere in the URT Finance Act 2022. The same excise duty is not applicable to the same or like products produced in URT hence creating unfair competition between the Partners States Originating products.  
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States. 
Section 2 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 defines import as to bring or cause to be brought into the Partner States from a foreign country, and export as to take or cause to be taken out of Partner States. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Treaty for Establishment of East African Community, EAC Community Laws take precedence over similar national laws on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Treaty 		 
Progress: 1. During the Regional NTBs Forum,URT informed the meeting that the complaint is not an NTB but a charge of equivalent effect which is like what is in the Kenya’s Finance Act of 2022. This is a result of non-harmonization of domestic taxes in the Region. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the Kenya Finance Act is not discriminatory and hence the Charge on Confectionary Sugar by URT is an NTB and should be resolved by abolishing the discriminative fees. The Trade Committee meeting recommends that the process of harmonizing the fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. During the 41st SCTIFI meeting Kenya observed that confectionary products from Kenya should not be treated differently from confectionery products produced in Tanzania. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya observed that NTB-001-070: “URT discriminatory charges of import TSh.700 and unfounded charges of Tsh.1000 to Kenya confectionary, sugar and sugar products.” The EAC TBP submissions has referred to the excise duty as fees and subsequently recommended the process of harmonizing the Fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. Kenya’s submission is that the description of the charges as fees is erroneous. The charge is an excise duty as contained in the United Republic of Tanzania Finance Act of 2022 and the custom entry presented as evidence. This measure is therefore disciplined under Article 15 of the Protocol establishing the EAC Custom Union and not subject to the process of harmonization of fees, levies and charges. The excise duty discriminates transfers of confectionary, sugar and sugar products from Kenya which are levied Tshs 700 per kilogram against locally produced like-products which are levied Tshs 500 per kilogram. This measure is a violation of Article 15 on National Treatment which prohibits Partner States from imposing, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Partner States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products In addition, in the custom entry presented as evidence, the Kenya exporter has been charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya therefore requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
2. During the 42nd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that Kenya exporters were charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya, therefore, requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
The United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that there was an error in the Law that had since been reviewed through a Government Notice number 478(1) of 4th July 2022. The meeting noted that in the reviewed Law, locals are charged NIL while exports are charged 1,000 Tshs. URT to consult on the application of the new law and revert.
3.During the 35th RMC URT informed that the NTB will be resolved in accordance with the SCTIFI Directive on harmonization of domestic taxes, especially excise duties.
On the other hand, Kenya informed as follows:
(a) Goods produced within the EAC should be considered local and therefore, not treated as imports.
(b) Partner States align their internal Acts to define imports and exports in accordance with EAC CMP
4.The 36th RMC that took place from 1st - 4th May 2024 was informed that the NTB is being addressed under the Bilateral engagements where the two Partner States agreed to the harmonisation of all discriminatory taxes, conditions, levies, fees, and charges related to imports/exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024.
5.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that they are still in consultations and will update by December 2025 		 
NTB-001-110 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory 		2022-07-01 Kenya In process View
Complaint: United Republic of Tanzania subject a discriminatory treatment to Kenyan export/transfer on products of animal and animal products despite their commitment in the bilateral meeting to amend the Act to resolve the discriminatory charges on the Kenya animal and animal products by June 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the contrary Kenya facilitates Tanzania sausages without any charge.

This is really unfair practices where URT is charging import charges to Kenya products despite Kenya being in the EAC Customs union where we transfer products and not import 		 
Progress: 1. Kenya recognized the effort made by URT in reducing the fee from 5,000 Tshs to 3,000 Tshs per kg of meat. The Republic of Kenya indicated that the fee is still very high, discriminative, and amounts to import duty. The Kenyan companies exporting meat products to URT have been negatively affected by a sharp decline in the volume of meat products exported to URT, since the imposition of these charges. A consignment of 25,000 kgs exported from Kenya to URT is charged Kshs 3,750,000. In addition, it is charged an import fee of 2% FOB by the Tanzania Meat Board, 0.4% FOB by the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, and 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measures Agency. A similar consignment exported to Kenya from URT is charged Kshs 3,000. Thus, Kenya proposes that the two Partner States engage and harmonize these regulations to either charge per kg or per consignment.
Tanzania Meat Board had also denied market access to beef products imported from Kenya and thus Kenya urges URT to address this matter.
2. The 34th RMC noted that the NTB was new. URT reported that they would consult the relevant stakeholders and revert during the 35th RMC
3.During the 36th RMC Kenya reported that the NTB was considered during a bilateral meeting between Republic of Kenya & the United Republic of Tanzania whereby the two Partner States agreed to harmonization of all conditions, levies, fees and charges related to import / exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024
4. During the 38th RMC meeting, Kenya agreed to send a formal invitation to URT for the Bilateral Meeting.
The two Partner States held their meeting in July 2025. An update shall be provided during the RMC 		 
NTB-001-271 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2024-12-01 COMESA Egypt In process View
Complaint: Unipak Nile Ltd., a subsidiary of INDEVCO Group in Egypt, export corrugated boxes to Kenya under the COMESA Agreement.

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

This unilateral action undermines ability of Egyptian exporter to compete fairly and has halted UNIPAK Nile Ltd export operations and expansion plans in Kenya whose exports to Kenya reached $9–10 million annually, particularly in the agriculture and dairy sectors. 		 
NTB-001-244 6.5. Variable levies 2020-10-13 Uganda: URA Kenya In process View
Complaint: Uganda is subjecting Kenya manufacture furniture to discriminative excise duty of 20% that it is not subjected to Uganda manufactured furniture.
Uganda is requested to remove the discriminative excise taxes on Kenya furniture transferred to Uganda as it is prohibited in the EAC Customs Union Protocol; Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.
The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect. 		 
Progress: During 39th RMC, noted that the matter is under bilateral discussions and will be handled as per the agreement.  
NTB-000-751 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2017-05-01 Zambia: Ministry of Trade Botswana In process View
Complaint: Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia.

On the 11th November 2016, Zambia issued SI 85 of 2016, The Tolls Act in which the Second Schedule Section A and B outlines Entry Tolls for COMESA/SADC and other Countries. Botswana was not included under SADC and awarded tolls higher than other SADC States. On the 1st May 2017, Botswana retaliated by issuing an Amendment of the Road Traffic and Road Transport (Permits) regulations, 2017. Under this Amendment, tolls were increased and in turn, Zambian Transporters handed a hefty penalty. The result is that as a Zambian Transporter our Transit Fees through Botswana increased by 70%.

This makes the Botswana route unattractive and given the congestion at Kazungulu, we have had to run through Zimbabwe again. We are delayed here by congestion, delays in ZIMRA electronic sealing processes and run the gauntlet as described above.

Surely the whole idea of building the Kazungula Bridge is to improve the flow of traffic through Botswana and create economic advantage? With the increase in the tolls in a tit for tat manner, building the bridge is a waste of time.

Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC. 		 
Progress: 1. On 11 January 2019, Zambia Focal Point reported that the two parties (Zambia and Botswana) are undertaking consultations on the matter in order to resolve the issue.
2. On 02 June Secretariat was advised to organise virtual meeting between the Focal Points to recommend way forward 		 
NTB-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. 		 
NTB-000-530 8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory 		2012-09-10 Zambia: Zambia Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is requiring all foreign tankers either delivering product to Zambia, or transiting Zambia, to comply with its Standards 371:2008 and 429-4:2008.
Furthermore, it is charging transporters to obtain a permit to certify that the tankers comply with the Standards. This requirement is affecting the free flow of goods into Zambia.

Zambia is requested to recognise the foreign vehicles national certificates of roadworthiness as it is difficult for Transporters operating tankers into Zambia to alter the design of their tankers at short notice.This is against the objectives of trade facilitation, will create monopolies and increase the cost of transport. 		 
Progress: 1. On 25 January 2018, Zambia Focal Point advised that the Zambia Bureau of Standards had taken into account the concerns raised. The standard (ZS 371:2008) is currently under revision to address concerns among other matters.
The matter had also been tabled under SADC in an effort to harmonize the standard in the region

2. During the 15th SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in May 2017, Zambia reported that this NTB had been resolved. However, South Africa Focal Point undertook to verify with complainant and provide feed back on the status.
3. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that through SADCSTAN and Tripartite Transit Transport Facilitation Programme had recently agreed on the standard on transportation of dangerous goods which covers fuel tanks that will resolve this matter. 		 
NTB-001-153 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2024-01-26 Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY Tanzania In process View
Complaint: The ZB Card company shipped a shipment to Zambia at the end of January which is subject to the original SADC laws. When you arrived at ZRA, they refused to allow it, claiming that the HS Code is incorrect, so they ordered ZB Card to change it. ZB Card did that but ZRA has rejected the CoO claiming that it is not authentic. We have contacted TCCIA so that they can confirm its authenticity and TCCIA has done so but since 10/02/2024 there has been no success  
NTB-001-229 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 2025-01-16 Madagascar: other Tunisia New View
Complaint: The Tunisian company "Société des Boissons du Cap Bon" has entered into a partnership with a Madagascan distributor, "4 Seasons", represented by Mrs. Safa Hamdi, for the distribution of its products, in particular juices, soft drinks and cheeses. The Tunisian company agreed to an annual forecast of 12 to 15 containers and in return granted the distributor exclusive rights to distribute its products on the Madagascan market.

The Tunisian company began working with this distributor with a first shipment on March 23, 2024, consisting of a total of four containers: three of juice and one of cheese. Attached are photos of the "Délice" brand products distributed by 4 Seasons in gas stations, supermarkets and traditional markets. Our distributor has also made considerable efforts to promote the products through sponsorship campaigns, urban billboards and a strong digital presence, demonstrating its commitment.

However, the Tunisian company encountered a problem: a company called IBC, which we understand is in the construction business and is neither a distributor nor a juice producer, registered the "Délice" brand in Madagascar under the name "Délice de Fruit" using our logo. It has since contacted the distributor of the Tunisian brand to try to persuade it to work with IBC using its trademark registration.

It should be noted that the "Délide de Fruits" trademark has been registered with the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) since December 2022 and with the National Institute for Standardization and Industrial Property (INNORPI) since 2006, 2019 and 2022 (all documents are attached). 		 
<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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