| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-134 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2023-05-08 |
Kenya: |
Egypt |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Middle East Glass Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries: 1) Misr Glass Manufacturing and 2) Middle East Glass Containers in Sadat. Being largest glass container manufacturer in the Middle East & North/East African region located in Egypt. The company has maintained strong business relation with Republic of Kenya over the last decade(s) being key glass supplier for more than 12 years to most of big manufacturing companies (some of them are big multinational companies) with superior track record of commitments in terms of quality standards and satisfying customer demands, continuity of supply, meeting their expectations and needs of glass container.
Egypt is member state of COMESA trade agreement (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), which support enhancing the relation and volume of trade between the company and Kenyan customers. Below table shows the amounts that has been exported to Kenya in the last 5 years:
2019 = US$ 10,325,336
2020 = US$ 10, 929, 362
2021 = US$ 8, 122, 525
2022 = US$ 8, 848, 972
2023 = US$ 7,322,062
Starting March 2020, Kenya has applied Extra Excise of 25% on all imported glass bottles (excluding pharmaceutical glass bottles) – copy attached - which limit the advantage given to all COMESA countries. This law has been already appealed by other glass container manufacturer in Tanzania and they successfully were able to remove it.
In addition, Starting September 2023, Excise duty applied on imported glass bottles has been increased to be 35% instead of 25% with no clear reason or justification. This additional duty applies by the Finance Act No. 4 of 2023 – copy attached - has prevented Middle East Glass from its fair competition against other glass manufacturers in the region and also against the agreement of COMESA.
We believe the main reason behind all these amendments is to support the local producer Milly Glass Works Ltd. Address: Liwatoni Road, Mvita, Road, Mombasa, Kenya, Near the Mombasa Yacht Club.
Hence, we seek support to waive all the glass exported from Egypt to Kenya from implementation of the excessive Excise Duties similar to the case of Tanzania case. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, Egypt reported that the legislation is still providing a barrier to Egypt exports to Kenya. The two countries agreed that this issue will form part of the agenda for the proposed bilateral meeting by 28th June 2024.
2. On 28 August 2024, Egypt requested the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between themselves and Kenya regarding this NTB. After the Secretariat initiated the bilateral meeting, on 3 September 2024, Kenya agreed to hold the bilateral meeting, following a stakeholder consultative meeting held on the same day.
3. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. |
|
|
NTB-001-155 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory |
2023-11-03 |
Egypt: Egyptian Tax Authority |
Zambia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On November 3, 2023, the Egyptian Official Gazette published Law No. 177 of 2023 amending provisions of the Value Added Tax Law promulgated by Law No. 67 of 2016, including the provisions related to the tiers of cigarette taxation. The amendments to Serial 1/B of Law No. 177 of 2023 bluntly prohibits imported cigarettes from of the first tier and restricts them to “cigarettes produced by local factories”, which favors and gives preferential treatment to local products.
It is worth noting that the addition of the aforementioned provision has significant repercussions on the competitive ability of other companies, especially that the first tier has the lowest priced cigarettes in the market and are more economical for citizens. Consequently, this contradicts COMESA national treatment article, causing harm through the discrimination of specific products that may lead to market monopolization.
Various companies manufacture their brands in factories in COMESA member states and import and sell it in Egypt. However, the recent tax amendments that imposed a value-added tax on low-priced cigarettes prevent companies from importing cigarettes and limits sales to local production. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Egypt to respond on the NTB with Zambia on the online reporting system by 1st Week of June 2024
2. During the NTBs workshop held from 17 -19 April 2024, the Egypt and Zambia agreed that this issue would form part of the agenda for the proposed bilateral meeting. The dates for the bilateral meeting to be facilitated by the Secretariat would be determined by the two Countries.
3. On 7 May 2024, Egypt Focal Point reported that consultations with the relevant national authorities were ongoing, and Egypt would provide updates as soon as possible.
4. On July 22, 2024, the Secretariat had a meeting with the exporter after receiving a reminder on the NTB dated 3rd July 2024. The aim of the meeting was to get the gist of the NTB and share other necessary information to start facilitating the resolution of the NTB.
5. As a policy issue, the NTB was escalated to Stage 1 on cooperation and elimination of NTBs under the COMESA Regulations on NTBs Elimination and on 26 August 2024, Zambia was advised to formally request the Secretariat to facilitate the bilateral meeting on behalf of the exporter. This comes after Zambia reported that she wrote to the Egyptian Embassy regarding the NTB but there was no immediate response and that was concerning as the matter was very urgent.
6. In a letter dated 2 September 2024, Zambia requested the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two countries. The Secretariat has started preparation for the bilateral meeting including drafting a letter to Egypt and developing a draft agenda for the bilateral meeting between the two Member States.
7. On 24 September 2024, Zambia and Egypt convened a bilateral meeting and recommendations from the discussions as presented in the draft report were as follows"
i) Zambia will engage Roland Imperial Tobacco Company to consider selling their products under Tier 1 for favorable market conditions in Egypt.
ii) Egypt will consult with its Ministry of Health on the health requirements for importation of cigarettes and communicate with Zambia in due course.
iii) Egypt will further start the process of reviewing the Law 177 to remove elements of discrimination between imported and local products.
iv) Egypt will look into the possibility of allowing the 15 consignments in transit from the Tobacco Company to ascertain if there is a possibility of a rebate and if the rebate can be held over for the period until the Law is revised.
8. On 4th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting and the following updates were received:
i. Egypt is to consult with the Ministry of Finance on the NTB which has the elements of discrimination between the imported and local products; and
ii. The Secretariat to facilitate the next bilateral meeting between the two Member States, by October 2025.
9. On 25th August 2025, the representative of Tobacco informed the Secretariat that Egypt has gazetted legislative amendment to its Value Added Tax (VAT) Law in relation to tobacco under Law No. 157 of 2025, dated July 17, 2025. The key changes introduced by the amendment include:
i. Increased VAT rates on cigarettes.
ii. Structured annual increases of 12% to both minimum and maximum retail price thresholds for cigarettes, beginning November 5, 2025, and continuing through 2028.
The new cigarette price thresholds are as follows:
i. Local cigarettes priced below EGP 38.88 will increase to EGP 48.
ii. Cigarettes priced between EGP 38.88 and EGP 56.44 will increase to a range of EGP 48 to EGP 69.
iii. Imported brands priced up to EGP 56.44 will increase to EGP 69.
10. On 31 October 2025, Secretariat sent a reminder to Egypt on the outstanding discussions on the matter, however on 3 November Egypt updated that they has started taking the necessary steps to coordinate with the relevant national authorities from the Ministry of Finance and the Tax Authority to consider the proposal to amend the law. |
|
|
NTB-001-218 |
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-001-231 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2024-12-12 |
Tanzania: Immigration |
Rwanda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Illegal fees on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month.$100 is charged on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month, this was identified by the Central Corridor Team during a survey from Rusumo to Dar es Salaam port. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 38th RMC, Tanzania informed the meeting that the fee is not illegal, but it is a special pass paid once in 90 days to all EAC Citizens. However, if the person exits URT within 90 days and wants to re-enter URT the person will again be charged $100.
The meeting agreed that the matter be referred to the Regional Implementation Committee on the Common Market Protocol for further discussion and resolution
2. During the 40th RMC, the United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that specific Business Pass are issued to persons for the purpose of undertaking temporary special assignments or professional activities as per the EAC CMP. Tanzania further clarified that for EAC Citizens a fee of USD 100 is charged for this category of persons. The 40th RMC noted that cross-border traders who cross the borders several times should not be subjected to this fee and recommend that the URT to sensitize relevant authorities on the application of business passes and Secretariat to sensitize on the Simplified Trade Regime (STR) in the EAC by 30th December 2026. |
|
|
NTB-001-264 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-05-24 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
Eswatini |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Four (4) trucks with sugar to be delivered in Zimbabwe, was not able to enter because of a 30% surtax that had been introduced while the consignment was en route from Eswatini to Zimbabwe. Given this had come into effect after the dispatch, the consignment was not given a waiver. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 3rd June 2025, The SADC NTB Unit advised that the NTB had been submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers of Trade meeting taking place in Harare. The outcome Ministers' meeting would provide further guidance on how to proceed .
2.The 34th CMT meeting held in June 2025 , CMT noted that the Senior Officials received a report by Eswatini, indicating that her exports of sugar and other products such as steel and cement to Zimbabwe are facing a surcharge of 30% since 15 May 2025. Eswatini indicated that the measure is against the SADC Protocol on Trade and requested Zimbabwe to remove the surcharge. The Committee of Ministers of Trade directed Zimbabwe and Eswatini to have bilateral engagement on the surcharge |
|
|
Products:
|
1701.13: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter, obtained without centrifugation, with sucrose content 69° to 93°, containing only natural anhedral microcrystals (see subheading note 2.) and 1701.14: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter (excl. cane sugar of 1701 13) |
|
|
NTB-001-271 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2024-12-01 |
COMESA |
Egypt |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Unipak Nile Ltd., a subsidiary of INDEVCO Group in Egypt, export corrugated boxes to Kenya under the COMESA Agreement.
The Kenyan government imposed a 25% excise duty on corrugated boxes imported from Egypt, violating the principles of the COMESA Agreement and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Kenyan producers, some of whom do not pay the required taxes, further distorting the market.
This unilateral action undermines ability of Egyptian exporter to compete fairly and has halted UNIPAK Nile Ltd export operations and expansion plans in Kenya whose exports to Kenya reached $9–10 million annually, particularly in the agriculture and dairy sectors. |
|
|
NTB-001-272 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-07-08 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya has introduced a 25% excise duty on Aluminium products falling under chapter 76 of the Harmonized System, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention o the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During 39th RMC, Kenya informed the meeting that the matter is being handled internally, it is at the parliament level
2.During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-295 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-10-20 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Eswatini |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-292 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-07-01 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Egypt |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement |
|
|
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-001-357 |
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-001-245 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2025-04-01 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: From Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A review of the route from Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side revealed 24 Roadblocks.
The traders reported that they pay 300 dollars per roadblock; we wouldn't pick evidence of this payment because its illegal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 38th RMC, DRC reported that they would consult and revert
2.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB.
3.During the 40th RMC DRC informed the meeting that the Zone between Golli, Mahagi and Kisangani is a war zone and security is very tight, nevertheless, the central government's interior Minister instructed the governor to reduce the number of barriers and stop these payments because they are not official and illegal. DRC is organizing a consultation in June 2026 with the Ministry of Interior, Trade and Security organs to deliberate on the matter. The NTB also affects DRC as it makes goods more expensive in DRC. Furthermore, it was reported that on 7th - 10th May, 2026 the Republic of Uganda and DRC will hold a bilateral meeting on the same. The meeting urged DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-247 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2018-01-03 |
Tanzania: Diary board,Ministry of Agriculture,Atomic Council |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Multiple requirements and fees upon transfer of milk into Tanzania. These are;
(a) Charges of T. Shs. 2,000 per Kg of milk transfers by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Tanzania
(b) 1% FOB by Tanzania Dairy Board plus Tsh. 30,000 as application fees
(c) The Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission charges 0.4 % FOB |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was discussed in the bilateral meeting between the two Partner States but was not resolved.Tanzania requested Uganda to provide evidence for her to review and revert on the matter.
Uganda indicated that traders are not currently engaging in this business due to the multiple charges
2.The 39th RMC meeting agreed that the fees to be considered during the harmonization/removal of fees, levies and charges
3. Tanzania informed the 40th RMC that the discriminatory charge and charges of equivalent effect were submitted as part of the list to be reviewed under SCFEA and has been factored in the budegt for 2026/2027 to be resolved by 30 June 2026. |
|
|
NTB-001-080 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2022-09-07 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Simplified Trade Regime system no longer viable most traders preferring to use trucks instead of declaring using STR system, when declarations are done values are being lifted despite invoices produced , revaluation is done by the Supervisors making it difficult and most challenging for traders to use the system , and this is causing traders to use clearing agents .only a few with small quantities using STR with buses, traders are now preferring to use Commercial clearance instead of STR, giving a negative impact to why STR was put in place, there is need for orientation to Officer coming from Inland to the borders so that they understand how STR system operates.
Prior to covid pandemic traders used to use some small trucks with consolidated goods and declarations would be made as to the individual trader's quantities in a truck at the point of exit. During covid pandemic Customs gave a ruling that all goods to be cleared through the agents to reduce human interface, after the pandemic and all the lockdowns and restrictions CUSTOMS no longer want traders to consolidation system in transportation of goods saying its now a broken consignment. this arbitrary declaration is a trade restriction and a barrier TO TRADE |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The NTB Unit brought this NTB to the attention of the Zimbabwe Focal Point to undertake internal consultations. A response is still being awaited.
2. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Zimbabwe reported that the STR regime is fully functional at the Chirundu border post. The meeting requested Zimbabwe to provide feedback on the overvaluation of the goods under STR regime.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss NTBs affecting both counties and this issue will form part of the Agenda as it affects Zambia’s trade.
4. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 - 4 July 2025, Zimbabwe updated the meeting that national consultations and engagements with Zambia towards the resolution of the outstanding NTBs were ongoing.
Zambia confirmed the engagement with Zimbabwe and the Secretariat will be updated on the outcomes from the consultations. |
|
|
NTB-001-239 |
6.6. Border taxes
Policy/Regulatory |
2024-03-01 |
Kenya: KAJIADO COUNTY |
Burundi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
THE COUNTY OF KAJIADO CHARGES TRANSIT FEES OF 2000 KSH PER FOREIGN TRANSIT TRUCKS |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Kenya informed the SCTIFI that the Amendments to be effected in the 2025 / 2026 Financial year by 1st July 2025
2.During the 39th RMC , Kenya committed to continue engaging internally to resolve the matter and report to the next RMC.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-105 |
7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues
Policy/Regulatory |
2023-03-01 |
Zambia: Ministry of Home Affairs |
Mozambique |
Complaint registered with REC |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
New Migration Fees Introduced by The Republic of Zambia
The Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Mozambique, has received a complaint/ notification from the Mozambican private sector regarding to the introduction of migration fees by the Zambian Government Authorities. The referred fees are applicable only to foreign citizens, promptly implementing the respective price list, since the beginning of June 2022.
From a practical point of view, and with regard to the resulting costs, for road freight transporters in particular, the introduction of these fees means that, for the fee valid for 1 year, the amount to be paid is approximately US$1250.For one way trip (immediate validity), the amount to be paid is approximately US$490.This fee apply only to foreign road freight transporters, including Mozambicans, and does not apply to locals.
Other measures which Zambia introduced and are adding to cost of doing business are (1). the introduction of a ban on filling fuel reserve tanks for foreign trucks, with a view to obliging them to purchase fuel in Zambian territory, (2). the introduction of road charges and, (3). the obligation to send 50% of the transported cargo to the Republic of Zambia.
We believe that the way which the Government of Republic of Zambia acts violates the Agreements signed by it in relation to the policies adopted by SADC, in the field of road transport, for which the Member States agreed to develop a harmonized transport policy that safeguards the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, reciprocity, fair competition, harmonized operating conditions that promote the creation of an integrated road transport system in the region.
In this regard, Mozambique requests the intervention of the Zambian Authorities, with a view to the immediate elimination of the Migration fees, introduced in this country, as well as other deterrents to carrying out the cargo transport activity in the Country, and applicable only to carriers foreigners or alternatively, and if the country is not available to do so, immediately use the principle of reciprocity, by applying the same measures to carriers in that country, if they are in transit or enter the national territory
|
|
|
Progress:
|
During the SADC regional workshop held in April 2026, Mozambique and Zambia Focal Points agreed that Mozambique will look for proof of the fees, if not then it was agreed that this matter be regarded as resolved. Zambia we will reach out to relevant authorities to establish the nature and status of the fees and provide feedback. |
|
|
NTB-001-309 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2025-12-13 |
|
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
KEBS rejected the application to renew the Illovo's Diamond Mark certification which expired on 13Dec2025. The new requirement states that Illovo should appoint a Kenyan registered agent or open up a branch in Kenya. This agent will be awarded a Diamond Mark certificate on behalf of Illovo. This is costly and it also restricts product quality visibility through to the end-user. |
|
|
Progress:
|
On 29 March 2026, Kenya Focal Point reported that:
a) All importers that have the Diamond Mark are required to have an Agent. Under our Diamond Mark scheme, the permit is issued to a local registered entity. The entity assume all responsibilities of the product. This is applied across all manufacturers under the Diamond Mark Scheme.
b) An imported/ Exporter can still ring the product in to the country without the agent under the normal import process procedure either through the PVOC Scheme or Destination Inspection. This will allow the visibility that client is seeking.
c) Illovo can still export the sugar to Kenya without an agent outside the Diamond Mark. Hence there is no NTB and the matter should be considered as resolved
2.Kenya advised that there is another option to faciloitate resolution of the NTB is where the importer can register his products and comply with the requirements. Once registered using the portal at KEBS they will be accepted without inspection. |
|
|
Products:
|
1701.99: Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form (excl. cane and beet sugar containing added flavouring or colouring and raw sugar) |
|
|
NTB-000-987 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2020-09-26 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zambia Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA)charges Botswana trucks 541 US Dollars per each entry into Zambia, while other SADC Countries are charged per distance. South Africa trucks are charged 110 US Dollars from Kazungula Ferry to Lusaka, Namibia trucks are charged a fixed 209 US Dollars per truck anywhere into Zambia. Zimbabwe and Tanzania pay a the same as South Africa.
Botswana trucks again have to pay RTSA K469 for identity cards per unit which becomes costly for Botswana truckers while other SADC Countries do not pay for identity cards. As Esmail Carriers (PTY) LTD we have 12 trucks that are crossing into Zambia and this has been going on for over 8 years. Per trip we spend more than P6765 per truck and per month the cumulative costs amount to more than P80 000.00 (RTSA charges). For identity cards is about P12 600.00 per month. Furthermore, Zambia has introduced new inland road tolls which we are paying in addition to existing charges.
This has become detrimental to our business as we lose more revenue on a daily basis. We currently request the Zambia government, Botswana government and SADC Secretariat to resolve this issue. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 8th December 2020, Zambia Focal point reported that they were making follow up with the Road Transport and Safety Agency ( RTSA) and provide feedback as soon as possible.
2. During the SADC Regional Meeting on Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) held from 14–15 April 2026 Botswana Focal reported the NTB requires Bi- National engagement, The Ministry of International relations to facilitate a meeting between the Ministries responsible for transport in both countries. Furthermore, Business Botswana and Zambian Chamber of Commerce to collaborate to push their respective governments to resolve this issue. |
|
|
NTB-001-156 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2024-03-09 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging USD 270 from Rusumo border to Kigali which is equivalent to USD 80.83 per 100KM, while Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM.This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicle. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 29 April 2024, Rwanda Focal Point reported that : 'Considering the financial implication of these rates, Rwanda was still reviewing this proposal pending the finalization of the EAC study on harmonization of RUC. However, Rwanda will engage URT bilaterally to discuss how to resolve this outstanding issue.
2.The 36th RMC was informed that the charge amounts to 70 USD and is also affecting the Republic of Kenya. The RMC also noted that it is an obligation of the Government to offer security in the Country and it should not be at the expense of the traders. RSS should stop collecting this fee which is not in the RSS Laws and do not attach it to the process of the RTF on the fees, levies and charges.
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
4.During the 39th RMC meeting, Rwanda reported that they maintain the Status quo as Directed as awaits the finalization of the study. |
|
|
NTB-001-169 |
7.2. Discrimination |
2024-01-01 |
Burundi: Rugerero |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Burundi is charging USD 152 Flat rate on Road user Charges from Kobero/Kabangato Bujumbura which is equivalent to USD 65.5 per 100KM, While Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM. This discriminatory charge is contrary to directives made on the 18th Meeting of Sector Council on Transport,Communication and Meteorology |
|
|
Progress:
|
1.The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
2. Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
3. The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
4. The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:
United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.
Uganda
5. Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.
Burundi
6. Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighboring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
7. Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.
Kenya
8.Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
9.The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.
Conclusion
10. Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
11. The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
12.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
13.During 39th RMC, Burundi informed the meeting that, she is still waiting for the outcome of the study.
14. During the 40th RMC Burundi informed the meeting that they are implementing the status core directed by the 46th Council and hence considers the complaint resolved as Council lagalised the charges each Partner State was charging at that moment. Other Partner States, however, were of the view that status core as directed by the Council does not solve the challenge for harmonised road user charges and hence insisted on the finalisation of the study on Harmonisation of EAC Road User Charges. |
|
English
Français
