| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-751 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2017-05-01 |
Zambia: Ministry of Trade |
Botswana |
Resolved
2026-04-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia.
On the 11th November 2016, Zambia issued SI 85 of 2016, The Tolls Act in which the Second Schedule Section A and B outlines Entry Tolls for COMESA/SADC and other Countries. Botswana was not included under SADC and awarded tolls higher than other SADC States. On the 1st May 2017, Botswana retaliated by issuing an Amendment of the Road Traffic and Road Transport (Permits) regulations, 2017. Under this Amendment, tolls were increased and in turn, Zambian Transporters handed a hefty penalty. The result is that as a Zambian Transporter our Transit Fees through Botswana increased by 70%.
This makes the Botswana route unattractive and given the congestion at Kazungulu, we have had to run through Zimbabwe again. We are delayed here by congestion, delays in ZIMRA electronic sealing processes and run the gauntlet as described above.
Surely the whole idea of building the Kazungula Bridge is to improve the flow of traffic through Botswana and create economic advantage? With the increase in the tolls in a tit for tat manner, building the bridge is a waste of time.
Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Based on the information from the Zambian Ministry of Transport and absence of recent complaints, it is reasonable to regard the matter as resolved, unless new evidence of discriminatory tolls or retaliatory measures arises. We remain committed to the principles of SADC regional integration and the efficient movement of goods through the Kazungula Corridor and will continue to engage constructively with Zambia to ensure smooth transit operations. |
|
|
NTB-000-756 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2017-05-05 |
Kenya: Kaijado County |
Burundi |
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Namanga/Kajiado County charges 2,000 Ksh for all Burundi cargo trucks transiting Kenya |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Focal Points meeting held on 19- 21 august 2019, Kenya reported that this NTB had been resolved. Kajiado County no longer charges the 2000Ksh for Burundin cargo. Burundi confirmed that although they had confirmation of the charge for June 2019, there had not been any further charges in from July 2019 . However, both countries will continue to monitor . This NTB is therefore resolved . |
|
|
NTB-000-776 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2017-05-05 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Works, Transport & Communications |
Uganda |
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania still charges US$500 to Uganda trucks compared to US$152 charged on Rwanda trucks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, EAC Secretariat reported that the experts' meeting met in March 2022 and gave recommendations to be considered by TCM.The Sectoral Committee on Trade was informed that the two Partner States had a bilateral meeting and agreed to charge Uganda tracks 10 USD charged per 100 Kilometers. Hence the NTB is resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-782 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2017-09-17 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Trans[porters are experiencing the following delays and other administrative costs as a result of the sealing process by ZIMRA:
• The vehicles are delayed up to 24 hours while waiting for the seals
• ZIMRA Officials remove existing seals to fit their seal and then do not replace the seals when their electronic seals are removed
• ZIMRA Officials have refused to endorse the documents when seals have been removed
• They have damaged transporters equipment and gone so far as to use a drill on a loaded fuel tanker to drill a large hole to fit their seal. This is completely unacceptable!
• Where one of their seals was incorrectly fitted and fell off the truck, they then cut other seals and drew samples of the product to ensure it had not been contaminated. No explanation was given and our customer consequently rejected the load as the integrity had been corrupted
• Transporters are expected to adhere to routes stipulated by ZIMRA. We have Route Risk Assessments on all our routes. The route is determined due to a number of factors including distance and safety. This is pertinent to Zimbabwe where the road infrastructure is failing
• Beyond the instruction to pay for the sealing, transporters are further expected to pay the costs of escorts |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The payment for sealing is a requirement in terms of the law in terms of Statutory Instrument 113 OF 2017. A fee of $30.00 shall be levied on every road vehicle conveying goods and break bulk cargo through Zimbabwe upon which electronic seals and magnetic sealing cable are placed on the cargo in term of the law.he vehicles are delayed up to 24 hours while waiting for the seals.Noted, it is not the intention of ZIMRA to delay any vehicle because of sealing, sealing is done in the minimum possible time and where delays are experienced, one can immediately contact the Supervisor or Manager on duty for assistance. Contact numbers for Supervisors and Managers are displayed in the offices .
ZIMRA has since obtained the seals and there are no more delays . |
|
|
NTB-000-792 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2017-11-01 |
Zambia: Chililabombwe |
|
Resolved
2019-01-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Chililabombwe Municipal Council. There is no justification for such a fee since the transporters do not receive any services from the Council. The transporters are travelling on national roads, which are maintained by the government and not the Council. The transporters pay road user charges to the government to maintain the roads. According to NTB-000-480, this was addressed on the 7 September 2016, but this problem has emerged again since 20th October 2017. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia reported that the by-law has now been revoked and councils have stopped charging the said fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-806 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2015-04-01 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Transport |
|
Resolved
2018-02-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania requirement that trucks passing three weigh bridges are required to buy stickers at US$40 per sticker despite the fact that trucks are clearly marked transit in the central corridor. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Today, 10:10
During the Extra Ordinary SCTIFI taht sat in February, 2018, the USD 40 sticker fee was waived with immediate Effect. Hence the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-810 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2017-10-02 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2018-10-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Escorted trucks carrying Zambia brown sugar and white maize in transit to Rwanda are forced to pay to Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Tunduma border station a sum of Tsh 960,000 to accompany trucks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Committee on Customs during its meeting in May noted that Mtera route is the shortest to transit to Rwanda and the route was not yet gazetted. It was recommended to geo-map all the transit routes and gazette the Mtera route.
The Mtera route was gazetted vide Legal Notice No. 48 of 10th May, 2018. The Regional Forum on NTBs at its meeting in October, 2018 was informed that Trucks to Kigali are no longer required to have escorts.
The NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-101 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2022-11-21 |
|
Uganda |
Resolved
2023-05-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SOUTH SUDAN IS IMPOSING COSTLY ROAD USER CHARGES/FEES. The government of South Sudan through the National Revenue Authority imposes high charges on Ugandan transporters for road use. In 2022, Exporters from Uganda to South Sudan were paying Six Thousand Pounds (6,000) but received receipts reading Five thousand pounds( 5000). This fee isn't in the law and is very costly.It is also impossible to explain to the truck/cargo owners the difference in money paid and money receipted
Currently 2023, Exporters from Uganda to South Sudan are paying Twenty eight Thousand Pounds (28,000) but the receipts they get after payment indicate Twenty One Thousand Pounds (21,000).
This is very unfair and increases the cost of doing business.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 34th RMC was informed that the road user charges for Uganda traders are 21,000 SSP. The 7,000 SSP extra payment is an administrative charge payable to the Ministry of Interior Traffic Directorate. The fee is charged on all transporters, not only Ugandan transporters.
The meeting was informed that Road user charges in RSS in 2022 was 5,000 SSP. In 2023 RSS is charging transporters RUC amounting 21,000 SSP.
The meeting agreed that RSS should stop charging the extra 7,000 SSP on top of the road user charges which are not issued a receipt. |
|
|
NTB-001-118 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2023-05-16 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Mitaka, Lualaba province Democratic republic of Congo |
Namibia |
Resolved
2026-04-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
DRC authorities in Mutaka, Lualaba province are charging 100 United states dollars for scanning each commercial truck loaded with cargo.
Cumbersome barriers, lengthy procedures have caused unprecedented congestion of hundreds of trucks in Mutaka area.
Truck drivers no sanitation, no wellness facilities, power security. One truck driver died in his truck on the due to Kasumbalesa border. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Taxes have been abolished |
|
|
NTB-000-083 |
2.5. Decreed customs surcharges
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa imposes surcharges on various agricultural products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that the Marketing Of Agricultural Products Act of 1996 (MAP Act), as amended, provides for the establishment of statutory measures, namely statutory levies, control of exports of agricultural products, records & returns, and registration |
|
|
NTB-001-068 |
1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-06-16 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives. (State Department of Livestock0 Directorate of Veterinary Services |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2023-02-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Happy sausage Ltd is meat processing company based in Arusha Tanzania. The company produced various types of sausages (fresh, smoked, cooked, fermented), bacon, harm, fresh, beef, lamb, pork and chicken. The company wanted to export its products in Republic of kenya. The company was advised to apply to the government of Kenya for ana import permit of meat and meat products sourced from Tanzania , particulary from its Arusha facility. The application letter is attached for easy reference. The DVS (Kenya) replied to the application through letter with Reference No. MOALF/SDL/DVS/VPH/GEN/54 dated 29th March, 2022 by citing key requirements for meat importation into Kenya(those guidelines included in the letter).
The company complied with all requirements . The dully filled risk assessment questionnaires was submitted to DVS (Kenya)on 12th April 2022 ( the questionnaires is attached for reference) . What remains undone is for the DVS (Kenya) to send staff to Tanzania to Inspect the slaughter and meat processing facility in Arusha. We humbly request the DVS (Kenya) to send its staff to inspect the facility so that to allow the the company to export meat and meat product in Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Regional meeting was informed that the DVS of Kenya looked at the risk assessment questionnaire submitted by Happy sausage ltd and approved their import permit. The issue was administrative and was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-148 |
1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country |
2023-11-23 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2024-05-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Pls kindly see below containers that are to be stopped by SARS.
1. MSKU0755208(Case No.: 480816390), vessel will berth on 27/11
2. MRKU3124436(Case No.: 480819630), vessel will berth on 27/11
3. NYKU4442550(Case No.: 480020360), vessel will berth on 3/12
4. BSIU9818016 (Case No.: 480069900),vessel will berth on 3/12
As you know all vessels delayed so long more than 1 month. Our productions are waiting for the materials. We urgently need all the materials for the garments of export. Pls urgently help to release all these containers.
Highly appreciated |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved successfully |
|
|
Products:
|
6003.30: Knitted or crocheted fabrics of synthetic fibres, of a width of <= 30 cm (excl. those containing by weight >= 5% of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, and pile fabrics, incl. "long pile", looped pile fabrics, labels, badges and similar articles, knitted |
|
|
NTB-001-149 |
1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country |
2023-11-24 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2024-04-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Pls see below container No. which is to be stopped by Sars.
RSU6006851 Case No.: 480928296 Vessel will berth on 27/11
As you know all vessels in Durban delayed so long more than one month. There are Fabric and Accessaries in this container. We urgently need the Fabric and Accessaries from our import containers for export. Pls kindly urgently help to release the container.
Highly appreciated |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Good day,
This issue is resolved. Kindly mark it as resolved.
Kind Regards,
Rendani |
|
|
Products:
|
6003.30: Knitted or crocheted fabrics of synthetic fibres, of a width of <= 30 cm (excl. those containing by weight >= 5% of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, and pile fabrics, incl. "long pile", looped pile fabrics, labels, badges and similar articles, knitted |
|
|
NTB-001-150 |
1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country |
2023-11-12 |
Lesotho: DURBAN PORT |
South Africa |
Resolved
2024-05-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
THERE IS QUERIES IN REGARDS TO THE FABRIC AND BEING INSPOECTED, BUT NO RESULT HAS BEEN OUT FROM SARS SINCE A LONG TIME |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved successfully |
|
|
NTB-000-681 |
7.2. Discrimination
Policy/Regulatory |
2015-10-12 |
Uganda: Malaba |
|
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda discriminatively imposed a 10 percent duty on Kenya manufactured Laundry bar soaps. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At he 21st EAC NTBs Forum, Uganda reported that the 10% charged is Excise duty on cosmetics and soaps.
The NTB was resolved upon receipt of the statutory instrument from Uganda. |
|
|
NTB-000-974 |
7.2. Discrimination
Policy/Regulatory |
2020-05-02 |
Kenya: |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2021-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya recently enacted the Business Law (Amendment) Act, 2020 which amended the Excise Duty Act, 2015 (the Excise Duty Act) by imposing excise duty on imported glass bottles (excluding glass bottles for packaging pharmaceutical products) at a rate of 25%, with effect from 18 March 2020. This amendment will result in an increase in the cost of imported glass bottles as compared to glass bottles which are locally manufactured in Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
TheRepublic of Kenya issued an administrative note to implement the Court injunction on the Kioo case and the NTB was resolved . |
|
|
NTB-000-032 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2004-05-27 |
Ethiopia: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
Resolved
2009-02-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement that goods exported to Ethiopia should be transported through the National Shipping Lines.
Kenya has complained that Ethiopian authorities require that all exporters to Ethiopia must use national shipping lines. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Ethiopian Government wrote to COMESA Secretariat on 7th January 2008 stating that they were now complying with Article 57 of the Treaty |
|
|
NTB-000-050 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2004-12-23 |
Ethiopia: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
Resolved
2009-02-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement that transporters using the road network should use the Ethiopian transporters.
Kenya has complained that Ethiopian authorities require that all transporters must use Ethiopian transporters. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Ethiopi wrote to COMESA secretariat on 7th January 2008 informing that they were complying with article 57 of the Treaty |
|
|
NTB-000-814 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2017-11-17 |
Uganda: Ministry of Finance |
Kenya |
Resolved
2018-11-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Discriminatory treatment (Excise duty) of Kenyan manufactured products among others Pharmaceutical products, Juice, cigarettes. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the SCTIFI meeting held on 16 November 2018, Uganda reported that she has put in place administrative measures to accord non discriminatory treatment to Kenya products. The NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-952 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies
Policy/Regulatory |
2020-03-20 |
Burundi: Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2020-09-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Disrimination and denial of Market Access for salt in Burundi.
There was a survey carried by Ministry incharge of Public Health in 2018 in relation to the consumption of salt, that the result revealed that only 52% of Burundians consume adequately iodized salt. On the basis of this survey the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism has taken measures to authorize and license four trading companies as importers of adequately iodized packaged with an iodization rate of between 30 and 60ppm and provided with a certificate of conformity from Standards Bureau of the importing country. The companies authorized and approved by Ministry to import salt in Burundi are the followings;
1. Ubuntu Investment company
2. Geprotus
3. Gitega Business Centre
4. Burundi Import (BIMPO)
No other company or individual is authorized to import and market food salt without the authorization of the Minister in-charge of trade. The issue is the government of Burundi is discriminating other companies to import salt in Burundi. This is against EAC rules and procedures, if the issue is standard of salt there is mutual recognition concerning standard in EAC as per SQMT Act 2016.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, Burundi reported that an official letter of the Ministry of Trade informing that the measure reducing the number of companies importing cooking salt has been removed. Now the economic operators in the salt trade are authorized and encouraged to do so in strict compliance with the law. The letter specifies however that the imported cooking salt must be a finished product, crushed, cleaned, dried and packaged, adequately iodized and provided with a certificate of conformity from the office of Standard of the import country. |
|
English
Français
