Active complaints

Showing items 41 to 60 of 74
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-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. 		 
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 		 
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 		 
NTB-001-244 6.5. Variable levies 2020-10-13 Uganda: URA Kenya In process View
Complaint: Uganda is subjecting Kenya manufacture furniture to discriminative excise duty of 20% that it is not subjected to Uganda manufactured furniture.
Uganda is requested to remove the discriminative excise taxes on Kenya furniture transferred to Uganda as it is prohibited in the EAC Customs Union Protocol; Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, 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. 		 
Progress: During 39th RMC, noted that the matter is under bilateral discussions and will be handled as per the agreement.  
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: 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  
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. 		 
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: During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that she is still consulting and will report back by December 2025  
NTB-001-282 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-05-13 Tanzania: Dar es salaam City Council Kenya In process 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.  
Progress: 1. During the 39th RMC,Kenya reported that this is a road toll where the truck was charged Tsh 400,500/= The two Partner States agreed to consult on the evidence given and report back.
2. On 20 April 2026, URT Focal point made observations that the evidence provided does not justify any violations of EAC laws neither related to discrimination. The evidence and descriptions are contradicting therefore they advised that, the matter be removed from the matrix. 		 
NTB-001-284 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 2025-07-01 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process 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 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: During the 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that she is still in consultations and will update by December 2025  
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% 		 
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. 		 
NTB-001-302 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-02-06 Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY Kenya In process View
Complaint: 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) Imposed by Zambia

Zambia has introduced a 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) on CIF value, identified only upon reviewing the attached ASYCUDA import entry for Kenya manufacturer Carbacid LTD recent CO₂ shipment. This surcharge was unexpected and has a significant commercial impact on our exports.
CO₂ Is COMESA Originating and Should Not Be Charged discriminatively.
Carbacid LTD food grade CO₂ (HS 281121) is fully COMESA originating, supported by a valid Certificate of Origin for every shipment.
Under COMESA Treaty Article 49(1), Member States must remove existing NTBs and refrain from imposing new restrictions on goods originating from COMESA countries.
The COMESA NTB Regulations (2020) prohibit new discriminatory or trade restrictive measures.
The SGS surcharge therefore constitutes:
• A discriminatory charge
• A trade restrictive NTB
The surcharge raises the Kenya manufacturer landed cost and undermines Kenya’s products competitiveness in Zambia. As CO₂ is essential for soft drink bottling, the measure operates as a protectionist NTB in violation of COMESA obligations.
Zambia to remove the 10% SGS surcharge on COMESA originating CO₂ and restores compliance with COMESA trade rules, ensuring Kenyan goods are not unfairly discriminated against. 		 
NTB-001-343 EXCESSIVE SAMPLE COLLECTION WORTH Kshs 1,626,200.64 FROM TRUCKS AT THE BORDER 2025-06-30 Tanzania: Namanga Kenya New View
Complaint: Tanzania excessive sampling being conducted for each truck crossing the border on soap, detergents, vaseline body oil among others. This is resulting in significant and unnecessary costs to the business. Samples picked by the Tanzania authorities as of 31st July 2025, amounting to Kshs 1,626,200.64. The products are already paid for by the client.

We are deeply concerned about the excessive sampling being conducted for each truck crossing the border, as this is resulting in significant and unnecessary costs to the business.

URT to stop collecting the huge samples on each truck crossing the border every day and should mutually recognize the KEBS standardization mark of quality that the products have complied with the standards therefore they should conduct scientific based sampling randomly and continue with market survailance. 		 
NTB-001-329 5.3. Export taxes 2026-02-20 Ethiopia: Galafi Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The Small scale cross border traders who were able to export different live animals and agricultural products to Djibouti through the Galafi Border are required to pay export tax per head of the livestock at the border. The total export amount allowed in a month is up to USD 1,000 per cross border trader that are found in different parts of the Afar region.
The export tax in Dewele border is not yet implemented and it is considered as a discriminatory compared to the Dewele border of the country. 		 
Products: 0106.13: Live camels and other camelids [Camelidae], 0104.20: Live goats and 0703.10: Fresh or chilled onions and shallots  
NTB-001-345 2025-06-26 Djibouti: Djibouti sea port Ethiopia New View
Complaint: A procedural inconsistency exists in the handling of export shipments from Ethiopia to the Djibouti Free Zone, whereby the acceptance of tarpaulin-covered trucks is applied inconsistently in comparison to containerized cargo. In practice, some shipments transported in tarpaulin-covered trucks are permitted entry into the Free Zone, while others are denied access and required to be containerized without clear justification or prior notice. This inconsistent enforcement creates uncertainty among traders and transport operators, leading to delays, additional handling and transportation costs, and operational inefficiencies.
As a result, exporters particularly small-scale traders face difficulties in planning their logistics and complying with requirements, which ultimately reduces their competitiveness and limits smooth market access along the corridor. 		 
NTB-000-781 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2015-11-19 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road) Eswatini In process View
Complaint: An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar.  
Progress: 1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward.

2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible..

3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously. 		 
NTB-001-264 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-05-24 Zimbabwe: Beitbridge Eswatini In process View
Complaint: Four (4) trucks with sugar to be delivered in Zimbabwe, was not able to enter because of a 30% surtax that had been introduced while the consignment was en route from Eswatini to Zimbabwe. Given this had come into effect after the dispatch, the consignment was not given a waiver.  
Progress: 1. On 3rd June 2025, The SADC NTB Unit advised that the NTB had been submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers of Trade meeting taking place in Harare. The outcome Ministers' meeting would provide further guidance on how to proceed .
2.The 34th CMT meeting held in June 2025 , CMT noted that the Senior Officials received a report by Eswatini, indicating that her exports of sugar and other products such as steel and cement to Zimbabwe are facing a surcharge of 30% since 15 May 2025. Eswatini indicated that the measure is against the SADC Protocol on Trade and requested Zimbabwe to remove the surcharge. The Committee of Ministers of Trade directed Zimbabwe and Eswatini to have bilateral engagement on the surcharge 		 
Products: 1701.13: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter, obtained without centrifugation, with sucrose content 69° to 93°, containing only natural anhedral microcrystals (see subheading note 2.) and 1701.14: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter (excl. cane sugar of 1701 13)  
NTB-001-295 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-10-20 Uganda: Malaba Eswatini In process View
Complaint: We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty  
Progress: 1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter.  
NTB-001-129 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-07-01 Kenya: Kenyan Government Egypt In process View
Complaint: Complain from Eagle Chemicals - Egypt
Subject: Excise duty on imports cancelling the effect of COMESA agreement

TARRIFF BARRIERS UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT (EXCISE DUTY TAX IN KENYA AS A BARRIER)

COMESA AGREEMENT:
Republic of Kenya and Egypt are signatories to COMESA AGREEMENT on removal of tariff (tax) barriers towards FREE TRADE between themselves and among the signatory member countries.
Since the establishment the COMESA AGREEMENT several years ago, the Republic of Kenya and Egypt have enjoyed this free trade environment and trade between the two countries has grown by leaps and bounds (UNTIL JULY 2021)
KENYA----FINANCE ACT 2021----IMPOSITION 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX (TARRIFF BARRIER)
In July 2021 and for the first time ever since signing of COMESA AGREEMENT, the Kenya Government imposed unilaterally and without consultation with COMESA Secretariat or with the Republic of Egypt a 10% Excise Duty (tariff Barrier) on Resins manufactured and exported from Egypt and / imported into Kenya.
This was an act in bad faith noting the mutual relationship between Egypt and Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---FINANCE ACT 2023----IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS (TARRIFF BARRIER).
In July 2023, the Kenya Government introduced an additional 10% Excise Duty Tax on resins imported from Egypt bringing total Excise Duty Tax to 20% and this again without consultation with COMESA Secretariat and neither / nor a humble advance notification to Republic of Egypt as a sign of good faith under the mutual COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---THE 20% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS--- PURPORTED PURPOSE
This tax is applying only on all imported resins (from COMESA and from Non-COMESA countries) BUT is not applied on locally manufactured resins.
Consequently, and from a COMESA perspective, this Excise Duty Tax is an IMPORT DUTY TAX camouflaged as a local excise duty tax hidden behind the purported protection of one local commercial resin manufacturer (SYNRESINS) whose capacity is below 15% of Kenya market resin usage / requirement.

AGGRAVATED BAD FAITH AGAINST MUTUAL TRADE AGREEMENT UNDER COMESA.
The above developments are acts in bad Faith by Kenya Government against a friendly free trade partner (Egypt) under the COMESA AGREEMENT.

Please note no other country / signatory to the COMESA AGREEMENT has imposed an excise duty tax on resins from Egypt.

IMPORT DUTY TAX ON RESINS ARE AND REMAIN AT NIL IMPORT DUTY TARRIFF TODATE UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT ON TARRIF BARRIERS TOWARDS FREE TRADE.
Please note IMPORT DUTY TAX on resins from Egypt to Kenya remain at NIL % import duty and is at NIL on imports by other COMESA countries.
Import duty on resins into Kenya from NON-COMESA COUNTRIES is and has always been at 10% since inception of COMESA AGREEMENT

REQUEST
Republic of Egypt has obligation to protect their manufacturers of resins who export to Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT against such unjustified TARRIFF TAX BARRIERS imposed by Republic of Kenya by requesting their removal for benefit of mutual trade growth both ways.

(Refer Attachments)

  
Progress: 1. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Regional Forum , Kenya Focal point reported that they had contacted relevant authority and will provide feedback in the online system . Egypt requested that the bilateral meeting to consider this and other NTBs be schedule at the time Kenya would have completed their internal consultations .
2.Following the 3rd Regional COMESA NTB meeting and the 8th Meeting of Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee, Kenya was requested to provide feed back on NTB-001-129 on excise applied to products, 3905.19: Homopolymers 3903.20: Emulsion - Styrene Acrylic3905.91: Emulsion VAM 3907.50: Alkyd and3907.91: Unsaturated Polyester , It was proposed that Kenya and Egypt to hold a bilateral Meeting virtual with support of the Secretariat on 10th November 2023.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. Kenya to update the status report on outstanding NTBs with Egypt on the online reporting system by 26th April 2024.
4. On 18 June 2024, Kenya Focal Point reported that the Kenyan parliament was reviewing the Finance Bill 2024, with the intention of revising certain clauses as deemed necessary. Consequently, they were awaiting the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024 to determine whether there will be amendments to the specified non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
5. On 9 September 2024, Egypt and Kenya held a bilateral meeting on the outstanding NTBs emanating from the enactment of Kenya’s Finance Acts of 2021 and 2023. The two Member States agreed on the following:
a) The additional taxes are NTBs as its application is discriminatory as they only apply on imports and not domestically produced products.
b) Kenya to continue with her internal consultations with relevant policymakers and to follow up on the progress of resolving the NTBs, as requested by the Egyptian delegation.
c) The meeting agreed that the NTBs are policy issues and can be best addressed by the Joint Trade Commission (JTC) meeting, which is a higher level that is able to take decisions on this NTB and other trade related issues.
d) Both Kenya and Egypt continue with internal consultations with relevant stakeholders in preparation for the upcoming JTC meeting.
6. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
Products: 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms, 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion), 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms and 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid")  
1 2 3 4
Contact us |  Related terms

Maintained by: Octoplus Information Solutions
African Development Bank
COMESA-EAC-SADC
COMESA-EAC-SADC