| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-245 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2025-04-01 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: From Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A review of the route from Goli through Mahagi to Kisangani on the DRC side revealed 24 Roadblocks.
The traders reported that they pay 300 dollars per roadblock; we wouldn't pick evidence of this payment because its illegal |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the 38th RMC, DRC reported that they would consult and revert
2.During the 39th RMC, DRC requested 2 weeks to resolve the NTB |
|
|
NTB-001-311 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2026-03-02 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
It is reported by the Truckers Association of Zambia that the DRC Revenue Authority - General Directorate of Taxes, 3 weeks ago, introduced an import and export tax of about $85, and this has been reported at Kasumbalesa Border Post. The procedure and rationale in which this was introduced is unknown to Zambia, therefore, feedback is sought from our colleagues in DRC on this matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-169 |
7.2. Discrimination |
2024-01-01 |
Burundi: Rugerero |
Tanzania |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Burundi is charging USD 152 Flat rate on Road user Charges from Kobero/Kabangato Bujumbura which is equivalent to USD 65.5 per 100KM, While Tanzania is charging USD 10 per 100KM. This discriminatory charge is contrary to directives made on the 18th Meeting of Sector Council on Transport,Communication and Meteorology |
|
|
Progress:
|
1.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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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 neighboring countries pay for damage to the road network is catered for by the fuel levy.
Rwanda
7. 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
8.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.
9.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
11. 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.
12. 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).
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)
2.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)
13.During 39th RMC, Burundi informed the meeting that, she is still waiting for the outcome of the study. |
|
|
NTB-000-689 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2016-03-23 |
Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana.
The trailer manufacturers states the GVM to be 36 000 kg per unit (see attached vehicle registration papers)
This is the combined weight of the front and back link. However that is not what is reflected on the disc.
What it should say on the disc, is that the carrying capacity:
a) on the front link is 13000 kg.
b) The rear link is 23000kg.
c) The combined weight is thus 36 000kg.
We all know that it is not possible to carry 36000kgs on the front link and 36000kgs on the rear link. The axle configurations do not permit this to say the very least.
The problem arises on entry into Botswana at the border posts. They charge their road user fees per disc weight on the front and rear trailer.
therefore we end up paying for 36000kgs for the front trailer and 36000kgs for the rear trailer, this is 72 000kgs per unit.
To change the SA disc the following procedure will have to be followed.
1) W/bridge
2) Road worthy
3) Registration certificate
4) Certificate of compliance
5) Certificate model
6) Builders certificate
7) Ten days to change details of GVM per trailer.
a) It is very costly
b) it is very time consuming
c) it is not practical
d) It defeats the object of standardization and harmonization in the SADC region.
In this day and age where we are all trying to tighten our belts in order to survive, we can ill afford such additional costs.
This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached. |
|
|
Progress:
|
This issue was discussed during the Botswana / South Africa Bi-National Commission, which was held in Gaborone in November 2017. As per item 3.2.2.1 bullet point number one (1), the Republic of South Africa was to formerly request for a waiver from Botswana on the matter, while South Africa is still sorting out the system that causes the problem. Botswana is still awaiting correspondence from South Africa to that effect. We kindly advice the South African Focal Point to consult the Department of Transport in South Africa for further clarifications. |
|
|
NTB-000-823 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2018-06-01 |
Botswana: BURS |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana government is imposing daily double tax on imported alcohol beverages to Botswana. The motivation for imposing the excise and not imposing on local manufacturers is that local manufacturers create jobs and have manufacturing plant in the country. It is the Wine Industry submission that wine as a commodity cannot be manufactured in Botswana due to the weather conditions.
SA Wine Companies, pay excise in South Africa and do not expect to pay another excise in Botswana for the very same products. We appeal for the repeal of the Regulations to allow both local and importers to be treated the same. Locals have more competitive edge compared to importers. Furthermore, the methodology as per Regulations is different from what is practically implemented. Enclosed self explanatory email clarifying the differences. Botswana is in breach of the WTO GATT Agreement, Article 34 |
|
|
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:
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-982 |
1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers |
2020-08-24 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade and Industry |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 24 August 2020, Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry released a statement that the country would be restricting the importation of baked goods. This will affect products such as pastries, cookies, muffins and other products derived from some form of grain.
The statement was supported by S.I 102 of 2020. The Botswana’s Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry highlighted that the move is meant to protect the domestic producers. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 3 February 2026, Botswana Focal Point reported that the Ministry shared the relevant Statutory Instrument (SI), and request Zimbabwe to advise on the specific challenges being experienced to enable Botswana to initiate engagements with a view to resolving the NTB.
The Control of Goods, Prices and Other Charges (Restriction on the Importation of Baked Goods) Regulations, 2020 applies to the importation of baked goods such as: Bread, pies, pastries, rolls, cookies, muffins, cakes, cupcakes, and similar baked products.
Where a Zimbabwean company exports any of these products to Botswana, the regulation becomes applicable. In such cases, the import permit application must be submitted by the importer (the Botswana buyer), rather than the Zimbabwean exporter. Applications can be processed through the Ministry of Trade and Entrepreneurship in Botswana.
The Zimbabwean exporting company is expected to support its Botswana customer by providing the necessary documentation, including:
Product details; Invoice; Quantity information and Shipping documents
To facilitate further engagements, Botswana requests an update from Zimbabwe on how this Statutory Instrument has affected trade flows between Botswana and Zimbabwe since it was introduced in 2020. |
|
|
NTB-001-103 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-02-01 |
Botswana: Pioneer Gate |
South Africa |
New |
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-001-193 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B14: Authorization requirements for importing certain products |
2023-12-10 |
Botswana: Instructions provided to the Rwanda's commercial agent based in Botswana |
Rwanda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement by Botswana authority in charge of food imports that Rwanda needs to provide a " Free Sale certificate" prior to exporting coffee to Botswana. The issue is that such certificate is not required in 20 countries where Rwanda is exporting coffee globally. In addition, there is no institution in Rwanda that issues such certification. |
|
|
Products:
|
0901: Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated; coffee husks and skins; coffee substitutes containing coffee in any proportion. |
|
|
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-001-301 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2026-02-19 |
Botswana: all entry points |
Namibia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I am a manufacturer of fully finished furniture leather based in Namibia. My company has historically utilised Botswana as a transit corridor to supply customers in Zimbabwe under the framework of regional trade within SADC.
Following the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the region, I have been prevented from using Botswana as a transit country for consignments destined for Zimbabwe. This restriction effectively blocks an established and commercially critical trade route.
Namibia is a recognised FMD-free zone, and all raw materials used in our production originate exclusively from Namibian cattle. Furthermore, the industrial tanning and finishing processes applied to hides—particularly chemical treatment, liming, pickling, chrome tanning, retanning, and finishing—render the survival and transmission of the FMD virus scientifically implausible. Fully finished leather does not constitute a vector for FMD transmission and should therefore be exempt from movement restrictions associated with live animals or untreated animal products.
The inability to transit through Botswana forces us to use alternative routes into Zimbabwe that are substantially more expensive. These additional logistics costs render our trade with Zimbabwe economically unviable and undermine our competitiveness within the region.
As a SADC Member State, Namibia is entitled to the free movement of goods that comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards. The current transit restriction on fully finished leather constitutes a non-tariff barrier inconsistent with the principles of regional integration and trade facilitation.
If this situation persists, it will have severe commercial and employment consequences. The loss of strategically important customers in Zimbabwe will directly reduce production volumes, which in turn may necessitate workforce reductions. |
|
|
Products:
|
4107: Leather further prepared after tanning or crusting, including parchment-dressed leather, of bovine (including buffalo) or equine animals, without hair on, whether or not split, other than leather of heading 41.14. |
|
|
NTB-000-725 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2016-11-01 |
Angola: Port of Luanda |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Angola has Cumbersome and costly documentation and export/import requirements. The following is list of documentation required for a single consignment : i) 2x1 Original Bill of Landing; (ii)Original stamped and signed Commercial invoice; (iii) Original stamped and signed packing list; (iv) Analysis certificates if so required by consignee; (v) Loading Certificate (known as ARC or CNCA) PIP number prior to loading (required to do the pre-inspection) - not compulsory ; (vi) Voluntary pre-shipping control of merchandise (to be done at place of origin by inspector that issued the PIP number) Certificate of Origin( if so required by consignee) transport documents, full load container have to be sealed; (vii) letter from consignee nominating Orey as his forwarder agent; (viii) letter of responsibility from consignee to the carrier accepting full responsibility for demurrages and eventual container damages; (ix) copy of tax payer card of consignee; (x) Ministry of Commerce to issue license upon presentation of the commercial invoice; (xi) Ministry of Commerce to provide DU number, each invoice has different DU number.
The expected time frame is 72 hours (3 days) to get a DU number. CNCA certificate can only be issued upon presentation of the DU number for each specific shipment. Cost to produce DU number is 10 USD per invoice + Process DU (MINCO) FOB value 0.2%.
Costs
There is Fixed delivery and clearance rates in Luanda. Transport costs of 25% as from 15/1/2016, plus other additional chargers. Lab analysis costs 3000 USD per invoice. Analysis are mandatory to any imported edible goods, from water to beverages.
Delivery costs to Luanda per 20" + - 800 USD + 250 USD per night time delivery within city limits. overtime applies all the time due to restriction on delivery during the day due to traffic. Exporters are forced to pay incentives costs to EHO by OREY for DDP shipments. 20" => 150 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey, 40" => 170 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey.
Other fees charged are:
Shipment tracking & dispatch, BL Validation 160 per unit, Container deposit 1000 per unit
Delivery order 25 USD per unit. Port Tax 93.00 per unit, Wharfage 280.00 USD per unit, Tracking fee 100 USD per unit, Clearance transport and petties 350 USD per unit, delivery between Luanda /Soyo 3500.00 USD, return empty 400 USD per unit, transport between Luanda and Cabinda 11000.00 USD per unit, co-ordination 2.5% minimum USD 50.00. Consumption Tax of 5% service costs rendered in Angola. Taxes in all alcohol beverages is high 30% Cocktail 50% Ciders 51%
We believe this costs makes it difficult for investors to do business in Angola, most of them amount to tariff and non-tariff barriers we would like Regulators to review them. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, the Secretariat requested Angola to submit names of its Focal points to enable processing of reported NTBs. Angola reported that : (i) based on their research, the documents are necessary and that these are part of universal documents required for import permit. (ii) South AFrica was also imposing more cumbersome procedures than Angola as evidenced by the fact that the documents she require are the same as those required by Angola therefore this does not constitute NTB.; (iii) the Ministry of Trade is the focal point and there is a national secretariat for SADC through which all SADC Affairs are channeled ; (iv) . Angola was working on establishing the Trade facilitation committee after which focal points will be appointed; (v) she was in the process of revising its commercial legislation that considers trimming the number of import/export documentation; (vi) The ministry would undertake consultations with Ministry of Transport to simply the procedures . 3. In response, South Africa reported that consultations will be made to find out the reasons for the complaint. South Reported that she does not require numerous documentation. |
|
|
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-001-271 |
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-001-309 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2025-12-13 |
COMESA |
COMESA |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
KEBS rejected the application to renew the Illovo's Diamond Mark certification which expired on 13Dec2025. The new requirement states that Illovo should appoint a Kenyan registered agent or open up a branch in Kenya. This agent will be awarded a Diamond Mark certificate on behalf of Illovo. This is costly and it also restricts product quality visibility through to the end-user. |
|
|
Products:
|
1701.99: Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form (excl. cane and beet sugar containing added flavouring or colouring and raw sugar) |
|
English
Français
