| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-200 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-07-16 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets.
Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702.
However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible.
On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse.
As of today, the import license has still not been secured. |
|
|
NTB-001-243 |
2.4. Import licensing
Policy/Regulatory |
2025-04-16 |
Kenya: Busia |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya charges a discriminatory excise duty of 10% on fish transferred from Uganda, but does not charge excise duty on fish in Kenya. This means fish transferred from Uganda is being treated as an import, which is against the CUP. Kenya also charges an additional 5% levy on fish. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The Republic of Uganda submitted that the Law refers to imported Fish, but Kenya is charging Uganda for transfers. During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that there are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the next financial year. |
|
|
NTB-001-293 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2025-10-12 |
Botswana: Ministry of Lands and Agriculture |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our company is unable to be productive in our business due to shortage of chick supply in the market, caused by delays by the Government (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture) to approve us to import chicks and fertilized eggs for broiler farming. |
|
|
NTB-000-985 |
1.8. Import bans |
2020-10-12 |
South Africa: Grobler's Bridge |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certified organic honey that is American Foulbrood Disease (AFB)free, complete with Certificate of Analysis from accredited lab Intertek in Germany (accredited by the German National Accreditation body DAkkS - national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany) they are also ISO/IEC 17025 certified and they do engage in proficiency testing) has been banned from entering SA unless irradiated.
2015 bilateral agreement allowed Zambian honey into SA without irradiating due to there being no AFB in Zambia.
SA claims that their ARC lab has tested samples from Forest Fruits and others and found them to be positive for AFB. The ARC lab has always produced inconsistent results and they cannot replicate the results. Sometimes positive and after a retest it is negative. ARC lab is not even SANAS accredited, has no ISO certification and does not engage in proficiency testing for AFB tests. On 23 October 2020 at a round table meeting of SA honey importers and various DAFF departments - meeting called by DAFF NPPO, it was clearly stated and admitted that ARC has performance "gaps".
DAFF scientists have to make decisions based on faulty science and results. The Intertek results consistently come back as negative for AFB disease. The result is in Non Compliance notices being sent to Zambia for samples that get retested and are negative!
As recent as last year, Zambia Veterinary Services did a national survey and found no AFB disease in Zambia.
SA DAFF NPPO is creating haphazard barriers to Zambian honey.
All Zambian exports are now affected.
Since 2015 a considerable amount of business with South African companies has developed in Zambia exporting honey to them. This ban affects the livelihoods of over 140,000 subsistence villagers. |
|
|
NTB-001-197 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-09-11 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) suspended the transfer of soft drinks and beer from other countries, citing that only products from nations with bilateral agreements will be accepted. This suspension directly contravenes the spirit of the East African Community (EAC) and its commitment to fostering free trade and economic cooperation among Partner States.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that limits acceptance of products to those from countries with bilateral agreements undermines the EAC's principles of regional integration and free movement of goods. It creates unnecessary trade barriers and hinders the seamless exchange of goods between EAC Partner States, which is fundamental to the EAC Customs Union's objectives.
Addressing this issue is critical to ensuring that all EAC partner States can trade without restrictions and continue to benefit from the shared economic goals outlined in the EAC Treaty. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.
The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
2.Democratic Republic of Congo informed the meeting that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries which were dying as a result of transfers from Partner States. The meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, Democratic Republic of Congo had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to Democratic Republic of Congo factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a member of EAC, and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on soft drinks and beer from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 51).
3.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed.
The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-199 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-06-20 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has instituted a suspension on the transfer of grey cement and clinkers to its Western and Eastern regions. This action raises concerns as it disrupts trade flows and hinders the movement of these essential construction materials within the region.
Such a suspension could have broader implications for trade and economic cooperation within the region, affecting both producers and consumers. The measure may also contravene regional trade agreements aimed at facilitating the free movement of goods, as outlined in the East African Community (EAC) protocols, and could undermine the spirit of regional integration.
A review of this suspension is essential to ensure the continued trade of critical materials and to uphold the principles of regional cooperation.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
1. DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States. The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19.
2.The meeting observed that when the Democratic Republic of Congo joined the Community a roadmap was developed to help the Democratic Republic of Congo to be integrated into EAC Projects and Programmes. Democratic Republic of Congo should commence implementation of the roadmap and comply with EAC Laws, among others, the Customs Union Protocol to allow free movement of goods. The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged Democratic Republic of Congo to lift the ban on cement and clinker from the EAC Partner States as it contravenes the EAC Treaty and report to the 46th Sectoral Council for Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 52).
2.During the RMC, DRC submitted that the temporary measure had been removed.
The meeting noted that the NTB was imposed through a Ministerial order and hence agreed that DRC should submit evidence of removal of the temporary measure through the same means to resolve the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-023 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-07-26 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: The DRC government. Ministry of Transport |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The DRC has just published legislation prohibiting foreign vehicles from loading mining products and to remove (export) them from the DRC. The unofficial translation of the new DRC amendment:Article 4-It is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo to load goods, in this case mining products from the national territory; In the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk.
According to an unofficial translation of article four of the amendment affecting the DRC's road freight sector, "it is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the DRC to load goods, in this case mining products, from the national territory”.
The article continues, saying "in the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk”. The decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on exports out of the DRC's Copperbelt region, with some transporters going so far as to say that it's wholly impractical and a protectionist strategy that is bound to boomerang against the government in Kinshasa. |
|
|
NTB-001-291 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2025-01-01 |
South Sudan: South Sudan Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Double Taxation: Traders are required to pay taxes in both USD at the point of loading and South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) at the entry point. This is contrary to WTO/International Chamber of commerce global trade facilitation norms and other incoterms. It is untenable to calculate taxes using two different currencies. |
|
|
NTB-001-225 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2024-12-28 |
Kenya: Malaba |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Kenyan government has violated the East African Community trade agreement and has begun to impose consumption taxes on products from other East African Community countries. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the 46TH SCTIFI Kenya reported that There are ongoing consultations to resolve this issue in the financial year 2025/26 |
|
|
NTB-001-217 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-09-24 |
Tanzania: Kabanga |
Burundi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Free Pratique in the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009
Definition: "free pratique" means permission for a ship or an aircraft to enter a port embark or disembark, discharge or load cargo or stores;
When is it granted:
Section 40 (3) Where the Port Health Officer is satisfied that: -
(a) a communicable or infectious disease is not on board;
(b) The Responses on the Maritime Declaration of Health Form are negative:
(c) the Ship Sanitation Control Certificate or Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate is valid; and
(d) there is no other reason for the ship to be further inspected he shall grant a certificate for free pratique and allow the ship to enter the port as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Act,
Section 43. Except in the case of danger, the Master of a vessel arriving at any port or place in the country and a person on board the vessel, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with the shore or any other vessel, other than by signal, until a certificate for free pratique has been granted to that vessel in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any other relevant laws.
When is it applied:
Section 46. The Port Health Officer may, upon arrival of-
(a) any vessel, train, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing from infected area or suspected to be from that infected area; or
(b) any vessel, aircraft, vehicle, train or any other article or thing which has during the voyage been in transit in an infected area with plague, cholera, yellow fever or any other communicable or infectious disease, order the implementation of the measures to deal with that vessel, vehicle, train, aircraft or any other article or thing in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
The United Republic of Tanzania requested time to undertake consultations on the matter and report the progress by 28th February 2025.
The Sectoral Council on Trade, Industry, Finance and Investment urged the United Republic of Tanzania to remove the charges related to free pratique as it impedes trade in goods and services and increases the cost of doing business in the Region and report progress by 28th February 2025 (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 49).
2. Tanzania through the Ministry of Health undertook a consultative meeting and agreed to consider the matter during the financial year 2025/26 |
|
|
NTB-001-226 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-11-20 |
Lesotho: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Samples being sent by road-freight to South Africa for testing at an accredited laboratory were refused passage.
Company was informed that the only way to send the samples for testing was to send via air. The challenges are that bulk orders do not fit on an Airlink flight and therefore would require a specific mode of chartered transport .This increases costs significantly and could potentially be the cause that orders are cancelled |
|
|
NTB-000-957 |
5.8. Embargoes |
2020-05-13 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Clause 16 of the Government Gazette Notice No. 3530, ban the Bounded Houses where goods are stored until cleared on duties.
With reference to our discussion earlier on the Gazette by Kenya Government for cessation of warehousing of goods including wine.
The timing of the gazette could not have come at a more terrible time. As we all know Covid 19 has had a crippling effect on business globally and economies especially Tourism in Kenya. With the current closure of all camps, lodges, hotels, restaurants pubs and eateries, importers have seen a huge dip in sales of wine as the whole food and beverage industry has been shut down. With no end in sight on the pandemic, this puts added pressure on importers to pay for goods upfront when they simply do not have the cash at the moment. Kenya has also set specific rules on minimum duty payable - so for a 20ft container that is 3 million shillings or $30000.So if an importer is bringing in multiple containers monthly as most importers do , the cash flow required it just simply not feasible because they are operating on very low revenue at the moment.
I think what importers and exporters seek is clarity on this gazette, what was the rationale and was there industry consulted?
Does this mean come mid- August, all goods must be duty paid and are goods imported now can still go on bond and what happens to goods that are all currently in bond.
I also would like to bring to your attention the following implication for South African wine exported to Kenya.
1. Cashflow challenges for traders with upfront payment
2. Unfavourable trade terms which will impact on trade relations.
3. Delays in delivery of products due to readiness of the Custom Officials of efficiently enforcing the new rule without glitches.
4. Cross Border of illicit products
I therefore request your intervention in tabling these concerns and proposal for exemption of South African wine from the rule
|
|
|
Products:
|
2204: Wine of fresh grapes, including fortified wines; grape must other than that of heading 20.09. |
|
|
NTB-001-014 |
1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-03-17 |
South Africa: Rhodes Quality, Cape Town |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a freight logistics company based in Gaborone, Botswana(100% citizen). During registration on supplies portals in South Africa they require us (Foreign freight logistics companies without branches in South Africa ) to be BBBEE compliant despite we providing them with all company documents verifying that we are foreign based with Head Offices out of South Africa borders. Because of the nature of our business which compels us to conduct cross border transportation, South African supplies would immediately inform us we can't do business with them on the basis of non - compliant on BBBEE requirements. Arrangement in place promotes South African transporters to do cross border and prohibits foreign transporters to haul commodities back to country of operation. Please note we are not issued with any documents as a dispensation on our Head offices out of South African borders.
Kindly assist in the best possible way. |
|
|
NTB-001-110 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-07-01 |
|
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
United Republic of Tanzania subject a discriminatory treatment to Kenyan export/transfer on products of animal and animal products despite their commitment in the bilateral meeting to amend the Act to resolve the discriminatory charges on the Kenya animal and animal products by June 2022.
Tanzania charges descriminatory meat products an import fees of Tshs 3,000 per kilogram (Kg) for imports consignment. The fees is contained in the animal diseases (animals and animal products movement control) .(amendment) regulations, 2022 of the United Republic of Tanzania that came into operation on 1st July 2022. These charges have rendered Kenyan exports especially milk and milk products, meat and meat products including sausages uncompetitive in the Tanzanian market while Kenya facilitates Tanzania meat and meat products sausages into Kenya without any discrimination.
These charges contravene the GATT 1994 Art III on National Treatment, Articles 1 and 75 (6) of the Treaty as well as Articles 1 (1) (definition of imports) and 15 (1) (a) and (2) (National Treatment) of the Customs Union Protocol and Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol of the Community Laws.
The charges are also in violation of Article 10 of the Custom Union Protocol that obligates Partner States to remove all internal tariffs and other charges of equivalent effect.
Kenya urges:-
a)Tanzania to abolish these prohibitive discriminatory charges and treat our animal and animal products as from the local market and accord same rate as their own without discriminating not to call it import as import is from outside EAC.
b) URT to abolish the discriminatory charges as per the customs union protocol.
d) URT to treat Kenya meat and meat products as local and not as an import.
C)URT to stop restricting the quantities to be imported/transfered by the Kenya companies.
In addition URT charges xthe following discriminative charges:
1) URT charges import fee of 2% FOB by Tanzania Meat Board
2) 0.4% on FOB by Tanzania Atomic Energy
3) 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measure Agency
Kenya request URT to consider abolishing the discriminatory charges which are equivalent import duty prohibited in the EAC Protocal.
On the contrary Kenya facilitates Tanzania sausages without any charge.
This is really unfair practices where URT is charging import charges to Kenya products despite Kenya being in the EAC Customs union where we transfer products and not import |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Kenya recognized the effort made by URT in reducing the fee from 5,000 Tshs to 3,000 Tshs per kg of meat. The Republic of Kenya indicated that the fee is still very high, discriminative, and amounts to import duty. The Kenyan companies exporting meat products to URT have been negatively affected by a sharp decline in the volume of meat products exported to URT, since the imposition of these charges. A consignment of 25,000 kgs exported from Kenya to URT is charged Kshs 3,750,000. In addition, it is charged an import fee of 2% FOB by the Tanzania Meat Board, 0.4% FOB by the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, and 0.2% FOB by Weight and Measures Agency. A similar consignment exported to Kenya from URT is charged Kshs 3,000. Thus, Kenya proposes that the two Partner States engage and harmonize these regulations to either charge per kg or per consignment.
Tanzania Meat Board had also denied market access to beef products imported from Kenya and thus Kenya urges URT to address this matter.
2. The 34th RMC noted that the NTB was new. URT reported that they would consult the relevant stakeholders and revert during the 35th RMC
3.During the 36th RMC Kenya reported that the NTB was considered during a bilateral meeting between Republic of Kenya & the United Republic of Tanzania whereby the two Partner States agreed to harmonization of all conditions, levies, fees and charges related to import / exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024
4. During the 38th RMC meeting, Kenya agreed to send a formal invitation to URT for the Bilateral Meeting.
The two Partner States held their meeting in July 2025. An update shall be provided during the RMC |
|
|
NTB-001-070 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2022-06-30 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT charging Kenya an import discriminatory Excise Duty introduced vide URT Finance Act 2022. Additionally, some consignments are discriminatively subjected to Tsh.1000/kg not anywhere in the URT Finance Act 2022. The same excise duty is not applicable to the same or like products produced in URT hence creating unfair competition between the Partners States Originating products.
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States.
Section 2 of the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 defines import as to bring or cause to be brought into the Partner States from a foreign country, and export as to take or cause to be taken out of Partner States. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Treaty for Establishment of East African Community, EAC Community Laws take precedence over similar national laws on matters pertaining to the implementation of the Treaty |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the Regional NTBs Forum,URT informed the meeting that the complaint is not an NTB but a charge of equivalent effect which is like what is in the Kenya’s Finance Act of 2022. This is a result of non-harmonization of domestic taxes in the Region. The Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that the Kenya Finance Act is not discriminatory and hence the Charge on Confectionary Sugar by URT is an NTB and should be resolved by abolishing the discriminative fees. The Trade Committee meeting recommends that the process of harmonizing the fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. During the 41st SCTIFI meeting Kenya observed that confectionary products from Kenya should not be treated differently from confectionery products produced in Tanzania. At the 41st SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya observed that NTB-001-070: “URT discriminatory charges of import TSh.700 and unfounded charges of Tsh.1000 to Kenya confectionary, sugar and sugar products.” The EAC TBP submissions has referred to the excise duty as fees and subsequently recommended the process of harmonizing the Fees, levies and charges should be fast tracked. Kenya’s submission is that the description of the charges as fees is erroneous. The charge is an excise duty as contained in the United Republic of Tanzania Finance Act of 2022 and the custom entry presented as evidence. This measure is therefore disciplined under Article 15 of the Protocol establishing the EAC Custom Union and not subject to the process of harmonization of fees, levies and charges. The excise duty discriminates transfers of confectionary, sugar and sugar products from Kenya which are levied Tshs 700 per kilogram against locally produced like-products which are levied Tshs 500 per kilogram. This measure is a violation of Article 15 on National Treatment which prohibits Partner States from imposing, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Partner States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products In addition, in the custom entry presented as evidence, the Kenya exporter has been charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya therefore requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
2. During the 42nd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya informed the meeting that Kenya exporters were charged an excise duty of Tshs 1,000 per kilogram which is not justified by the existing Tanzania excise law (Tshs 700). Kenya, therefore, requested the United Republic of Tanzania to accord Kenyan transfers of confectionaries and sugar products the same treatment as accorded to similar domestic products at Tshs. 500.
The United Republic of Tanzania informed the meeting that there was an error in the Law that had since been reviewed through a Government Notice number 478(1) of 4th July 2022. The meeting noted that in the reviewed Law, locals are charged NIL while exports are charged 1,000 Tshs. URT to consult on the application of the new law and revert.
3.During the 35th RMC URT informed that the NTB will be resolved in accordance with the SCTIFI Directive on harmonization of domestic taxes, especially excise duties.
On the other hand, Kenya informed as follows:
(a) Goods produced within the EAC should be considered local and therefore, not treated as imports.
(b) Partner States align their internal Acts to define imports and exports in accordance with EAC CMP
4.The 36th RMC that took place from 1st - 4th May 2024 was informed that the NTB is being addressed under the Bilateral engagements where the two Partner States agreed to the harmonisation of all discriminatory taxes, conditions, levies, fees, and charges related to imports/exports for holistic consideration by 30th June 2024. |
|
|
NTB-001-279 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-05-19 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Dairy Board |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania Dairy Board discriminatively charging 1.75% F.O.B value of on Kenya dairy produce on Pasteurized whole
Milk, Skimmed, Condensed, Yoghurt, ice cream and Powdered milk.
TDB is violating the Article 15 of the EAC Custom Union Protocol on national treatment. Same treatment as Tanzanian products in terms of charges. |
|
|
NTB-001-281 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-08 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory Excise Duty on exports/Transfers that hinders Chocolate export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to chocolate manufactured in Tanzania |
|
|
NTB-001-282 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-05-13 |
Tanzania: Dar es salaam City Council |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of multiple road toll charges at the border, Dar Esalaam City Council on exports/Transfers that hinders ice cream, Chocolate etc exported from Kenya into Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-001-283 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-07 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory EXCISE DUTY OF TZS 400/KG on exports/Transfers that hinders ON SAFETY MATCHES export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to SAFETY MATCHES manufactured in Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-001-284 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-01 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Tanzania government imposed a 10% excise duty on soap detergents transferred/exported by Kenya into Tanzania, violating the principles of the EAC Protocal article 15 & 75 and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Tanzania producers of whom do not pay the 10% excise duties, further distorting the market.
3401.11.00 Soap and
detergents 10%
3401.19.00 Soap and
detergents 10%
3402.50.00 Soap and
detergents 10%
3402.90.00 Soap and
detergents 10% |
|
English
Français
