Active complaints

Showing items 41 to 60 of 71
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
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
Actions
NTB-000-947 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B33: Packaging requirements
2018-03-01 Uganda: Uganda Bureau of Standards Kenya In process View
Complaint: Uganda rejection of tissue paper manufactured in Kenya by Africa Cotton Industries. Uganda does not allow group packaging of tissue paper as provided for under the EAC harmonised standard.
Uganda have not implemented the EAC harmonized standards therefore the products must conform to Uganda National standard.
 
Progress: 1. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that Uganda has not yet adopted the East African Standard for toilet paper on technical ground and the matter is before the EAC Technical Committee and as such imports of toilet paper into Uganda is subjected to the Uganda Standard for toilet paper i.e. US 126, Toilet paper – Specification.
2.The RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, was informed that this issue is under discussion at the EAC Standards Committee.
3.The SCTIFI held in September 2020 was informed that the EAC Standard 2017 was reviewed in 2018 where Partner States agreed on all parameters except for packaging. and hence some Partner States went ahead to develop National Standards.The meeting was informed that a meeting was scheduled to take place in November 2020 and hence agreed that discussions with the Standards Committee be finalised by December, 2020.
4.The SCTIFI held in September 2020, was informed that the EAC Standard 2017 was reviewed in 2018 where Partner States agreed on all parameters except for packaging. and hence some Partner States went ahead to develop National Standards.The meeting was informed that a meeting was scheduled to take place in November 2020 and hence agreed that discussions with the Standards Committee be finalised by December, 2020.
5.The RMC meeting held in May 2021 noted that the Republic of Uganda held a Bilateral meeting with Kenya and agreed on a time frame of 1st July 2021 to resolve the NTBs related to Exercise books, Exercise books, and Pharmaceuticals.
6.The Subcommittee met and agreed that Uganda needs to justify the parameter in the standards scientifically, by February 2021.The Standards Committee then referred the NTB to the Technical Committee, which collected data to facilitate consensus on what should be included in the standard. The Technical Committee meeting is ongoing and will deliberate on the data and the way forward.
7. On 5 May 2022, Uganda Focal Point reported that :
The East African Standards Committee/Technical Committee 065 on Paper and paper products failed to reach consensus on one clause in the standards that relates to wrapping. They recommended to the Standards Management Committee to cancel the project and subsequently withdraw the Standard. The SMC discussed the proposal of the TC and agreed to cancel and withdrawal the standard as provided for by the Principles and procedures for development of East African Standards. The just concluded 24th EASC held on 27th to 29th April 2022 rejected withdrawal of EAS 355:2017 Tissue Paper – Specification and directed the SMC to review the Standard with the recommendation that more options be considered in the wrapping clause. Specific consideration be given to the optimum number of Tissue Paper to be group wrapped without compromising the safety of users. SMC to conclude and report back by the 25th EASC meeting.
8. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that the NTB was considered by the EACSC in a meeting that took place in April 2022. The EASC rejected the withdrawal of EAS 355:2017 Tissue Paper – Specification and directed the SMC to review the Standard with the recommendation that more options be considered in the wrapping clause. Specific consideration is given to the optimum number of Tissue Paper to be group wrapped without compromising the safety of users. SMC to conclude and report back by the 25th EASC meeting.
 
NTB-000-941 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2020-02-28 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) In process View
Complaint: As per attached document dated 24 January 2020 entitled Payment of Customs Fee for the Issuance and Extension of the Temporary Import Licence for Vehicles, Mozambique has started charging foreign transporters a fee of Mets 750.00 per vehicle for the issuance of the Temporary Import Permit.

The issue of a Temporary Import Permit in the SADC region is not charged for at any other Port of Entry.

By allowing a charge of this nature that provides for no service, we are simply encouraging all member states to start charging for what has always been free of charge.
 
Progress: On 2 March 2020, DRC Focal Point requested Mozambique focal points to communicate feedback with regard status on how the NTB can be resolved.  
NTB-000-938 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements
2020-02-08 South Africa: Beit Bridge Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained.  
Progress: 1. On 11 February 2020, ( 12:13hrs) South Africa Focal point advised that they were undertaking consultations with relevant authorities and will report back as soon as possible .
2. On 12 February 2020, the exporter advised that the truck had been released on condition that Port Health officials will collect samples for laboratory testing. However, when the truck arrives in South Africa, the company cannot distribute the consignment until samples are collected by the nearest Port Health Officials for lab tests.
 
Products: 1905.31: Sweet biscuits  
NTB-000-936 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2019-11-19 Zambia: Chirundu Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Sunny Yi Feng Tiles (Pvt) Ltd a Zimbabwean company with both SADC and COMESA certificates of origin. The company is being charged USD8.30 per box (VAT) in Zambian market which is a member of COMESA and SADC Free Trade Area, instead of the invoice price of USD3.80 per box (VAT). In addition the company is being charged 5% surtax at the Zambian Border. This problem is being faced only with the Zambian market  
Progress: 1. On 21 January 2020, Zimbabwe Focal point sent a request to their counterpart in Zambia to follow up on the issue . A response is being awaited from Zambia .
2.During the Zambia NMC verification mission to Chirundu held on 11-12 June 2020, ZRA advised that the surtax is Customs Valuation matter and hence a tariff matter and not an NTB. With regard to the problem of customs the uplifting values for duty purposes and disregarding the invoice value , the client is advised to appeal to department of International and Policy to have the valuation matter reviewed and possibly resolved
3. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021 Zambia reported that the NTB is a tax policy issue and internal consultations with relevant authorities were in progress and they will provide feed back by July 2021.
 
Products: 6904: Ceramic building bricks, flooring blocks, support or filler tiles and the like.  
NTB-000-924 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory
2019-01-14 Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Discriminatory treatment (Excise duty) of Kenyan manufactured products among others Pharmaceutical products.  
Progress: 1. Kenya and Uganda agreed to resolve the NTB bilaterally as it was agreed by Heads of State. The two Partner States agreed to update the EAC on the progress.
2. During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019Uganda informed the meeting that work is ongoing to resolve the NTB and would report back by November, 2019
3. On 10 march 2020, the Secretariat reported that Uganda was expected to resolve this NTB as committed in the Bilateral meeting and also sensitize its Regulatory Authorities on the implementation of EAC Provisions.
4. Uganda informed the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020 that consultations are still ongoing to resolve the NTB. The meeting agreed that Uganda provides an update by 24th August 2020.
5.During the SCTIFI held in September 2020, the Republic of Uganda informed that resolving this NTB has a budget implication and hence will resolve the NTB by 1st July, 2021.
The Republic of Kenya requested that Uganda considers implementing interim measures while awaiting resolution of this NTB.
6. During the NMC meeting held in March 2021, the Republic of Uganda reported that the draft proposal to consider the original fee of 2% has been finalized pending clearance of the Solicitor General. Looking forward to being implemented by July 2021
7.The RMC held in October 2021 noted that Clearance is in the final stages at the Solicitor General’s Office. Uganda to fast track the consultations with the Solicitor General Office and provide an update during the Bilateral meeting in November 2021.
8. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that the SCTIFI of May 2022 noted that Clearance is in the final stages at the Solicitor General’s Office. By 1st July 2022, the NTB will be resolved
 
NTB-000-906 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2019-04-05 Uganda: Uganda Weight and Measures Authority Tanzania In process View
Complaint: Uganda does not recognize the Calibration Certificate issued by the Weight and Measures Agent (WMA) for oil tank from URT: Republic of Uganda does not accept the Calibration Certificate of tanks from URT. As a result, our traders are forced to undergo recalibration by Ugandan counterpart Authority (Uganda Bureau of Standards) at a charge odd USD 230. This increases the cost of doing business. The trader paid Uganda shillings 2,655,600. It was stated that the certificate from URT is valid for the period of one year.  
Progress: 1. During the Sectoral Committee on Trade Uganda reported that it will consult and report back during SCTIFI of May 2019.
2.During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019, Uganda reported that the NTB was discussed in the EAC Standards Committee and it was recommended that a technical committee should be established to harmonise the the calibration procedures for the tankers and also the fees payable to the service provided. Uganda will report on the progress during the next Regional Monitoring Committee Meeting. Nevertheless, Tanzania is concerned about the charge and requested Uganda to consider and waive it.
3. As per Regional Committee Meeting held on 15th October, 2019, it was agreed that Uganda would provide progress made during SCTIFI meeting to be held in November, 2019, In addition Tanzania requests Uganda to recognize calibration certificate issued by Weights and Measures (WMA) as per SQMT Act, 2006. And also to consider and waive charges / fees.
4. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that the law in Uganda requires a verification in Uganda. There is no EAC harmonized regulation in that area and unfortunately, UNBS registers over 95% failure rate on verification of such tankers.This matter was already raised at EAMET and resolved to constitute a technical team from all the member states to review procedures in place. This was not done and URT did not participate in subsequent meetings where action was to be determined. The fees rules provide the scheme for applicable fees. Regarding the payment of the trader paid Uganda shillings 2,655,600, there may be need to substantiate and investigate.
5.The SCTIFI meeting held in September 2020 agreed that the concerned calibration institutions undertake a peer assessment to establish discrepancies and report to the Secretariat by February, 2021.
6.The 24th EAMET meeting held from 29th to 30th September 2020 reported that Peer Review of Road Tanker Calibration/Verification and Visits to the Partner States not yet undertaken due to lack of funds to undertake the activity.
EAMET rescheduled the activity for January 2021 and recommended EASC to request the EAC secretariat to mobilize funds for a committee of experts to undertake the activity.b The 23rd EASC Meeting held from 7th to 8th October 2020 directed EAC Secretariat to:
-lobby for funds in collaboration with the Partner States towards the implementation of the EAMET work plan especially training on calibration/verification of tankers and peer assessment considering related NTBs; and
-fully engage weight and measure the institution of the United Republic of Tanzania to participate in EASC activities.
7. The Tanzania NMC meeting that was held in April 2021 noted that this NTB has been outstanding for a long time because the two Partner States are yet to meet and recommended that the EAC Secretariat coordinates the two Partner States to meet and undertake a peer assessment.
8.The RMC meeting held in May 2021 noted that the issues were discussed by the metrology Subcommittee (EAMET) and the 23rd EASC Directed the EAC Secretariat to engage Weights and Measure Tanzania on their participation in the subcommittee activities and coordinate the peer assessment to resolve the differences.
EAC Secretariat on 31st March 2021, held a meeting with Weights and Measures Tanzania on the participation in EAC Metrology activities. Peer assessment planned and to be undertaken by 30th June, 2021.
9.The Secretariat has convened peer assessment meetings scheduled as follows:
(i) 26th to 29th October 2021: peer assessment in Tanzania.
(ii) 3rd-6th Nov 2021: peer assessment in Uganda
10. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that:
Peer assessment was conducted in October and November agreed to harmonize the calibration certificates. The NTB will be addressed when the two Partner States harmonize and implement the harmonized administrative procedures on road tankers as recommended by the EAMET Report of April 2022.
 
NTB-000-864 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-11-17 Uganda: URA Kenya In process View
Complaint: Discriminatory treatment (Excise duty) of Kenyan manufactured products among others Juices products Kenya reported that the Juices are still charged 13% excise duty.  
Progress: 1.Delmonte Pineapple Juice:
Uganda reported that it is difficult to differentiate between pineapple juice manufactured using the locally-acquired concentrate and juice manufactured using concentrate imported under duty remission for exports.
Therefore, Uganda could not accord preferential treatment to Delmonte pineapple Juice.
2. During the JPC held with Kenya,Uganda stated that this provision in the excise Duty Act is global and not specific to juices coming in from Kenya. This provision is under a law which is considered domestic and the country has a sovereign mandate to make provisions related to internal tax.Uganda however promised to undertake stake holder consultation on the excise duty tax and report by June 2019.
3.The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019 noted that these are two separate NTBs on Juices and Pharmaceuticals and should be treated separately. The NTB on Juice was referred to the Customs Committee for resolution during the SCTIFI meeting on 10th November, 2018.
On Pharmaceuticals: Kenya and Uganda agreed to resolve the NTB bilaterally as it was agreed by Heads of State. The two Partner States agreed to update the EACS on the progress.
During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019Uganda informed the meeting that work is ongoing to resolve the NTB and would report back by November, 2019
4.During the Sectoral Committee on Trade that took place on 31st October, 2019 Uganda reported that the two Partner States agreed on how to resolve the NTB on Juice bilaterally and have agreed on the framework for resolution and will consult with the responsible agencies to resolve the NTB as agreed by November, 2019.
5.Uganda to resolve the NTB as committed in the Bilateral meeting and also sensitize its Regulatory Authorities on the implementation of EAC Provisions.
6. During the RMC meeting held on 10 August 2020, Uganda reported that national consultations were ongoing and will report in next meeting.Uganda requested for amendment on this NTB since Kenya also charges excise duty on Ugandan juices as attached in the evidence.
7. During the RMC meeting held on 1 SeptemberThe Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that there is a Court (EACJ) ruling on a similar matter and hence Uganda should implement the ruling of the Court.The Republic of Uganda informed the RMC meeting that due to budget constraints the NTB will be resolved together with the one on Pharmaceuticals by 1st July 2021.The meeting therefore agreed to escalate the NTB to the SCTIFI through the SCoT.
8. During the SCTIFI, held in September 2020, the Republic of Uganda informed that resolving this NTB has a budget implication and hence committed to resolve the NTB by 1st July, 2021.
The Republic of Kenya requested that the Republic of Uganda considers implementing interim measures while awaiting resolution of this NTB.
9.The NTB was forwarded to the Directorate of Tax and Policy in the Ministry of Finance to be resolved in the FY 2022/2023. Uganda to invite Kenya for a midterm review of the Bilateral meetings in November 2021..Kenya requested Uganda to consider an interim measure to treat Kenyan products as Uganda products.
10. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that Uganda recognizes the Initial Bill under discussion may not address the current NTB raised by Kenya and the Government is taking steps to ensure that bill will address the concern, also in the same spirit, Uganda reviewed the initial bills of Kenya, and noticed also the bills are not addressing the Uganda NTBs. Therefore Uganda would recommend that the issue is forwarded to the SCTIFI to urge the 2 Partner states to ensure that the current bills under discussion in the respective Partner States should address the NTBs as agreed in Bilateral Meetings between the two Partner States in April and December 2021.
 
NTB-000-857 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 2018-10-01 Tanzania: Kilambo EAC In process View
Complaint: Tanzania charging of Business Visa of USD 250 to EAC business persons entering URT charged as Certificate of Temporary Assignment (CTA) at all borders  
Progress: 1. Tanzania reported that the charge is not for VISA but it is a fee on a pass.The fee is charged on persons coming in Tanzania to perform temporary assignments (economic activities and professional services) such as consultancies. The Meeting urged the URT to waive the fee for East African citizens as per Regulation 5 of the EAC Common Market Protocol.
2. During the Regional Monitoring Forum held on 29 April - 3 may 2019,URT informed the meeting that this fee is charged on persons coming in to perform temporary assignments (economic activities and professional services) such as consultancies.The Meeting urged the URT to waive the fee for East African citizens as per Regulation 5 of the EAC Common Market Protocol
Recommendation:
The EAC Secretariat to convene by September, 2019, a meeting of Ministries home affairs, chiefs of Immigration, and Ministries responsible for Trade to handle matter as it affects both trade in goods and services.
3.The extra ordinary SCTIFI of September 2019 was informed that the issue was discussed in a bilateral meeting between Uganda and Tanzania. And an update will be drawn from the report of the bilateral meeting.
4.The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019 agreed to await the report of the meeting of Ministers of Home Affairs, Chiefs of Immigration and Ministers responsible for Trade as Directed by the SCTIFI and the Ministerial Bilateral Meeting that was held between Uganda and Tanzania in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tanzania reported that the fee that is being charged is a business pass amounting to USD 100 and not a visa of USD 250 as reported. This is in accordance with the Common Market Protocol.
5.The Regulations were considered by the meeting of the EAC Legal Drafters and recommended to the Sectoral Council on Legal and Judicial Affairs to among others: defer consideration of the draft EAC Common Market regulations on the free movement of service and service suppliers pending the drafting of the revised EAC schedule of commitments on the progressive liberalization of services by the Legislative Draftspersons5.The Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting of 31st October, 2019 agreed that the NTB should be reviewed to reflect the actual amount of USD 100 instead of USD 250.Also recommended to SCTIFI to direct the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting of Ministers responsible for Immigration matters, Trade, EAC Affairs and Chiefs of Immigration.
6. On 11 march 2021, Secretariat reported that the Report was presented to the 40th Council of Ministers which considered the regulations and referred them to the Sectoral Council on Legal and Judicial for legal input.
7. On 30 April 2021, the Focal Point for South Sudan informed that South Sudan currently does not charge visa fees for Tanzanian nationals. Meanwhile, the issue for the other remaining Partner States (Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda) is being resolved and consultations with the immigration office started in March, 2011.
8.The EAC Common Market Regulation 12 Restrictions on the Free Movement of Services has been submitted to the Sectoral Council on Legal and Judicial Affairs scheduled for October 2021 for legal input.
 
NTB-000-836 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory
2018-10-26 Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board Rwanda In process View
Complaint: Milk exported to Tanzania attracts numerous charges collected by different institutions including Tanzania Bureau of Standards, Tanzania Foods and Drugs Authority and Tanzania Dairy Board.

Also, to import a kilogramme of milk in Tanzania, under the newly signed Animal Diseases and Animal Products Movement Control Regulations published on 31st August 2018 (Government Notice No 476) and which entered into force on 1st October 2018, Tanzania now requires to pay Tsh 2,000 on milk imported from outside the country from Tsh150. This is a 1,233% increase (https://allafrica.com/stories/201810030671.html ).

This is a total ban since milk imported cannot compete with the local one.
 
Progress: 1. The meeting reviewed the list of other charges of equivalent effect imposed on dairy products and noted that not all Partner States submitted the relevant charges as directed by SCTIFI. It was recommended that PS should forward the charges to the Secretatiat for compilation and harmonization.
It was noted that most of the charges are not customs-related and there is need to write through MEAC for ministries of Agriculture and Trade to facilitate provision of the information. The Forum directed the Secretariat to officially re-write to Partner States requesting for all the information on diary charges applied on imported processed milk by 30th May 2018. The Secretariat wrote to the Partner States and Partner States are yet to respond.
The Meeting of SC on Trade recommended that Partner States should submit comprehensive charges imposed on milk and milk products to the Secretariat by 30th November 2018.
2. In the Miisterial bilateral meeting held on 19 December 2018 URT reported that it is taking steps to harmonize fees and charges in order to facilitate trade, in line with the directive of H.E the President of URT to ease the doing business environment. Regarding the delays, URT indicated that they have received testing kits and as result, food and drug tests will be conducted at the border within one hour depending on the que. URT to communicate the implementation timelines by June 2019.
3. During the regional monitoring committee meeting held from 29 April - 3 May 2019, the Secretariat reported that they had sent a letter to Partner States to submit the additional charges for harmonization.
4.The EAC Secretariat reported that they are commissioning a comprehensive Study to conduct an inventory of discriminatory Levies, Fees and Charges of Equivalent Effects imposed by regulatory institutions in Partner States and their Impact on Intra EAC Trade.
5. Rwanda reported that there is good progress on resolving the issue.
6.The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 15th October, 2019 agreed that the EAC Secretariat gives an update on the study by May, 2020.
7.The Secretariat reported that the study on discriminative fees and charges of the equivalent effect that affect trade in the region was conducted and the report was validated on 28th February 2020 via Video Conference. Tanzania did not participate in the VC meeting due to connection challenges and will submit their comments once the validated report is shared. The study recommended the establishment of a regional task force to harmonize the fees and charges.
8.During the Sectoral Committee on Trade held in September 2020, the United Republic of Tanzania requested for more time to consult on the study and provide comments. The final comments will be submitted not later than 30th September, 2020.
9. On 24th November 2020, the Secretariat reported that the comments were provided to the EAC Secretariat and they will be incorporated into the report. Another Validation meeting will be convened to finalize the report.
10. On 11 March 2021, Secretariat reported that Tanzania provided the comments which were circulated to all Partner States as working document for the NMC meetings.
10.The Secretariat wrote to the Partner States to provide names of RTF members. All Partner States have nominated members. The Secretariat will convene a meeting of the RTF by January 2022.
11. On 25 May 2022, Rwanda provided following update:
This NTB was reported to show numerous charges that are being charged by different institutions from Tanzania including those mentioned in the reported NTB. In addition, The Tanzania Revenue Authority taxes and duties at Glance of July 2018 page 16 charges import duties and states that:
"Some sensitive items are charged at a higher rate than 25% with the intention of protecting local industries. (E.g. Yoghurt milk and Cream containing sweetening matter, Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form, Sacks and bags of a kind used for the packing of goods, Worn clothing and other worn articles (mitumba)."
Animal Diseases (Animal and Animal Products Movement Control) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2020 GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO 489A published on 29/6/2020 (page 3) impose 2000Tsh import fees per litre.
This regulations are against Common Market Protocol where by goods from any other partner states of EAC should not be charged any import duties and fees.These charges therefore clearly present how expensive it is to export Milk to United Republic of Tanzania.
12. On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat submitted following report: Tanzania informed the SCTIFI meeting that TFDA was dissolved in 2019 and TBS does not charge the said charges. Furthermore, the Tanzania milk board is not responsible for packaged milk products. TBS deals with EAC Certified products under the arrangements of mutual recognition of notified standard marks as provided for in the EAC SQMT Act.
The Senior Officials noted that there was no evidence that Rwandan Traders have been affected by the Tanzania Law. The meeting therefore agreed that Rwanda should report the NTB as new if traders have been affected by the law.
During the bilateral meeting it was noted that the Republic of Rwanda will report it as a new NTB with new evidence if any.
The Sectoral Committee on Trade had agreed that the NTB was resolved.
However, during the Senior Officials Session, the Republic of Rwanda insisted that the NTB should be maintained in the TBP.The Republic of Rwanda further elaborated that the NTB was reported to show numerous charges that are being charged by different institutions from Tanzania including those mentioned in the reported NTB.In addition, Tanzania Revenue Authority taxes and duties at Glance of July 2018 page 16 charges import duties and states that:
"Some sensitive items are charged at a higher rate than 25% with the intention of protecting local industries. (E.g., Yogurt milk and Cream containing sweetening matter, Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form, Sacks and bags of a kind used for the packing of goods, Worn clothing and other worn articles (mitumba)."
And Animal Diseases (Animal and Animal Products Movement Control) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2020 GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO 489A published on 29/6/2020 (page 3) impose 2000 Tsh import fees per liter.This is against the Common Market Protocol whereby goods from any other partner states of EAC should not be charged any import duties and fees.
These charges clearly present how expensive it is to export Milk to the United Republic of Tanzania.
The SCTIFI meeting agreed that the two Partner States resolve the matter bilaterally.
 
NTB-000-830 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 2018-07-16 Botswana: Martins Drift Zambia In process View
Complaint: A Zambian Registered Tanker carrying sulphuric acid from South Africa was weighed at the Martins Drift weighbridge with the following axle masses: Steer axle - 5200 kg (legal limit 8000 kg); Drive axles - 18200 kg (legal limit 18000 kg); Trailing axles - 22800 kg (legal limit 24000 kg). Tolerance is 5% on an axle set or on GVM, in this case it would be 900 kg on the driving axle set. The weigh bridge official instructed the Driver to Park telling him that his driving axle was overloaded without the application of the 5% tolerance. It is observed that only at this weigh bridge there is no application of the 5% tolerance. In the spirit of harmonization South Africa, Zambia and Botswana the legal limits are the same with a 5% tolerance except at Martins Drift weighbridge. Kindly assist to resolve this issue at Martins Drift which is causing unnecessary loss of transit time and charges. Please note that this is not a one off incidence.  
Progress: 1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that SADC has set up a Task Force to look into this matter among other NTBs.
2. On 22nd June 2020, Botswana Focal Point reported that they have contacted the relevant institution and they stated that they are still investigating on the matter and will give their feedback sometime during week 30 June - 4 July 2020
 
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-000-820 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A12: Geographical restrictions on eligibility
Policy/Regulatory
2010-12-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Kenya New View
Complaint: Brookside Dairy Ltd of Kenya, exports of UHT milk are denied entry into Zambia for reasons that, an inspection audit of the source of milk, export facility, milk product and relevant standards in use in Kenya by the Zambian authorities raised sanitary concerns pointing out that Zambia cannot accept milk products from the raw milk that did not meet the Zambian milk standard. The Zambian standard on raw milk for use in production of milk products is a maximum of 200,000 colon forming units (cfu) whereas Kenya legislation allows for a maximum of 2, 000,000 cfu in raw milk used in making UHT milk, which is above the 200,000 cfu allowed in Zambia. Kenya applies the EAC graded standards which allow for a maximum of 2,000,000 cfu and a minimum of 200,000 cfu and below for raw milk.  
Progress: 1. Various bilateral meetings and technical audits have been undertaken between the two countries in an attempt to resolve the NTB. The thirty-Third Meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs Committee held on 15-17 September 2017 recommended that :
i) COMESA should harmonize SPS measures through implementation of the COMESA Green Pass (CGP) to facilitate trade in agricultural products.
ii) Member States should adhere to the NTB resolution time frames set out in the COMESA Regulations on Elimination of NTBs to ensure timely resolution of NTBs and enhance intra-regional trade.
2. In August 2019 Zambia Focal point reported that Zambia and Kenya held a bilateral meeting during the 5th TFTA focal points meeting held in Nairobi in August, 2019 during which Zambia proposed to have the complaint removed from the online platform in view of the fact that the issue was now in the hands of COMESA Secretariat who are expected to facilitate the harmonisation of the SPS standards. However, Kenya was still of the view that the complaint be maintained on the platform. Zambia therefore sought the guidance of COMESA Secretariat whether it is in order to maintain an issue which has been determined to be a legitimate SPS requirement following a recommendation for COMESA Secretariat to facilitate the harmonization SPS standards.
3. On 30 July 2021, COMESA NTB Unit requested Kenya to provide progress on the request to furnish Zambia with testing methods as agreed during the 1st meeting of the COMESA NTB Forum in March, 2021.
 
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-000-803 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2018-02-28 Tanzania: Importation into Tanzania Malawi In process View
Complaint: CORI Ltd visited Tanzania last year to look for export markets for cooking oil in Tanzania. CORI was informed that the government in Tanzania does not promote/support importation and that Tanzania has a 15% surcharge on the importation of cooking oil.  
Progress: 1. The SADC Secretariat is advising the Malawi should provide additional information to assist resolve the NTB. Malawi was therefore requested to provide information on the origin of the goods or where it is manufactured and any other relevant information .
2. On 23rd June 2020, Malawi Focal point responded that the cooking oil is wholly produced in Malawi and therefore meets the SADC rule of origin for exportation into Tanzania .
 
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-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.
 
NTB-000-751 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2017-05-01 Zambia: Ministry of Trade Botswana In process View
Complaint: Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia.

On the 11th November 2016, Zambia issued SI 85 of 2016, The Tolls Act in which the Second Schedule Section A and B outlines Entry Tolls for COMESA/SADC and other Countries. Botswana was not included under SADC and awarded tolls higher than other SADC States. On the 1st May 2017, Botswana retaliated by issuing an Amendment of the Road Traffic and Road Transport (Permits) regulations, 2017. Under this Amendment, tolls were increased and in turn, Zambian Transporters handed a hefty penalty. The result is that as a Zambian Transporter our Transit Fees through Botswana increased by 70%.

This makes the Botswana route unattractive and given the congestion at Kazungulu, we have had to run through Zimbabwe again. We are delayed here by congestion, delays in ZIMRA electronic sealing processes and run the gauntlet as described above.

Surely the whole idea of building the Kazungula Bridge is to improve the flow of traffic through Botswana and create economic advantage? With the increase in the tolls in a tit for tat manner, building the bridge is a waste of time.

Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC.
 
Progress: 1. On 11 January 2019, Zambia Focal Point reported that the two parties (Zambia and Botswana) are undertaking consultations on the matter in order to resolve the issue.
2. On 02 June Secretariat was advised to organise virtual meeting between the Focal Points to recommend way forward
 
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.
 
NTB-000-742 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade
2017-02-20 Uganda: Port Bell Lake port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Verification Agencies (SGS) apply standards that are higher than International accepted standards requiring additional tests and certificates which is of high costs. Additional tests include tests for copper, iron, manganese, lead and coliforms which are expensive tests adding to the costs of doing business. The additional tests last for a week in addition to the export process. The Agency offers Route B or C product registration. Product meant for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are tested once a year Route C is a security factory audit for wine export to the abovementioned countries  
Progress: This matter was brought to the attention of the Uganda Focal Points along the margins of the 23rd EAC NTBs forum on 6 May 2017 . Uganda private sector Focal Point reported that consultations had been initiated with the Ministry of Trade , Industry and cooperatives to try and resolve the matter amicably. They will provide feedback in due course .  
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.  
1 2 3 4