| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-059 |
7.10. Other |
2017-03-07 |
South Africa: |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Botswana based company, MOTOVAC reporting challenges is struggling to get payment of its Value Added Tax (VAT) import refunds from the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in time. It is reported, VAT refunds are not processed by SARS. The outstanding payments date back as far as 2017 with the company owed BWP 3,528,278.07 in VAT refunds by SARS.
|
|
|
NTB-000-985 |
1.8. Import bans |
2020-10-12 |
South Africa: Grobler's Bridge |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certified organic honey that is American Foulbrood Disease (AFB)free, complete with Certificate of Analysis from accredited lab Intertek in Germany (accredited by the German National Accreditation body DAkkS - national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany) they are also ISO/IEC 17025 certified and they do engage in proficiency testing) has been banned from entering SA unless irradiated.
2015 bilateral agreement allowed Zambian honey into SA without irradiating due to there being no AFB in Zambia.
SA claims that their ARC lab has tested samples from Forest Fruits and others and found them to be positive for AFB. The ARC lab has always produced inconsistent results and they cannot replicate the results. Sometimes positive and after a retest it is negative. ARC lab is not even SANAS accredited, has no ISO certification and does not engage in proficiency testing for AFB tests. On 23 October 2020 at a round table meeting of SA honey importers and various DAFF departments - meeting called by DAFF NPPO, it was clearly stated and admitted that ARC has performance "gaps".
DAFF scientists have to make decisions based on faulty science and results. The Intertek results consistently come back as negative for AFB disease. The result is in Non Compliance notices being sent to Zambia for samples that get retested and are negative!
As recent as last year, Zambia Veterinary Services did a national survey and found no AFB disease in Zambia.
SA DAFF NPPO is creating haphazard barriers to Zambian honey.
All Zambian exports are now affected.
Since 2015 a considerable amount of business with South African companies has developed in Zambia exporting honey to them. This ban affects the livelihoods of over 140,000 subsistence villagers. |
|
|
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 .
4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
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
2.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
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
3.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that they were going to consult with the SADC Business Council whether this NTB could be considered as resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-167 |
5.5. Import licensing requirements |
2024-05-16 |
South Africa: All border crossings by road, air or sea |
Namibia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Nakara (pty) , a Namibian company formally requests a dispensation from the South African Veterinary (SA VET) import permit required for imports of Namibian finished leather. Nakara (pty) Ltd, a Namibian tannery, has maintained an unblemished record and has never been implicated in any wrongdoing in the past. However, due to the current regulatory framework, we find ourselves inadvertently impacted by the necessity of the SA VET import permit on Namibian leather exports. It is important to note that no other country imposes such a requirement on imports of finished leather into South Africa. South Africa is Nakara's biggest export market and the aforementioned unnecessary NTB puts Nakara into a competitive disadvantage. A disadvantage that hinders further growth in the trade relationship between Namibia and South Africa in the leather sector, both being members of the SADC region. |
|
|
Products:
|
4107.99: Leather "incl. parchment-dressed leather" of the portions, strips or sheets of hides and skins of bovine "incl. buffalo" or equine animals, further prepared after tanning or crusting, without hair on (excl. unsplit full grains leather, grain splits leath |
|
|
NTB-001-168 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B11: Prohibition for TBT reasons |
2024-05-14 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have been told by Port Health via SAHPRA that as per regulations 6 & 7 of the Medicines Control Act of 1965, we are no longer allowed to transport medications to our customers in Eswatini by road In- transit through South Africa. This is despite the fact that we have done so since May of 1990 up 13 May 2024. We have 2 order ready, packed and waiting to be supplied, but we are being prevented from making declarations to deliver to our customers.
This summary decision to prevent Trade with Eswatini is totally unacceptable. We ask for your help to resolve this issue urgently! |
|
|
Products:
|
3003.10: Medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale, 3003.20: Medicaments containing antibiotics, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale (excl. medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof) and 3003.31: Medicaments containing insulin, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale |
|
|
NTB-001-180 |
1.15. Other |
2024-06-17 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
MG Health Ltd cultivates and manufactures cannabis products for the European market. We started exporting Cannabis and transiting via Maseru Bridge since September 2020. On the 17 July 2024, after getting all export documents and submitting them to SARS on the South African side we were informed that Cannabis cannot be exported via Maseru Bridge as it not amongst designated ports according to South African law. MG Health's truck was then returned to Lesotho.
MG health initiated Meetings thereafter and the response that MG Health received was that this practice that MG Health and others who are in the same industry are accustomed to was a measure adopted during COVID-19 restrictions. It was explained to SARS that Lesotho is landlocked as a result the consignment will have to be flown out to get to OR Tambo. Secondly, given the quantities that are exported, using available flights will require multiple flights for just one consignment thus making the export process difficult and expensive. SARS response was that Medical Cannabis must be exported using designated ports irrespective of whether it is in transit or it is being exported to SA as the SA law is very clear on this matter and MG Health cannot make reference to Article 16 SACU Agreement. |
|
|
Products:
|
5302.90: True hemp "Cannabis sativa L.", processed but not spun; tow and waste of hemp, incl. yarn waste and garnetted stock (excl. retted hemp) |
|
|
NTB-001-191 |
1.15. Other |
2024-05-20 |
South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I am writing on behalf of Mind Health, a Lesotho-registered company actively engaged in the research and development of medicinal products. We are currently collaborating with the University of the Free State (UFS) in South Africa to conduct studies on one of our products. This relationship is critical for advancing our work in the medicinal sector, a key area of growth for Lesotho.
However, we have encountered significant challenges due to the implementation of Section 4.8 of the Guideline for the Importation and Exportation of Medicines (Regulatory Compliance Unit) by SAHPRA. The guideline requires the use of specific ports of entry, namely Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and OR Tambo International Airport, for the export of medicines. Consequently, we are prohibited from using more practical and geographically closer border posts such as the Maseru Bridge or Ficksburg Bridge.
Given Lesotho's landlocked nature and the fact that the University of the Free State is only 227 km from our facility, this regulation has drastically inflated the cost of exporting small quantities of medicinal samples. For instance, we are now compelled to fly samples from Maseru to OR Tambo, have them cleared by customs, and then transport them by road back to the university—a total of 424 km. What would have cost us a few hundred rand using nearby border posts now costs several thousand rand. Additionally, this significantly increases shipment times, delaying our research and impacting the efficiency of our studies. |
|
|
NTB-001-224 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2024-11-22 |
South Africa: South African Revenue Authority |
Mauritius |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mauritius Customs is unable to accept the SADC Certificate ZA PQ 56085 issued by Customs in South Africa due to missing of specimen signature at their level. The Mauritius Customs sent a request to RSA Customs to get a confirmation of the signature .Up to date they have not yet received any reply. |
|
|
NTB-001-238 |
1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation |
2025-02-16 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our delivery truck (ADS 3378, AFQ 8744, AFQ 8746) destined for South Africa was detained at Beitbridge border post last night by South Africa Port Health authorities due to concerns regarding a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe and the potential risk of contamination in the water. |
|
|
NTB-001-265 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2025-06-03 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In relation to Complaint NTB-000-632, "Copper Moon Trading, the company that is running the Lebombo dry port at Komatipoort, near the Lebombo/Ressano Garcia border post, is forcing transporters to use and pay for its parking facilities in Komatipoort. Transporters' vehicles are required to visit the SARS customs clearing offices at the Lebombo dry port and so parking should be provided for them, free of charge, by SARS.
If parking is not provided, then trucks must be allowed to park along the roadway."
The complaint was resolved in 2016, is this still the case? Attached is a receipt.
|
|
|
NTB-001-276 |
VAT Refunds |
2020-08-03 |
South Africa: South African Revenue Services |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Business Botswana has received from seven (7) of its member companies (see attached list) with concerns regarding delays in claiming VAT refunds from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These companies have collectively reported that they are owed a total of R51,838,696.82in VAT refunds, dating as far back as 2020 to August 2024. The core issues involve prolonged processing times, document rejections without the ability to resubmit, and tight deadlines for compiling and submitting the required paperwork. |
|
|
NTB-001-274 |
8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) |
2025-02-07 |
South Sudan: Nimule |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
RSS Charges a USD 40 weighbridge service fee per truck that crosses at Nimule weighbridge station at Jalie, as in the circular attached issued by weighbridge management 2. In the event of having an overload, they negotiate between USD600 and USD2,500 3. Road blocks between Nimule and Juba charge USD100 unreceipted. 4 . Between Juba and Torit, they ask for USD 50 VISA fees We request that South Sudan to immediately remove this NTB |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The Republic of South Sudan informed the meeting that the weighbridge belongs to a private company, which charges money to recoup its capital investment.
RSS reported that she had reported the same to the Ministry of Transport for resolution.
Partner States noted that they also run investments and are not charged on EAC Citizens.
2. On 4 December 2025, RSS Focal Point advised that the NTB is not discriminating, but it does add cost to doing business, the Minister responsible is not ministry of Transport its the Ministry of Road and Bridges. |
|
|
NTB-001-290 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2025-01-01 |
South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non-recognition of EAC Certificates of Origin: Despite South Sudan’s membership in the East African Community (EAC), goods are taxed as if they originate from outside the region, such as Asia or Europe. The East African Community Customs Management Act (EACCMA) is not fully recognized, even though it provides guidance and reference. Instead, sections of the East African Community Regulation are selectively used for matters related to the Electronic Cargo Tracking device, with the Community service provider enforcing the new tax collection requirements. |
|
|
NTB-001-291 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2025-01-01 |
South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Double Taxation: Traders are required to pay taxes in both USD at the point of loading and South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) at the entry point. This is contrary to WTO/International Chamber of commerce global trade facilitation norms and other incoterms. It is untenable to calculate taxes using two different currencies. |
|
|
NTB-000-670 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2015-05-08 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Despite the passing and acceptance of EAC Vehicle Overload Bill of 2012, whereby it states under the Fourth Schedule s.5 (1) (c) - VEHICLE DIMENSIONS, AXLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS AND VEHICLE COMBINATIONS, that the maximum vehicle combination length permissible is 22 m and which includes and covers the South African designed and developed Interlink combination of 22 m maximum. Tanzania are still insisting on abnormal vehicle permits to be issued to these vehicles on entry into Tanzania at Tunduma Border Post at a cost of US $20 per entry or face heavy penalties including the impounding of vehicles if they are not in posesion of an abnormal permit.
This is in breach of the Bill which has been accepted by all EAC Member Countries including Tanzania and this policy needs to be revoked ASAP. |
|
|
Progress:
|
Awaiting feedback from Focal Points |
|
|
NTB-000-479 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2011-12-30 |
Tanzania: Mtwara |
Mozambique |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Impose Import Tax from Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development in Tanzania on raw seafood coming from Mozambique accompanied by SADC Certificate and all other relevant documents from Mozambican Authorities. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 20th July 2013, SADC secretariat requested Tanzania Focal Point to provide progress report on this issue. Response is being awaited.
2. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Tanzania reported that the matter would be taken to relevant authority. |
|
|
Products:
|
0306.21: Rock lobster and other sea crawfish "Palinurus spp., Panulirus spp. and Jasus spp.", even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0306.24: Crabs, even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. crabs in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0307.41: Live, fresh or chilled, not smoked, cuttle fish "Sepia officinalis, Rossia macrosoma, Sepiola spp." and squid "Ommastrephes spp., Loligo spp., Nototodarus spp., Sepioteuthis spp.", with or without shell and 0307.51: Octopus "Octopus spp.", live, fresh or chilled |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 . |
|
English
Français
