Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Active complaints

Showing items 21 to 40 of 83

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status New Complaint registered with REC In process Resolved Non-actionable	Actions
NTB-000-769	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2017-05-05	Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority	Kenya	In process	View
Complaint:	Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco.
Progress:	1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods. 2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers. 3.Status as at 13th September, 2019: United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court. EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States. URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling. 4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019. 5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that: i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content. ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI. 6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco. 7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom. The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration. The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable. 8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration. 9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021. 10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows: Similarities i) both cases are on tobacco ii) both cases are based on excise duty Differences i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act). ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco. Way Forward The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting. 11. Status as at 30 march 2022: During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT. 12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment. 13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period. 14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond. 15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024. 16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024. 17.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that the excise duty charged is not discriminatory. Kenya insisted on the bilateral agreements. 18. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026
NTB-000-781	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2015-11-19	Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road)	Eswatini	In process	View
Complaint:	An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar.
Progress:	1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward. 2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible.. 3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously.
NTB-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-000-970	2.4. Import licensing	2020-07-01	Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture	Egypt	In process	View
Complaint:	We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ we cannot take risk. I want to import only after having a clear official approval.
Progress:	1. On 25 March 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that this issue is currently being resolved. Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to resolve via import parity is underway. 2. On 30 July 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the exporter was advised to visit the Zambia Trade Information Portal for details on the export of wheat to Zambia using the following link: https://www.zambiatradeportal.gov.zm/index.php?r=tradeInfo/view&id=7439 .Further information from can also be obtained from the Director, Agribusiness and Marketing department on +0211 250417. The email address is as follows: yoanness18@yahoo.co.uk or peter.zulu2@gmail.com. 2. On 6 September 2023, Egypt Focal Point reported that they tried to communicate with the contacts provided by Zambia focal point, and as per the feedback of the concerned exporter. However, " NO emails are responded to. The Ministry of Agriculture, say it's not allowed to import wheat flour." 3. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries should conduct a bilateral meeting to review the matter by 30th November. Consultations between the Focal Points and NMC to continue using the online system and that Zambia to provide feedback regarding the ban of wheat imports in the online . 4. During the NTBs workshop 17 -19 April 2024, Egypt NFP reported that they were willing to hold a bilateral meeting with Zambia MNC in case Zambia NFP did not upload the national authority decree No. 24 of the year 2024 by end of April 2024. 5. During a virtual bilateral meeting between the two Member States held on 24th September 2024, it was agreed that in the immediate term, Zambia to conduct consultative meetings to ascertain the possibility of having the ban lifted or have the wheat import window extended in accordance with the Control of Goods Order of 2009. 6. On 6 January 2025, Egypt wrote to the Secretary General to advise that the Egyptian wheat exporter is still experiencing the same problem even after the validity of the SI of 24 April 2024 had expired on 30 August 2024. They request Zmbia Focal Point to make follow up and facilitate Egypt exportation of wheta flour into Zambia. 7. During a bilateral meeting held on the 4th June 2025, the two Member States received the following updates: i. Zambia informed the meeting that the ban had been lifted temporarily. ii. Exporter from Egypt reported challenges in completing online registration of their company in the ZRA ASYCUDA System. iii. Zambia to continue, in the immediate term, to conduct consultation with the relevant Ministry on the issue of the timelines to have the prohibition lifted or possible extension by October 2025. iv. Zambia will, in the long term, consider a comprehensive review of the measure, which was initially imposed to protect infant industry, to assess its justification and subsequently communicate the outcomes to Egypt in due course by 1st quarter 2026. v. Egypt to share the wheat imports statistics from the affected companies as evidence that they are utilizing the open window period to inform Zambia’s consultation with the relevant Ministry on the impact of the measure by October 2025.
NTB-000-987	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-001-129	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-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-001-031	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2021-06-30	Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority	Egypt	In process	View
Complaint:	The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021. • Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc… • Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament. • The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place.
Progress:	1. On 8th August 2023, Kenya Focal Point reported that the finance bill of 2023 undergone through the public participation and through the Parliament and that Excise duty on Pasta is not discriminatory as per section 43 (iv) that underwent through parliament process and public participation process. 2. During the 3rd Meeting of the NTBs Forum, Egypt reported that the excise duty on pasta , although it was not applied indiscriminately, affected trade as the rate was very high . The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB be reinstated . Kenya responded that duty on pasta is not discriminatory therefore resolved in the system . Kenya to submit proof that excise duty is imposed on both locally and imported goods. It was agreed that Kenya to arrange bilateral meeting with Egypt to address the issues raised by Egypt. 3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. 4. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025.
NTB-001-070	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 6. 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-001-080	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-001-169	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.
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.
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-001-204	2.9. Issues related to transit fees	2024-10-01	Rwanda: Gatuna	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	Republic of Rwanda is charging un harmonized flat rates for vehicles transiting through the Rwanda borders. This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicles. Uganda is upholding the principle of distance*weight.
Progress:	1.The RMC of 17th October 2024 was informed that the NTB on discriminatory road user charges was considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that: a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favours big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size. b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates. c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries. e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load/weight and distance but also considering other factors that favour all of us as a region f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies. The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that: a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and b) They were still consulting on the matter. The Council therefore observed that: a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the SC TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of SC TCM on harmonisation of Road User Charges. The Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed: a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle; b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle. c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles: • Buses; • Trucks of three or less axles; and • Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles/semi-trailers); d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonised rates between themselves to continue doing so; e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states; f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonised charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC; g) Secretariat to mobilise funds for the study in (vi) above; h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry; i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and j) Partner States to prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry. The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC/CM 45/ Directive 56). As per the directives of TCM, there are two Road User Charges adopted in the Community. (i) distance + weight (axles) rates (ii) COMESA harmonised rates of USD 10 per 100 KM The Republic of Rwanda committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC. 2.Directives from 18th Sectoral Council on TCM: The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed: (a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle; (b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle. (c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles: ● Buses; ● Trucks of three or less axles; and ● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers); (d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so; (e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states; (f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC; (g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above; (h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry; (i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and (j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry. Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers: The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States: The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that: (a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size. (b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates. (c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers (d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries. (e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region (f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies. The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that: (a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and (b) They were still consulting on the matter. The Council therefore observed that: (a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and (b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges. The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56). Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM: The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows: United Republic of Tanzania Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows: (i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles; (ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles (iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles; (iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles; (v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure. Uganda Uganda submitted that: (i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads (ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required; (iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads; (iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision; (v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads; (vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges; (vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment. The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM. Burundi Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighbouring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy. Rwanda Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported. Kenya Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries. The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found. Conclusion Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies. The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08). The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives. Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47). 3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives: (a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17); (b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and (c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
NTB-001-155	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-001-197	1.8. Import bans	2024-09-11	Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) suspended the transfer of soft drinks and beer from other countries, citing that only products from nations with bilateral agreements will be accepted. This suspension directly contravenes the spirit of the East African Community (EAC) and its commitment to fostering free trade and economic cooperation among Partner States. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that limits acceptance of products to those from countries with bilateral agreements undermines the EAC's principles of regional integration and free movement of goods. It creates unnecessary trade barriers and hinders the seamless exchange of goods between EAC Partner States, which is fundamental to the EAC Customs Union's objectives. Addressing this issue is critical to ensuring that all EAC partner States can trade without restrictions and continue to benefit from the shared economic goals outlined in the EAC Treaty.
Progress:	1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries. The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19. 2.Democratic Republic of Congo informed the meeting that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries which were dying as a result of transfers from Partner States. The meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, Democratic Republic of Congo had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to Democratic Republic of Congo factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a member of EAC, and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on soft drinks and beer from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 51). 3.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed. The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB. 4.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB. 5. During the 40th RMC DRC commited to identify the underlying causes of these decisions by the Minister of Trade and to find solutions to strengthen the competitiveness of protected Congolese businesses in December 2026 because these measures have just been extended for 6 months, it is difficult to suspend it before 6 months. The meeting guided DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the issue by 30th June 2026 and issue a decree to remove this by June 2026.
NTB-001-199	1.8. Import bans	2024-06-20	Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has instituted a suspension on the transfer of grey cement and clinkers to its Western and Eastern regions. This action raises concerns as it disrupts trade flows and hinders the movement of these essential construction materials within the region. Such a suspension could have broader implications for trade and economic cooperation within the region, affecting both producers and consumers. The measure may also contravene regional trade agreements aimed at facilitating the free movement of goods, as outlined in the East African Community (EAC) protocols, and could undermine the spirit of regional integration. A review of this suspension is essential to ensure the continued trade of critical materials and to uphold the principles of regional cooperation.
Progress:	1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19. 2.The meeting observed that when the Democratic Republic of Congo joined the Community a roadmap was developed to help the Democratic Republic of Congo to be integrated into EAC Projects and Programmes. Democratic Republic of Congo should commence implementation of the roadmap and comply with EAC Laws, among others, the Customs Union Protocol to allow free movement of goods. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on cement and clinker from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 52). 2.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed. The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB. 3.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB. 4. During the 40th RMC DRC commited to identify the underlying causes of these decisions by the Minister of Trade and to find solutions to strengthen the competitiveness of protected Congolese businesses in December 2026 because these measures have just been extended for 6 months, it is difficult to suspend it before 6 months. The meeting guided DRC to adhere to the Summit Directive to resolve the issue by 30th June 2026 and issue a decree to remove this by June 2026.
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-001-200	2.4. Import licensing	2024-07-16	Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade	Malawi	In process	View
Complaint:	In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets. Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702. However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible. On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse. As of today, the import license has still not been secured.
Progress:	1. During the SADC Regional Meeting on Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) held from 14–15 April 2026, the National Focal Points from Malawi and Zimbabwe met to discuss this NTB. It was noted that Zimbabwe’s domestic blanket manufacturing industry has been facing significant challenges due to the influx of imported blankets, which has led to market saturation and negatively affected local producers. As a result, the Government of Zimbabwe introduced measures aimed at protecting and supporting the growth of the domestic industry by restricting the importation of blankets. Furthermore, it was clarified that, in accordance with Statutory Instrument 59 of 2026, the current position allows individuals to import one blanket per person every month. This measure is intended to balance support for the domestic industry while still permitting limited personal imports.
NTB-001-225	5.3. Export taxes	2024-12-28	Kenya: Malaba	Uganda	In process	View
Complaint:	The Kenyan government has violated the East African Community trade agreement and has begun to impose consumption taxes on products from other East African Community countries.
Progress:	1.During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that There are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the financial year 2025/26 2.The 39th RMC meeting was updated that Kenya is reviewing the law. 3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB.

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Active complaints