| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location (additional) |
Reporting country or region |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-001-003 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-01-26 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government of Zambia issues Statutory Instrument 115 of 2020 , The Customs and Excise Ports of Entry and Routes Amendment Order, 2020, 9A(1) Reads , goods exported through Victoria Falls port in accordance with this paragraph shall be transported by rail, this Order automatically is a ban to export goods to Zimbabwe as the whole process to export using rail is a burdensome to trade by small scale players. Most goods are bought in Kamwala area shops and some being bought in the industrial areas which small players can easily transport using their vehicles or hired vehicles as they combine wares. Introduction for use of Rail is a clear indication by the Government of Zambia to ban export of certain commodities to Zimbabwe as market access will be a challenge to those living within Victoria Falls and the whole part of matebelalend as they are forced to use Chirundu exit .
Trucks can reach Victoria Falls within a day which is different from train, trucks you can accompany your goods different from train, trucks you can be cleared in time whereas using train everything is dumped at one place. this will open other avenues of bush borders or direct smuggling at the borders as officials will not be clearing goods in trucks |
|
|
Progress:
|
On 6 May 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that :
SI 115 is meant:
1. To control which goods can be imported and exported on the basis of station competences regarding, infrastructure, man power competencies and presence of other regulatory Agencies
2. Victoria falls is a national heritage and tourism site which is meant to be preserved as such by SI 115 by preventing huge truck spending hours there thus affecting the eco system of this site.
3. During the COMESA NMC Capacity building workshop held in Kiglai, Zambia Focal Point reported that the SI had never been implemented because Zimbabwe did not enact a similar SI. The two countries Focal Points were to convene bilateral meeting to consider resolution of the NTB. |
|
|
Products:
|
0401: Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter., 1905: Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products. and 34: CHAPTER 34 - SOAP, ORGANIC SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS, WASHING PREPARATIONS, LUBRICATING PREPARATIONS, ARTIFICIAL WAXES, PREPARED WAXES, POLISHING OR SCOURING PREPARATIONS, CANDLES AND SIMILAR ARTICLES, MODELLING PASTES, ‘DENTAL WAXES’ AND DENTAL PREPARATIONS |
|
|
NTB-001-006 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2021-01-28 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
AGENTS charged as a criminal offense and penalised for not attaching Permit.
Due to COVID 19 Restrictions in place for Zimbabwe small scale cross border traders their goods are now spending more days at border posts due to the long processing requirements' which they never new when they enjoyed using COMESA STR which was suspended because of COVID as they are not allowed to clear there goods at the borders . Trade is only allowed to be done through the clearing of agents, Those few traders who are using the agents are facing numerous challenges which include requirements for permits and licenses for STR qualifying goods which are beyond the reach of many thereby marginalizing the rest of the traders .
On 28 January 2021 an entry for sweets and sherbets was done by the agent at Chirundu . The Agent erroneously omitted to attach permit for bio safety and the agent was fined an astronomical figure of 400,000 RTGs and when he appealed for that decision of the amount it was doubled to 800,000 RTGS which translate to above US$8000 on the day's exchange rate. ZIMRA classified omission to attach a biosafety permit as a criminal offense attracting a fine outlined in SI 25 of 2021 the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice, 2021.This notice is issued by the Minister in terms of section 280 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On reading the Act, it is not clear if omission to attach a document constitute a criminal offense .
The goods now have 12 working days at the border and the consignment was for a small-scale trader who is not a company, and these are the people who live on hand to mouth trade. The level of fines for clearing agents are Punitive rather than Correctional, Agents are now afraid of clearing goods for small scale traders as they are heavily fined for omissions and errors which are a common thing in the world, Permits are cumbersome to obtain for some of them.
1. ZIMRA is urged to reconsider the classification of error from “Criminal Offense” to “Omission to attach a required document” and therefore the reduce level of fine
2. The relevant Government Department is requested to consider allowing clearance of COMESA STR goods by TIDOs during this COVID period when they get to the border under modalities to be agreed upon by the authorities. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The COMESA NTB Unit on closer scrutiny of the NTB observed that this is a Non- Tariff Measure affecting Cross border traders and advised that the unit will engage Zimbabwe on the way forward to resolve this complaint |
|
|
NTB-001-014 |
1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-03-17 |
South Africa: Rhodes Quality, Cape Town |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a freight logistics company based in Gaborone, Botswana(100% citizen). During registration on supplies portals in South Africa they require us (Foreign freight logistics companies without branches in South Africa ) to be BBBEE compliant despite we providing them with all company documents verifying that we are foreign based with Head Offices out of South Africa borders. Because of the nature of our business which compels us to conduct cross border transportation, South African supplies would immediately inform us we can't do business with them on the basis of non - compliant on BBBEE requirements. Arrangement in place promotes South African transporters to do cross border and prohibits foreign transporters to haul commodities back to country of operation. Please note we are not issued with any documents as a dispensation on our Head offices out of South African borders.
Kindly assist in the best possible way. |
|
|
NTB-001-022 |
1.15. Other |
2021-04-06 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Industry and Commerce |
Zambia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
An exporter in Zambia has been facing challenges obtaining import permits from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in Zimbabwe as they are often told that they're non available. Alternatively, some officer from the above mentioned ministry informally tell them that they can use an already existing import permit for a Zimbabwean company but have to pay a price above than they would have obtained the permit from the ministry. |
|
|
Products:
|
1905.31: Sweet biscuits |
|
|
NTB-001-031 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2021-06-30 |
Kenya: |
Egypt |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.
• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…
• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.
• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place.
|
|
|
NTB-001-087 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2021-07-01 |
Kenya: Customs |
Uganda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imposition of 35% Excise duty on Ugandan LPG gas cylinders |
|
|
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-001-025 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-08-10 |
Malawi: SONGWE KARONGA BOX 8 WEIGHBRIDGE |
Rwanda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Rwanda truck carrying Fertilizer TPT from Tanzania to Malawi Lilongwe was refused to enter Malawi and charged USD 1000 for violating third country rule a provision that is being applied betwen Zambia and Malawi to protect their national transport operators against foreign transporters not registered in Malawi. This is a discrimination against other trucks transporting goods to Malawi |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 14 September 2021, Malawi Focal Point advised that the complaint was being attended and would revert with concrete feedback as soon as possible.
2. On 13 October advised that "The Third Country Rule is operational in Malawi and is supported by the bilateral Agreements in force between Malawi and its neighbouring countries. The charges were gazetted as per the attached Regulations" However it is observed that this is a Non tariff Measure . It is recommended that The COMESA Secretariat NTB Unit facilitates consultations with relevant authorities to get this matter considered . |
|
|
NTB-001-030 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-08-17 |
South Africa: SARS Customs |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council (SADC BC) convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges with variances in alignment of HS codes between Mauritius and South Africa(RSA).
1. …For exports from Mauritius to RSA, where a SADC is applicable, an exporter can insert 10 HS CODES on one SADC certificate. This is because the SADC certificate has now become electronic while before it was manual.
2. When it was manual, if someone had a nice handwriting, the person could insert more than 10 HS CODES as long as it legible.
3. When importing from RSA, Mauritian importers receive SADC certificates with 1 HS CODE only. Meaning RSA issues SADC certificates with ONE Line HS code only.
4. Thus if a Mauritian exporter is sending 10 different items to RSA and SADC is applicable, only one SADC certificate will be issued by Mauritian Revenue Authourity CUSTOMS.
5. On the other hand, if a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter sends only 3 different items to Mauritius, and of course SADC is applicable, SARS will issue THREE sadc certificates.
6. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT: SADC certificates are payable at both ends. Meaning a local broker will charge an exporter when issuing a SADC certificate and SARS will charge a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter when issuing on their side.
If a Mauritian exporter has 18 ITEMS to be exported out of Mauritius and a SADC certificate is applicable, he/she will have to have TWO SADC certificates only WHILE on the other hand, if a Mauritian imports 18 ITEMS from RSA, he/she will have 18 SADC certificates with each certificate obtained at a cost which represents a huge amount for the one who pays for these certificates. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius Focal Point reported that: HS Codes are harmonized at 6 digit level internationally. However, at national level, as from 7th digit onwards, each Customs administration under the SADC are using their nationally-defined HS Codes. With respect to paragraph 6, it is to be noted that the SADC Certificate of Origin are processed electronically for multiple items (up to 10 items per certificate) and are issued by the MRA Customs Department in hard copy, free of charge.
2. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARS and recommended that the NTB be resolved on those basis :
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved |
|
|
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-001-028 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: SARS |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 11 October 2021, Mauritius reported that:
The processing and submission of preferential certificates of origin are effected electronically and are issued on a consignment basis in compliance with SADC Protocol on Trade and Section 14(4) of the SADC Rules of Origin Regulations. Our national legislation is in line with the former. The proposal to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments should be addressed to the proper organ of SADC
2. On 20 October 2021, South Africa Focal Point provided following feedback from SARs:
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
3. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point recommended that the NTB be considered resolved on the basis of above . |
|
|
NTB-001-029 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: South Africa Revenue Services ( SARS) |
Mauritius |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 12 May 2022, South Africa Focal Point provided the response by SARS below and recommended that the NTB be resolved on that basis:
a)There is nothing wrong with the requirements and this is what we are doing in our policy https://www.sars.gov.za/sc-ro-02-administration-of-trade-agreements-external-policy/
b)SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annex I that is being long in the making.
Therefore, this matter should be marked as resolved |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Products:
|
0402.99.90: --- Other |
|
|
NTB-001-040 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-10-14 |
Tanzania: URT TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania denial of preferential market access for Apple Juice and Strawberry manufactured in Kenya while citing reasons that the products are not originating from Kenya. URT delayed the shipment instead of facilitating clearance as is required by the protocal and the EAC Rules of Origin then follow the process of reporting the matter to the secretariat for action/guidance. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 02May 2022, URT Focal Point reported that: Based with conclusion from Verification report done from 15-27 July 2019, concluded that, Juices manufactured using fruit concentrated sourced locally qualify for preferential treatment under Rule 4 (1) (a). On juices manufactured using non originating concentrate the team had divergent views on how to calculate the weight of non originating material (concentrate) while considering the provision of Rule 6(1)(a). I suggest our officers (Tanzania Revenue Authority) based in Nairobi to visit the industry to verify and advise accordingly.
2. On 14 June 2022, EAC Secretariat reported that:
URT cited reasons that the products are not originating from Kenya.
The verification was done in 2019 and the two parties did not agree on the application of Rule 6 of the EAC Rules of Origin. The matter was referred to the Committee of Customs. It will be considered by the next Customs Committee in October 2022.
3.The Committee on Customs considered the matter and agreed that the two Partner States include it among the list of items to be verified in the planned bilateral verification scheduled on 15th December 2022.
4.TRA/KRA undertook a verification and it was agreed that juices manufactured by Kevian Kenya Limited and Delmonte Kenya Limited except for Grape Juice, Apple Juice, Cranberry Apple Juice Blend, and Grape Blackberry Blend qualify for preferential tariff treatment under Rule 4(1) (a) and (b) of the EAC Rules of Origin, 2015. The Report has been forwarded t the Committee on Customs for consideration.
5. The RMC noted that the Verification report was considered and approved by the Committee on Customs in May 2023. The verification recommendations had been implemented whereby the qualified products were granted preferential treatment. The report of the Customs Committee would be considered by SCTIFI in June 2023 |
|
|
NTB-001-066 |
|
2022-01-01 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Ressano Garcia (Road) |
Mozambique |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Introduction by Autoridade Tributária de Moçambique of a SINGLE ENTRY Temporary Import Permit (TIP) at a cost of MZN700, which is currently processed manually for the majority of vehicles at Ressano Garcia's KM4 facility.
The costs are prohibitive for companies moving transit cargo from South Africa to the Port of Maputo, with 15 loads per week per vehicle a common achievement. In addition, the delays experienced by the manual processing of the TIP document adds significant cost on account of the waiting time that drivers are subjected to. The Port of Maputo has collaborated with Customs in Mozambique to collect electronic payments for the TIPs, but so far only 10 companies have taken up the use of the facility. Even those companies registered on the Port's electronic system are not guaranteed speedy processing, and delays are still experienced by drivers as they still have to queue to collect the TIP document. Electronic payments should take precedent over manual payments, but in reality this is not the case. It is common knowledge that a R50 bribe will speed up the processing of the TIP document.
The SADC Protocol on Trade is clear in its reference to the removal of tariffs and non tariff barriers. At this point, the TIP cost to one company moving 180 trucks per month, is in excess of R1,4million ZAR or USD88,000. The manual processing compromises the integrity of the system and the costs directly impact the competitiveness of the trade route for imports and transit imports into Mozambique.
With the push towards the harmonization of regulations within the SADC and TRIPARTITE region, the TIP process should be harmonized with that of South Africa which has a multiple entry TIP valid for 6 months and is processed at no cost to the user. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 30 June 2022, Mozambique Focal Point reported that they were attending to the matter and will submit feedback as soon a s possible.
2.On 28 september 2022, Mozambique provided update that the legal instrument concerning the payment of 750 Meticais fees paid for issuing and extending the Vehicles Temporary Import License on the foreign carriers is under review with the aim of elimination of the requirement to pay the said fee and the introduction of the multiple entry system. |
|
|
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-001-058 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2022-03-12 |
Egypt: Egypt Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Egyptian customs rejected to apply the COMESA certificate of origin issued by Madagascar attached because the signature is different. COMESA Secretariat is therefore requested to check the attached received from the shipper and advise on way forward. |
|
|
NTB-001-065 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2022-04-01 |
Botswana: Ministry of Finance |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana government is about to introduce the Tax Stamps on all imported products and that would affect the South African Wine Industry. The Tax Stamp imposition has been confirmed by the Botswana Minister of Finance and they have appointed the Service Provide that would conduct a Research. |
|
|
NTB-001-078 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-06-13 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The government of South Sudan through the Ministry of Transport on 25 Feb 2022 had request the government of Kenya through the Ministry of Transport to facilitate the clearing of all South Sudan cargo at Nairobi Dry Port by moving all containerize cargo by rail and to be cleared at a Private Container Freight Stations (CFS) Autoport Freight Terminals Ltd. When the directive was implemented on 13 June 2022, Stakeholders and the private sector in particulars did not appreciate the move and it see as monopolistic in nature and it did increase the cost of doing business for South Sudan importers, This was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Trade and Industry South Sudan which is the line ministry, The ministry of trade communicated to ministry of transport South Sudan on the implication raise by the private on the cost of import and the monopoly fact, after the consultation between the two ministry in South Sudan, The minister of Trade and Industry wrote two communication letters to the Ministry of Trade Kenya on 23rd May 2022 and Ministry of Transport Kenya on 13 June 2022. However, all the communication had not been responded to from Kenya ministries mention, on 28 July 2022 Members of Parliament summon the ministries of Trade and Transport and resolve to Suspend relocation of South Sudan Cargo via Nairobi to protect South Sudanese and the Minister of Transport South Sudan was requested to revoke his letter to the Ministry of Transport Kenya to allow South Sudanese cargo owner to clear their goods directly from the Port of Mombasa. On 28 July 2022 the Ministry of Transport South Sudan wrote to his counterpart in Kenya requesting the suspension of his previous letter dated 25 Feb 2022. All those communications did not bear fruit on trade facilitation update. Unfortunately on 4th October 2022 the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works. Wrote a letter to the National Treasury and Planning Kenya informing the Cabinet Secretary on not receiving any formal communication from South Sudan Government and for his guidance all South Sudanese cargo is to be rail and cleared at Nairobi.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The Republic of South Sudan informed the meeting that, on 25th February 2022, the Republic of South Sudan requested the Republic of Kenya to clear cargo at Nairobi but then realized that the costs were higher in Nairobi than Mombasa by USD 500 - USD 780; the containers are supposed to be dropped back to Mombasa after clearance and drive back an empty truck to pick the cargo. It increases the cost of doing business.
It also causes delay as the RSS felt that SGR doesn’t give priority to RSS cargo. Hence, on 23rd of May, and 28th of July 2022 respectively the RSS requested the Republic of Kenya to revert to the original clearance plan of clearing in Mombasa. Kenya has since not responded to the letters from RSS. The Republic of South Sudan submitted evidence of the letters to the Republic of Kenya.
The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the letters had not been received and hence could not take any action. The Republic of Kenya received the copies of the letters as evidence during the RMC meeting.
The meeting agreed that the Republic of Kenya consults and revert clearance of RSS cargo from Nairobi to Mombasa.
2. The Republic of South Sudan informed the Regional meeting that, on 25th February 2022, the Republic of South Sudan requested the Republic of Kenya to clear cargo at Nairobi but then realized that the costs were higher in Nairobi than Mombasa by USD 500 - USD 780; the containers are supposed to be dropped back to Mombasa after clearence and drive back an empty truck to pick the cargo. It increases the cost of doing business. It also caused delay as the RSS felt that SGR doesn’t give priority to RSS cargo. Hence, on 23rd of May, and 28th of July 2022 respectively the RSS requested the Republic of Kenya to revert to the original clearance plan of clearing in Mombasa. Kenya has since not responded to the letters from RSS. The Republic of South Sudan submitted evidence of the letters to the Republic of Kenya. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the letters had not been received and hence could not take any action. The Republic of Kenya received copies of the letters as evidence during the RMC meeting. The meeting agreed that the Republic of Kenya consults and revert clearance of RSS cargo from Nairobi to Mombasa. During the 41st SCTIFI the Republic of Kenya agreed to address the matter by 30th December 2022.
3.The 34th RMC noted that Kenya reiterated Her commitment to facilitating the transportation of RSS people and cargo. The Republic of Kenya issued a letter on that matter following a Presidential directive.The Republic of South Sudan informed that half of the RSS cargo was being cleared at the Port of Mombasa while the other half is cleared at the dry port in Nairobi. This practice of dividing the cargo is still affecting RSS trade and Kenya is requested to clear all the goods in Mombasa as per the Presidential directives. RSS Requests Kenya to share the Presidential Order and also to implement the Presidential Directives and clear all RSS the Cargo in Mombasa. |
|
English
Français
