Active complaints

Showing items 61 to 80 of 95
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-000-769 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-05-05 Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco.  
Progress: 1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024.
17.During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that the excise duty charged is not discriminatory. Kenya insisted on the bilateral agreements. 		 
NTB-000-977 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2020-08-10 Ethiopia: South Africa New View
Complaint: Requirement to submit Certificate of Free sale for Grain products such as cereals, baked goods etc  
NTB-001-153 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2024-01-26 Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY Tanzania In process View
Complaint: The ZB Card company shipped a shipment to Zambia at the end of January which is subject to the original SADC laws. When you arrived at ZRA, they refused to allow it, claiming that the HS Code is incorrect, so they ordered ZB Card to change it. ZB Card did that but ZRA has rejected the CoO claiming that it is not authentic. We have contacted TCCIA so that they can confirm its authenticity and TCCIA has done so but since 10/02/2024 there has been no success  
NTB-001-251 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2024-07-05 Tanzania: TRA Kenya In process View
Complaint: URT is subjecting full CET of 35% on ZESTA JAM manufactured in Kenya by Trufoods. The Zesta Jam is manufactured using locally sourced sugar.
We request Tanzania and Kenya to conduct on spot verification on June 2025 to ascertain origin as the jam transferred is using locally manufactured sugar and qualify under the EAC Preferential treatment.
Kenya communicated to TRA vide letter ref: C&BC/HQ/8 Dated 24/9/2024 requesting Tanzania for application for Zesta Jam to be granted preferential treatment. 		 
Progress: During 47th SCTIFI, noted that the matter is administrative and referred to Customs Committee where the two Partner States agreed to conduct bilateral verification to ascertain the origin criteria by end of February 2026  
NTB-001-333 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-02-01 Zambia: Chirundu COMESA New View
Complaint: ZIMRA is not clearing the products originated in Zambia using the STR Declaration even the products are under the Common List. The goods are subjected to the submission of Formal Customs Declaration and subject to pay customs duties, instead of granting preferential tariff treatment under the COMESA FTA.  
Products: 2009.12: Orange juice, unfermented, Brix value <= 20 at 20°C, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. containing spirit and frozen)  
NTB-001-330 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-03-11 Mozambique: DGA - Mozambique SARS - South Africa Mozambique New View
Complaint: Conferring of origin in a member state on non-originating material. This then affects the issuance of a SADC certificate for the issuing country being Mozambique.

Mozambique customs authority and DGA consider that the process taking place within Mozambique, does not confer origin.

The exact same process carried out in South Africa, receives a SADC certificate from SARS.

SARS as the importing country does not dispute or challenge that the process confers origin and is satisfied that the process under which a SADC certificate is issued, and therefore receives preferential duty in the importing country is sufficient and complies with the SADC trade agreement.

While the SADC agreement, lists simple processes, which do not confer origin, under chapter 63 there is a specific declaration made, where rags is included, before the word, except, and then it lists exceptions. It states that for chapter 63, origin is conferred, the requirement stated is " manufacture from materials of any heading except that of the product"

What is peculiar, is that the issuing country being Mozambique contends the conference of origin, but it has not been raised by the importing country being South Africa.

We know, with absolute certainty, that a SADC for the exact same process is issued by South Africa for exports to Mozambique and to Botswana, and neither of these countries have ever referred them back for investigation or referral on the back of the SADC certificate as is the protocol and possibility if there is a contention. 		 
Products: 6310.10: Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted  
NTB-001-090 8.8. Issues related to transit 2022-10-19 Zambia: Katima Mulilo Namibia New View
Complaint: Issuance of exorbitant transit permit fees by the Zambian Government went up from K3700 to K11200 and is only imposed at the Katima Mulilo Border post and not at any other borders around Zambia. The Permit was supposed to only apply to those entering Zambia for the purpose of doing business and not those in transit such as drivers transporting the goods through/via Zambia. the permit is therefore deemed to be discriminatory (no other SADC/COMESA countries are imposing a similar measure)and, the permit hinders the movement of goods as truck drivers are delayed in trying to source money to fund the permit.  
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-001-152 8.8. Issues related to transit 2024-02-07 Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port Zambia New View
Complaint: All the Private Inland Container Depot Operators at Dar Port are refusing to discharge the vessel Ladonna MV for onward delivery of shipment to Zambia and DRC. Private Inland Container Depot Operators that were willing to discharge the vessel have been threatened by trading competitors to the current vessel owner/trader who is a new entrant in the regional market with total loss of current business if they discharged this vessel Dar Port. This is a clear violation of the WTO-TFA (World Trade Organization Trade Facilitation Agreement), AU (African Union), Comesa/SADC Regional protocols and agreements as well as individual Bi-lateral agreements relating to Trade Facilitation. Zambia has worked hard to secure this business to supply chemicals to the World Largest Copper Producer DRC in order to boost regional exports and promote continental economic growth. However, the private sector in Tanzania are now blocking these efforts despite the government working so hard to restore Dar Ports Image as the preferred port of choice on the Eastern Coast of Africa. These actions have potential to make serious negative impact to all 3 countries Tanzania, Zambia & DRC and overall the African Continent and therefore should be addressed to minimize the high costs of doing business.  
Products: 2503: Sulphur of all kinds, other than sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur.  
NTB-001-253 8.8. Issues related to transit 2025-05-11 Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda South Africa New View
Complaint: While in transit from BBR to Nyamapanda with a load destined for Malawi, our truck had to divert off the predetermined statutory route through Harare due to roadworks/congestion by no more than 400m. The Zimra tracking seal picked up this diversion and thus, we have been punished with a $2000 fine we which feel is incredibly excessive, especially with proof that the truck was not stationary at all while off-route. This punishment does not seem to fit the crime.  
Progress: 1. On 02 February SADC Secretariat facilitated a bilateral meeting between South Africa and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe committed to consider the issue as per the attached documents which give more clarity to the reported NTB. Zimbabwe to provide response by Friday 06 February.
2. On 12 march 2026, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that movement of transit cargo passing through Zimbabwe is controlled through the use of designated routes from ports of entry to ports of exit, on which diversion is not allowed and when diversion occurs there is a fine of US$2.000.00 charged. However, in cases of diversions caused by other government agencies (e.g VID), clients can keep receipts as proof and where there is no such proof can notify Electronic Cargo Tracking System Control Room immediately to avoid diversions without authorisation. The use of designated routes is in terms of section 60 (5) (f) of the Customs and Excise General Regulations (Statutory Instrument 154 of 2001). The fine of US$2,000.00 is charged in terms of section 60 10) (d) of same statutory instrument as amended by paragraph (e) of statutory instrument 113 of 2017. In this case, transporter diverted for more than 7km from designated route and the road had no road works as averred and as a result fine was charged. They went on to use another road that is specifically restricted from entry by heavy commercial vehicles with a violation penal provision of another US$2,000.00 as per statutory instrument 124 of 2021, but this fine was not charged. When charged, an appeal for the review of the decision can be lodged but in this case the transporter did not exhaust the internal appeal process. 		 
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-001-301 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-02-19 Botswana: all entry points Namibia New View
Complaint: I am a manufacturer of fully finished furniture leather based in Namibia. My company has historically utilised Botswana as a transit corridor to supply customers in Zimbabwe under the framework of regional trade within SADC.

Following the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the region, I have been prevented from using Botswana as a transit country for consignments destined for Zimbabwe. This restriction effectively blocks an established and commercially critical trade route.

Namibia is a recognised FMD-free zone, and all raw materials used in our production originate exclusively from Namibian cattle. Furthermore, the industrial tanning and finishing processes applied to hides—particularly chemical treatment, liming, pickling, chrome tanning, retanning, and finishing—render the survival and transmission of the FMD virus scientifically implausible. Fully finished leather does not constitute a vector for FMD transmission and should therefore be exempt from movement restrictions associated with live animals or untreated animal products.

The inability to transit through Botswana forces us to use alternative routes into Zimbabwe that are substantially more expensive. These additional logistics costs render our trade with Zimbabwe economically unviable and undermine our competitiveness within the region.

As a SADC Member State, Namibia is entitled to the free movement of goods that comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards. The current transit restriction on fully finished leather constitutes a non-tariff barrier inconsistent with the principles of regional integration and trade facilitation.

If this situation persists, it will have severe commercial and employment consequences. The loss of strategically important customers in Zimbabwe will directly reduce production volumes, which in turn may necessitate workforce reductions. 		 
Products: 4107: Leather further prepared after tanning or crusting, including parchment-dressed leather, of bovine (including buffalo) or equine animals, without hair on, whether or not split, other than leather of heading 41.14.  
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-001-001 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-001-229 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-001-298 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 2025-03-14 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry Botswana New View
Complaint: On the 14th of March 2025 i encountered challenges when crossing to Zambia for business purposes. The immigration officer at the border enquired on the purpose of my visit to Zambia and i informed her that i was travelling for business and requested for a Business Visit (BV) stamp. The officer indicated that BV is only used when someone is travelling to Zambia to sell not to buy as i had intended to go and purchase sweet potatoes. I informed her that we had previously had challenges with law enforcement officers as they insist that whoever is coming to Zambia for business purposes should have a BV stamp not visitors stamp. The officer solicited a bribe amounting to BWP500.00 in order to give me the BV stamp. This contraction of information between immigration officers and the police officers in Zambia cost us as traders lots of money as well as time. It also compromises our safety when we go to Zambia  
Products: 0714.20: Sweet potatoes, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of pellets  
NTB-001-125 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2023-06-01 Democratic Republic of the Congo: Malawi In process View
Complaint: Cross Border truck drivers from Malawi, Zambia and other COMESA Member States face cumbersome procedures of clearing goods and other transit issues at the relevant border post in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In particular the following is reported:
1. Scanner at Mutaka- Cumbersome payment procedures for the scanner ($100) and forced parking ($30) which has led to congestion for the drivers as well as serious security concerns.
2. Unnecessary stoppages along Kasumbalesa-Kolwezi Corridor causing massive delays.
3. Delayed document processing by Mining houses.
4. Unfair treatment of drivers in an event of accidents, sickness and death. 		 
Progress: 1. On 19th June 2023, the Focal Point for DRC advised that the matter will be submitted to the competent authorities in order to find an appropriate solution.
2. COMESA Secretariat facilitated a trilateral meeting held on 21 August between DRC, Malawi and Zambia during which DRC informed the meeting that the scanner and parking fees would be reviewed with the aim to get them scrapped off. DRC would also look into the lengthy and costly processing of documentation by mining houses with a view to improve the processes .
4. Following this meeting the Secretariat wrote to DRC requesting progress on feedback regarding implementation of the agreed actions to resolve the issues raised .
3. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Malawi reported that stakeholders were still experiencing the challenges but conformed that DRC had scrapped the scanner fees however , the scrapping of fees for scanner charges could only be considered resolved upon receipt of documentary evidence (Letter from DRC).
4. d) During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, DRC Focal Point confirmed that the scanner and parking charges have been lifted. However, Malawi NFP reported that their truck drivers are still paying for these services and the NTBs has not been resolved.
5. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, the following update was received:
i. DRC informed the meeting that there was no information on the current status of the reported NTB and requested the affected Member States to provide information if their traders are still experiencing challenges.
ii. DRC, Malawi and Zambia to update the status of the NTB on the Online System. 		 
NTB-001-228 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2025-01-16 Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Ministry of Minerals Zambia New View
Complaint: Tanzania Revenue Authority has introduced a new system for copper imports whereby the Ministry of Minerals must stamp the export permit. Only once this is done can the assessment be completed and the vehicles cross the border (Nakonde/Tunduma) to Tanzania. Once the vehicle is on the Tanzania side, the Ministry of Minerals must stamp the assessment. After the assessment is stamped, it must be scanned to the TRA HQ in Dar es Salaam for approval. The Approval is then scanned back to the border, and the T1 can be generated and the vehicles cleared for movement. This is time-consuming and leads to further congestion at this border post, where containerised cargo to Zambia takes a fortnight to cross between Tunduma and Nakonde.  
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. 		 
1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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