| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-953 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2020-04-11 |
|
Namibia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
At Katima Mulilo border post between the Republic of Namibia and the Republic of Zambia, Zambian Authorities/ Command centres, specifically the Zambia Police Service and the Ministry of Health Officials stationed at Katima Mulilo border post from the Provincial Administration in Western Province tasked to screen truck drivers at the border post, are charging Namibian transporters and truck drivers to meet logistical costs of escorting their respective quarantined truck drivers to Kazungula, Livingstone, Lusaka and Kasumbalesa transits especially perishables and other essential commodities such as medicines, clearly at variance with World Customs Organisation (WCO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Protocols on Trade, destined for the Republic of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo via the Walvis Bay - Ndola - Lubumbashi Development Corridor (Namibia, Zambia, DRC). In the Republic of Zambia and other SADC Member states, and in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) Public Health Protocols, screening, testing and quarantining of truck drivers for covid - 19 are State operations and are at variance with the agreed SADC Guidelines on Harmonisation and Facilitation of Cross Border Transport Operations during the covid - 19 outbreak. This is an added cost of doing business, unnecessary cross border delays without prior notification to transporters and a Non - Tariff Barrier to Trade.
This is unprecedented, Namibian transporters are being charged as much as K800 for each Police Officer for at least 3 days and each convoy of trucks has at least 3 Police officers. The cost is meant to cover lodging and subsistence allowance for the officers.
This is an encumbrance to trade, against the SADC Guidelines on movement of goods and services in the region amid covid - 19 and adds to the cost of doing business, against WCO, WTO, and WHO best practices on global trade facilitation and Public Health. |
|
|
NTB-000-957 |
5.8. Embargoes |
2020-05-13 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Clause 16 of the Government Gazette Notice No. 3530, ban the Bounded Houses where goods are stored until cleared on duties.
With reference to our discussion earlier on the Gazette by Kenya Government for cessation of warehousing of goods including wine.
The timing of the gazette could not have come at a more terrible time. As we all know Covid 19 has had a crippling effect on business globally and economies especially Tourism in Kenya. With the current closure of all camps, lodges, hotels, restaurants pubs and eateries, importers have seen a huge dip in sales of wine as the whole food and beverage industry has been shut down. With no end in sight on the pandemic, this puts added pressure on importers to pay for goods upfront when they simply do not have the cash at the moment. Kenya has also set specific rules on minimum duty payable - so for a 20ft container that is 3 million shillings or $30000.So if an importer is bringing in multiple containers monthly as most importers do , the cash flow required it just simply not feasible because they are operating on very low revenue at the moment.
I think what importers and exporters seek is clarity on this gazette, what was the rationale and was there industry consulted?
Does this mean come mid- August, all goods must be duty paid and are goods imported now can still go on bond and what happens to goods that are all currently in bond.
I also would like to bring to your attention the following implication for South African wine exported to Kenya.
1. Cashflow challenges for traders with upfront payment
2. Unfavourable trade terms which will impact on trade relations.
3. Delays in delivery of products due to readiness of the Custom Officials of efficiently enforcing the new rule without glitches.
4. Cross Border of illicit products
I therefore request your intervention in tabling these concerns and proposal for exemption of South African wine from the rule
|
|
|
Products:
|
2204: Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines; grape must other than that of heading 20.09. |
|
|
NTB-000-970 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2020-07-01 |
Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture |
Egypt |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ 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-000-977 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2020-08-10 |
Ethiopia: |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement to submit Certificate of Free sale for Grain products such as cereals, baked goods etc |
|
|
NTB-000-982 |
1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers |
2020-08-24 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade and Industry |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 24 August 2020, Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry released a statement that the country would be restricting the importation of baked goods. This will affect products such as pastries, cookies, muffins and other products derived from some form of grain.
The statement was supported by S.I 102 of 2020. The Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry highlighted that the move is meant to protect the domestic producers. |
|
|
NTB-000-985 |
1.8. Import bans |
2020-10-12 |
South Africa: Grobler's Bridge |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certified organic honey that is American Foulbrood Disease (AFB)free, complete with Certificate of Analysis from accredited lab Intertek in Germany (accredited by the German National Accreditation body DAkkS - national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany) they are also ISO/IEC 17025 certified and they do engage in proficiency testing) has been banned from entering SA unless irradiated.
2015 bilateral agreement allowed Zambian honey into SA without irradiating due to there being no AFB in Zambia.
SA claims that their ARC lab has tested samples from Forest Fruits and others and found them to be positive for AFB. The ARC lab has always produced inconsistent results and they cannot replicate the results. Sometimes positive and after a retest it is negative. ARC lab is not even SANAS accredited, has no ISO certification and does not engage in proficiency testing for AFB tests. On 23 October 2020 at a round table meeting of SA honey importers and various DAFF departments - meeting called by DAFF NPPO, it was clearly stated and admitted that ARC has performance "gaps".
DAFF scientists have to make decisions based on faulty science and results. The Intertek results consistently come back as negative for AFB disease. The result is in Non Compliance notices being sent to Zambia for samples that get retested and are negative!
As recent as last year, Zambia Veterinary Services did a national survey and found no AFB disease in Zambia.
SA DAFF NPPO is creating haphazard barriers to Zambian honey.
All Zambian exports are now affected.
Since 2015 a considerable amount of business with South African companies has developed in Zambia exporting honey to them. This ban affects the livelihoods of over 140,000 subsistence villagers. |
|
|
NTB-000-987 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2020-09-26 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zambia Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA)charges Botswana trucks 541 US Dollars per each entry into Zambia, while other SADC Countries are charged per distance. South Africa trucks are charged 110 US Dollars from Kazungula Ferry to Lusaka, Namibia trucks are charged a fixed 209 US Dollars per truck anywhere into Zambia. Zimbabwe and Tanzania pay a the same as South Africa.
Botswana trucks again have to pay RTSA K469 for identity cards per unit which becomes costly for Botswana truckers while other SADC Countries do not pay for identity cards. As Esmail Carriers (PTY) LTD we have 12 trucks that are crossing into Zambia and this has been going on for over 8 years. Per trip we spend more than P6765 per truck and per month the cumulative costs amount to more than P80 000.00 (RTSA charges). For identity cards is about P12 600.00 per month. Furthermore, Zambia has introduced new inland road tolls which we are paying in addition to existing charges.
This has become detrimental to our business as we lose more revenue on a daily basis. We currently request the Zambia government, Botswana government and SADC Secretariat to resolve this issue. |
|
|
Progress:
|
On 8th December 2020, Zambia Focal point reported that they were making follow up with the Road Transport and Safety Agency ( RTSA) and provide feedback as soon as possible. |
|
|
NTB-001-001 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2021-01-19 |
Namibia: NRST
Head Office / Innovation Hub
Cnr, Louis Raymond & Grant Webster Street
Private Bag 13253
Windhoek
Tel: +264 61 431 7000/99
Fax: + 264 61 216 531/+ 264 61 235 758
Email: info@ncrst.na |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
1. GMO thresholds - Namibia is 1% and South Africa is 5%
2. The above then has implications on what should be labeled.
3. The prescribed GMO wording is also different
4. Namibia also requests additional information from the rights owner (GMO Tech developers), which users do not have in South Africa.
All of this adds up to South African manufacturers/exporters being unable to meet the application requirements, thereby not obtaining the required import permits.
CGCSA members revised applications 3 times, but were still unable to complete the applications to the specifications expected.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 12 October 2021 , Namibia Focal Point reported that they will consult the relevant authorities and submit feedback as soon as possible.
2. On 31 March 2022,Namibia Focal Point updated as follows:
Namibian GMO labeling regulations (0.9%) – Vs 5% for South Africa. The Namibian Biosafety regulations (No 6116), 2016 Biosafety Act No. 7 of 2006, were developed nationally through a consultative process, taking into account trading partners with different labeling requirements. As per the Biosafety regulation (17) (c), 2016, exemptions to genetically modified food or feed labeling requirements:
“any processed food or feed including one or more substances produced through genetic modification, subject thereto that the genetically modified food or feed in the aggregate does not account for more than 0.9 percent of the processed food or feed or such other percentage or quantity as the Council may from time to time determine”;
This part of the regulations ‘labeling requirements’ will remain in place until such a time the regulation is amended |
|
|
NTB-001-014 |
1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-03-17 |
South Africa: Rhodes Quality, Cape Town |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a freight logistics company based in Gaborone, Botswana(100% citizen). During registration on supplies portals in South Africa they require us (Foreign freight logistics companies without branches in South Africa ) to be BBBEE compliant despite we providing them with all company documents verifying that we are foreign based with Head Offices out of South Africa borders. Because of the nature of our business which compels us to conduct cross border transportation, South African supplies would immediately inform us we can't do business with them on the basis of non - compliant on BBBEE requirements. Arrangement in place promotes South African transporters to do cross border and prohibits foreign transporters to haul commodities back to country of operation. Please note we are not issued with any documents as a dispensation on our Head offices out of South African borders.
Kindly assist in the best possible way. |
|
|
NTB-001-023 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-07-26 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: The DRC government. Ministry of Transport |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The DRC has just published legislation prohibiting foreign vehicles from loading mining products and to remove (export) them from the DRC. The unofficial translation of the new DRC amendment:Article 4-It is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo to load goods, in this case mining products from the national territory; In the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk.
According to an unofficial translation of article four of the amendment affecting the DRC's road freight sector, "it is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the DRC to load goods, in this case mining products, from the national territory”.
The article continues, saying "in the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk”. The decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on exports out of the DRC's Copperbelt region, with some transporters going so far as to say that it's wholly impractical and a protectionist strategy that is bound to boomerang against the government in Kinshasa. |
|
|
NTB-001-026 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2021-08-18 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There has been noticeable decrease in the volume of traffic crossing the Beitbridge border on the Zimbabwean side of the border for a few months now. On a normal working day +/- 1 500 trucks can cross the North South Corridor Border. The crossing entails Customs releases with the verification of other Government agencies to test and verify safety and security of the goods (Consignment).
However, in the last few months, the number has reduced to a maximum of +/- 400 trucks crossing the North South corridor. The drop in the movement of cargo is a combination of many factors and cannot be blamed solely on the hard infrastructure layout. An alignment with clear roles, responsibility, risk management profile , screening and removing of old outdated manual processes is required.
The challenge emanates from lack of harmonisation by enforcement Government agencies operating at the border which creates a huge bottleneck with minimal peace of mind, i.e SAPS on the South African side, Zimbabwe with its multiple Other Government Agencies involvement and linkage to a Private security company controlling the flow of cargo movement.
|
|
|
NTB-001-028 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: SARS |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius reported that:
The processing and submission of preferential certificates of origin are effected electronically and are issued on a consignment basis in compliance with SADC Protocol on Trade and Section 14(4) of the SADC Rules of Origin Regulations. Our national legislation is in line with the former. The proposal to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments should be addressed to the proper organ of SADC
2. On 20 October 2021, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARs:
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
3. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point recommended that the NTB be considered resolved on the basis of above .
4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-029 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: South Africa Revenue Services ( SARS) |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided the response by SARS below and recommended that the NTB be resolved on that basis:
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved
2.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-030 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-08-17 |
South Africa: SARS Customs |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council (SADC BC) convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges with variances in alignment of HS codes between Mauritius and South Africa(RSA).
1. …For exports from Mauritius to RSA, where a SADC is applicable, an exporter can insert 10 HS CODES on one SADC certificate. This is because the SADC certificate has now become electronic while before it was manual.
2. When it was manual, if someone had a nice handwriting, the person could insert more than 10 HS CODES as long as it legible.
3. When importing from RSA, Mauritian importers receive SADC certificates with 1 HS CODE only. Meaning RSA issues SADC certificates with ONE Line HS code only.
4. Thus if a Mauritian exporter is sending 10 different items to RSA and SADC is applicable, only one SADC certificate will be issued by Mauritian Revenue Authourity CUSTOMS.
5. On the other hand, if a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter sends only 3 different items to Mauritius, and of course SADC is applicable, SARS will issue THREE sadc certificates.
6. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT: SADC certificates are payable at both ends. Meaning a local broker will charge an exporter when issuing a SADC certificate and SARS will charge a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter when issuing on their side.
If a Mauritian exporter has 18 ITEMS to be exported out of Mauritius and a SADC certificate is applicable, he/she will have to have TWO SADC certificates only WHILE on the other hand, if a Mauritian imports 18 ITEMS from RSA, he/she will have 18 SADC certificates with each certificate obtained at a cost which represents a huge amount for the one who pays for these certificates. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius Focal Point reported that: HS Codes are harmonized at 6 digit level internationally. However, at national level, as from 7th digit onwards, each Customs administration under the SADC are using their nationally-defined HS Codes. With respect to paragraph 6, it is to be noted that the SADC Certificate of Origin are processed electronically for multiple items (up to 10 items per certificate) and are issued by the MRA Customs Department in hard copy, free of charge.
2. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARS and recommended that the NTB be resolved on those basis :
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved
3.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
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-001-048 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2022-01-03 |
Tanzania: Standards Authority |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Vague Labelling requirement "Statutory Warning" Clause 12 (k), rejection of the UK Chief Medical Warning which is accepted in other African countries such as Uganda, Kenya without any objection in addition to their requirement. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The stakeholder consultative meeting organized by the SADC Business Council which was attended by the concerned parties from South Africa and Tanzania and SADC Secretariat on 7 march 2022, agreed that the UK Chief Medical Officers Guidelines labelling should be retained (The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend adult do not regularly drink more than 14 units per week) provided that the Wine producer affixes an additional sticker which covers all missing information on the product package.
The additional sticker (label) should be legibly and indelibly marked.
The additional sticker should be submitted to the Tanzania Bureau of Standards for approval accompanied by the declaration letter from the Manufacturer stating that additional label originating from them and products imported in Tanzania will be labelled as such. |
|
|
NTB-001-059 |
7.10. Other |
2017-03-07 |
South Africa: |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Botswana based company, MOTOVAC reporting challenges is struggling to get payment of its Value Added Tax (VAT) import refunds from the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in time. It is reported, VAT refunds are not processed by SARS. The outstanding payments date back as far as 2017 with the company owed BWP 3,528,278.07 in VAT refunds by SARS.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-001-072 |
Misclassification of Product and subsequent wrongful incursion of tax (Sugar tax) |
2021-09-21 |
Mauritius: Mauritius Revenue Authority and customs, upon clearing consignmnet |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Misclassfication of Sweetened Condensed MILk as a beverage.
Misuse of tariff code - where others use 0402.99.90 MRA uses 0402.99.10. Furthermore;
Post the 2020 budget, we were made to understand by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry that sweetened condensed milk (SCM) doesn’t attract sugar tax. Thus, we wrote to the Director of Excise duty to seek clarifications on the application of sugar tax.
The director requested us to apply for a ruling without giving any further explanations.
We filled in the ‘Request for ruling on H.S Classifications of goods’ form in Dec. 2020 and submitted all relevant technical documents requested on the form and a sample of SCM to MRA.
However, we didn’t hear from MRA since there was a lockdown in March. We have cleared 3 consignments of SCM in March, June and July without paying the sugar tax and only received the MRA - Customs Declaration Form in August while clearing SCM consignments, and we were asked to pay for the sugar tax.
We took cognizance of the ruling only in August and this is when we started the objection process.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 24 August 2022, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the Customs Dept of Mauritius is looking into the matter and will submit a report as soon as possible.
2. Mauritius Customs reported that : Under the Customs Act whenever a person is dissatisfied with a ruling may object to the ruling.in this case, an objection has been made on 27.09.2021.The objection is being dealt with independently by the objection directorate. An update has been requested from them.
3. On 30th August 2022, Mauritius provided further update that:
The Objection Directorate has maintained the tariff classification under HS Code 0402.99.10 as provided by the Mauritius Revenue Authority Customs Department and the objection was disallowed. A Notice of Determination was issued to this effect on 15/11/2021.Applicant (Nestlé’s Products (Mauritius) Ltd ) made representations to the Assessment Revenue Committee (ARC) on 10/12/2021.The case was called Pro Forma before the ARC on 01/07/2022. Hearing by ARC on this case is still awaited. An update will be provided upon availability.
4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the case was still before the Assessment Review Committee (ARC). |
|
|
Products:
|
0402.99.90: --- Other |
|
|
NTB-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During a bilateral meeting facilitated by the SADC Business Council held on 10 October 2022, it was agreed that the issue was not related to misclassification of Cremora but rather, the introduction of import permits by Namibia. The SADC BC will engage the Namibia Ministry of Industry representatives to set up a follow up meeting with the Ministry of Veterinary (Namibia) who will provide clarity on the introduction of import permit as there relate to Nestle and to Cremora |
|
English
Français
