| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-156 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2024-03-09 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging USD 270 from Rusumo border to Kigali which is equivalent to USD 80.83 per 100KM, while Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM.This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicle. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 29 April 2024, Rwanda Focal Point reported that : 'Considering the financial implication of these rates, Rwanda was still reviewing this proposal pending the finalization of the EAC study on harmonization of RUC. However, Rwanda will engage URT bilaterally to discuss how to resolve this outstanding issue.
2.The 36th RMC was informed that the charge amounts to 70 USD and is also affecting the Republic of Kenya. The RMC also noted that it is an obligation of the Government to offer security in the Country and it should not be at the expense of the traders. RSS should stop collecting this fee which is not in the RSS Laws and do not attach it to the process of the RTF on the fees, levies and charges.
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19)
4.During the 39th RMC meeting, Rwanda reported that they maintain the Status quo as Directed as awaits the finalization of the study. |
|
|
NTB-001-204 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-01 |
Rwanda: Gatuna |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging un harmonized flat rates for vehicles transiting through the Rwanda borders. This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicles.
Uganda is upholding the principle of distance*weight.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1.The RMC of 17th October 2024 was informed that the NTB on discriminatory road user charges was considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favours big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load/weight and distance but also considering other factors that favour all of us as a region
f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the SC TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of SC TCM on harmonisation of Road User Charges.
The Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
• Buses;
• Trucks of three or less axles; and
• Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles/semi-trailers);
d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonised rates between themselves to continue doing so;
e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonised charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
g) Secretariat to mobilise funds for the study in (vi) above;
h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
j) Partner States to prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC/CM 45/ Directive 56). As per the directives of TCM, there are two Road User Charges adopted in the Community.
(i) distance + weight (axles) rates
(ii) COMESA harmonised rates of USD 10 per 100 KM
The Republic of Rwanda committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC.
2.Directives from 18th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:
United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.
Uganda
Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.
Burundi
Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighbouring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.
Kenya
Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.
Conclusion
Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19) |
|
|
NTB-001-289 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-06-20 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda has introduced a 39% excise duty on juice products manufactured in Kenya and transferred into Rwanda. The excise subjected to Kenya juice is a charge on import. EAC is a local market, additionally, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The issue will be included in the list to be submitted for consideration by the 2nd Extra Ordinary SCFEA.
2. This issue was listed among the discriminatory charges imposed on Kenyan products by the Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda is treating Kenyan juice as an import and applying a charge, yet this movement is a transfer within the EAC Customs Union—not an import. As directed by SCFEA and SCTIFI, all discriminatory charges be removed, and therefore Kenya requests Rwanda to consider Kenya juice as a transfer and not an import and cease applying this levy.
3. During the 40th RMC Rwanda informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed as directed by SCFEA to resolve the NTB |
|
|
NTB-001-353 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses |
2026-04-10 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
wanda FDA is subjecting Kenya products to costly charges for re-testing and registration of the products despite the products being certified by the Kenya bureau of standards with valid standardization mark.
The two products include ace pine fresh and ace citrus fresh liquid toilet cleaners. Rwanda FDA informed that the certifications for the two products had been revoked on the basis that they allegedly contained Nonyl Phenol despite successfully applying for and receiving product registrations from Rwanda FDA under certificates Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0070 and Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0072. Further the manufacturer confirmed they not using Nonyl Phenol
|
|
|
NTB-001-276 |
VAT Refunds |
2020-08-03 |
South Africa: South African Revenue Services |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Business Botswana has received from seven (7) of its member companies (see attached list) with concerns regarding delays in claiming VAT refunds from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These companies have collectively reported that they are owed a total of R51,838,696.82in VAT refunds, dating as far back as 2020 to August 2024. The core issues involve prolonged processing times, document rejections without the ability to resubmit, and tight deadlines for compiling and submitting the required paperwork. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the SADC regiomal workshop on resoltuion of NTBs held on the 14-15 April 2026, SARS indicated that VAT refunds are being processed through South African-based agents, with delays and backlog attributed to the transition from the pre-COVID system to a new system, as well as some claims being rejected due to incomplete or non-compliant documentation; approximately R93 million has been paid out regionally in batches. Botswana companies are encouraged to use reference numbers to track claims, while coordination between the private sector, local consultants, and South African agents will be strengthened, and SARS will provide guidance on documentation requirements to improve compliance and efficiency. Overall, the matter is partially resolved, with progress made but further follow-up required to clear outstanding claims and enhance system efficiency. BURS is also working on it and plans to have a meeting with SARS as soon as possible. |
|
|
NTB-001-358 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2026-02-02 |
South Africa: |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Business Botswana member -Flo-Tek has highlighted challenges relating to road transit bonds and cabotage restrictions. The company noted that South African authorities shifted responsibility for road transit bonds from transporters to the importer or owner of the goods. As a result, Flo-Tek is now directly responsible for administering and carrying the liability associated with transit bonds for shipments passing through South Africa. The company argues that this arrangement places an unfair financial and administrative burden on exporters, despite the transporter being in physical control of the cargo during transit. Flo-Tek also raised concerns about South Africa’s cabotage regulations, which prevent Botswana-registered trucks from completing deliveries in situations where the South African entity is the invoice holder or where goods are destined for onward export to neighbouring countries such as Lesotho. Consequently, cargo must be transferred to South African trucks before final delivery, resulting in additional transport arrangements, delays, cargo handling risks, and increased logistics costs. Flo-Tek believes these restrictions are largely protectionist in nature and hinder regional trade integration.
Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these South Africa undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. |
|
|
NTB-001-274 |
8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) |
2025-02-07 |
South Sudan: Nimule |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
RSS Charges a USD 40 weighbridge service fee per truck that crosses at Nimule weighbridge station at Jalie, as in the circular attached issued by weighbridge management 2. In the event of having an overload, they negotiate between USD600 and USD2,500 3. Road blocks between Nimule and Juba charge USD100 unreceipted. 4 . Between Juba and Torit, they ask for USD 50 VISA fees We request that South Sudan to immediately remove this NTB |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The Republic of South Sudan informed the meeting that the weighbridge belongs to a private company, which charges money to recoup its capital investment.
RSS reported that she had reported the same to the Ministry of Transport for resolution.
Partner States noted that they also run investments and are not charged on EAC Citizens.
2. On 4 December 2025, RSS Focal Point advised that the NTB is not discriminating, but it does add cost to doing business, the Minister responsible is not ministry of Transport its the Ministry of Road and Bridges.
3. During 39th RMC,RSS informed the meeting the Company contracted by the Ministry of Roads and Bridges was still imposing the levy to recoup its capital investment until the arrangements to repay are made by the Ministry of Finance. RSS however is undertaking internal consultations to removed the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-360 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2026-03-01 |
South Sudan: Nimule |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The implementation of electronic permits (e-permits) and related electronic cargo tracking for goods entering South Sudan from Uganda has led to significant delyas and costs to traders eg Over 1,000 trucks are currently stranded at the Nimule border due to challenges with the e-permit system such as additional charges, and slow processing. On the same issue,there are complaints of Extortion.Truck drivers have reported that some officials refuse electronic payments and instead demand cash, leading to corruption and higher, unofficial fees. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 40th RMC RSS informed the meeting that the e-Permit is a system Customs is relying on pending integration of the RSS Customs systems with other EAC systems. The Secretariat shall work with RSS on a roadmap to integrate the systems.
2. South Sudan Focal Point reported that e-Permit is a government policy to improve revenue collection and prevent smuggling, the system is operation in full knowledge of revenue authorities in the two Partner States of Kenya and Uganda. The delay of clearing cargos at the border are case by non-compliance.
3.During the 40th RMC, RSS informed the meeting that the e-Permit is a system Customs is relying on pending integration of the RSS Customs systems with other EAC systems. The Secretariat is in the process to facilitate RSS systems integration with the rest of EAC Customs systems.
4. On 10 May 2026, RSS provided the resolution between government of South Sudan and Regional Drivers Association (EAC) on the Trade challenges reported by Republic of Uganda at Nimule border and the highway to Juba. The resolution is a measure to facilitate trade and remove the trade barriers along that corridor. |
|
|
NTB-000-769 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2017-05-05 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024.
17.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that the excise duty charged is not discriminatory. Kenya insisted on the bilateral agreements.
18. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-070 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2022-06-30 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT charging Kenya an import discriminatory Excise Duty introduced vide URT Finance Act 2022. Additionally, some consignments are discriminatively subjected to Tsh.1000/kg not anywhere in the URT Finance Act 2022. The same excise duty is not applicable to the same or like products produced in URT hence creating unfair competition between the Partners States Originating products.
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States.
Section 2 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 defines import as to bring or cause to be brought into the Partner States from a foreign country, and export as to take or cause to be taken out of Partner States. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Treaty for Establishment of East African Community, EAC Community Laws take precedence over similar national laws on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Treaty |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the Regional NTBs Forum,URT informed the meeting that the complaint is not an NTB but a charge of equivalent effect which is like what is in the Kenya’s Finance Act of 2022. This is a result of non-harmonization of domestic taxes in the Region. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the Kenya Finance Act is not discriminatory and hence the Charge on Confectionary Sugar by URT is an NTB and should be resolved by abolishing the discriminative fees. The Trade Committee meeting recommends that the process of harmonizing the fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. During the 41st SCTIFI meeting Kenya observed that confectionary products from Kenya should not be treated differently from confectionery products produced in Tanzania. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya observed that NTB-001-070: “URT discriminatory charges of import TSh.700 and unfounded charges of Tsh.1000 to Kenya confectionary, sugar and sugar products.” The EAC TBP submissions has referred to the excise duty as fees and subsequently recommended the process of harmonizing the Fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. Kenya’s submission is that the description of the charges as fees is erroneous. The charge is an excise duty as contained in the United Republic of Tanzania Finance Act of 2022 and the custom entry presented as evidence. This measure is therefore disciplined under Article 15 of the Protocol establishing the EAC Custom Union and not subject to the process of harmonization of fees, levies and charges. The excise duty discriminates transfers of confectionary, sugar and sugar products from Kenya which are levied Tshs 700 per kilogram against locally produced like-products which are levied Tshs 500 per kilogram. This measure is a violation of Article 15 on National Treatment which prohibits Partner States from imposing, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Partner States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products In addition, in the custom entry presented as evidence, the Kenya exporter has been charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya therefore requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
2. During the 42nd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that Kenya exporters were charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya, therefore, requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
The United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that there was an error in the Law that had since been reviewed through a Government Notice number 478(1) of 4th July 2022. The meeting noted that in the reviewed Law, locals are charged NIL while exports are charged 1,000 Tshs. URT to consult on the application of the new law and revert.
3.During the 35th RMC URT informed that the NTB will be resolved in accordance with the SCTIFI Directive on harmonization of domestic taxes, especially excise duties.
On the other hand, Kenya informed as follows:
(a) Goods produced within the EAC should be considered local and therefore, not treated as imports.
(b) Partner States align their internal Acts to define imports and exports in accordance with EAC CMP
4.The 36th RMC that took place from 1st - 4th May 2024 was informed that the NTB is being addressed under the Bilateral engagements where the two Partner States agreed to the harmonisation of all discriminatory taxes, conditions, levies, fees, and charges related to imports/exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024.
5.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that they are still in consultations and will update by December 2025
6. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-152 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-02-07 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
All the Private Inland Container Depot Operators at Dar Port are refusing to discharge the vessel Ladonna MV for onward delivery of shipment to Zambia and DRC. Private Inland Container Depot Operators that were willing to discharge the vessel have been threatened by trading competitors to the current vessel owner/trader who is a new entrant in the regional market with total loss of current business if they discharged this vessel Dar Port. This is a clear violation of the WTO-TFA (World Trade Organization Trade Facilitation Agreement), AU (African Union), Comesa/SADC Regional protocols and agreements as well as individual Bi-lateral agreements relating to Trade Facilitation. Zambia has worked hard to secure this business to supply chemicals to the World Largest Copper Producer DRC in order to boost regional exports and promote continental economic growth. However, the private sector in Tanzania are now blocking these efforts despite the government working so hard to restore Dar Ports Image as the preferred port of choice on the Eastern Coast of Africa. These actions have potential to make serious negative impact to all 3 countries Tanzania, Zambia & DRC and overall the African Continent and therefore should be addressed to minimize the high costs of doing business. |
|
|
Products:
|
2503: Sulphur of all kinds, other than sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur. |
|
|
NTB-001-218 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2024-10-29 |
Tanzania: Dar es Salaam |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania's Finance Act 2024 introduced an excise duty for ‘’imported’’ products under HS Code 32.08 (Paints and varnishes including enamels and lacquers) of T Shs. 500 per kilo. However, this excise duty has NOT been imposed on any local manufacturers of the same products.
We intend to import items under this heading made in Kenya. Under the spirit of the EAC Trade protocols, which allows for free movement of goods, no duties, taxes or other non-tariff barriers should be imposed on any goods from a EAC partner country that a local manufacturer does not pay.
Therefore we believe this excise duty represents a huge disincentive to Kenyan manufacturers and hindrance to free trade within the EAC.
After writing to the TRA for assistance in the above issue, we were told that the Excise duty is chargeable to all goods falling under that heading even if it is of Kenyan origin (see our letter and their response)
We therefore request your assistance on way forward for us to import items under the HS codes mentioned from Kenya without being subject to this new excise duty of 500 T Shs. Per kilo. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The SCTIFI of May 2025 noted that, although the Republic of Kenya had not provided transactional evidence on the reported excise duty, broader concerns remain regarding the misapplication of the term “imports” within the EAC context. Partner States were reminded that Article 15 of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment prohibits discriminatory treatment of goods originating from other EAC Partner States. The meeting therefore urged all Partner States to harmonize the interpretation and application of the term “imports” in national laws and practices with the EAC legal framework, in order to facilitate intra EAC Trade.
2.During 39th RMC,URT reported that they were still consulting will update by December 2025
3. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-227 |
|
2024-08-01 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certain African countries are now requiring annual renewal of all test reports for our safety footwear crossing their borders. Financially, this translates to approximately R55,000 per test per style. For manufacturers such as ourselves exporting multiple styles annually, the cost could potentially run into millions, significantly impacting our margins but also creating potential delays or disruptions. |
|
|
NTB-001-231 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2024-12-12 |
Tanzania: Immigration |
Rwanda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Illegal fees on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month.$100 is charged on Rwandan nationals crossing into Tanzania more than three times a month, this was identified by the Central Corridor Team during a survey from Rusumo to Dar es Salaam port. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 38th RMC, Tanzania informed the meeting that the fee is not illegal, but it is a special pass paid once in 90 days to all EAC Citizens. However, if the person exits URT within 90 days and wants to re-enter URT the person will again be charged $100.
The meeting agreed that the matter be referred to the Regional Implementation Committee on the Common Market Protocol for further discussion and resolution
2. During the 40th RMC, the United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that specific Business Pass are issued to persons for the purpose of undertaking temporary special assignments or professional activities as per the EAC CMP. Tanzania further clarified that for EAC Citizens a fee of USD 100 is charged for this category of persons. The 40th RMC noted that cross-border traders who cross the borders several times should not be subjected to this fee and recommend that the URT to sensitize relevant authorities on the application of business passes and Secretariat to sensitize on the Simplified Trade Regime (STR) in the EAC by 30th December 2026. |
|
|
NTB-001-247 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2018-01-03 |
Tanzania: Diary board,Ministry of Agriculture,Atomic Council |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Multiple requirements and fees upon transfer of milk into Tanzania. These are;
(a) Charges of T. Shs. 2,000 per Kg of milk transfers by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Tanzania
(b) 1% FOB by Tanzania Dairy Board plus Tsh. 30,000 as application fees
(c) The Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission charges 0.4 % FOB |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was discussed in the bilateral meeting between the two Partner States but was not resolved.Tanzania requested Uganda to provide evidence for her to review and revert on the matter.
Uganda indicated that traders are not currently engaging in this business due to the multiple charges
2.The 39th RMC meeting agreed that the fees to be considered during the harmonization/removal of fees, levies and charges
3. Tanzania informed the 40th RMC that the discriminatory charge and charges of equivalent effect were submitted as part of the list to be reviewed under SCFEA and has been factored in the budegt for 2026/2027 to be resolved by 30 June 2026. |
|
|
NTB-001-251 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2024-07-05 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT is subjecting full CET of 35% on ZESTA JAM manufactured in Kenya by Trufoods. The Zesta Jam is manufactured using locally sourced sugar.
We request Tanzania and Kenya to conduct on spot verification on June 2025 to ascertain origin as the jam transferred is using locally manufactured sugar and qualify under the EAC Preferential treatment.
Kenya communicated to TRA vide letter ref: C&BC/HQ/8 Dated 24/9/2024 requesting Tanzania for application for Zesta Jam to be granted preferential treatment. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During 47th SCTIFI, noted that the matter is administrative and referred to Customs Committee where the two Partner States agreed to conduct bilateral verification to ascertain the origin criteria by end of February 2026
2.The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Kenya have convened a verification mission to be undertaken by 11th May 2026 to ascertain the origin of the product |
|
|
NTB-001-281 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-08 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory Excise Duty on exports/Transfers that hinders Chocolate export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to chocolate manufactured in Tanzania |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that she is still consulting and will report back by December 2025
2. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-285 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-01 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Tanzania government imposed a 10% Discriminatory Levies: Industrial Development Levy
excise duty on Road tractor for semi-trailers transferred/exported by Kenya into Tanzania, violating the principles of the EAC Protocal article 15 & 75 and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Tanzania producers/assemblers of whom do not pay the 10% Industrial Development Levy, further distorting the market.
Road tractor for semi-trailers 10% for HS
8701.21.90
8701.22.90
8701.23.90
8701.24.90
8701.29.90
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that she is still in consultations and will update by December 2025
2. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-279 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-05-19 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania Dairy Board discriminatively charging 1.75% F.O.B value of on Kenya dairy produce on Pasteurized whole
Milk, Skimmed, Condensed, Yoghurt, ice cream and Powdered milk.
TDB is violating the Article 15 of the EAC Custom Union Protocol on national treatment. Same treatment as Tanzanian products in terms of charges. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that this is among the identified list of fees, levies and charges hence it is to be considered during harmonization process
2. On 26 March 2026, Kenya Focal Point further reported that The Tanzania Dairy Board (TDB) is discriminatively imposing a charge of 1.75% of the F.O.B. value on Kenyan dairy products—specifically pasteurized whole milk, skimmed milk, condensed milk, yoghurt, ice cream, and powdered milk. This measure cannot be justified as for ‘harmonisation’ as it clearly violates the EAC Treaty and the EAC Customs Union Protocol, which prohibit Partner States from applying discriminatory charges on goods originating from Kenya and other EAC countries.
Furthermore, both SCTIFI (Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment) and SCFEA (Sectoral Council on Finance and Economic Affairs) have expressly directed all Partner States to remove all discriminatory levies and consider EAC products as transfer and not import. In line with these directives, the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) should cease the application of this charge and fully comply with the established EAC legal framework and Council decisions.
3.The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-288 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-20 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT imposition of discriminative Excise Duty on Unilever Soaps, detergents and bleaches -10%; Industrial Development Levy-5-15%
VAT Rate-18%
Impact to business
• Increased production costs due to excise and industrial levies.
• Reduced competitiveness against imported products, especially if inputs are taxed.
• Pressure on pricing, potentially leading to higher consumer prices or reduced margins.
Limited relief for manufacturers despite EAC integration goals.
This tax favours local Tanzania producers of whom do not pay the 10% excise duties, further distorting the market.
3401.11.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3401.19.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.50.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.90.00 Soap and detergents 10% |
|
English
Français
