Active complaints

Showing items 41 to 60 of 80
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-001-030 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-001-029 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-001-028 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-001-026 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-001-023 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-001-014 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-001-001 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-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-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-000-982 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-000-977 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-000-970 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.
 
NTB-000-959 7.4. Costly procedures 2020-05-18 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Zobwe Malawi In process View
Complaint: Introduction of escort fees.

An escort fee at Zobue to escort Illovo Sugar (Malawi) trucks to Beira. It is US$ 200 per batch of 3 vehicles. If there is a single vehicle/truck that must get to the port the fee is still $ 200.

And there is also a scanning charge of US $ 20 per vehicle.
 
Progress: 1. On 28 September 2022 , Mozambique Focal Point reported that , in light of Decree 26/2010, of July 14, it is foreseen to charge road fees for passenger and cargo vehicles with foreign registration plates that cross the border of Zóbwé, Cassacatiza, Calómué, Mandimba, Milange, Namaacha, Goba and Changara District.  
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-000-953 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-000-947 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B33: Packaging requirements
2018-03-01 Uganda: Uganda Bureau of Standards Kenya In process View
Complaint: Uganda rejection of tissue paper manufactured in Kenya by Africa Cotton Industries. Uganda does not allow group packaging of tissue paper as provided for under the EAC harmonised standard.
Uganda have not implemented the EAC harmonized standards therefore the products must conform to Uganda National standard.
 
Progress: 1. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that Uganda has not yet adopted the East African Standard for toilet paper on technical ground and the matter is before the EAC Technical Committee and as such imports of toilet paper into Uganda is subjected to the Uganda Standard for toilet paper i.e. US 126, Toilet paper – Specification.
2.The RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, was informed that this issue is under discussion at the EAC Standards Committee.
3.The SCTIFI held in September 2020 was informed that the EAC Standard 2017 was reviewed in 2018 where Partner States agreed on all parameters except for packaging. and hence some Partner States went ahead to develop National Standards.The meeting was informed that a meeting was scheduled to take place in November 2020 and hence agreed that discussions with the Standards Committee be finalised by December, 2020.
4.The SCTIFI held in September 2020, was informed that the EAC Standard 2017 was reviewed in 2018 where Partner States agreed on all parameters except for packaging. and hence some Partner States went ahead to develop National Standards.The meeting was informed that a meeting was scheduled to take place in November 2020 and hence agreed that discussions with the Standards Committee be finalised by December, 2020.
5.The RMC meeting held in May 2021 noted that the Republic of Uganda held a Bilateral meeting with Kenya and agreed on a time frame of 1st July 2021 to resolve the NTBs related to Exercise books, Exercise books, and Pharmaceuticals.
6.The Subcommittee met and agreed that Uganda needs to justify the parameter in the standards scientifically, by February 2021.The Standards Committee then referred the NTB to the Technical Committee, which collected data to facilitate consensus on what should be included in the standard. The Technical Committee meeting is ongoing and will deliberate on the data and the way forward.
7. On 5 May 2022, Uganda Focal Point reported that :
The East African Standards Committee/Technical Committee 065 on Paper and paper products failed to reach consensus on one clause in the standards that relates to wrapping. They recommended to the Standards Management Committee to cancel the project and subsequently withdraw the Standard. The SMC discussed the proposal of the TC and agreed to cancel and withdrawal the standard as provided for by the Principles and procedures for development of East African Standards. The just concluded 24th EASC held on 27th to 29th April 2022 rejected withdrawal of EAS 355:2017 Tissue Paper – Specification and directed the SMC to review the Standard with the recommendation that more options be considered in the wrapping clause. Specific consideration be given to the optimum number of Tissue Paper to be group wrapped without compromising the safety of users. SMC to conclude and report back by the 25th EASC meeting.
8. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that the NTB was considered by the EACSC in a meeting that took place in April 2022. The EASC rejected the withdrawal of EAS 355:2017 Tissue Paper – Specification and directed the SMC to review the Standard with the recommendation that more options be considered in the wrapping clause. Specific consideration is given to the optimum number of Tissue Paper to be group wrapped without compromising the safety of users. SMC to conclude and report back by the 25th EASC meeting.
9.The Republic of Uganda informed the 41st SCTIFI meeting that Kenyan firms producing tissue papers access the Ugandan market, with the exception of only one firm called Africa Cotton Industries which wraps its tissue papers in group packages, and fails to comply with the Ugandan requirement that doesn’t allow group packing of tissue paper. The 41st SCTIFI meeting agreed that EASC should report on this matter to the 42nd SCTIFI meeting.
10. The 34th RMC noted that the issue was still under consideration by the relevant technical committee.
11.The Technical Committee meeting of 13th June 2023 failed to reach consensus on group wrapping and TC agreed to inform the SMC to consider abandoning the work on CDEAS 355-1: 2023, Toilet paper — Specification — Part 1 —Regular toilet tissue paper.
12. The EASC met on 30th October 2023, deliberated on the matter and resolved that the SMC come up with a comprehensive technical paper to be considered by the Technical Management Board (TMB) before mid-November and the findings from TMB be presented to EASC.
13.The NTB is still at the Technical Committee level and once the Technical Committee finalises it will submit its Report through Standards Management Committee to the Technical Management Board for consideration. The matter was discussed during the EASC which was held on 8 - 10 May 2024. The EASC approved a new date for the TMB meeting in October 2024. The two Partner States held a JMC in May 2024 and agreed as follows: i) Both Partner States to implement EAC harmonised standards ii) Uganda to comply with EAC harmonised standards on tissue paper by August 2024 iii) KEBS and UNBS to continue working together
 
NTB-000-938 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements
2020-02-08 South Africa: Beit Bridge Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained.  
Progress: 1. On 11 February 2020, ( 12:13hrs) South Africa Focal point advised that they were undertaking consultations with relevant authorities and will report back as soon as possible .
2. On 12 February 2020, the exporter advised that the truck had been released on condition that Port Health officials will collect samples for laboratory testing. However, when the truck arrives in South Africa, the company cannot distribute the consignment until samples are collected by the nearest Port Health Officials for lab tests.
 
Products: 1905.31: Sweet biscuits  
NTB-000-936 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2019-11-19 Zambia: Chirundu Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Sunny Yi Feng Tiles (Pvt) Ltd a Zimbabwean company with both SADC and COMESA certificates of origin. The company is being charged USD8.30 per box (VAT) in Zambian market which is a member of COMESA and SADC Free Trade Area, instead of the invoice price of USD3.80 per box (VAT). In addition the company is being charged 5% surtax at the Zambian Border. This problem is being faced only with the Zambian market  
Progress: 1. On 21 January 2020, Zimbabwe Focal point sent a request to their counterpart in Zambia to follow up on the issue . A response is being awaited from Zambia .
2.During the Zambia NMC verification mission to Chirundu held on 11-12 June 2020, ZRA advised that the surtax is Customs Valuation matter and hence a tariff matter and not an NTB. With regard to the problem of customs the uplifting values for duty purposes and disregarding the invoice value , the client is advised to appeal to department of International and Policy to have the valuation matter reviewed and possibly resolved
3. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021 Zambia reported that the NTB is a tax policy issue and internal consultations with relevant authorities were in progress and they will provide feed back by July 2021.
4. In September 2022, Zambia Focal Point reported that Surtax on imported tiles was a tax policy issue that was presented to the Ministry of Finance for resolution. On the issue of uplifts on the declared values of the imported tiles, the Zambian law provides a channel for aggrieved clients to appeal.
5. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries to hold a bilateral meeting to consider the matter by 31st October 2023.
6. During the NTBs workshop 17th – 19th April 2024, NFPs for the two countries agreed to hold a virtual bilateral meeting in April to discuss the additional taxes.
 
Products: 6904: Ceramic building bricks, flooring blocks, support or filler tiles and the like.  
NTB-000-906 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2019-04-05 Uganda: Uganda Weight and Measures Authority Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Uganda does not recognize the Calibration Certificate issued by the Weight and Measures Agent (WMA) for oil tank from URT: Republic of Uganda does not accept the Calibration Certificate of tanks from URT. As a result, our traders are forced to undergo recalibration by Ugandan counterpart Authority (Uganda Bureau of Standards) at a charge odd USD 230. This increases the cost of doing business. The trader paid Uganda shillings 2,655,600. It was stated that the certificate from URT is valid for the period of one year.  
Progress: 1. During the Sectoral Committee on Trade Uganda reported that it will consult and report back during SCTIFI of May 2019.
2.During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019, Uganda reported that the NTB was discussed in the EAC Standards Committee and it was recommended that a technical committee should be established to harmonise the the calibration procedures for the tankers and also the fees payable to the service provided. Uganda will report on the progress during the next Regional Monitoring Committee Meeting. Nevertheless, Tanzania is concerned about the charge and requested Uganda to consider and waive it.
3. As per Regional Committee Meeting held on 15th October, 2019, it was agreed that Uganda would provide progress made during SCTIFI meeting to be held in November, 2019, In addition Tanzania requests Uganda to recognize calibration certificate issued by Weights and Measures (WMA) as per SQMT Act, 2006. And also to consider and waive charges / fees.
4. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that the law in Uganda requires a verification in Uganda. There is no EAC harmonized regulation in that area and unfortunately, UNBS registers over 95% failure rate on verification of such tankers.This matter was already raised at EAMET and resolved to constitute a technical team from all the member states to review procedures in place. This was not done and URT did not participate in subsequent meetings where action was to be determined. The fees rules provide the scheme for applicable fees. Regarding the payment of the trader paid Uganda shillings 2,655,600, there may be need to substantiate and investigate.
5.The SCTIFI meeting held in September 2020 agreed that the concerned calibration institutions undertake a peer assessment to establish discrepancies and report to the Secretariat by February, 2021.
6.The 24th EAMET meeting held from 29th to 30th September 2020 reported that Peer Review of Road Tanker Calibration/Verification and Visits to the Partner States not yet undertaken due to lack of funds to undertake the activity. EAMET rescheduled the activity for January 2021 and recommended EASC to request the EAC secretariat to mobilize funds for a committee of experts to undertake the activity.b The 23rd EASC Meeting held from 7th to 8th October 2020 directed EAC Secretariat to:
-lobby for funds in collaboration with the Partner States towards the implementation of the EAMET work plan especially training on calibration/verification of tankers and peer assessment considering related NTBs; and
-fully engage weight and measure the institution of the United Republic of Tanzania to participate in EASC activities.
7. The Tanzania NMC meeting that was held in April 2021 noted that this NTB has been outstanding for a long time because the two Partner States are yet to meet and recommended that the EAC Secretariat coordinates the two Partner States to meet and undertake a peer assessment.
8.The RMC meeting held in May 2021 noted that the issues were discussed by the metrology Subcommittee (EAMET) and the 23rd EASC Directed the EAC Secretariat to engage Weights and Measure Tanzania on their participation in the subcommittee activities and coordinate the peer assessment to resolve the differences.
EAC Secretariat on 31st March 2021, held a meeting with Weights and Measures Tanzania on the participation in EAC Metrology activities. Peer assessment planned and to be undertaken by 30th June, 2021.
9.The Secretariat has convened peer assessment meetings scheduled as follows:
(i) 26th to 29th October 2021: peer assessment in Tanzania.
(ii) 3rd-6th Nov 2021: peer assessment in Uganda
10. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that:
Peer assessment was conducted in October and November agreed to harmonize the calibration certificates. The NTB will be addressed when the two Partner States harmonize and implement the harmonized administrative procedures on road tankers as recommended by the EAMET Report of April 2022.
11.As recommended by the EAMET Report of April 2022. The meeting urged the Republic of Uganda to consider mutual recognition of the calibration certificate as the two Partner States await the harmonization. At the Trade Committee, the meeting was informed that Peer assessment was done, gaps identified and action plan for implementation agreed and approved by Standards Committee The meeting urged the EACS to Fast track the harmonization of administrative procedures to resolve the matter. During the 41st SCTIFI the Secretariat informed the meeting that it had convened a meeting in February 2023 to harmonize calibration procedures for road tankers.
12. The 34th RMC noted that another meeting had been convened to take place in Dar Es Salaam in June 2023
13.The 43rd Sectoral Council on Trade Industry Finance and Investment directed the Secretariat to prioritize the harmonization of calibration services for the road tankers in the Region in the financial year 2024/2025 (EAC / SCTIFI / 43 / 2024 / Directive 41 )
14.The Report of experts meeting and Roadmap for the development of EAC Harmonized Procedure for verification / calibration of road tankers were considered and approved by the 26th Meeting of East African Standards Committee (EASC) held in Arusha, from 8th to 10th May 2024. The 1st experts meeting to harmonise the procedure will be held in August, 2024 in Dar Es Salaam
 
NTB-000-864 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-11-17 Uganda: URA Kenya In process View
Complaint: Discriminatory treatment (Excise duty) of Kenyan manufactured products among others Juices products Kenya reported that the Juices are still charged 13% excise duty.  
Progress: 1.Delmonte Pineapple Juice:
Uganda reported that it is difficult to differentiate between pineapple juice manufactured using the locally-acquired concentrate and juice manufactured using concentrate imported under duty remission for exports.
Therefore, Uganda could not accord preferential treatment to Delmonte pineapple Juice.
2. During the JPC held with Kenya,Uganda stated that this provision in the excise Duty Act is global and not specific to juices coming in from Kenya. This provision is under a law which is considered domestic and the country has a sovereign mandate to make provisions related to internal tax.Uganda however promised to undertake stake holder consultation on the excise duty tax and report by June 2019.
3.The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019 noted that these are two separate NTBs on Juices and Pharmaceuticals and should be treated separately. The NTB on Juice was referred to the Customs Committee for resolution during the SCTIFI meeting on 10th November, 2018.
On Pharmaceuticals: Kenya and Uganda agreed to resolve the NTB bilaterally as it was agreed by Heads of State. The two Partner States agreed to update the EACS on the progress.
During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019Uganda informed the meeting that work is ongoing to resolve the NTB and would report back by November, 2019
4.During the Sectoral Committee on Trade that took place on 31st October, 2019 Uganda reported that the two Partner States agreed on how to resolve the NTB on Juice bilaterally and have agreed on the framework for resolution and will consult with the responsible agencies to resolve the NTB as agreed by November, 2019.
5.Uganda to resolve the NTB as committed in the Bilateral meeting and also sensitize its Regulatory Authorities on the implementation of EAC Provisions.
6. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that national consultations were ongoing and will report in next meeting.Uganda requested for amendment on this NTB since Kenya also charges excise duty on Ugandan juices as attached in the evidence.
7. During the RMC meeting held on 1 SeptemberThe Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that there is a Court (EACJ) ruling on a similar matter and hence Uganda should implement the ruling of the Court.The Republic of Uganda informed the RMC meeting that due to budget constraints the NTB will be resolved together with the one on Pharmaceuticals by 1st July 2021.The meeting therefore agreed to escalate the NTB to the SCTIFI through the SCoT.
8. During the SCTIFI, held in September 2020, the Republic of Uganda informed that resolving this NTB has a budget implication and hence committed to resolve the NTB by 1st July, 2021.
The Republic of Kenya requested that the Republic of Uganda considers implementing interim measures while awaiting resolution of this NTB.
9.The NTB was forwarded to the Directorate of Tax and Policy in the Ministry of Finance to be resolved in the FY 2022/2023. Uganda to invite Kenya for a midterm review of the Bilateral meetings in November 2021..Kenya requested Uganda to consider an interim measure to treat Kenyan products as Uganda products.
10. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that Uganda recognizes the Initial Bill under discussion may not address the current NTB raised by Kenya and the Government is taking steps to ensure that bill will address the concern, also in the same spirit, Uganda reviewed the initial bills of Kenya, and noticed also the bills are not addressing the Uganda NTBs. Therefore Uganda would recommend that the issue is forwarded to the SCTIFI to urge the 2 Partner states to ensure that the current bills under discussion in the respective Partner States should address the NTBs as agreed in Bilateral Meetings between the two Partner States in April and December 2021.
11.The Bill has been passed by the Parliament, pending gazettement. the amendment includes a change on local content to mean EAC and removes the discriminative part. During the meeting of the Sectoral Committee on Trade requested the Republic of Uganda to fast-track the process of gazettement. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting the Republic of Uganda observed that Parliament had already passed the bill. The Republic of Kenya requested Uganda that once the bill is assented to, Uganda should fast-track the process of gazettement. The Republic of Uganda provided the new text as it is drafted in the bill to demonstrate that it is not discriminatory on juices transferred from the Republic of Kenya. The text states that “Fruit juice and vegetable juice, except juice made from at least 30% pulp or at least 30% juice by weight or volume of the total composition of the drink from the fruits and vegetables locally grown.”
12. In March 2023, the NTB Unit in the Secretariat reported that the RMC noted that Locally Grown as per the Uganda Law means grown in East Africa. The meeting urged Urganda to fast-track the gazettement of the bill.
The 42nd SCTIFI noted that as per the new Act by the Republic of Uganda the charges have been removed and hence the NTB resolved. The meeting noted that the Republic of Uganda will provide a copy of the Act for the NTB to be treated as resolved.
13. On 10 August 2023 , Kenya requested that Uganda shares the current Act and the implementation of the same in order to resolve the issue as it the matter cannot be resolved based on a bill.
14.The 43rd SCTIFI directed the Republic of Uganda and Republic of Kenya to hold a bilateral meeting to resolve NTB 000 - 864 on discriminatory excise duty on juice by 30th June 2024 and report to the 45th SCTIFI (EAC / SCTIFI / 43 / 2024 / Directive 39). The issue was considered during the JMC that took place in May 2024 and decided as follows: i. Both Partner States should not apply discriminatory taxes, levies and import duties for goods originating from another Partner State. Further, there should be no quotas on goods as per EAC Protocols within EAC Partner States. ii. Government of Uganda, in the interim to notify the border agencies that locally grown products means products locally grown in EAC iii. Both Partner States to sensitise border agencies on EAC Protocols.
 
1 2 3 4