Active complaints

Showing items 61 to 80 of 84
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-001-296 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2024-07-30 Madagascar: Mauritius In process 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. 		 
Progress: 1. On 10 April 2026, Mauritus Focal Point reported that the two countries held several bilateral consultations and where Mauritius informed Madagascar that the imposition of the duty to protect its domestic industry is violating its commitments taken at regional level, namely at SADC and COMESA whereby Members have taken commitments to eliminate duties on all intra-regional trade. Mauritius is therefore of the view that Madagascar is using the safeguard measure as a barrier to intra-regional trade. The measure should have been discussed and negotiated at regional level before imposition.
2.ollowing bilateral consultations held during the SADC Regional NTBs meeting in April 2026, an e-mail was sent to the Ministry of Trade of Madagascar as well as to the ANMCC to explain that the imposition of the safeguard duty violated Madagascar's regional market access commitments at SADC level. It was also highlighted that Mauritius was not the main exporter of these products to Madagascar and yet Madagascar was exempting the main exporters and was discriminating against Mauritius. Mauritius shared the trade data, from TradeMap, which shows that the main suppliers of these products to Madagascar. Mauritius requested that the discriminating duty be eliminated immediately against its exports. The Ministry of Trade of Madagascar agreed to consult with ANMCC with a view to resolving the NTB and a response will be provided to Mauritius by 24 April 2026.
3. In a letter dated 6 April 2026, Mauritius informed the COMESA Secretariat that, through the Mauritian Embassy in Madagascar, three bilateral meetings had been held with Madagascar on 17 December 2025, 20 January 2026, and 3 April 2026. Mauritius further indicated that an additional bilateral meeting was facilitated by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) on 19 March 2026.
4. During a bilateral meeting on 2nd April 2026 Madagascar proposed to waive the 24% tariff for Mauritius but replace it with a tariff rate quota (TRQ). 		 
NTB-001-103 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2019-02-01 Botswana: Pioneer Gate South Africa In process View
Complaint: Since 2019, goods exported from S. Africa to Botswana require additional certification from a Certified Accreditation Body ( see attached ) This is now over and above documentation from an ILAC accredited test house that has always been acceptable in the past.
This is an additional cost that must be passed on the consumers ( inflationary aspect )
Measures such as this are puzzling as they are not in the spirit of the African Continent Free Trade Agreement and actually restrict the free flow of goods
It is a questionable move as with Botswana being a member of SACU, the country relies on S. Africa to disburse shares of import duties collected at S. African ports 		 
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-000-420 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2011-05-01 Zambia: Nakonde Kenya In process View
Complaint: Since early May 2011, one of our Association member companies(Bidco Oil Refefineries) product's(palm based cooking oil) has been stopped from entering the Zambian market by Zambia Revenue Authority with the reason that the product do not meet 35% value addition criteria as required under COMESA product on the rules of origin. Zambia government Authorities including the officials of the Zambia revenue Authority have visited in the past Bidco oil refeneries and confirmed that palm based cooking oils meets 35% value addition criteria. Kenya Revenue Authority had also in May did a fresh verification mission on the affected product which we understand was sent to ZRA. To date ZRA has not responded to verification report of KRA on the company's product and meanwhile the company continue incurring losses due to lost market share Zambia. Our submission is that Zambia Revenue Authority respond to Kenya Revenue Authority verification report and follow the laid down procedures in the COMESA Protocol on the rules of origin if the Authority is still disputing the fulfillment of 35% value addition in regard to the product. This is happening at the border points. The importer has now stopped importing palm oil cooking oils consignments from Kenya after dealer paid the CET rate of 25% instead of 0% and incurred very heavy loss.  
Progress: 1. On 16 July 2020, Kenya focal point reported that this issue was raised again during the recent 8th COMESA NTBs Focal Points meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
2. The TTFSC recommended to 40th meeting of Council of Ministers that the Secretariat compiles a record of Council decisions and all the interventions that have been undertaken to facilitate way forward and fast tracking of resolution of the NTB. The Secretariat will circulate the record by 15 March 2020.
3. During the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, Zambia Focal points reported that, with regard to the audit report by KPMG, had requested for additional support documents which have not been availed by Kenya. Zambia and Kenya bilaterally engaged during the NTBs focal point meeting and Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. Kenya further requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for.
4. The 2nd meeting of the COMESA Heads of Customs Sub Committee which met from 19-20 June 2015, noted that KPMG report had confirmed that Palm Oil from Kenya met the COMESA RoO and that KRA had written to its counterpart ZRA on 28 February as per recommendations of the extra - ordinary meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs committee held on 9-11 February 2015. Zambia confirmed receipt of the required information informed the meeting that the issue was under consideration .
5. On 16 January 2015, Kenya Focal point reported that according to KAM consultant on edible oils, the NTB was discussed and an audit was carried out independently on Bidco by KPMG and communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International and COMESA Secretariat in 2014. KAM was advised that the audit found that palm oil exported to Zambia by Kenya had 40% value addition.KAM was now waiting for their edible oils KAM consultant to advise whether the exports of these products were receiving preferential tariff treatment in Zambia.
6. As at 26 September 2013, the COMESA secretariat was yet to provide progress report.
7. On 16th July 2013, Kenya Focal point requested Zambia to indicated progress made since their report to the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring & Eliminating Mechanism meeting and SMS Reporting Tool Launch on 9th and 10th April 2013 in Lusaka Zambia. At this meeting, the Republic of Zambia indicated that the bilateral meeting would be held within a month’s time from the date of this meeting. Kenya proposes that, in view of the delays in bilateral consultations, the COMESA Secretariat facilitates a meeting where they will act as an arbitrator in helping the two partner states resolve the NTBs and enable industry to benefit from the inherent market access for their products.
8.At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia,Kenya and Zambia requested the COMESA Secretariat to organise a bilateral meeting between the two countries in order to arbitrate between them. COMESA Secretariat was also requested to provide guidance on the proper interpretation of the Rules of Origin for this product.
9.On 1 November 2019, Kenya focal point reported that : As a follow up to the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, where Kenya and Zambia bilaterally engaged, Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. However, to do this, Kenya had requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for, to finalize on this issue. We are therefore kindly requesting for the same.
10. On 16 July 2020, Kenya Focal Point reported that this issue was raised again during the EAC- COMESA NTB Meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
11. On 25 February 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the issue is work in progress and the required information documents would be shared soon.
12. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021, it was agreed that Zambia will send a request to Kenya within 30 days to submit cost structure of the inputs used to produce the final product (cooking oil) for determination of origin status under the value addition origin criterion after which a verification mission to Kenya will be organized.
13. On 30 July 2021, Zambia reported that, as previously submitted following the KPMG Malawi Audit report, not all components of value addition could be verified from the report due to the following:
i) Absence of raw material/blend mix to accurately determine actual quantities of raw materials used in the processing of a specific volume of crude oil.
ii) No documentary evidence to verify other operating costs such as water, electricity, spares and consumables and their source.
iii) No documentary evidence to verify labour costs.
In this regard, the value addition criterion as provided for under Rule 2 (1) (b) (ii) of the COMESA Rules of Origin could not be independently determined due to the absence of vital information.The outstanding information should therefore be availed in order to accurately determine the value addition of the oil produced by BIDCO.
14. During the 2nd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia F reported that the 9th session of Kenya – Zambia Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation (JPCC) resolved that Zambia should write to Kenya to request for an appropriate date for another verification visit to resolve the outstanding matter. A letter was done to make the request for another verification visit.
15. During the Kenya National Workshop on development of a National Strategy on Elimination of NTBs held from 5-7 July 2023 it was agreed that the Secretariat to share with Kenya the request from Zambia for additional information which will be relevant as proof for satisfying the value addition origin criterion under the COMESA Rules of Origin. Please find attached the communication from Zambia. Further, the National Focal Point from Zambia, also requested for the additional information using this online system on 30 July 2021.
16. The Kenya and Zambia Focal Points submitted progress reports to the 3rd meeting of the NTB Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 which it was agreed that both countries undertake verification missions between 27th and 30th November 2023. The Secretariat would provide support to Member States to undertake the activity.
17. During an NTBs Workshop 17th – 19th April, 2024 both countries agreed to a market access bilateral meeting as the verification mission has been overtaken by events and the palm oil manufacturer is no long operating.
18. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting which agreed as follows:
i. Kenya is still interested in market access for exports of palm-based oil.
ii. Kenya informed the meeting that there was a need to still consider recommendations and findings of previous verification missions on the basis that the conditions were still the valid hence no need for another verification.
iii. Zambia indicated that verification reports have certain shelf-life after which the conditions and circumstances on the issues under verification may have changed hence the need for a fresh verification.
iv. Both Member States to share documentation, review and make comments in preparation for the next meeting in August 2025.
19. On 2 September 2025, the Secretariat shared documents at its disposal including the KPMG Report on the cooking oil to support the bilateral engagements between the Member States. 		 
Products: 1511.10: Crude palm oil  
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.
18. The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania is implementing SCFEA Directives and is commited to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026 		 
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: 1. 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
2.The 40th RMC was informed that the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Kenya have convened a verification mission to be undertaken by 11th May 2026 to ascertain the origin of the product 		 
NTB-001-330 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-03-11 Mozambique: DGA - Mozambique SARS - South Africa Mozambique In process 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. 		 
Progress: On April 15th, 2026, Mozambique focal point reported that they are working with the relevant authorities to provide a response on this matter. Within 10 days, we will update the information.  
Products: 6310.10: Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted  
NTB-001-333 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2026-02-01 Zambia: Chirundu In process 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-001-152 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-001-358 8.8. Issues related to transit 2026-02-02 South Africa: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member -Flo-Tek has highlighted challenges relating to road transit bonds and cabotage restrictions. The company noted that South African authorities shifted responsibility for road transit bonds from transporters to the importer or owner of the goods. As a result, Flo-Tek is now directly responsible for administering and carrying the liability associated with transit bonds for shipments passing through South Africa. The company argues that this arrangement places an unfair financial and administrative burden on exporters, despite the transporter being in physical control of the cargo during transit. Flo-Tek also raised concerns about South Africa’s cabotage regulations, which prevent Botswana-registered trucks from completing deliveries in situations where the South African entity is the invoice holder or where goods are destined for onward export to neighbouring countries such as Lesotho. Consequently, cargo must be transferred to South African trucks before final delivery, resulting in additional transport arrangements, delays, cargo handling risks, and increased logistics costs. Flo-Tek believes these restrictions are largely protectionist in nature and hinder regional trade integration.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these South Africa undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. 		 
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-001-356 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 2026-04-15 Zimbabwe: Robert Gabriel Mugabe International Airport COMESA In process View
Complaint: Zimbabwe's on line COMESA system has been down since September last year. This has resulted in exporters facing some challenges in producing online COMESA certificates. We did a shipment to Tunisia and had to fill in a new COMESA certificate on a PDF format printed from the computer. This resulted in Tunisian customs rejecting this document claiming that it doesn't have a serial number, therefore its not authentic, even though it was stamped and signed by ZIM customs (ZIMRA). We notified our authorities of the ordeal, and they confirmed that the system was still being rectified. To bail out the situation ZIMRA confirmed that it would contact the Tunisian customs and clarify the prevailing issue currently in Zimbabwe with regards to the on line COMESA certificates. Our market in Tunisia is still facing some clearance problems cause of this incident. We understand that Tunisian customs, wants to resend back the shipment to Zimbabwe at our cost as the shipper. We hereby seek your intervention with regards to this matter. We are dealing with Horticultural fresh and dried produce. Tunisia has proved to be a reliable market, considering the COMESA trade agreements and both countries being member states. We look forward to your earliest response towards in solving our issue. Currently our client is exposed to USD500.00 storage fees per day.  
Products: 0802.90: Nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled (excl. coconuts, Brazil nuts, cashew nuts, almonds, hazelnuts, filberts, walnuts, chestnuts, pistachios, macadamia nuts, kola nuts and areca nuts)  
NTB-001-312 5.10. Prohibitions 2021-12-01 Zimbabwe: Kariba Zambia In process View
Complaint: Republic of Zimbabwe maintains a ban on Eggs entering Zimbabwe from Zambia at all shared borders. Zambia is yet to see any documentation/legislation that supports this measure to date. Considering the spirit of the shared COMESA vision and Oneness, this measure has affected traders who export Eggs into Zim, considering also that this product is on the agreed STR common list.


Selected Commodities: Zimbabwe has reportedly prohibited the importation of the following commodities from Zambia; Eggs, Milkit, Biscuits, Kombucha, Mazoe juice and other beverages and Second-hand clothes.
 
NTB-001-348 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 2025-11-23 Democratic Republic of the Congo: Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM) Uganda In process View
Complaint: The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM), introduced an additional requirement mandating the acquisition of the OGEFREM Certificate. OGEFREM (Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal) is a real DRC agency involved in port/freight management and levies.This measure constitutes a Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB), particularly given that it’s paid for both in Uganda and DRC for the same product; apart from livestock, the fees aren’t standardised, and it’s not clear what value It adds. It constrains cross-border trade and undermines the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) agreement, which promotes free movement of goods and regional integration.
Furthermore, this whole process creates delays and extra costs for cross‑border trade.

Traders have therefore proposed that the requirement to have an OGEFREM certificate be removed, and to the least have the cost of the OGEFREM Certificate be standardized and reduced. They note that small-scale traders are disproportionately affected, as they are often subjected to varying and elevated fees for the certificate, in addition to paying further OGEFREM-related charges that aren’t documented upon entry into the DRC. 		 
Progress: The 40th RMC was informed that DRC will consult on the double payment with the view to resolve the NTB by 30th June 2026  
NTB-001-353 5.14. Restrictive licenses 2026-04-10 Rwanda: Rwanda FDA Kenya In process View
Complaint: wanda FDA is subjecting Kenya products to costly charges for re-testing and registration of the products despite the products being certified by the Kenya bureau of standards with valid standardization mark.
The two products include ace pine fresh and ace citrus fresh liquid toilet cleaners. Rwanda FDA informed that the certifications for the two products had been revoked on the basis that they allegedly contained Nonyl Phenol despite successfully applying for and receiving product registrations from Rwanda FDA under certificates Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0070 and Rwanda FDA‑ADP‑MA‑0072. Further the manufacturer confirmed they not using Nonyl Phenol
  
NTB-000-820 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A12: Geographical restrictions on eligibility
Policy/Regulatory 		2010-12-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Kenya In process View
Complaint: Brookside Dairy Ltd of Kenya, exports of UHT milk are denied entry into Zambia for reasons that, an inspection audit of the source of milk, export facility, milk product and relevant standards in use in Kenya by the Zambian authorities raised sanitary concerns pointing out that Zambia cannot accept milk products from the raw milk that did not meet the Zambian milk standard. The Zambian standard on raw milk for use in production of milk products is a maximum of 200,000 colon forming units (cfu) whereas Kenya legislation allows for a maximum of 2, 000,000 cfu in raw milk used in making UHT milk, which is above the 200,000 cfu allowed in Zambia. Kenya applies the EAC graded standards which allow for a maximum of 2,000,000 cfu and a minimum of 200,000 cfu and below for raw milk.  
Progress: 1. Various bilateral meetings and technical audits have been undertaken between the two countries in an attempt to resolve the NTB. The thirty-Third Meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs Committee held on 15-17 September 2017 recommended that :
i) COMESA should harmonize SPS measures through implementation of the COMESA Green Pass (CGP) to facilitate trade in agricultural products.
ii) Member States should adhere to the NTB resolution time frames set out in the COMESA Regulations on Elimination of NTBs to ensure timely resolution of NTBs and enhance intra-regional trade.
2. In August 2019 Zambia Focal point reported that Zambia and Kenya held a bilateral meeting during the 5th TFTA focal points meeting held in Nairobi in August, 2019 during which Zambia proposed to have the complaint removed from the online platform in view of the fact that the issue was now in the hands of COMESA Secretariat who are expected to facilitate the harmonisation of the SPS standards. However, Kenya was still of the view that the complaint be maintained on the platform. Zambia therefore sought the guidance of COMESA Secretariat whether it is in order to maintain an issue which has been determined to be a legitimate SPS requirement following a recommendation for COMESA Secretariat to facilitate the harmonization SPS standards.
3. On 30 July 2021, COMESA NTB Unit requested Kenya to provide progress on the request to furnish Zambia with testing methods as agreed during the 1st meeting of the COMESA NTB Forum in March, 2021.
4. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 thatBoth countries to undertake verification missions between 27th – 30th November 2023. The Secretariat will provide support to Member States to undertake the activity
5. During the NTBs workshop, 17 – 19 April 2024 in Nairobi both countries agreed on the bilateral meeting for market access to increase trade between the two countries rather than focusing on this product.
6. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting where both Member States agreed that there was a need for a technical review of the documentation (Standards, audit and other reports) that had been prepared towards resolution of the NTB to inform the way forward on the resolution.
i. Kenya and Zambia to provide information on their milk standards for the review by the Technical Committee to prepare a concept note for the next bilateral meeting by August 2025..
ii. Secretariat to share reports and documents that can help with the resolution of the milk NTB including records of initiatives undertaken to resolve the issue in the past by August 2025.
iii. Both Member States to submit names of experts to be members of the Technical Committee to develop a technical brief for consideration by the next bilateral meeting by August 2025.
iv. Technical Working Group to examine the provisions on the conformity requirements in the standards for raw milk and UHT (finished product) and make recommendations to the next bilateral meeting, by September 2025. 		 
NTB-000-818 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2018-05-17 Botswana: Ministry of Transport South Africa In process View
Complaint: Failure to implement Article 5.8 (6.2 Road Traffic Policy) leading to variable treatment of the transport of High Cube containers with height exceeding 4.3 metres.

The transport of High Cube Containers, on “standard” deck height (1.5 metres) vehicles and trailers results in overall height of approximately 4.5 metres.
Botswana: Imposes requirement for abnormal load permits for each load.
South Africa threatens to repeal moratorium on prosecution from 1 Jan 2019
Other countries ignoring “illegal” height, but “illegality” leaves insurance threats to operators.
Zambia (4.8), Zimbabwe 4.65), Malawi (4.6); Tanzania (4.6) have increased legal height to at least 4.6 metres.
Uncertainty in region is causing growing concerns regarding viability of international transport routes amid fears of further enforcement costs and barriers. 		 
Progress: 1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 in Gaborone reported that MCBRTA standards agreed at the TSMCI of 31 October 2029 maximum vehicle height of 4.6m which will resolve this NTBs if South Africa complies with this standard.
2. In December 2025, Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that the MCBRTA Standards and model laws were due to be set before the TFTA Authority in February 2026.
3. During the SADC regional workshop held in April 2026, it was noted that there is need for harmonised regional standards and that there had been no further developments regarding progress under the MCBRTA on this matter.
4. Botswana Focal Points suggested that due to lack of harmonised on standard deck height for vehicle and trailers it is difficult to label this issue an NTB, the reported height average is the same.
5. However the absence of harmonised standards is the NTB in this case. SADC Secretariat to facilitate convening of the relevant organ to consider the matter . 		 
NTB-000-742 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade 		2017-02-20 Uganda: Port Bell Lake port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Verification Agencies (SGS) apply standards that are higher than International accepted standards requiring additional tests and certificates which is of high costs. Additional tests include tests for copper, iron, manganese, lead and coliforms which are expensive tests adding to the costs of doing business. The additional tests last for a week in addition to the export process. The Agency offers Route B or C product registration. Product meant for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are tested once a year Route C is a security factory audit for wine export to the abovementioned countries  
Progress: This matter was brought to the attention of the Uganda Focal Points along the margins of the 23rd EAC NTBs forum on 6 May 2017 . Uganda private sector Focal Point reported that consultations had been initiated with the Ministry of Trade , Industry and cooperatives to try and resolve the matter amicably. They will provide feedback in due course .  
NTB-001-108 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B9: TBT Measures n.e.s. 		2023-05-02 Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: A South African Exporter has reported that the Kenyan authorities have issued notification on new requirements for exporters and importers to record all trademarks in aid to protect intellectual properties and prevent importation of counterfeit goods into Kenya under the Anti-Counterfeit Act, No. 13 of 2008. This requirement, while it is , has cost implications to the Wine industry of South Africa who have to incur additional costs to enforce it. Further, it is not clear how it will work in practice or how it will be managed especially that applications are done on line and that the registration has 1 year validity, after which it has to be renewed annually.The cost to record is estimated at USD25 000 for the Brands exported to Kenya. The exporters also have the same products analyzed by ISO 17025 labs and pay USD265 per container to confirm full compliance.

The Exporter is of the view that whenever products are to be exported, are certified by SGS as to who the proprietors of the products are. The annual required registration would result in increased cost of the products. 		 
1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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