Active complaints

Showing items 21 to 40 of 95
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-001-292 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-07-01 Kenya: Mombasa sea port Egypt New View
Complaint: It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement 		 
NTB-001-293 2.4. Import licensing 2025-10-12 Botswana: Ministry of Lands and Agriculture Botswana New View
Complaint: Our company is unable to be productive in our business due to shortage of chick supply in the market, caused by delays by the Government (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture) to approve us to import chicks and fertilized eggs for broiler farming.  
NTB-001-298 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 2025-03-14 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry Botswana New View
Complaint: On the 14th of March 2025 i encountered challenges when crossing to Zambia for business purposes. The immigration officer at the border enquired on the purpose of my visit to Zambia and i informed her that i was travelling for business and requested for a Business Visit (BV) stamp. The officer indicated that BV is only used when someone is travelling to Zambia to sell not to buy as i had intended to go and purchase sweet potatoes. I informed her that we had previously had challenges with law enforcement officers as they insist that whoever is coming to Zambia for business purposes should have a BV stamp not visitors stamp. The officer solicited a bribe amounting to BWP500.00 in order to give me the BV stamp. This contraction of information between immigration officers and the police officers in Zambia cost us as traders lots of money as well as time. It also compromises our safety when we go to Zambia  
Products: 0714.20: Sweet potatoes, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets  
NTB-001-301 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-02-19 Botswana: all entry points Namibia New View
Complaint: I am a manufacturer of fully finished furniture leather based in Namibia. My company has historically utilised Botswana as a transit corridor to supply customers in Zimbabwe under the framework of regional trade within SADC.

Following the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the region, I have been prevented from using Botswana as a transit country for consignments destined for Zimbabwe. This restriction effectively blocks an established and commercially critical trade route.

Namibia is a recognised FMD-free zone, and all raw materials used in our production originate exclusively from Namibian cattle. Furthermore, the industrial tanning and finishing processes applied to hides—particularly chemical treatment, liming, pickling, chrome tanning, retanning, and finishing—render the survival and transmission of the FMD virus scientifically implausible. Fully finished leather does not constitute a vector for FMD transmission and should therefore be exempt from movement restrictions associated with live animals or untreated animal products.

The inability to transit through Botswana forces us to use alternative routes into Zimbabwe that are substantially more expensive. These additional logistics costs render our trade with Zimbabwe economically unviable and undermine our competitiveness within the region.

As a SADC Member State, Namibia is entitled to the free movement of goods that comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards. The current transit restriction on fully finished leather constitutes a non-tariff barrier inconsistent with the principles of regional integration and trade facilitation.

If this situation persists, it will have severe commercial and employment consequences. The loss of strategically important customers in Zimbabwe will directly reduce production volumes, which in turn may necessitate workforce reductions. 		 
Products: 4107: Leather further prepared after tanning or crusting, including parchment-dressed leather, of bovine (including buffalo) or equine animals, without hair on, whether or not split, other than leather of heading 41.14.  
NTB-001-309 7.4. Costly procedures 2025-12-13 COMESA COMESA New View
Complaint: KEBS rejected the application to renew the Illovo's Diamond Mark certification which expired on 13Dec2025. The new requirement states that Illovo should appoint a Kenyan registered agent or open up a branch in Kenya. This agent will be awarded a Diamond Mark certificate on behalf of Illovo. This is costly and it also restricts product quality visibility through to the end-user.  
Products: 1701.99: Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form (excl. cane and beet sugar containing added flavouring or colouring and raw sugar)  
NTB-001-329 5.3. Export taxes 2026-02-20 Ethiopia: Galafi Ethiopia New View
Complaint: The Small scale cross border traders who were able to export different live animals and agricultural products to Djibouti through the Galafi Border are required to pay export tax per head of the livestock at the border. The total export amount allowed in a month is up to USD 1,000 per cross border trader that are found in different parts of the Afar region.
The export tax in Dewele border is not yet implemented and it is considered as a discriminatory compared to the Dewele border of the country. 		 
Products: 0106.13: Live camels and other camelids [Camelidae], 0104.20: Live goats and 0703.10: Fresh or chilled onions and shallots  
NTB-001-333 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-02-01 Zambia: Chirundu COMESA New View
Complaint: ZIMRA is not clearing the products originated in Zambia using the STR Declaration even the products are under the Common List. The goods are subjected to the submission of Formal Customs Declaration and subject to pay customs duties, instead of granting preferential tariff treatment under the COMESA FTA.  
Products: 2009.12: Orange juice, unfermented, Brix value <= 20 at 20°C, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. containing spirit and frozen)  
NTB-001-330 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-03-11 Mozambique: DGA - Mozambique SARS - South Africa Mozambique New View
Complaint: Conferring of origin in a member state on non-originating material. This then affects the issuance of a SADC certificate for the issuing country being Mozambique.

Mozambique customs authority and DGA consider that the process taking place within Mozambique, does not confer origin.

The exact same process carried out in South Africa, receives a SADC certificate from SARS.

SARS as the importing country does not dispute or challenge that the process confers origin and is satisfied that the process under which a SADC certificate is issued, and therefore receives preferential duty in the importing country is sufficient and complies with the SADC trade agreement.

While the SADC agreement, lists simple processes, which do not confer origin, under chapter 63 there is a specific declaration made, where rags is included, before the word, except, and then it lists exceptions. It states that for chapter 63, origin is conferred, the requirement stated is " manufacture from materials of any heading except that of the product"

What is peculiar, is that the issuing country being Mozambique contends the conference of origin, but it has not been raised by the importing country being South Africa.

We know, with absolute certainty, that a SADC for the exact same process is issued by South Africa for exports to Mozambique and to Botswana, and neither of these countries have ever referred them back for investigation or referral on the back of the SADC certificate as is the protocol and possibility if there is a contention. 		 
Products: 6310.10: Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted  
NTB-001-342 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2023-01-01 Zimbabwe: Kariba COMESA New View
Complaint: Administrative arbitrary ban of buses using Kariba border by ZIMRA AND ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY previously buses were Administratively suspended to use Kariba border siting strength of the the bridge now it has come with another angle prior to the suspension Kariba border was doing well in terms of facilitating trade for small scale cross border traders  
NTB-000-530 8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory 		2012-09-10 Zambia: Zambia Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is requiring all foreign tankers either delivering product to Zambia, or transiting Zambia, to comply with its Standards 371:2008 and 429-4:2008.
Furthermore, it is charging transporters to obtain a permit to certify that the tankers comply with the Standards. This requirement is affecting the free flow of goods into Zambia.

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

2. During the 15th SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in May 2017, Zambia reported that this NTB had been resolved. However, South Africa Focal Point undertook to verify with complainant and provide feed back on the status.
3. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that through SADCSTAN and Tripartite Transit Transport Facilitation Programme had recently agreed on the standard on transportation of dangerous goods which covers fuel tanks that will resolve this matter. 		 
NTB-000-670 8.6. Vehicle standards 2015-05-08 Tanzania: Tunduma South Africa In process View
Complaint: Despite the passing and acceptance of EAC Vehicle Overload Bill of 2012, whereby it states under the Fourth Schedule s.5 (1) (c) - VEHICLE DIMENSIONS, AXLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS AND VEHICLE COMBINATIONS, that the maximum vehicle combination length permissible is 22 m and which includes and covers the South African designed and developed Interlink combination of 22 m maximum. Tanzania are still insisting on abnormal vehicle permits to be issued to these vehicles on entry into Tanzania at Tunduma Border Post at a cost of US $20 per entry or face heavy penalties including the impounding of vehicles if they are not in posesion of an abnormal permit.

This is in breach of the Bill which has been accepted by all EAC Member Countries including Tanzania and this policy needs to be revoked ASAP. 		 
Progress: Awaiting feedback from Focal Points  
NTB-001-110 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory 		2022-07-01 Kenya In process View
Complaint: United Republic of Tanzania subject a discriminatory treatment to Kenyan export/transfer on products of animal and animal products despite their commitment in the bilateral meeting to amend the Act to resolve the discriminatory charges on the Kenya animal and animal products by June 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the contrary Kenya facilitates Tanzania sausages without any charge.

This is really unfair practices where URT is charging import charges to Kenya products despite Kenya being in the EAC Customs union where we transfer products and not import 		 
Progress: 1. Kenya recognized the effort made by URT in reducing the fee from 5,000 Tshs to 3,000 Tshs per kg of meat. The Republic of Kenya indicated that the fee is still very high, discriminative, and amounts to import duty. The Kenyan companies exporting meat products to URT have been negatively affected by a sharp decline in the volume of meat products exported to URT, since the imposition of these charges. A consignment of 25,000 kgs exported from Kenya to URT is charged Kshs 3,750,000. In addition, it is charged an import fee of 2% FOB by the Tanzania Meat Board, 0.4% FOB by the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, and 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measures Agency. A similar consignment exported to Kenya from URT is charged Kshs 3,000. Thus, Kenya proposes that the two Partner States engage and harmonize these regulations to either charge per kg or per consignment.
Tanzania Meat Board had also denied market access to beef products imported from Kenya and thus Kenya urges URT to address this matter.
2. The 34th RMC noted that the NTB was new. URT reported that they would consult the relevant stakeholders and revert during the 35th RMC
3.During the 36th RMC Kenya reported that the NTB was considered during a bilateral meeting between Republic of Kenya & the United Republic of Tanzania whereby the two Partner States agreed to harmonization of all conditions, levies, fees and charges related to import / exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024
4. During the 38th RMC meeting, Kenya agreed to send a formal invitation to URT for the Bilateral Meeting.
The two Partner States held their meeting in July 2025. An update shall be provided during the RMC 		 
NTB-000-689 8.6. Vehicle standards 2016-03-23 Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road South Africa In process View
Complaint: We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached. 		 
Progress: This issue was discussed during the Botswana / South Africa Bi-National Commission, which was held in Gaborone in November 2017. As per item 3.2.2.1 bullet point number one (1), the Republic of South Africa was to formerly request for a waiver from Botswana on the matter, while South Africa is still sorting out the system that causes the problem. Botswana is still awaiting correspondence from South Africa to that effect. We kindly advice the South African Focal Point to consult the Department of Transport in South Africa for further clarifications.  
NTB-000-742 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade 		2017-02-20 Uganda: Port Bell Lake port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Verification Agencies (SGS) apply standards that are higher than International accepted standards requiring additional tests and certificates which is of high costs. Additional tests include tests for copper, iron, manganese, lead and coliforms which are expensive tests adding to the costs of doing business. The additional tests last for a week in addition to the export process. The Agency offers Route B or C product registration. Product meant for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are tested once a year Route C is a security factory audit for wine export to the abovementioned countries  
Progress: This matter was brought to the attention of the Uganda Focal Points along the margins of the 23rd EAC NTBs forum on 6 May 2017 . Uganda private sector Focal Point reported that consultations had been initiated with the Ministry of Trade , Industry and cooperatives to try and resolve the matter amicably. They will provide feedback in due course .  
NTB-000-725 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2016-11-01 Angola: Port of Luanda South Africa In process View
Complaint: Angola has Cumbersome and costly documentation and export/import requirements. The following is list of documentation required for a single consignment : i) 2x1 Original Bill of Landing; (ii)Original stamped and signed Commercial invoice; (iii) Original stamped and signed packing list; (iv) Analysis certificates if so required by consignee; (v) Loading Certificate (known as ARC or CNCA) PIP number prior to loading (required to do the pre-inspection) - not compulsory ; (vi) Voluntary pre-shipping control of merchandise (to be done at place of origin by inspector that issued the PIP number) Certificate of Origin( if so required by consignee) transport documents, full load container have to be sealed; (vii) letter from consignee nominating Orey as his forwarder agent; (viii) letter of responsibility from consignee to the carrier accepting full responsibility for demurrages and eventual container damages; (ix) copy of tax payer card of consignee; (x) Ministry of Commerce to issue license upon presentation of the commercial invoice; (xi) Ministry of Commerce to provide DU number, each invoice has different DU number.
The expected time frame is 72 hours (3 days) to get a DU number. CNCA certificate can only be issued upon presentation of the DU number for each specific shipment. Cost to produce DU number is 10 USD per invoice + Process DU (MINCO) FOB value 0.2%.

Costs
There is Fixed delivery and clearance rates in Luanda. Transport costs of 25% as from 15/1/2016, plus other additional chargers. Lab analysis costs 3000 USD per invoice. Analysis are mandatory to any imported edible goods, from water to beverages.

Delivery costs to Luanda per 20" + - 800 USD + 250 USD per night time delivery within city limits. overtime applies all the time due to restriction on delivery during the day due to traffic. Exporters are forced to pay incentives costs to EHO by OREY for DDP shipments. 20" => 150 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey, 40" => 170 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey.

Other fees charged are:
Shipment tracking & dispatch, BL Validation 160 per unit, Container deposit 1000 per unit
Delivery order 25 USD per unit. Port Tax 93.00 per unit, Wharfage 280.00 USD per unit, Tracking fee 100 USD per unit, Clearance transport and petties 350 USD per unit, delivery between Luanda /Soyo 3500.00 USD, return empty 400 USD per unit, transport between Luanda and Cabinda 11000.00 USD per unit, co-ordination 2.5% minimum USD 50.00. Consumption Tax of 5% service costs rendered in Angola. Taxes in all alcohol beverages is high 30% Cocktail 50% Ciders 51%

We believe this costs makes it difficult for investors to do business in Angola, most of them amount to tariff and non-tariff barriers we would like Regulators to review them. 		 
Progress: During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, the Secretariat requested Angola to submit names of its Focal points to enable processing of reported NTBs. Angola reported that : (i) based on their research, the documents are necessary and that these are part of universal documents required for import permit. (ii) South AFrica was also imposing more cumbersome procedures than Angola as evidenced by the fact that the documents she require are the same as those required by Angola therefore this does not constitute NTB.; (iii) the Ministry of Trade is the focal point and there is a national secretariat for SADC through which all SADC Affairs are channeled ; (iv) . Angola was working on establishing the Trade facilitation committee after which focal points will be appointed; (v) she was in the process of revising its commercial legislation that considers trimming the number of import/export documentation; (vi) The ministry would undertake consultations with Ministry of Transport to simply the procedures . 3. In response, South Africa reported that consultations will be made to find out the reasons for the complaint. South Reported that she does not require numerous documentation.  
NTB-000-420 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2011-05-01 Zambia: Nakonde Kenya In process View
Complaint: Since early May 2011, one of our Association member companies(Bidco Oil Refefineries) product's(palm based cooking oil) has been stopped from entering the Zambian market by Zambia Revenue Authority with the reason that the product do not meet 35% value addition criteria as required under COMESA product on the rules of origin. Zambia government Authorities including the officials of the Zambia revenue Authority have visited in the past Bidco oil refeneries and confirmed that palm based cooking oils meets 35% value addition criteria. Kenya Revenue Authority had also in May did a fresh verification mission on the affected product which we understand was sent to ZRA. To date ZRA has not responded to verification report of KRA on the company's product and meanwhile the company continue incurring losses due to lost market share Zambia. Our submission is that Zambia Revenue Authority respond to Kenya Revenue Authority verification report and follow the laid down procedures in the COMESA Protocol on the rules of origin if the Authority is still disputing the fulfillment of 35% value addition in regard to the product. This is happening at the border points. The importer has now stopped importing palm oil cooking oils consignments from Kenya after dealer paid the CET rate of 25% instead of 0% and incurred very heavy loss.  
Progress: 1. On 16 July 2020, Kenya focal point reported that this issue was raised again during the recent 8th COMESA NTBs Focal Points meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
2. The TTFSC recommended to 40th meeting of Council of Ministers that the Secretariat compiles a record of Council decisions and all the interventions that have been undertaken to facilitate way forward and fast tracking of resolution of the NTB. The Secretariat will circulate the record by 15 March 2020.
3. During the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, Zambia Focal points reported that, with regard to the audit report by KPMG, had requested for additional support documents which have not been availed by Kenya. Zambia and Kenya bilaterally engaged during the NTBs focal point meeting and Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. Kenya further requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for.
4. The 2nd meeting of the COMESA Heads of Customs Sub Committee which met from 19-20 June 2015, noted that KPMG report had confirmed that Palm Oil from Kenya met the COMESA RoO and that KRA had written to its counterpart ZRA on 28 February as per recommendations of the extra - ordinary meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs committee held on 9-11 February 2015. Zambia confirmed receipt of the required information informed the meeting that the issue was under consideration .
5. On 16 January 2015, Kenya Focal point reported that according to KAM consultant on edible oils, the NTB was discussed and an audit was carried out independently on Bidco by KPMG and communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International and COMESA Secretariat in 2014. KAM was advised that the audit found that palm oil exported to Zambia by Kenya had 40% value addition.KAM was now waiting for their edible oils KAM consultant to advise whether the exports of these products were receiving preferential tariff treatment in Zambia.
6. As at 26 September 2013, the COMESA secretariat was yet to provide progress report.
7. On 16th July 2013, Kenya Focal point requested Zambia to indicated progress made since their report to the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring & Eliminating Mechanism meeting and SMS Reporting Tool Launch on 9th and 10th April 2013 in Lusaka Zambia. At this meeting, the Republic of Zambia indicated that the bilateral meeting would be held within a month’s time from the date of this meeting. Kenya proposes that, in view of the delays in bilateral consultations, the COMESA Secretariat facilitates a meeting where they will act as an arbitrator in helping the two partner states resolve the NTBs and enable industry to benefit from the inherent market access for their products.
8.At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia,Kenya and Zambia requested the COMESA Secretariat to organise a bilateral meeting between the two countries in order to arbitrate between them. COMESA Secretariat was also requested to provide guidance on the proper interpretation of the Rules of Origin for this product.
9.On 1 November 2019, Kenya focal point reported that : As a follow up to the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, where Kenya and Zambia bilaterally engaged, Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. However, to do this, Kenya had requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for, to finalize on this issue. We are therefore kindly requesting for the same.
10. On 16 July 2020, Kenya Focal Point reported that this issue was raised again during the EAC- COMESA NTB Meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
11. On 25 February 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the issue is work in progress and the required information documents would be shared soon.
12. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021, it was agreed that Zambia will send a request to Kenya within 30 days to submit cost structure of the inputs used to produce the final product (cooking oil) for determination of origin status under the value addition origin criterion after which a verification mission to Kenya will be organized.
13. On 30 July 2021, Zambia reported that, as previously submitted following the KPMG Malawi Audit report, not all components of value addition could be verified from the report due to the following:
i) Absence of raw material/blend mix to accurately determine actual quantities of raw materials used in the processing of a specific volume of crude oil.
ii) No documentary evidence to verify other operating costs such as water, electricity, spares and consumables and their source.
iii) No documentary evidence to verify labour costs.
In this regard, the value addition criterion as provided for under Rule 2 (1) (b) (ii) of the COMESA Rules of Origin could not be independently determined due to the absence of vital information.The outstanding information should therefore be availed in order to accurately determine the value addition of the oil produced by BIDCO.
14. During the 2nd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia F reported that the 9th session of Kenya – Zambia Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation (JPCC) resolved that Zambia should write to Kenya to request for an appropriate date for another verification visit to resolve the outstanding matter. A letter was done to make the request for another verification visit.
15. During the Kenya National Workshop on development of a National Strategy on Elimination of NTBs held from 5-7 July 2023 it was agreed that the Secretariat to share with Kenya the request from Zambia for additional information which will be relevant as proof for satisfying the value addition origin criterion under the COMESA Rules of Origin. Please find attached the communication from Zambia. Further, the National Focal Point from Zambia, also requested for the additional information using this online system on 30 July 2021.
16. The Kenya and Zambia Focal Points submitted progress reports to the 3rd meeting of the NTB Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 which it was agreed that both countries undertake verification missions between 27th and 30th November 2023. The Secretariat would provide support to Member States to undertake the activity.
17. During an NTBs Workshop 17th – 19th April, 2024 both countries agreed to a market access bilateral meeting as the verification mission has been overtaken by events and the palm oil manufacturer is no long operating.
18. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting which agreed as follows:
i. Kenya is still interested in market access for exports of palm-based oil.
ii. Kenya informed the meeting that there was a need to still consider recommendations and findings of previous verification missions on the basis that the conditions were still the valid hence no need for another verification.
iii. Zambia indicated that verification reports have certain shelf-life after which the conditions and circumstances on the issues under verification may have changed hence the need for a fresh verification.
iv. Both Member States to share documentation, review and make comments in preparation for the next meeting in August 2025.
19. On 2 September 2025, the Secretariat shared documents at its disposal including the KPMG Report on the cooking oil to support the bilateral engagements between the Member States. 		 
Products: 1511.10: Crude palm oil  
NTB-000-479 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2011-12-30 Tanzania: Mtwara Mozambique In process View
Complaint: Impose Import Tax from Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development in Tanzania on raw seafood coming from Mozambique accompanied by SADC Certificate and all other relevant documents from Mozambican Authorities.  
Progress: 1. On 20th July 2013, SADC secretariat requested Tanzania Focal Point to provide progress report on this issue. Response is being awaited.

2. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Tanzania reported that the matter would be taken to relevant authority. 		 
Products: 0306.21: Rock lobster and other sea crawfish "Palinurus spp., Panulirus spp. and Jasus spp.", even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0306.24: Crabs, even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. crabs in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0307.41: Live, fresh or chilled, not smoked, cuttle fish "Sepia officinalis, Rossia macrosoma, Sepiola spp." and squid "Ommastrephes spp., Loligo spp., Nototodarus spp., Sepioteuthis spp.", with or without shell and 0307.51: Octopus "Octopus spp.", live, fresh or chilled  
NTB-001-129 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-07-01 Kenya: Kenyan Government Egypt In process View
Complaint: Complain from Eagle Chemicals - Egypt
Subject: Excise duty on imports cancelling the effect of COMESA agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Refer Attachments)

  
Progress: 1. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Regional Forum , Kenya Focal point reported that they had contacted relevant authority and will provide feedback in the online system . Egypt requested that the bilateral meeting to consider this and other NTBs be schedule at the time Kenya would have completed their internal consultations .
2.Following the 3rd Regional COMESA NTB meeting and the 8th Meeting of Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee, Kenya was requested to provide feed back on NTB-001-129 on excise applied to products, 3905.19: Homopolymers 3903.20: Emulsion - Styrene Acrylic3905.91: Emulsion VAM 3907.50: Alkyd and3907.91: Unsaturated Polyester , It was proposed that Kenya and Egypt to hold a bilateral Meeting virtual with support of the Secretariat on 10th November 2023.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. Kenya to update the status report on outstanding NTBs with Egypt on the online reporting system by 26th April 2024.
4. On 18 June 2024, Kenya Focal Point reported that the Kenyan parliament was reviewing the Finance Bill 2024, with the intention of revising certain clauses as deemed necessary. Consequently, they were awaiting the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024 to determine whether there will be amendments to the specified non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
5. On 9 September 2024, Egypt and Kenya held a bilateral meeting on the outstanding NTBs emanating from the enactment of Kenya’s Finance Acts of 2021 and 2023. The two Member States agreed on the following:
a) The additional taxes are NTBs as its application is discriminatory as they only apply on imports and not domestically produced products.
b) Kenya to continue with her internal consultations with relevant policymakers and to follow up on the progress of resolving the NTBs, as requested by the Egyptian delegation.
c) The meeting agreed that the NTBs are policy issues and can be best addressed by the Joint Trade Commission (JTC) meeting, which is a higher level that is able to take decisions on this NTB and other trade related issues.
d) Both Kenya and Egypt continue with internal consultations with relevant stakeholders in preparation for the upcoming JTC meeting.
6. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
Products: 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms, 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion), 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms and 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid")  
NTB-000-751 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2017-05-01 Zambia: Ministry of Trade Botswana In process View
Complaint: Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia.

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

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

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

Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC. 		 
Progress: 1. On 11 January 2019, Zambia Focal Point reported that the two parties (Zambia and Botswana) are undertaking consultations on the matter in order to resolve the issue.
2. On 02 June Secretariat was advised to organise virtual meeting between the Focal Points to recommend way forward 		 
NTB-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. 		 
1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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