| 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) |
|
|
NTB-001-169 |
7.2. Discrimination |
2024-01-01 |
Burundi: Rugerero |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Burundi is charging USD 152 Flat rate on Road user Charges from Kobero/Kabangato Bujumbura which is equivalent to USD 65.5 per 100KM, While Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM. This discriminatory charge is contrary to directives made on the 18th Meeting of Sector Council on Transport,Communication and Meteorology |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. 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 neighboring 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).
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)
2.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-001-110 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-07-01 |
|
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
United Republic of Tanzania subject a discriminatory treatment to Kenyan export/transfer on products of animal and animal products despite their commitment in the bilateral meeting to amend the Act to resolve the discriminatory charges on the Kenya animal and animal products by June 2022.
Tanzania charges descriminatory meat products an import fees of Tshs 3,000 per kilogram (Kg) for imports consignment. The fees is contained in the animal diseases (animals and animal products movement control) .(amendment) regulations, 2022 of the United Republic of Tanzania that came into operation on 1st July 2022. These charges have rendered Kenyan exports especially milk and milk products, meat and meat products including sausages uncompetitive in the Tanzanian market while Kenya facilitates Tanzania meat and meat products sausages into Kenya without any discrimination.
These charges contravene the GATT 1994 Art III on National Treatment, Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 1 (1) (definition of imports) and 15 (1) (a) and (2) (National Treatment) of the Customs Union Protocol and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.
The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect.
Kenya urges:-
a)Tanzania to abolish these prohibitive discriminatory charges and treat our animal and animal products as from the local market and accord same rate as their own without discriminating not to call it import as import is from outside EAC.
b) URT to abolish the discriminatory charges as per the customs union protocol.
d) URT to treat Kenya meat and meat products as local and not as an import.
C)URT to stop restricting the quantities to be imported/transfered by the Kenya companies.
In addition URT charges xthe following discriminative charges:
1) URT charges import fee of 2% FOB by Tanzania Meat Board
2) 0.4% on FOB by Tanzania Atomic Energy
3) 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measure Agency
Kenya request URT to consider abolishing the discriminatory charges which are equivalent import duty prohibited in the EAC Protocal.
On the contrary Kenya facilitates Tanzania sausages without any charge.
This is really unfair practices where URT is charging import charges to Kenya products despite Kenya being in the EAC Customs union where we transfer products and not import |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Kenya recognized the effort made by URT in reducing the fee from 5,000 Tshs to 3,000 Tshs per kg of meat. The Republic of Kenya indicated that the fee is still very high, discriminative, and amounts to import duty. The Kenyan companies exporting meat products to URT have been negatively affected by a sharp decline in the volume of meat products exported to URT, since the imposition of these charges. A consignment of 25,000 kgs exported from Kenya to URT is charged Kshs 3,750,000. In addition, it is charged an import fee of 2% FOB by the Tanzania Meat Board, 0.4% FOB by the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, and 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measures Agency. A similar consignment exported to Kenya from URT is charged Kshs 3,000. Thus, Kenya proposes that the two Partner States engage and harmonize these regulations to either charge per kg or per consignment.
Tanzania Meat Board had also denied market access to beef products imported from Kenya and thus Kenya urges URT to address this matter.
2. The 34th RMC noted that the NTB was new. URT reported that they would consult the relevant stakeholders and revert during the 35th RMC
3.During the 36th RMC Kenya reported that the NTB was considered during a bilateral meeting between Republic of Kenya & the United Republic of Tanzania whereby the two Partner States agreed to harmonization of all conditions, levies, fees and charges related to import / exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024
4. During the 38th RMC meeting, Kenya agreed to send a formal invitation to URT for the Bilateral Meeting.
The two Partner States held their meeting in July 2025. An update shall be provided during the RMC |
|
|
NTB-001-070 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2022-06-30 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT charging Kenya an import discriminatory Excise Duty introduced vide URT Finance Act 2022. Additionally, some consignments are discriminatively subjected to Tsh.1000/kg not anywhere in the URT Finance Act 2022. The same excise duty is not applicable to the same or like products produced in URT hence creating unfair competition between the Partners States Originating products.
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States.
Section 2 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 defines import as to bring or cause to be brought into the Partner States from a foreign country, and export as to take or cause to be taken out of Partner States. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Treaty for Establishment of East African Community, EAC Community Laws take precedence over similar national laws on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Treaty |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the Regional NTBs Forum,URT informed the meeting that the complaint is not an NTB but a charge of equivalent effect which is like what is in the Kenya’s Finance Act of 2022. This is a result of non-harmonization of domestic taxes in the Region. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the Kenya Finance Act is not discriminatory and hence the Charge on Confectionary Sugar by URT is an NTB and should be resolved by abolishing the discriminative fees. The Trade Committee meeting recommends that the process of harmonizing the fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. During the 41st SCTIFI meeting Kenya observed that confectionary products from Kenya should not be treated differently from confectionery products produced in Tanzania. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya observed that NTB-001-070: “URT discriminatory charges of import TSh.700 and unfounded charges of Tsh.1000 to Kenya confectionary, sugar and sugar products.” The EAC TBP submissions has referred to the excise duty as fees and subsequently recommended the process of harmonizing the Fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. Kenya’s submission is that the description of the charges as fees is erroneous. The charge is an excise duty as contained in the United Republic of Tanzania Finance Act of 2022 and the custom entry presented as evidence. This measure is therefore disciplined under Article 15 of the Protocol establishing the EAC Custom Union and not subject to the process of harmonization of fees, levies and charges. The excise duty discriminates transfers of confectionary, sugar and sugar products from Kenya which are levied Tshs 700 per kilogram against locally produced like-products which are levied Tshs 500 per kilogram. This measure is a violation of Article 15 on National Treatment which prohibits Partner States from imposing, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Partner States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products In addition, in the custom entry presented as evidence, the Kenya exporter has been charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya therefore requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
2. During the 42nd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that Kenya exporters were charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya, therefore, requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
The United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that there was an error in the Law that had since been reviewed through a Government Notice number 478(1) of 4th July 2022. The meeting noted that in the reviewed Law, locals are charged NIL while exports are charged 1,000 Tshs. URT to consult on the application of the new law and revert.
3.During the 35th RMC URT informed that the NTB will be resolved in accordance with the SCTIFI Directive on harmonization of domestic taxes, especially excise duties.
On the other hand, Kenya informed as follows:
(a) Goods produced within the EAC should be considered local and therefore, not treated as imports.
(b) Partner States align their internal Acts to define imports and exports in accordance with EAC CMP
4.The 36th RMC that took place from 1st - 4th May 2024 was informed that the NTB is being addressed under the Bilateral engagements where the two Partner States agreed to the harmonisation of all discriminatory taxes, conditions, levies, fees, and charges related to imports/exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024. |
|
|
NTB-001-279 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-05-19 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board |
Kenya |
New |
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. |
|
|
NTB-001-281 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-08 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
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 |
|
|
NTB-001-282 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-05-13 |
Tanzania: Dar es salaam City Council |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of multiple road toll charges at the border, Dar Esalaam City Council on exports/Transfers that hinders ice cream, Chocolate etc exported from Kenya into Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-001-283 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-07 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory EXCISE DUTY OF TZS 400/KG on exports/Transfers that hinders ON SAFETY MATCHES export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to SAFETY MATCHES manufactured in Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-001-284 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-01 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Tanzania government imposed a 10% excise duty on soap detergents 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 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% |
|
|
NTB-001-285 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-01 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
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
|
|
|
NTB-001-288 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-20 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
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.
|
|
|
NTB-001-289 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-06-20 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
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. |
|
|
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-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-001-217 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-09-24 |
Tanzania: Kabanga |
Burundi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Free Pratique in the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009
Definition: "free pratique" means permission for a ship or an aircraft to enter a port embark or disembark, discharge or load cargo or stores;
When is it granted:
Section 40 (3) Where the Port Health Officer is satisfied that: -
(a) a communicable or infectious disease is not on board;
(b) The Responses on the Maritime Declaration of Health Form are negative:
(c) the Ship Sanitation Control Certificate or Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate is valid; and
(d) there is no other reason for the ship to be further inspected he shall grant a certificate for free pratique and allow the ship to enter the port as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Act,
Section 43. Except in the case of danger, the Master of a vessel arriving at any port or place in the country and a person on board the vessel, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with the shore or any other vessel, other than by signal, until a certificate for free pratique has been granted to that vessel in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any other relevant laws.
When is it applied:
Section 46. The Port Health Officer may, upon arrival of-
(a) any vessel, train, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing from infected area or suspected to be from that infected area; or
(b) any vessel, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing which has during the voyage been in transit in an infected area with plague, cholera, yellow fever or any other communicable or infectious disease, order the implementation of the measures to deal with that vessel, vehicle, train, aircraft or any other article or thing in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
The United Republic of Tanzania requested time to undertake consultations on the matter and report the progress by 28th February 2025.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged the United Republic of Tanzania to remove the charges related to free pratique as it impedes trade in goods and services and increases the cost of doing business in the Region and report progress by 28th February 2025 (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 49).
2. Tanzania through the Ministry of Health undertook a consultative meeting and agreed to consider the matter during the financial year 2025/26 |
|
|
NTB-001-226 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-11-20 |
Lesotho: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Samples being sent by road-freight to South Africa for testing at an accredited laboratory were refused passage.
Company was informed that the only way to send the samples for testing was to send via air. The challenges are that bulk orders do not fit on an Airlink flight and therefore would require a specific mode of chartered transport .This increases costs significantly and could potentially be the cause that orders are cancelled |
|
|
NTB-001-225 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2024-12-28 |
Kenya: Malaba |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Kenyan government has violated the East African Community trade agreement and has begun to impose consumption taxes on products from other East African Community countries. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that There are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the financial year 2025/26 |
|
|
NTB-001-291 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2025-01-01 |
South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Double Taxation: Traders are required to pay taxes in both USD at the point of loading and South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) at the entry point. This is contrary to WTO/International Chamber of commerce global trade facilitation norms and other incoterms. It is untenable to calculate taxes using two different currencies. |
|
|
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-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. |
|
English
Français
