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-001-366 2026-01-08 Ethiopia: Ethiopia New View
Complaint: Imported tyres are subject to duplicated conformity assessment at destination, despite having undergone identical testing procedures in the country of origin. The absence of recognition of prior test results leads to unnecessary duplication and additional testing cost.  
NTB-001-367 2026-02-02 Djibouti: Djibouti sea port Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The importer experienced significant challenges during the customs clearance process at the Port of Djibouti. Upon arrival of the shipments (both containerized cargo and vehicles), they were informed of multiple documentation-request by customs authorities. These issues included minor discrepancies such as spelling errors in the Bill of Lading, as well as requirements to provide additional supporting documents that had not been communicated to them prior to the arrival of the cargo.
Importantly, these documentation requirement were not raised in advance, which prevented them from making the necessary corrections before the shipment has reached to the port. As a result, they were required to repeatedly amend and resubmit documents under a time pressure leading to delays in the clearance process.
Due to these combined challenges, the cargo remained at the port beyond the allowed free storage period. Consequently, the importers has incurred significant unplanned costs, including demurrage charges and other related port fees. 		 
NTB-001-368 2026-03-06 Djibouti: Galafi Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: The movement of goods through the Galafi border corridor is significantly constrained by poor road infrastructure between Ethiopian border and Djibouti, particularly around the Dikil town corridor, which stretches approximately 80 kilometers. Traders and transporters said that traveling within this route can take up to 19 hours for a relatively short distance compared to the same distance takes 4 hours in normal road infrastructure, mainly due to the poor condition of the road.
The prolonged travel time has several direct and indirect impacts on traders. First, delays in transportation often result in late arrival at the border post, which in turn leads to additional costs such as extended storage/container fees, and missed clearance schedules. These delays also significantly affect perishable goods, including agricultural products and livestock trade. Traders indicated that animals transported along this route sometimes suffer from stress, illness, or death due to the long and difficult journey, resulting in financial losses.
Another major concern is the health and safety of drivers. Spending nearly a full day to cover only 80 km exposes drivers to extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and limited access to medical or emergency services along the route. The difficult road conditions also increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and mechanical failures.
In cases of vehicle breakdown or accidents, transporters face additional burdens such as expensive car towing services, which further increase operational costs. Moreover, traders highlighted that insurance coverage for goods in transit is either unavailable or extremely expensive for this route. Because of the high risk associated with the road condition, many transporters are unable to afford insurance, leaving them financially vulnerable in the event of accidents, cargo or container damage, or loss.
Traders also emphasized that these challenges persist despite the existence of an alternative road that has already been constructed but is not yet operational. If this alternative route were opened and fully functional, it could significantly reduce travel time, lower transport costs, improve driver safety, and minimize losses related to perishable goods and livestock.
Overall, the poor infrastructure along the Galafi–Dikil corridor represents a substantial non-tariff barrier to trade, creating delays, increasing costs, and exposing traders and transporters to significant financial and safety risks. 		 
NTB-001-369 2026-02-16 Kenya: Ethiopia In process View
Complaint: Under the East African Community (EAC) Vehicle Load Control Act, 2016, Kenya applies permissible maximum axle load limit of 28-ton along the Moyale–Nairobi (A2) corridor. In contrast, Ethiopian trucks are permitted to carry loads of up to 40 tons up to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP). Due to this regulatory mismatch, Ethiopian trucks cannot proceed further into Kenya and must offload their cargo at the border.

This process is further delayed by the limited availability of Kenyan trucks to take over the cargo, as well as a shortage of warehouse facilities at the border, which forces vehicles to wait longer with their goods. Conversely, Kenyan trucks are generally able to transport goods into Ethiopia without similar restrictions. 		 
NTB-000-781 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2015-11-19 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road) Eswatini In process View
Complaint: An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar.  
Progress: 1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward.

2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible..

3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously. 		 
NTB-001-264 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-05-24 Zimbabwe: Beitbridge Eswatini In process View
Complaint: Four (4) trucks with sugar to be delivered in Zimbabwe, was not able to enter because of a 30% surtax that had been introduced while the consignment was en route from Eswatini to Zimbabwe. Given this had come into effect after the dispatch, the consignment was not given a waiver.  
Progress: 1. On 3rd June 2025, The SADC NTB Unit advised that the NTB had been submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers of Trade meeting taking place in Harare. The outcome Ministers' meeting would provide further guidance on how to proceed .
2.The 34th CMT meeting held in June 2025 , CMT noted that the Senior Officials received a report by Eswatini, indicating that her exports of sugar and other products such as steel and cement to Zimbabwe are facing a surcharge of 30% since 15 May 2025. Eswatini indicated that the measure is against the SADC Protocol on Trade and requested Zimbabwe to remove the surcharge. The Committee of Ministers of Trade directed Zimbabwe and Eswatini to have bilateral engagement on the surcharge 		 
Products: 1701.13: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter, obtained without centrifugation, with sucrose content 69° to 93°, containing only natural anhedral microcrystals (see subheading note 2.) and 1701.14: Raw cane sugar, in solid form, not containing added flavouring or colouring matter (excl. cane sugar of 1701 13)  
NTB-001-295 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-10-20 Uganda: Malaba Eswatini In process View
Complaint: We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty  
Progress: 1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter.  
NTB-001-092 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2022-12-01 Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: Egypt has received a complaint from one of our exporters who also intends to invest in Uganda and establish a manufacturing plant of the products ( processed food products ) he is currently exporting to Uganda and the importing company is “ Afromarket King – Imports &Exports LTD” . The complaint is concerned with the imposition of high taxes and duties , in addition to top ups on exported goods by Egypt of processed food in specific the following HS codes including :
200990 210330
210320 210390
210390 210320
210690 210390

The incident of imposing high tax , duty values and top ups has been repeated on two separate occasions:

1- On Entry no. C116891: (latest incident )

A consignment of foodstuff (Ketchup and BBQ sauce HS codes : 2103200010; 2103900090) of a value of USD 5672.64 (five thousand six hundred seventy two dollars and sixty four cents ) was subjected to very high values of tax and duty of UGX 25,979,379 which was paid on 1/12/2022. However, before the goods were released a top up of UGX 18,508,223,57 was imposed ( still not paid ) .
This shipment has not enjoyed the COMESA preferential rates , despite the fact it is accompanied by a COMESA certificate .

2- ON ENTRY NUMBER C58313 AND C58340 : (earlier incident)
The first assessment for both the entries was for C 58313 amounting to 14,351,118 with a delivery terms F.O.B and C 58340 amounting to 9,272,169shs with a delivery term CIF , that is a total of 23,623,287shs. Despite the amount was too much the importing company paid off the tax( paid on 18/6/2022, it was also noted to him that this high valuation was a mistake made by the clearing agent according to the officer. It is worth mentioning that the total value of goods in both entries was USD 3982 (three thousand and nine hundred eighty two US dollars).

After clearing all dues, a top up of 38,755,713shs was imposed, delaying the release of the goods. Yet, the importing company paid the top up amount to release the goods on 2/7/2022.
The reasons given at the time for the top up:
i. Alternative values had to be used as the primary method of determining the customs value of imported goods.
ii. As stated by the officer, “the information availed to customs shows that we are first-time importer of the assorted goods from Egypt. The sales contract No: UG-001 of 10/03/2022 indicates payment terms of 60days from Bill of Lading date. They wondered how the supplier can allow such terms to a first time buyer without a letter of credit or a bank guarantee”. It is worth mentioning that the importing company has a manufacturing all these food stuff in Egypt.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the importer submitted a COMESA certificate to qualify for the COMESA rates he was informed that goods don’t qualify for COMESA since they are sensitive products being manufactured by the local communities.
Having reviewed the Circulation of Uganda’s current Sensitive List to COMESA Member STATES(attached), it is evident that none of those products are in the sensitive list except for nectar juices (HS code 200990) which are subject to the EAC common external tariff of 35%.

It is worth mentioning that on the two occasions of the above mentioned cases “ Afromarket King – Imports &Exports LTD” made an Appeal to the Assistant Commissioner Trade , Uganda Revenue Authority , Head Office. Yet, no reply was received to date.
In light of the above , Egypt respectfully requests that the Ministry of Trade ,Industry &Cooperatives acting as the Focal point of Uganda looks into the reasons of imposing such high taxes and duties in addition to top ups , in coordination with Uganda Revenue Authority . The imposition of such high taxes , duties and top ups have the effect of discouraging new Egyptian exporters and investors from accessing Uganda’s market.
Egypt is looking forward to the explanation and clarifications of the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Cooperatives , as soon as possible, with respect to the taxes , duties and top ups noting that the first case consignment Entry no. C116891 (latest incident ) is not released yet and pending the payment of the top-up which is unjustifiable in Egypt's view .

 
Progress: 1. During the consultations held during the 12th TWG on TBT-SPS- NTBs , Uganda and Egypt Focal Points agreed to organise a bilateral consultative meeting between the Focal Points , Revenue Authorities and affected companies on Tuesday 24th Januray 2023
2. A bilateral meeting between the two countries was held on 1st Feb. 2023 where it was observed that Uganda Revenue Revenue Authority had not granted preferential treatment to the goods in accordance with COMESA rules
and therefore charged the high duties . In that regard, the meeting agreed, among other things, that Uganda provides the sensitive list of products exempted from receiving preferential treatment by 3rd Feb. 2023 to establish if the affected products were on the sensitive list of products or not. Subsequently, the Secretariat uploaded onto the online system the following documents forwarded by Uganda to the Secretary General:
a. EAC CET 2017
b. Finance Act 2014 and
c. Uganda Finance Bill 2016
3. The Secretariat convened a stakeholders bilateral consultative meeting to take place on 22 August 2023. However the meeting could not take place because stakeholders from Uganda were not available.
4. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , it was agreed that this NTB will be considered resolved subject to Uganda providing evidence in the online platform of the following : .
i. The sensitive list has been revised and goods from Egypt are granted COMESA preferencies ;
ii. URA is applying valuation for the goods in according to the WTO rules;
iii. The process to refund duties and other charges has commenced and the client was officially notified accordingly; and
iv. Uganda to share the revised sensitive list and also evidence on communication to client.
5. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024 in Nairobi, it was agreed that Uganda to upload sensitive list of products by 30th April 2024. Further, Uganda is requested to inform Egypt whether or not the refund to the Egyptian exporter has been paid by 30th April 2024.
6. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, the following updates were received:
i. Egypt requested Uganda to provide an update regarding the refund to the importer, however Uganda did not provide an update at the time.
ii. With regards to the updated Sensitive List, the Secretariat sent Uganda a reminder email to submit the updated list as per the decision by the 45th Meeting of the Council of Ministers. 		 
NTB-000-970 2.4. Import licensing 2020-07-01 Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture Egypt In process View
Complaint: We want to import 100% Egyptian Made wheat flour in Zambia, but we are not given permission to import. We have placed several requested to allow us to import, but there are no responses to our application and no reply to our emails. Kindly please Help us. I need a confirmed and authorized approval from Zambian authority to allow us to import wheat flour. Some people say just bring it and have the correct comesa certificate of origin and submit at the time of customs clearance, but thats a gamble, our goods worth more than 200000$ we cannot take risk. I want to import only after having a clear official approval.  
Progress: 1. On 25 March 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that this issue is currently being resolved. Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to resolve via import parity is underway.
2. On 30 July 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the exporter was advised to visit the Zambia Trade Information Portal for details on the export of wheat to Zambia using the following link:
https://www.zambiatradeportal.gov.zm/index.php?r=tradeInfo/view&id=7439 .Further information from can also be obtained from the Director, Agribusiness and Marketing department on +0211 250417. The email address is as follows: yoanness18@yahoo.co.uk or peter.zulu2@gmail.com.
2. On 6 September 2023, Egypt Focal Point reported that they tried to communicate with the contacts provided by Zambia focal point, and as per the feedback of the concerned exporter. However, " NO emails are responded to. The Ministry of Agriculture, say it's not allowed to import wheat flour."
3. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023agreed that the two countries should conduct a bilateral meeting to review the matter by 30th November. Consultations between the Focal Points and NMC to continue using the online system and that Zambia to provide feedback regarding the ban of wheat imports in the online .
4. During the NTBs workshop 17 -19 April 2024, Egypt NFP reported that they were willing to hold a bilateral meeting with Zambia MNC in case Zambia NFP did not upload the national authority decree No. 24 of the year 2024 by end of April 2024.
5. During a virtual bilateral meeting between the two Member States held on 24th September 2024, it was agreed that in the immediate term, Zambia to conduct consultative meetings to ascertain the possibility of having the ban lifted or have the wheat import window extended in accordance with the Control of Goods Order of 2009.
6. On 6 January 2025, Egypt wrote to the Secretary General to advise that the Egyptian wheat exporter is still experiencing the same problem even after the validity of the SI of 24 April 2024 had expired on 30 August 2024. They request Zmbia Focal Point to make follow up and facilitate Egypt exportation of wheta flour into Zambia.
7. During a bilateral meeting held on the 4th June 2025, the two Member States received the following updates:
i. Zambia informed the meeting that the ban had been lifted temporarily.
ii. Exporter from Egypt reported challenges in completing online registration of their company in the ZRA ASYCUDA System.
iii. Zambia to continue, in the immediate term, to conduct consultation with the relevant Ministry on the issue of the timelines to have the prohibition lifted or possible extension by October 2025.
iv. Zambia will, in the long term, consider a comprehensive review of the measure, which was initially imposed to protect infant industry, to assess its justification and subsequently communicate the outcomes to Egypt in due course by 1st quarter 2026.
v. Egypt to share the wheat imports statistics from the affected companies as evidence that they are utilizing the open window period to inform Zambia’s consultation with the relevant Ministry on the impact of the measure by October 2025. 		 
NTB-001-129 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-07-01 Kenya: Kenyan Government Egypt In process View
Complaint: Complain from Eagle Chemicals - Egypt
Subject: Excise duty on imports cancelling the effect of COMESA agreement

TARRIFF BARRIERS UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT (EXCISE DUTY TAX IN KENYA AS A BARRIER)

COMESA AGREEMENT:
Republic of Kenya and Egypt are signatories to COMESA AGREEMENT on removal of tariff (tax) barriers towards FREE TRADE between themselves and among the signatory member countries.
Since the establishment the COMESA AGREEMENT several years ago, the Republic of Kenya and Egypt have enjoyed this free trade environment and trade between the two countries has grown by leaps and bounds (UNTIL JULY 2021)
KENYA----FINANCE ACT 2021----IMPOSITION 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX (TARRIFF BARRIER)
In July 2021 and for the first time ever since signing of COMESA AGREEMENT, the Kenya Government imposed unilaterally and without consultation with COMESA Secretariat or with the Republic of Egypt a 10% Excise Duty (tariff Barrier) on Resins manufactured and exported from Egypt and / imported into Kenya.
This was an act in bad faith noting the mutual relationship between Egypt and Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---FINANCE ACT 2023----IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 10% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS (TARRIFF BARRIER).
In July 2023, the Kenya Government introduced an additional 10% Excise Duty Tax on resins imported from Egypt bringing total Excise Duty Tax to 20% and this again without consultation with COMESA Secretariat and neither / nor a humble advance notification to Republic of Egypt as a sign of good faith under the mutual COMESA AGREEMENT

KENYA---THE 20% EXCISE DUTY TAX ON RESINS--- PURPORTED PURPOSE
This tax is applying only on all imported resins (from COMESA and from Non-COMESA countries) BUT is not applied on locally manufactured resins.
Consequently, and from a COMESA perspective, this Excise Duty Tax is an IMPORT DUTY TAX camouflaged as a local excise duty tax hidden behind the purported protection of one local commercial resin manufacturer (SYNRESINS) whose capacity is below 15% of Kenya market resin usage / requirement.

AGGRAVATED BAD FAITH AGAINST MUTUAL TRADE AGREEMENT UNDER COMESA.
The above developments are acts in bad Faith by Kenya Government against a friendly free trade partner (Egypt) under the COMESA AGREEMENT.

Please note no other country / signatory to the COMESA AGREEMENT has imposed an excise duty tax on resins from Egypt.

IMPORT DUTY TAX ON RESINS ARE AND REMAIN AT NIL IMPORT DUTY TARRIFF TODATE UNDER COMESA AGREEMENT ON TARRIF BARRIERS TOWARDS FREE TRADE.
Please note IMPORT DUTY TAX on resins from Egypt to Kenya remain at NIL % import duty and is at NIL on imports by other COMESA countries.
Import duty on resins into Kenya from NON-COMESA COUNTRIES is and has always been at 10% since inception of COMESA AGREEMENT

REQUEST
Republic of Egypt has obligation to protect their manufacturers of resins who export to Kenya under COMESA AGREEMENT against such unjustified TARRIFF TAX BARRIERS imposed by Republic of Kenya by requesting their removal for benefit of mutual trade growth both ways.

(Refer Attachments)

  
Progress: 1. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Regional Forum , Kenya Focal point reported that they had contacted relevant authority and will provide feedback in the online system . Egypt requested that the bilateral meeting to consider this and other NTBs be schedule at the time Kenya would have completed their internal consultations .
2.Following the 3rd Regional COMESA NTB meeting and the 8th Meeting of Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee, Kenya was requested to provide feed back on NTB-001-129 on excise applied to products, 3905.19: Homopolymers 3903.20: Emulsion - Styrene Acrylic3905.91: Emulsion VAM 3907.50: Alkyd and3907.91: Unsaturated Polyester , It was proposed that Kenya and Egypt to hold a bilateral Meeting virtual with support of the Secretariat on 10th November 2023.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution. Kenya to update the status report on outstanding NTBs with Egypt on the online reporting system by 26th April 2024.
4. On 18 June 2024, Kenya Focal Point reported that the Kenyan parliament was reviewing the Finance Bill 2024, with the intention of revising certain clauses as deemed necessary. Consequently, they were awaiting the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024 to determine whether there will be amendments to the specified non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
5. On 9 September 2024, Egypt and Kenya held a bilateral meeting on the outstanding NTBs emanating from the enactment of Kenya’s Finance Acts of 2021 and 2023. The two Member States agreed on the following:
a) The additional taxes are NTBs as its application is discriminatory as they only apply on imports and not domestically produced products.
b) Kenya to continue with her internal consultations with relevant policymakers and to follow up on the progress of resolving the NTBs, as requested by the Egyptian delegation.
c) The meeting agreed that the NTBs are policy issues and can be best addressed by the Joint Trade Commission (JTC) meeting, which is a higher level that is able to take decisions on this NTB and other trade related issues.
d) Both Kenya and Egypt continue with internal consultations with relevant stakeholders in preparation for the upcoming JTC meeting.
6. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
Products: 3903.20: Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "SAN", in primary forms, 3905.19: Poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion), 3905.91: Copolymers of vinyl, in primary forms (excl. vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and other vinyl chloride copolymers, and vinyl acetate copolymers), 3906.90: Acrylic polymers, in primary forms (excl. poly"methyl methacrylate"), 3907.50: Alkyd resins, in primary forms and 3907.91: Unsaturated polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid")  
NTB-001-031 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2021-06-30 Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority Egypt In process View
Complaint: The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.

• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…

• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.

• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place. 		 
Progress: 1. On 8th August 2023, Kenya Focal Point reported that the finance bill of 2023 undergone through the public participation and through the Parliament and that Excise duty on Pasta is not discriminatory as per section 43 (iv) that underwent through parliament process and public participation process.
2. During the 3rd Meeting of the NTBs Forum, Egypt reported that the excise duty on pasta , although it was not applied indiscriminately, affected trade as the rate was very high . The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB be reinstated . Kenya responded that duty on pasta is not discriminatory therefore resolved in the system . Kenya to submit proof that excise duty is imposed on both locally and imported goods. It was agreed that Kenya to arrange bilateral meeting with Egypt to address the issues raised by Egypt.
3. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, the two countries agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on this issue. Egypt has formally submitted a Note Verbal to the Kenya NFPs. The Note Verbal has since been submitted to higher authority as the NTBs involves a policy issue and requires long-term for its resolution.
4. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
NTB-001-134 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2023-05-08 Kenya: Egypt In process View
Complaint: The Middle East Glass Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries: 1) Misr Glass Manufacturing and 2) Middle East Glass Containers in Sadat. Being largest glass container manufacturer in the Middle East & North/East African region located in Egypt. The company has maintained strong business relation with Republic of Kenya over the last decade(s) being key glass supplier for more than 12 years to most of big manufacturing companies (some of them are big multinational companies) with superior track record of commitments in terms of quality standards and satisfying customer demands, continuity of supply, meeting their expectations and needs of glass container.
Egypt is member state of COMESA trade agreement (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), which support enhancing the relation and volume of trade between the company and Kenyan customers. Below table shows the amounts that has been exported to Kenya in the last 5 years:

2019 = US$ 10,325,336
2020 = US$ 10, 929, 362
2021 = US$ 8, 122, 525
2022 = US$ 8, 848, 972
2023 = US$ 7,322,062

Starting March 2020, Kenya has applied Extra Excise of 25% on all imported glass bottles (excluding pharmaceutical glass bottles) – copy attached - which limit the advantage given to all COMESA countries. This law has been already appealed by other glass container manufacturer in Tanzania and they successfully were able to remove it.
In addition, Starting September 2023, Excise duty applied on imported glass bottles has been increased to be 35% instead of 25% with no clear reason or justification. This additional duty applies by the Finance Act No. 4 of 2023 – copy attached - has prevented Middle East Glass from its fair competition against other glass manufacturers in the region and also against the agreement of COMESA.
We believe the main reason behind all these amendments is to support the local producer Milly Glass Works Ltd. Address: Liwatoni Road, Mvita, Road, Mombasa, Kenya, Near the Mombasa Yacht Club.
Hence, we seek support to waive all the glass exported from Egypt to Kenya from implementation of the excessive Excise Duties similar to the case of Tanzania case. 		 
Progress: 1. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, Egypt reported that the legislation is still providing a barrier to Egypt exports to Kenya. The two countries agreed that this issue will form part of the agenda for the proposed bilateral meeting by 28th June 2024.
2. On 28 August 2024, Egypt requested the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between themselves and Kenya regarding this NTB. After the Secretariat initiated the bilateral meeting, on 3 September 2024, Kenya agreed to hold the bilateral meeting, following a stakeholder consultative meeting held on the same day.
3. Following the agreement by the Member States to conduct national consultations and explore the the opportunity for the inclusion of the NTB on the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) agenda, the Secretariat to facilitate a bilateral meeting between the two Member States to provide updates on the NTB by October 2025. 		 
NTB-001-271 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2024-12-01 COMESA Egypt In process View
Complaint: Unipak Nile Ltd., a subsidiary of INDEVCO Group in Egypt, export corrugated boxes to Kenya under the COMESA Agreement.

The Kenyan government imposed a 25% excise duty on corrugated boxes imported from Egypt, violating the principles of the COMESA Agreement and creating an unfair competitive environment. This tax favours local Kenyan producers, some of whom do not pay the required taxes, further distorting the market.

This unilateral action undermines ability of Egyptian exporter to compete fairly and has halted UNIPAK Nile Ltd export operations and expansion plans in Kenya whose exports to Kenya reached $9–10 million annually, particularly in the agriculture and dairy sectors. 		 
NTB-001-292 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2025-07-01 Kenya: Mombasa sea port Egypt In process View
Complaint: It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement 		 
NTB-001-239 6.6. Border taxes
Policy/Regulatory 		2024-03-01 Kenya: KAJIADO COUNTY Burundi In process View
Complaint: THE COUNTY OF KAJIADO CHARGES TRANSIT FEES OF 2000 KSH PER FOREIGN TRANSIT TRUCKS  
Progress: 1. Kenya informed the SCTIFI that the Amendments to be effected in the 2025 / 2026 Financial year by 1st July 2025
2.During the 39th RMC , Kenya committed to continue engaging internally to resolve the matter and report to the next RMC.
3. During the 40th RMC Kenya informed the meeting that by 30th June the Tax Law will have been reviewed to resolve the NTB. 		 
NTB-000-987 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2020-09-26 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry Botswana In process View
Complaint: Zambia Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA)charges Botswana trucks 541 US Dollars per each entry into Zambia, while other SADC Countries are charged per distance. South Africa trucks are charged 110 US Dollars from Kazungula Ferry to Lusaka, Namibia trucks are charged a fixed 209 US Dollars per truck anywhere into Zambia. Zimbabwe and Tanzania pay a the same as South Africa.

Botswana trucks again have to pay RTSA K469 for identity cards per unit which becomes costly for Botswana truckers while other SADC Countries do not pay for identity cards. As Esmail Carriers (PTY) LTD we have 12 trucks that are crossing into Zambia and this has been going on for over 8 years. Per trip we spend more than P6765 per truck and per month the cumulative costs amount to more than P80 000.00 (RTSA charges). For identity cards is about P12 600.00 per month. Furthermore, Zambia has introduced new inland road tolls which we are paying in addition to existing charges.

This has become detrimental to our business as we lose more revenue on a daily basis. We currently request the Zambia government, Botswana government and SADC Secretariat to resolve this issue. 		 
Progress: 1. On 8th December 2020, Zambia Focal point reported that they were making follow up with the Road Transport and Safety Agency ( RTSA) and provide feedback as soon as possible.
2. During the SADC Regional Meeting on Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) held from 14–15 April 2026 Botswana Focal reported the NTB requires Bi- National engagement, The Ministry of International relations to facilitate a meeting between the Ministries responsible for transport in both countries. Furthermore, Business Botswana and Zambian Chamber of Commerce to collaborate to push their respective governments to resolve this issue. 		 
NTB-001-276 VAT Refunds 2020-08-03 South Africa: South African Revenue Services Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana has received from seven (7) of its member companies (see attached list) with concerns regarding delays in claiming VAT refunds from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). These companies have collectively reported that they are owed a total of R51,838,696.82in VAT refunds, dating as far back as 2020 to August 2024. The core issues involve prolonged processing times, document rejections without the ability to resubmit, and tight deadlines for compiling and submitting the required paperwork.  
Progress: During the SADC regiomal workshop on resoltuion of NTBs held on the 14-15 April 2026, SARS indicated that VAT refunds are being processed through South African-based agents, with delays and backlog attributed to the transition from the pre-COVID system to a new system, as well as some claims being rejected due to incomplete or non-compliant documentation; approximately R93 million has been paid out regionally in batches. Botswana companies are encouraged to use reference numbers to track claims, while coordination between the private sector, local consultants, and South African agents will be strengthened, and SARS will provide guidance on documentation requirements to improve compliance and efficiency. Overall, the matter is partially resolved, with progress made but further follow-up required to clear outstanding claims and enhance system efficiency. BURS is also working on it and plans to have a meeting with SARS as soon as possible.  
NTB-001-357 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2026-03-30 Zambia: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member, Flo-Tek is currently facing trade barrier in Zambia, Flo-Tek raised concerns regarding the imposition of a mandatory entry permit fee of approximately USD 541 per truck shipment for Botswana-registered trucks transporting PVC and HDPE pipes. According to the company, the fee applies regardless of the size or value of the shipment and significantly increases the cost of exporting to the Zambian market, particularly for smaller and more frequent consignments. In addition, Zambia imposes a 20% Selected Goods Surtax (SGS) on PVC pipes, HDPE pipes, and fittings. While the surtax is reportedly intended to protect local manufacturers, Flo-Tek argues that Zambia does not manufacture the large-diameter pipes supplied by the company, meaning there is no local industry being protected in this particular market segment. The company therefore views the surtax as an unnecessary trade barrier that inflates infrastructure project costs and weakens the competitiveness of Botswana manufacturers in the regional market.

The NTB's undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore request resolution through bilateral and regional trade mechanisms. 		 
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-001-359 5.5. Import licensing requirements 2026-02-17 Zimbabwe: Botswana New View
Complaint: Business Botswana member - Flotek has reported that In Zimbabwe, imports exceeding USD 5,000 require an import licence issued through the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). These licences are generally valid for only three months and must be secured before goods can enter the market. The company indicated that most of its consignments exceed the threshold, meaning nearly all exports to Zimbabwe are affected by the licensing requirement. Delays in obtaining or renewing licences can disrupt deliveries, delay customer projects, and create financial losses. In addition, Zimbabwe requires mandatory Bureau Veritas (BV) pre-shipment inspections for trucks entering the country, with inspection fees charged on a per-invoice basis rather than per shipment. Flo-Tek stated that the fees range between USD 250 and USD 300 per invoice, resulting in significant cumulative costs for shipments containing multiple invoices. According to the company, this creates unnecessary inefficiencies and increases the cost of exporting into Zimbabwe.

Flo-Tek maintains that the NTBs imposed by these countries undermine Botswana’s export competitiveness, increase the cost of cross-border trade, and contradict the broader objectives of SADC regional integration and trade facilitation. The company therefore requested that relevant mechanisms be triggered to resolve this NTB. 		 
1 2 3 4 5
Contact us |  Related terms

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