| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-001-156 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2024-03-09 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging USD 270 from Rusumo border to Kigali which is equivalent to USD 80.83 per 100KM, while Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM.This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicle. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 29 April 2024, Rwanda Focal Point reported that : 'Considering the financial implication of these rates, Rwanda was still reviewing this proposal pending the finalization of the EAC study on harmonization of RUC. However, Rwanda will engage URT bilaterally to discuss how to resolve this outstanding issue.
2.The 36th RMC was informed that the charge amounts to 70 USD and is also affecting the Republic of Kenya. The RMC also noted that it is an obligation of the Government to offer security in the Country and it should not be at the expense of the traders. RSS should stop collecting this fee which is not in the RSS Laws and do not attach it to the process of the RTF on the fees, levies and charges.
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19) |
|
|
NTB-001-204 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-01 |
Rwanda: Gatuna |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging un harmonized flat rates for vehicles transiting through the Rwanda borders. This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicles.
Uganda is upholding the principle of distance*weight.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1.The RMC of 17th October 2024 was informed that the NTB on discriminatory road user charges was considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favours big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load/weight and distance but also considering other factors that favour all of us as a region
f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the SC TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of SC TCM on harmonisation of Road User Charges.
The Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
• Buses;
• Trucks of three or less axles; and
• Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles/semi-trailers);
d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonised rates between themselves to continue doing so;
e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonised charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
g) Secretariat to mobilise funds for the study in (vi) above;
h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
j) Partner States to prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC/CM 45/ Directive 56). As per the directives of TCM, there are two Road User Charges adopted in the Community.
(i) distance + weight (axles) rates
(ii) COMESA harmonised rates of USD 10 per 100 KM
The Republic of Rwanda committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC.
2.Directives from 18th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 18th Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
(a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
(b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
(c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
● Buses;
● Trucks of three or less axles; and
● Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles / semi-trailers);
(d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so;
(e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
(f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonized charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
(g) Secretariat to mobilize funds for the study in (vi) above;
(h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
(i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
(j) Partner States prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
Updates from the 45th Council of Ministers:
The NTBs on Road User Charges were also considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
(a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favors big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
(b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
(c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
(d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
(e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load / weight and distance but also considering other factors that favor all of us as a region
(f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
(a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
(b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
(a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
(b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the Sectoral Council on TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of the Sectoral Council on TCM on harmonization of Road User Charges.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC / CM 45 / Directive 56).
Update from the 19th Sectoral Council on TCM:
The 19th Sectoral Council on TCM considered the matter and received inputs from Partner States as follows:
United Republic of Tanzania
Tanzania provided a presentation containing the background, findings and recommendations on the issues of Road User Charges as follows:
(i) Prior to the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania was charging a rate of USD 16 / 100km for vehicles over three axles and USD 6 / 100 km for vehicles of up to 3 axles;
(ii) After the 18th TCM, United Republic of Tanzania reviewed her rates to USD 10 / 100km for vehicles above three axles and USD 06 / 100 km for vehicles below three axles
(iii) Under the road-user principle, road users are supposed to pay RUCs to compensate damage caused by vehicles;
(iv) There is need for non-discriminatory charging for road users from foreign vehicles;
(v) Studies reveal that the principles to be used to calculate RUCs should be foreign operators to pay for road use; non-discrimination and charges related to damage caused on the road infrastructure.
Uganda
Uganda submitted that:
(i) All roads are paid for by citizens through taxes and there are no free roads
(ii) Roads have a design life, and the main cause of deterioration is the weight (load carried by vehicles), and the distance moved. The heavier the weight carried the more the degradation and the longer the distance the more the degradation; hence the higher the repair costs required;
(iii) Road user charges are not profits for utilization of the roads but a contribution for the maintenance and repair of the roads;
(iv) The position of the 18th Sectoral Council of TCM is not discriminatory at all as it stipulates that whoever degrades the roads should meet a proportionate contribution to their repair and maintenance; moreover, all Partner States were involved in making that decision;
(v) The weight + distance consideration in the road user charge is an equitable basis for contributing to the maintenance and repair of roads;
(vi) Tanzania has already carried out a study similar to the one being proposed by some Partner States whose results were shared in the meeting, and they support the weight + distance basis for determining the road user charges;
(vii) Deferring the decision on the user charges will cause an unnecessary vacuum which will have serious effects in the road sector; the largest mode of transport at the moment.
The Republic of Uganda therefore supports the position of the 18th TCM.
Burundi
Burundi was of the view that landlocked countries should not be disadvantaged to access the world markets through high transit charges along coastal countries. The fixed rate for RUCs should be maintained. The RUCs include fuel levy for road maintenance, vehicle license fees, international transit fees and others such as congestion fees. The concern raised by Burundi is that RUC should be restricted to transit fees. The road user from neighbouring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
Rwanda was of the opinion that the rates should be determined by the Committee responsible for fees, charges and levies since that committee handles all sectors of the economy that includes all modes of transport. What was needed was the timeline within which to harmonize the charges. The charges incurred by transporters are actually borne by the citizens, who are the end users of the cargo being transported.
Kenya
Kenya supports the directives of the 18th TCM. However, EAC Secretariat was supposed to prepare TORs for a regional study on harmonized RUCs. Alternatively, the study could be done by a TWG. Through a bilateral arrangement, Kenya and Tanzania harmonized their charges to comply with COMESA rates. But the proposed study by the Secretariat should take into account the principals. further, the quality of roads in the region are not the same, hence there was a need to harmonize the road quality standards so that the cost of maintenance of roads is similar for all countries.
The Secretariat clarified that the draft TORs had been prepared but needed to be updated and submitted to Partner States for review in two weeks. Regarding the modality for the study, the TCM had agreed that the study be carried out by an independent consultant oversighted by a technical working group. The issue of RUCs is also an agenda in SADC and COMESA and, therefore, is a Tripartite issue. Currently discussions are ongoing with the EU and TMA, and it is hoped that a solution will be found.
Conclusion
Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania were of the opinion that the principles of charging agreed by the 18th TCM (distance + weight) should be maintained, as the region awaits the outcome of the study by the Secretariat. However, Rwanda and Burundi positions are that the charges should be further analyzed by the Committee on rates, fees and levies.
The meeting noted that the 19th TCM among others reiterated its directive to Partner States applying the COMESA rates on RUCs as directed by the 18th TCM (EAC / TCM 19 / Directive 08).
The Republic of Rwanda and Republic of Burundi were of the view that the study should come first before implementation of the TCM Directives.
Permanent / Principal / Under Secretaries noted the need for the study by TCM on harmonization of road user charges, as they have direct impact on the cost of doing business in the Region and be subjected to the joint consideration by the Sectoral Council on TCM and SCTIFI.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment took note of the directives of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology on the harmonized road user charges; and recommended to Council to direct the Secretariat to convene a joint meeting of the Sectoral Council of the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology and Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment to consider the recommendations of the study on the harmonization of road user charges once finalized by the Sectoral Council on Transport, Communications and Meteorology (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 47).
3.The 46th Council considered the NTB and gave the following directives:
(a) directed Partner States applying COMESA harmonized rates between themselves to continue doing so (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 17);
(b) directed Partner States to retain status quo with respect to the Road User Charges (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 18); and
(c) direct the Secretariat to prioritize and expedite undertaking the study on harmonization of EAC Road User Charges within six months and report to the 47th Council. (EAC/CM 46 / Directive 19) |
|
|
NTB-001-289 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-06-20 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda has introduced a 39% excise duty on juice products manufactured in Kenya and transferred into Rwanda. The excise subjected to Kenya juice is a charge on import. EAC is a local market, additionally, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC. |
|
|
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-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During a bilateral meeting facilitated by the SADC Business Council held on 10 October 2022, it was agreed that the issue was not related to misclassification of Cremora but rather, the introduction of import permits by Namibia. The SADC BC will engage the Namibia Ministry of Industry representatives to set up a follow up meeting with the Ministry of Veterinary (Namibia) who will provide clarity on the introduction of import permit as there relate to Nestle and to Cremora |
|
|
NTB-000-662 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2015-02-19 |
Mozambique: Weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwean truck drivers are now facing police harassment near the weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor. The police are taking Zimbabwe drivers licence and their passports, supposedly to check the authentication of the driver holding the documents. The driver is released in order to go and off load and is briefed that the police will have an answer for him on his return.
On his return driver is told that the licence is a fake and the driver is to pay a spot fine of ZAR5000.00. It appears that the police are rubbing the metal disc with something, so that certain information is now very faded, and not legible. When the driver produces his international drivers’ licence, to confirm the validity that is taken away by police, who only return it after some hours, with the expiry date is now illegible. The ZAR 5000.00 rand fine is enforced. The language is a convenient barrier, as the police claim not to be able to speak English. All fines in Mozambique seem to be ZAR 5000.00.
Drivers are detained for days until they come up with some sort of cash ranging from ZAR400.00 upwards if they are lucky. This problem is more prevalent during weekends.
Please can we have a stop put to this practice? Defacing a Government document I believe is an offence, and should not be tolerated. Business is challenging enough as it is, without trade barriers being further forced upon the transport industry. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee held in May 2017, the Secretariat reported that the SCCC made general observations on similar issues where receipts are not issued. SCCC recommended that border authorities should put measures in place such as hidden cameras etc to identify culprits. Member States will report on progress regarding the recommendation. |
|
|
NTB-000-781 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2015-11-19 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road) |
Eswatini |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward.
2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible..
3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously. |
|
|
NTB-001-127 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2023-07-25 |
Mozambique: Beira Route |
Malawi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Professional Drivers Union in Malawi are concerned with reduced transit limit time to 21hrs by Mozambique - Initially the transit time was 72hrs. This change brings about healthy and safety concern to drivers. Drivers are concerned on road conditions, mechanical faults and time to rest on the road which makes it difficult to meet this newly set time limit. They opt for the 72hrs as it were because this time limit gave an allowance to delays encountered in transit and it was good for safe driving. |
|
|
NTB-001-151 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2023-09-13 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Malawi |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Malawi pigeon pea export consignment to India has been detained at Beira port in Mozambique for the following reasons:
1. 275Mt for Grey Matter - Investigation on issues of origin. However, the consignment bears Malawi custom seals and documents, emphasizing its Malawi origin.
2. 1500MT for Africa Fertilizer Ltd – Rules regarding fumigation. All the consignment loaded in trucks in Malawi, and stuffing was done in containers in Beira.
3. 3275MT for Afrisian Ltd – Customs verification if the cargo is in transit. |
|
|
NTB-001-072 |
Misclassification of Product and subsequent wrongful incursion of tax (Sugar tax) |
2021-09-21 |
Mauritius: Mauritius Revenue Authority and customs, upon clearing consignmnet |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Misclassfication of Sweetened Condensed MILk as a beverage.
Misuse of tariff code - where others use 0402.99.90 MRA uses 0402.99.10. Furthermore;
Post the 2020 budget, we were made to understand by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry that sweetened condensed milk (SCM) doesn’t attract sugar tax. Thus, we wrote to the Director of Excise duty to seek clarifications on the application of sugar tax.
The director requested us to apply for a ruling without giving any further explanations.
We filled in the ‘Request for ruling on H.S Classifications of goods’ form in Dec. 2020 and submitted all relevant technical documents requested on the form and a sample of SCM to MRA.
However, we didn’t hear from MRA since there was a lockdown in March. We have cleared 3 consignments of SCM in March, June and July without paying the sugar tax and only received the MRA - Customs Declaration Form in August while clearing SCM consignments, and we were asked to pay for the sugar tax.
We took cognizance of the ruling only in August and this is when we started the objection process.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 24 August 2022, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the Customs Dept of Mauritius is looking into the matter and will submit a report as soon as possible.
2. Mauritius Customs reported that : Under the Customs Act whenever a person is dissatisfied with a ruling may object to the ruling.in this case, an objection has been made on 27.09.2021.The objection is being dealt with independently by the objection directorate. An update has been requested from them.
3. On 30th August 2022, Mauritius provided further update that:
The Objection Directorate has maintained the tariff classification under HS Code 0402.99.10 as provided by the Mauritius Revenue Authority Customs Department and the objection was disallowed. A Notice of Determination was issued to this effect on 15/11/2021.Applicant (Nestlé’s Products (Mauritius) Ltd ) made representations to the Assessment Revenue Committee (ARC) on 10/12/2021.The case was called Pro Forma before the ARC on 01/07/2022. Hearing by ARC on this case is still awaited. An update will be provided upon availability.
4.On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that the case was still before the Assessment Review Committee (ARC). |
|
|
Products:
|
0402.99.90: --- Other |
|
|
NTB-001-203 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory |
2023-04-12 |
Malawi: Malawi Revenue Authority |
Zambia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi Laundry & confectionary imports into Zambia are levied MK20,000 to MK25,000 per invoice, where
Zambian products going to Malawi are charged with 13-27% (MBS, Surcharge, Excise duty). |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. NFPs for the two countries to hold bilateral meeting by August 2024. This issue was also discussed during bilateral meeting held in Addis Ababa at the 4th NTBs Forum . Malawi to report progress from internal consultations.
2. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, Zambia requested Malawi to confirm if the export subsidies is still implemented. However, Malawi did not provide an update on the status of the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-229 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2025-01-16 |
Madagascar: other |
Tunisia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Tunisian company "Société des Boissons du Cap Bon" has entered into a partnership with a Madagascan distributor, "4 Seasons", represented by Mrs. Safa Hamdi, for the distribution of its products, in particular juices, soft drinks and cheeses. The Tunisian company agreed to an annual forecast of 12 to 15 containers and in return granted the distributor exclusive rights to distribute its products on the Madagascan market.
The Tunisian company began working with this distributor with a first shipment on March 23, 2024, consisting of a total of four containers: three of juice and one of cheese. Attached are photos of the "Délice" brand products distributed by 4 Seasons in gas stations, supermarkets and traditional markets. Our distributor has also made considerable efforts to promote the products through sponsorship campaigns, urban billboards and a strong digital presence, demonstrating its commitment.
However, the Tunisian company encountered a problem: a company called IBC, which we understand is in the construction business and is neither a distributor nor a juice producer, registered the "Délice" brand in Madagascar under the name "Délice de Fruit" using our logo. It has since contacted the distributor of the Tunisian brand to try to persuade it to work with IBC using its trademark registration.
It should be noted that the "Délide de Fruits" trademark has been registered with the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) since December 2022 and with the National Institute for Standardization and Industrial Property (INNORPI) since 2006, 2019 and 2022 (all documents are attached). |
|
|
NTB-001-296 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2024-07-30 |
Madagascar: |
Mauritius |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Madagascar has imposed a duty of 24% on imports of cartons which it referred to as a 'safeguard duty'. However, Mauritius is of the view that the duty cannot be considered as a safeguard duty given that Madagascar has not taken binding commitment on these products at WTO level. It has simply imposed duties on these products including on the SADC and COMESA Member States. It is violating its regional market access commitments.
Mauritius has requested bilateral consultations with Madagascar on this issue and is still awaiting same. |
|
English
Français
