| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-670 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2015-05-08 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
South Africa |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Despite the passing and acceptance of EAC Vehicle Overload Bill of 2012, whereby it states under the Fourth Schedule s.5 (1) (c) - VEHICLE DIMENSIONS, AXLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS AND VEHICLE COMBINATIONS, that the maximum vehicle combination length permissible is 22 m and which includes and covers the South African designed and developed Interlink combination of 22 m maximum. Tanzania are still insisting on abnormal vehicle permits to be issued to these vehicles on entry into Tanzania at Tunduma Border Post at a cost of US $20 per entry or face heavy penalties including the impounding of vehicles if they are not in posesion of an abnormal permit.
This is in breach of the Bill which has been accepted by all EAC Member Countries including Tanzania and this policy needs to be revoked ASAP. |
|
|
Progress:
|
Awaiting feedback from Focal Points |
|
|
NTB-000-769 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2017-05-05 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024. |
|
|
NTB-001-269 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2025-06-12 |
Kenya: |
Tanzania |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Cross-border traders trading under the EAC simplified trade regime apply for the port health inspection certificate. The cost for the port health inspection certificate is Ksh. 500 (USD 5) per vehicle entering TAVETA. The certificate is issued, but no receipt is provided.
We request the EAC Regional Monitoring Committee to urge EAC partner states to waive this fee or have a transparent payment method with charges displayed for cross-border traders of cereals and horticulture trading under the EAC simplified trade regime at all OSBPs. |
|
|
NTB-001-125 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2023-06-01 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: |
Malawi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Cross Border truck drivers from Malawi, Zambia and other COMESA Member States face cumbersome procedures of clearing goods and other transit issues at the relevant border post in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In particular the following is reported:
1. Scanner at Mutaka- Cumbersome payment procedures for the scanner ($100) and forced parking ($30) which has led to congestion for the drivers as well as serious security concerns.
2. Unnecessary stoppages along Kasumbalesa-Kolwezi Corridor causing massive delays.
3. Delayed document processing by Mining houses.
4. Unfair treatment of drivers in an event of accidents, sickness and death. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 19th June 2023, the Focal Point for DRC advised that the matter will be submitted to the competent authorities in order to find an appropriate solution.
2. COMESA Secretariat facilitated a trilateral meeting held on 21 August between DRC, Malawi and Zambia during which DRC informed the meeting that the scanner and parking fees would be reviewed with the aim to get them scrapped off. DRC would also look into the lengthy and costly processing of documentation by mining houses with a view to improve the processes .
4. Following this meeting the Secretariat wrote to DRC requesting progress on feedback regarding implementation of the agreed actions to resolve the issues raised .
3. During the 3rd meeting of the COMESA NTBs forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 , Malawi reported that stakeholders were still experiencing the challenges but conformed that DRC had scrapped the scanner fees however , the scrapping of fees for scanner charges could only be considered resolved upon receipt of documentary evidence (Letter from DRC).
4. d) During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024, DRC Focal Point confirmed that the scanner and parking charges have been lifted. However, Malawi NFP reported that their truck drivers are still paying for these services and the NTBs has not been resolved.
5. During the 10th Meeting of the TTFSC held on 2 – 4 July 2025, the following update was received:
i. DRC informed the meeting that there was no information on the current status of the reported NTB and requested the affected Member States to provide information if their traders are still experiencing challenges.
ii. DRC, Malawi and Zambia to update the status of the NTB on the Online System. |
|
|
NTB-000-803 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2018-02-28 |
Tanzania: Importation into Tanzania |
Malawi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
CORI Ltd visited Tanzania last year to look for export markets for cooking oil in Tanzania. CORI was informed that the government in Tanzania does not promote/support importation and that Tanzania has a 15% surcharge on the importation of cooking oil. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. The SADC Secretariat is advising the Malawi should provide additional information to assist resolve the NTB. Malawi was therefore requested to provide information on the origin of the goods or where it is manufactured and any other relevant information .
2. On 23rd June 2020, Malawi Focal point responded that the cooking oil is wholly produced in Malawi and therefore meets the SADC rule of origin for exportation into Tanzania . |
|
|
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-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-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-001-276 |
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-820 |
4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A12: Geographical restrictions on eligibility
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-12-01 |
Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Brookside Dairy Ltd of Kenya, exports of UHT milk are denied entry into Zambia for reasons that, an inspection audit of the source of milk, export facility, milk product and relevant standards in use in Kenya by the Zambian authorities raised sanitary concerns pointing out that Zambia cannot accept milk products from the raw milk that did not meet the Zambian milk standard. The Zambian standard on raw milk for use in production of milk products is a maximum of 200,000 colon forming units (cfu) whereas Kenya legislation allows for a maximum of 2, 000,000 cfu in raw milk used in making UHT milk, which is above the 200,000 cfu allowed in Zambia. Kenya applies the EAC graded standards which allow for a maximum of 2,000,000 cfu and a minimum of 200,000 cfu and below for raw milk. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. Various bilateral meetings and technical audits have been undertaken between the two countries in an attempt to resolve the NTB. The thirty-Third Meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs Committee held on 15-17 September 2017 recommended that :
i) COMESA should harmonize SPS measures through implementation of the COMESA Green Pass (CGP) to facilitate trade in agricultural products.
ii) Member States should adhere to the NTB resolution time frames set out in the COMESA Regulations on Elimination of NTBs to ensure timely resolution of NTBs and enhance intra-regional trade.
2. In August 2019 Zambia Focal point reported that Zambia and Kenya held a bilateral meeting during the 5th TFTA focal points meeting held in Nairobi in August, 2019 during which Zambia proposed to have the complaint removed from the online platform in view of the fact that the issue was now in the hands of COMESA Secretariat who are expected to facilitate the harmonisation of the SPS standards. However, Kenya was still of the view that the complaint be maintained on the platform. Zambia therefore sought the guidance of COMESA Secretariat whether it is in order to maintain an issue which has been determined to be a legitimate SPS requirement following a recommendation for COMESA Secretariat to facilitate the harmonization SPS standards.
3. On 30 July 2021, COMESA NTB Unit requested Kenya to provide progress on the request to furnish Zambia with testing methods as agreed during the 1st meeting of the COMESA NTB Forum in March, 2021.
4. The 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 thatBoth countries to undertake verification missions between 27th – 30th November 2023. The Secretariat will provide support to Member States to undertake the activity
5. During the NTBs workshop, 17 – 19 April 2024 in Nairobi both countries agreed on the bilateral meeting for market access to increase trade between the two countries rather than focusing on this product.
6. On 17th June 2025, the two Member States convened a bilateral meeting where both Member States agreed that there was a need for a technical review of the documentation (Standards, audit and other reports) that had been prepared towards resolution of the NTB to inform the way forward on the resolution.
i. Kenya and Zambia to provide information on their milk standards for the review by the Technical Committee to prepare a concept note for the next bilateral meeting by August 2025..
ii. Secretariat to share reports and documents that can help with the resolution of the milk NTB including records of initiatives undertaken to resolve the issue in the past by August 2025.
iii. Both Member States to submit names of experts to be members of the Technical Committee to develop a technical brief for consideration by the next bilateral meeting by August 2025.
iv. Technical Working Group to examine the provisions on the conformity requirements in the standards for raw milk and UHT (finished product) and make recommendations to the next bilateral meeting, by September 2025. |
|
|
NTB-000-823 |
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-001-294 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2025-10-28 |
Botswana: Tlokweng Gate |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
BOBS Division Closing their service times during Holidays, weekends and festive days while Cross-border traders and Borders run through out. We urge that there be service aligned with all borders operating times and services. Consignments are then detained until their working times. we then loose revenue, standing times, conditions or goods be affected and further be exposed to risks. |
|
|
NTB-000-953 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2020-04-11 |
|
Namibia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
At Katima Mulilo border post between the Republic of Namibia and the Republic of Zambia, Zambian Authorities/ Command centres, specifically the Zambia Police Service and the Ministry of Health Officials stationed at Katima Mulilo border post from the Provincial Administration in Western Province tasked to screen truck drivers at the border post, are charging Namibian transporters and truck drivers to meet logistical costs of escorting their respective quarantined truck drivers to Kazungula, Livingstone, Lusaka and Kasumbalesa transits especially perishables and other essential commodities such as medicines, clearly at variance with World Customs Organisation (WCO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Protocols on Trade, destined for the Republic of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo via the Walvis Bay - Ndola - Lubumbashi Development Corridor (Namibia, Zambia, DRC). In the Republic of Zambia and other SADC Member states, and in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) Public Health Protocols, screening, testing and quarantining of truck drivers for covid - 19 are State operations and are at variance with the agreed SADC Guidelines on Harmonisation and Facilitation of Cross Border Transport Operations during the covid - 19 outbreak. This is an added cost of doing business, unnecessary cross border delays without prior notification to transporters and a Non - Tariff Barrier to Trade.
This is unprecedented, Namibian transporters are being charged as much as K800 for each Police Officer for at least 3 days and each convoy of trucks has at least 3 Police officers. The cost is meant to cover lodging and subsistence allowance for the officers.
This is an encumbrance to trade, against the SADC Guidelines on movement of goods and services in the region amid covid - 19 and adds to the cost of doing business, against WCO, WTO, and WHO best practices on global trade facilitation and Public Health. |
|
|
NTB-000-938 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2020-02-08 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 11 February 2020, ( 12:13hrs) South Africa Focal point advised that they were undertaking consultations with relevant authorities and will report back as soon as possible .
2. On 12 February 2020, the exporter advised that the truck had been released on condition that Port Health officials will collect samples for laboratory testing. However, when the truck arrives in South Africa, the company cannot distribute the consignment until samples are collected by the nearest Port Health Officials for lab tests. |
|
|
Products:
|
1905.31: Sweet biscuits |
|
|
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-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-001-152 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-02-07 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
All the Private Inland Container Depot Operators at Dar Port are refusing to discharge the vessel Ladonna MV for onward delivery of shipment to Zambia and DRC. Private Inland Container Depot Operators that were willing to discharge the vessel have been threatened by trading competitors to the current vessel owner/trader who is a new entrant in the regional market with total loss of current business if they discharged this vessel Dar Port. This is a clear violation of the WTO-TFA (World Trade Organization Trade Facilitation Agreement), AU (African Union), Comesa/SADC Regional protocols and agreements as well as individual Bi-lateral agreements relating to Trade Facilitation. Zambia has worked hard to secure this business to supply chemicals to the World Largest Copper Producer DRC in order to boost regional exports and promote continental economic growth. However, the private sector in Tanzania are now blocking these efforts despite the government working so hard to restore Dar Ports Image as the preferred port of choice on the Eastern Coast of Africa. These actions have potential to make serious negative impact to all 3 countries Tanzania, Zambia & DRC and overall the African Continent and therefore should be addressed to minimize the high costs of doing business. |
|
|
Products:
|
2503: Sulphur of all kinds, other than sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur. |
|
|
NTB-001-210 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2023-05-02 |
Kenya: Mombasa County |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Agricultural Produce Cess on tea into Mombasa County
Mombasa county charges charges Cess on tea in transit to the auction market. Mombasa County is charging the cess on all tea destined for Mombasa at the rate Kshs 7000, for a truck of seven tonnes and above.Charging the cess on tea being trucked into Mombasa Countyincreases the cost of doing business. This tea is dstined outside Kenya. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the RMC of 17th October 2024 the Republic of Kenya committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC.
2.The Republic of Kenya reported that they have initiated discussions with the County and committed to revert during the Ministerial Session. Also, Kenya has embarked on sensitisation of Counties on EAC Procedures to facilitate trade. The SCTIFI noted that the NTB was still affecting Uganda traders and urged the Republic of Kenya to waive the KSHS 7,000 Cess by 31st December 2024 and report to the 46th SCTIFI (EAC / SCTIFI 45 / Directive / 53).
3.During 38th RMC, Kenya informed the meeting that it is committed to resolve the matter by the financial year 2025/2026 |
|
|
NTB-001-209 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Additional fees are charged on timber in transit.
Kenya charges Ksh 48000 on transit vehicles carrying forest and timber products from Uganda that transit through Kenya to destinations outside the EAC. Transit vehicles are charged fees for a transit license in addition to payment of road user fees. The timber products are extracted from forests in Uganda and not Kenya. This additional fee is wrongly charged and causes additional costs to trade in forest products from Uganda. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. During the RMC of 17th October 2024, the Republic of Kenya committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC.
2.The Senior Officials were informed that the Republic of Kenya is in consultation with Forestry Services to address the matter and will report back by the 46th SCTIFI.
3.During the Senior Officials Session, Kenya reported that:
This is a consolidated charge for movement permits for timber on transit for 18 trucks.
The fees and charges are contained in the Fourth Schedule of Legal Notice No. 21 of 2016 (item 9) as follows:
Movement permit per consignment- 2000
VAT 16% 320
E citizen fee 50
Total 2370
The movement permits are meant to provide control, traceability as well as monitoring the movement of forest products till they reach the required destination. |
|
|
NTB-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During a bilateral meeting facilitated by the SADC Business Council held on 10 October 2022, it was agreed that the issue was not related to misclassification of Cremora but rather, the introduction of import permits by Namibia. The SADC BC will engage the Namibia Ministry of Industry representatives to set up a follow up meeting with the Ministry of Veterinary (Namibia) who will provide clarity on the introduction of import permit as there relate to Nestle and to Cremora |
|
English
Français
