| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-725 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2016-11-01 |
Angola: Port of Luanda |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Angola has Cumbersome and costly documentation and export/import requirements. The following is list of documentation required for a single consignment : i) 2x1 Original Bill of Landing; (ii)Original stamped and signed Commercial invoice; (iii) Original stamped and signed packing list; (iv) Analysis certificates if so required by consignee; (v) Loading Certificate (known as ARC or CNCA) PIP number prior to loading (required to do the pre-inspection) - not compulsory ; (vi) Voluntary pre-shipping control of merchandise (to be done at place of origin by inspector that issued the PIP number) Certificate of Origin( if so required by consignee) transport documents, full load container have to be sealed; (vii) letter from consignee nominating Orey as his forwarder agent; (viii) letter of responsibility from consignee to the carrier accepting full responsibility for demurrages and eventual container damages; (ix) copy of tax payer card of consignee; (x) Ministry of Commerce to issue license upon presentation of the commercial invoice; (xi) Ministry of Commerce to provide DU number, each invoice has different DU number.
The expected time frame is 72 hours (3 days) to get a DU number. CNCA certificate can only be issued upon presentation of the DU number for each specific shipment. Cost to produce DU number is 10 USD per invoice + Process DU (MINCO) FOB value 0.2%.
Costs
There is Fixed delivery and clearance rates in Luanda. Transport costs of 25% as from 15/1/2016, plus other additional chargers. Lab analysis costs 3000 USD per invoice. Analysis are mandatory to any imported edible goods, from water to beverages.
Delivery costs to Luanda per 20" + - 800 USD + 250 USD per night time delivery within city limits. overtime applies all the time due to restriction on delivery during the day due to traffic. Exporters are forced to pay incentives costs to EHO by OREY for DDP shipments. 20" => 150 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey, 40" => 170 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey.
Other fees charged are:
Shipment tracking & dispatch, BL Validation 160 per unit, Container deposit 1000 per unit
Delivery order 25 USD per unit. Port Tax 93.00 per unit, Wharfage 280.00 USD per unit, Tracking fee 100 USD per unit, Clearance transport and petties 350 USD per unit, delivery between Luanda /Soyo 3500.00 USD, return empty 400 USD per unit, transport between Luanda and Cabinda 11000.00 USD per unit, co-ordination 2.5% minimum USD 50.00. Consumption Tax of 5% service costs rendered in Angola. Taxes in all alcohol beverages is high 30% Cocktail 50% Ciders 51%
We believe this costs makes it difficult for investors to do business in Angola, most of them amount to tariff and non-tariff barriers we would like Regulators to review them. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, the Secretariat requested Angola to submit names of its Focal points to enable processing of reported NTBs. Angola reported that : (i) based on their research, the documents are necessary and that these are part of universal documents required for import permit. (ii) South AFrica was also imposing more cumbersome procedures than Angola as evidenced by the fact that the documents she require are the same as those required by Angola therefore this does not constitute NTB.; (iii) the Ministry of Trade is the focal point and there is a national secretariat for SADC through which all SADC Affairs are channeled ; (iv) . Angola was working on establishing the Trade facilitation committee after which focal points will be appointed; (v) she was in the process of revising its commercial legislation that considers trimming the number of import/export documentation; (vi) The ministry would undertake consultations with Ministry of Transport to simply the procedures . 3. In response, South Africa reported that consultations will be made to find out the reasons for the complaint. South Reported that she does not require numerous documentation. |
|
|
NTB-000-745 |
6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies |
2017-01-19 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
“SARS received an escalation in January 2017 from Deloitte, regarding a complaint by fuel exporters from South Africa. The complaint is regarding Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) Circular No. 9 of December 2016, notifying its officers “that all fuel imported from South Africa under preferential arrangements should be subjected to payments of a monetary deposit equivalent to the full customs duty payable.
The modalities of collection of the said deposit will be temporarily suspending both SSA and SDC preferential rates against goods of HS 2710.12.10 and 2710.19.10 until the Origin verification process is finalised”.
SARs is of the view that the collection of the monetary deposits on fuel imported from South Africa is against the spirit of the SADC Protocol on Trade and the WTO, as this treatment applies only to oil imported from South Africa. It pre-supposes that the ZRA is nullifying the SADC Protocol on Trade relating to those specific products without following the proper procedures regarding derogation on infant industries.
SARs has tried several times to get answers from Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to explain their reasoning behind the circular and so far, they have not provided any correspondence to this matter. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 25th January 2018, Zambia Focal Point reported that the deposit was a temporal measure pending origin inquiry. The inquiry has reached advanced stage and will soon be concluded and stakeholders will be fully advised on the way forward. This is consistent with the provisions of the protocol on trade which allow for collection of such deposits where necessary, while origin verification is underway.
2. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, Zambia reported that consultations will be undertaken with relevant authorities and report back.
3. During the 2nd Meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia reported that the 33rd Meeting of Ministers of trade held in Malawi from 4th to 9th July 2022 resolved that Zambia submit correspondence to RSA on readiness to grant preferential treatment for petroleum products from NATREF (Sasol, Total, Puma). Zambia has complied with the directive, hence no deposits on imports of petroleum products from RSA under preferential treatment is being collected |
|
|
NTB-000-818 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage |
2018-05-17 |
Botswana: Ministry of Transport |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Failure to implement Article 5.8 (6.2 Road Traffic Policy) leading to variable treatment of the transport of High Cube containers with height exceeding 4.3 metres.
The transport of High Cube Containers, on “standard” deck height (1.5 metres) vehicles and trailers results in overall height of approximately 4.5 metres.
Botswana: Imposes requirement for abnormal load permits for each load.
South Africa threatens to repeal moratorium on prosecution from 1 Jan 2019
Other countries ignoring “illegal” height, but “illegality” leaves insurance threats to operators.
Zambia (4.8), Zimbabwe 4.65), Malawi (4.6); Tanzania (4.6) have increased legal height to at least 4.6 metres.
Uncertainty in region is causing growing concerns regarding viability of international transport routes amid fears of further enforcement costs and barriers. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 in Gaborone reported that MCBRTA standards agreed at the TSMCI of 31 October 2029 maximum vehicle height of 4.6m which will resolve this NTBs if South Africa complies with this standard. |
|
|
NTB-000-823 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2018-06-01 |
Botswana: BURS |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana government is imposing daily double tax on imported alcohol beverages to Botswana. The motivation for imposing the excise and not imposing on local manufacturers is that local manufacturers create jobs and have manufacturing plant in the country. It is the Wine Industry submission that wine as a commodity cannot be manufactured in Botswana due to the weather conditions.
SA Wine Companies, pay excise in South Africa and do not expect to pay another excise in Botswana for the very same products. We appeal for the repeal of the Regulations to allow both local and importers to be treated the same. Locals have more competitive edge compared to importers. Furthermore, the methodology as per Regulations is different from what is practically implemented. Enclosed self explanatory email clarifying the differences. Botswana is in breach of the WTO GATT Agreement, Article 34 |
|
|
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-001-048 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2022-01-03 |
Tanzania: Standards Authority |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Vague Labelling requirement "Statutory Warning" Clause 12 (k), rejection of the UK Chief Medical Warning which is accepted in other African countries such as Uganda, Kenya without any objection in addition to their requirement. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The stakeholder consultative meeting organized by the SADC Business Council which was attended by the concerned parties from South Africa and Tanzania and SADC Secretariat on 7 march 2022, agreed that the UK Chief Medical Officers Guidelines labelling should be retained (The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend adult do not regularly drink more than 14 units per week) provided that the Wine producer affixes an additional sticker which covers all missing information on the product package.
The additional sticker (label) should be legibly and indelibly marked.
The additional sticker should be submitted to the Tanzania Bureau of Standards for approval accompanied by the declaration letter from the Manufacturer stating that additional label originating from them and products imported in Tanzania will be labelled as such. |
|
|
NTB-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-001-103 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-02-01 |
Botswana: Pioneer Gate |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Since 2019, goods exported from S. Africa to Botswana require additional certification from a Certified Accreditation Body ( see attached ) This is now over and above documentation from an ILAC accredited test house that has always been acceptable in the past.
This is an additional cost that must be passed on the consumers ( inflationary aspect )
Measures such as this are puzzling as they are not in the spirit of the African Continent Free Trade Agreement and actually restrict the free flow of goods
It is a questionable move as with Botswana being a member of SACU, the country relies on S. Africa to disburse shares of import duties collected at S. African ports |
|
|
NTB-001-001 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2021-01-19 |
Namibia: NRST
Head Office / Innovation Hub
Cnr, Louis Raymond & Grant Webster Street
Private Bag 13253
Windhoek
Tel: +264 61 431 7000/99
Fax: + 264 61 216 531/+ 264 61 235 758
Email: info@ncrst.na |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
1. GMO thresholds - Namibia is 1% and South Africa is 5%
2. The above then has implications on what should be labeled.
3. The prescribed GMO wording is also different
4. Namibia also requests additional information from the rights owner (GMO Tech developers), which users do not have in South Africa.
All of this adds up to South African manufacturers/exporters being unable to meet the application requirements, thereby not obtaining the required import permits.
CGCSA members revised applications 3 times, but were still unable to complete the applications to the specifications expected.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 12 October 2021 , Namibia Focal Point reported that they will consult the relevant authorities and submit feedback as soon as possible.
2. On 31 March 2022,Namibia Focal Point updated as follows:
Namibian GMO labeling regulations (0.9%) – Vs 5% for South Africa. The Namibian Biosafety regulations (No 6116), 2016 Biosafety Act No. 7 of 2006, were developed nationally through a consultative process, taking into account trading partners with different labeling requirements. As per the Biosafety regulation (17) (c), 2016, exemptions to genetically modified food or feed labeling requirements:
“any processed food or feed including one or more substances produced through genetic modification, subject thereto that the genetically modified food or feed in the aggregate does not account for more than 0.9 percent of the processed food or feed or such other percentage or quantity as the Council may from time to time determine”;
This part of the regulations ‘labeling requirements’ will remain in place until such a time the regulation is amended |
|
|
NTB-001-023 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-07-26 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: The DRC government. Ministry of Transport |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The DRC has just published legislation prohibiting foreign vehicles from loading mining products and to remove (export) them from the DRC. The unofficial translation of the new DRC amendment:Article 4-It is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo to load goods, in this case mining products from the national territory; In the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk.
According to an unofficial translation of article four of the amendment affecting the DRC's road freight sector, "it is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the DRC to load goods, in this case mining products, from the national territory”.
The article continues, saying "in the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk”. The decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on exports out of the DRC's Copperbelt region, with some transporters going so far as to say that it's wholly impractical and a protectionist strategy that is bound to boomerang against the government in Kinshasa. |
|
|
NTB-001-026 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2021-08-18 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There has been noticeable decrease in the volume of traffic crossing the Beitbridge border on the Zimbabwean side of the border for a few months now. On a normal working day +/- 1 500 trucks can cross the North South Corridor Border. The crossing entails Customs releases with the verification of other Government agencies to test and verify safety and security of the goods (Consignment).
However, in the last few months, the number has reduced to a maximum of +/- 400 trucks crossing the North South corridor. The drop in the movement of cargo is a combination of many factors and cannot be blamed solely on the hard infrastructure layout. An alignment with clear roles, responsibility, risk management profile , screening and removing of old outdated manual processes is required.
The challenge emanates from lack of harmonisation by enforcement Government agencies operating at the border which creates a huge bottleneck with minimal peace of mind, i.e SAPS on the South African side, Zimbabwe with its multiple Other Government Agencies involvement and linkage to a Private security company controlling the flow of cargo movement.
|
|
|
NTB-001-108 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B9: TBT Measures n.e.s. |
2023-05-02 |
Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A South African Exporter has reported that the Kenyan authorities have issued notification on new requirements for exporters and importers to record all trademarks in aid to protect intellectual properties and prevent importation of counterfeit goods into Kenya under the Anti-Counterfeit Act, No. 13 of 2008. This requirement, while it is , has cost implications to the Wine industry of South Africa who have to incur additional costs to enforce it. Further, it is not clear how it will work in practice or how it will be managed especially that applications are done on line and that the registration has 1 year validity, after which it has to be renewed annually.The cost to record is estimated at USD25 000 for the Brands exported to Kenya. The exporters also have the same products analyzed by ISO 17025 labs and pay USD265 per container to confirm full compliance.
The Exporter is of the view that whenever products are to be exported, are certified by SGS as to who the proprietors of the products are. The annual required registration would result in increased cost of the products. |
|
|
NTB-001-072 |
Misclassification of Product and subsequent wrongful incursion of tax (Sugar tax) |
2021-09-21 |
Mauritius: Mauritius Revenue Authority and customs, upon clearing consignmnet |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Misclassfication of Sweetened Condensed MILk as a beverage.
Misuse of tariff code - where others use 0402.99.90 MRA uses 0402.99.10. Furthermore;
Post the 2020 budget, we were made to understand by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry that sweetened condensed milk (SCM) doesn’t attract sugar tax. Thus, we wrote to the Director of Excise duty to seek clarifications on the application of sugar tax.
The director requested us to apply for a ruling without giving any further explanations.
We filled in the ‘Request for ruling on H.S Classifications of goods’ form in Dec. 2020 and submitted all relevant technical documents requested on the form and a sample of SCM to MRA.
However, we didn’t hear from MRA since there was a lockdown in March. We have cleared 3 consignments of SCM in March, June and July without paying the sugar tax and only received the MRA - Customs Declaration Form in August while clearing SCM consignments, and we were asked to pay for the sugar tax.
We took cognizance of the ruling only in August and this is when we started the objection process.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 24 August 2022, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the Customs Dept of Mauritius is looking into the matter and will submit a report as soon as possible.
2. Mauritius Customs reported that : Under the Customs Act whenever a person is dissatisfied with a ruling may object to the ruling.in this case, an objection has been made on 27.09.2021.The objection is being dealt with independently by the objection directorate. An update has been requested from them.
3. On 30th August 2022, Mauritius provided further update that:
The Objection Directorate has maintained the tariff classification under HS Code 0402.99.10 as provided by the Mauritius Revenue Authority Customs Department and the objection was disallowed. A Notice of Determination was issued to this effect on 15/11/2021.Applicant (Nestlé’s Products (Mauritius) Ltd ) made representations to the Assessment Revenue Committee (ARC) on 10/12/2021.The case was called Pro Forma before the ARC on 01/07/2022. Hearing by ARC on this case is still awaited. An update will be provided upon availability.
4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the case was still before the Assessment Review Committee (ARC). |
|
|
Products:
|
0402.99.90: --- Other |
|
|
NTB-001-128 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2023-06-23 |
Zimbabwe: Johannesburg/Pretoria |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Reference is made to a resolved complaint with number NTB-000-966, which pertained to a problem with import licensing requirements into Zimbabwe.
The complainant was a Zambian exporter of yeast that was experiencing challenges in obtaining import permits from the Authorities in Zimbabwe, which permits were not issued when requested. This complaint is similar to the problem experienced by Rymco (Pty) Ltd, trading as Anchor Yeast, being hindered in exporting yeast from South Africa to Zimbabwe.
The date of resolution is indicated as 06 April 2023. A status note pertaining to the complaint reads as follows: “During the COMESA Regional Capacity Building Workshop for NMCs and National Focal Points held from 3 to 6 April 2023, Zimbabwe Focal Points reported that import permits were no longer required as the products have been placed on open general import license. This NTB was therefore resolved.”
South Africa requests confirmation on whether the lifting of the import licensing requirement on yeast also applies to SADC countries, specifically South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During a bilateral meeting facilitated by the SADC Business Council held on 10 October 2022, it was agreed that the issue was not related to misclassification of Cremora but rather, the introduction of import permits by Namibia. The SADC BC will engage the Namibia Ministry of Industry representatives to set up a follow up meeting with the Ministry of Veterinary (Namibia) who will provide clarity on the introduction of import permit as there relate to Nestle and to Cremora |
|
|
NTB-001-253 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2025-05-11 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
While in transit from BBR to Nyamapanda with a load destined for Malawi, our truck had to divert off the predetermined statutory route through Harare due to roadworks/congestion by no more than 400m. The Zimra tracking seal picked up this diversion and thus, we have been punished with a $2000 fine we which feel is incredibly excessive, especially with proof that the truck was not stationary at all while off-route. This punishment does not seem to fit the crime. |
|
|
NTB-001-265 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2025-06-03 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In relation to Complaint NTB-000-632, "Copper Moon Trading, the company that is running the Lebombo dry port at Komatipoort, near the Lebombo/Ressano Garcia border post, is forcing transporters to use and pay for its parking facilities in Komatipoort. Transporters' vehicles are required to visit the SARS customs clearing offices at the Lebombo dry port and so parking should be provided for them, free of charge, by SARS.
If parking is not provided, then trucks must be allowed to park along the roadway."
The complaint was resolved in 2016, is this still the case? Attached is a receipt.
|
|
|
NTB-001-193 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B14: Authorization requirements for importing certain products |
2023-12-10 |
Botswana: Instructions provided to the Rwanda's commercial agent based in Botswana |
Rwanda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement by Botswana authority in charge of food imports that Rwanda needs to provide a " Free Sale certificate" prior to exporting coffee to Botswana. The issue is that such certificate is not required in 20 countries where Rwanda is exporting coffee globally. In addition, there is no institution in Rwanda that issues such certification. |
|
|
Products:
|
0901: Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated; coffee husks and skins; coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion. |
|
|
NTB-001-214 |
6.6. Border taxes |
2024-10-01 |
Tanzania: Rusumo, Mutukula, Kabanga |
Rwanda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Through Port Health at Rusumo, Kobero / Kabanga and Mutukula/Mutukula, the United Republic of Tanzania charges the Republic of Rwanda and the Republic of Burundi Trucks 5 USD or the equivalent in Tshs as Free Pratique which is not in the EAC legal framework for free movement of cross-border trade. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1.The United Republic of Tanzania submitted that Free Pratique is an internal health practice for taking samples, inspections, maintenance, vaccination, and sanitising at points of entry and exit. The fee which is charged once per vehicle per journey, is charged based on the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 http://elibrary.osg.go.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/1006/01-2009%20The%20Public%20Health%20Act%2c%202009%20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and International Health Regulations 2005.
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.
Partner States expressed their concern on the discriminatory fee charged at Rusumo, Kabanga and Mutukula OSBPs only and is demanded on truck drivers without any service being provided to them.
2.The United Republic of Tanzania submitted that Free Pratique is an internal health practice for taking samples, inspections, maintenance, vaccination, and sanitizing at points of entry and exit. The fee which is charged once per vehicle per journey, is charged based on the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 http://elibrary.osg.go.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/1006/02009%20The%20Public%20Health%20Act%2c%202009%20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and International Health Regulations 2005.
Further, the United Republic of Tanzania reported that the charges are not confined to regional trade only and not discriminative as they are applied to all borders and all vehicles including those registered in Tanzania. In that view, the United Republic of Tanzania considers that the charges are not qualified to be NTB. In addition, the United Republic of Tanzania reported that the charges are 5 USD for buses / trucks and other surface vehicles; and USD 20 for trains.
Other Partner States noted that the charge of 5 USD is only imposed at Rusumo, Kabanga and Mutukula OSBPs and hence, it is discriminatory. The meeting emphasized that the fee is an NTB because it impedes trade in goods and services and increases the cost of doing business in the region thus it should be removed.
The United Republic of Tanzania requested for time to undertake consultations on the matter and report resolution by 28th February 2025.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the internal processes on the removal of the charges related to conveyance inspection and resolve the matter by 28th February 2025 (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 48).
2.Tanzania through the Ministry of Health undertook a consultative meeting and agreed to consider the matter during the financial year 2025/26 |
|
|
NTB-001-231 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2024-12-12 |
EAC |
Rwanda |
New |
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:
|
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 |
|
English
Français
