| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-265 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
General export licences and permits issued for all non SACU exports are processed by hand. There is no interface between the MTI permit system and ASYCUDA. The system is unpredictable with ever changing procedures as per the SACU agreement's Jacobsens' Index. The IEM requirements are not widely known, especially among incidental traders. There is limited capacity at MTI to handle and process the import and export permits. At present only one official is handling the permits. HS codes need to be obtained from Customs and Excise since MTI is not equiped to assist in this. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that the system determines the change in the rate of duties but not procedures due to economic and policy considerations. Information leaflets on IEM are readily available at the Customs information centre and more will be available at MTI. |
|
|
NTB-000-680 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2015-09-04 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
Resolved
2016-04-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
General Motors East Africa sold some vehicles to its dealer in Tanzania which vehicles were charged duty, despite the provisions of the rules of origin which qualify vehicles assembled from CKD as local products and should be sold free of duty within EAC. The Rules of Origin were gazette on the 23rd day of January 2015 and they are fully operational. This is a clear violation of the EAC Rules of Origin. Copies of the EAC Certificate of Origin, the Commercial invoice, the Import Duty Assessment Document & the Import Duty Payment Note for four vehicles that were charged duty at the Namanga border are available for scrutiny if required. We sought an explanation from the Tanzania Revenue Authority but they have not given a substantial explanation except that, in their opinion the rules take effect from October this year |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The new EAC rules became fully operational in Tanzania at the end of April 2016 and the the operational manuals were circulated to all borders. The vehicles qualifies for preferential treatment under the new rules. This issue was considered resolved during EAC 20th NTBs Forum |
|
|
NTB-000-650 |
6.6. Border taxes |
2015-02-01 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Ressano Garcia (Road) |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-06-19 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Good day. Terminal Operator at Ressano Garcia plans to enforce fees to all cargo vehicles for the utilization of Ressano Garcia with effect from the 16th February 2015. The fees as attached to this request are ridiculous as a truck weighing 28Tons with Imports to Mozambique is expected to pay no less than R3000 on each occasion they enter Mozambique via Ressano Garcia. The upgrades at the port were an investment to ease trade facilitation and I'm of the view that traders are not opposed to paying however the required amount is way high and unfortunately the end-user will end up carrying these costs the end of the day. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 February 2015, Mozambique focal point confirmed that there has not been any fee set or fee charged for the use of the cargo Terminal of Ressano Garcia, since this matter is still under discussion internally. This NTB is therefore resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-299 |
5.12. Export restraint arrangements
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Madagascar: Ministry of Trade |
Madagascar |
Resolved
2011-03-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government imposes export constraints on the exportation of wood |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is a measure to safeguard the environment. The elimination of non-tariff barriers will be done gradually.
|
|
|
NTB-000-300 |
5.12. Export restraint arrangements
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Madagascar: Ministry of Trade |
Madagascar |
Resolved
2010-07-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government imposes export constraints on the exportation of wood |
|
|
NTB-001-003 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-01-26 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
|
Resolved
2024-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government of Zambia issues Statutory Instrument 115 of 2020 , The Customs and Excise Ports of Entry and Routes Amendment Order, 2020, 9A(1) Reads , goods exported through Victoria Falls port in accordance with this paragraph shall be transported by rail, this Order automatically is a ban to export goods to Zimbabwe as the whole process to export using rail is a burdensome to trade by small scale players. Most goods are bought in Kamwala area shops and some being bought in the industrial areas which small players can easily transport using their vehicles or hired vehicles as they combine wares. Introduction for use of Rail is a clear indication by the Government of Zambia to ban export of certain commodities to Zimbabwe as market access will be a challenge to those living within Victoria Falls and the whole part of matebelalend as they are forced to use Chirundu exit .
Trucks can reach Victoria Falls within a day which is different from train, trucks you can accompany your goods different from train, trucks you can be cleared in time whereas using train everything is dumped at one place. this will open other avenues of bush borders or direct smuggling at the borders as officials will not be clearing goods in trucks |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB is related to NTB-001-004 (which was resolved during the 3rd meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs). The NTB is therefore resolved, on the ground that NTB-001-003 and NTB-001-004 are equivalent, and that the basis on which later was later was resolved applies to the former. |
|
|
Products:
|
0401: Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter., 1905: Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products. and 34: CHAPTER 34 - SOAP, ORGANIC SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS, WASHING PREPARATIONS, LUBRICATING PREPARATIONS, ARTIFICIAL WAXES, PREPARED WAXES, POLISHING OR SCOURING PREPARATIONS, CANDLES AND SIMILAR ARTICLES, MODELLING PASTES, ‘DENTAL WAXES’ AND DENTAL PREPARATIONS |
|
|
NTB-000-127 |
1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: NAMBOARD |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Government owns several parastatals that carry out trade.NAMBOARD receives vegetables on consignment from farmers and sells in hotels etc. If the consignment spoils because it is not bought, the farmer loses. At the same time NAMBOARD issues out licences for importing of similar items to those it trades in. The products affected are maize, rice, wheat, fruits and vegetables, flour, poultry, animal feed. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that NAMBOARD issues import permits for vegetables and wheat as per the infant industry protection provision in the SACU 2002 Agreement. |
|
|
NTB-000-785 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2017-10-25 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
|
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Haphazard breaking of seals at Beitbridge Border without any proof of authentication. Customs officials are breaking the transit cargo seals on the containers and merely crossing out the seal on the manifest and replacing it with the temporary seal. This has severe implications as these containers have already been fumigated and opening the container compromises the fumigation process and leaves the load susceptible to tobacco beetle cross infestation at the border. As there is no authenticity/customer number/stamp endorsing the seal change it means that anyone could have tampered with the cargo on route and this possess another issue with our customers in the USA as it contravenes their anti terrorism procedures . There was legislation passed by ZIMRA in terms of SI 113 of 2017, the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, SI 154 of 2001, Section 60 that states no seals should be opened in transit through Zimbabwe in order to improve the management of transit cargo. This new legislation needs to be passed on to the officials at Beitbridge (Zimbabwe side)as they are still breaking seals at the border. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of the NTBs Focal Points held on 19-21 August 2019, Zimbabwe Focal Point confirmed the ZIMRA report below that, transit trucks which are picked by the system for Physical Examination (P/E) are referred to the container depot for P/E. The majority of these trucks are P/E waived.
Where a physical examination is conducted broken seals are replaced and the replacing seals are endorsed on the manifest and the office stamps and signs.
The above is the same procedure on both imports and exports.
Where trucks are not referred for P/E the trucks are either escorted or sealed with electronic seals.
When trucks are escorted no seals are broken.
There are instances when the container has seals on all openings and ZIMRA break the other seal in order to place their electronic seal. In such a case appropriate endorsement is made on the manifest.
There could be some cases probably where officers have not done this hence the complaint from the client. ZIMRA however does not have a point of reference since a particular case has not been cited.
ZIMRA management have reminded all officers to ensure that whenever a seal is broken the appropriate endorsement is be done. |
|
|
Products:
|
2401.10: Tobacco, unstemmed or unstripped |
|
|
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-000-193 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-27 |
Mozambique: Ministry of Transport |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
High cost of transportation. Nearly two-thirds of the exported product is transported by the long route of road and rail to Durban, rather than the less expensive route via rail to Nacala, Mozambique. The savings from use of the closer port would be as much as 7-10 percent of total cost |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The corridors issues is being adressed thorugh the Regional trade facilitation programme. Th eissues are therfore being attended to in the overall regional infrastructure developement programme |
|
|
NTB-000-311 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of trade |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
High road charges and transport costs for exporters |
|
|
NTB-000-621 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2014-01-26 |
Tanzania: Nzega Town |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2014-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
High way attack that occurred in TANZANIA near NZEGA Town along the Central Corridor |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, Tanzania reported that security had improved. Tanzania was providing police escorts. This NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-631 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2014-04-22 |
South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2015-03-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I apparently needed a certificate from the State Vet to carry wool tops over the border! This proved impossible to get in Ficksburg. I have also experienced many problems bringing craft goods over to South Africa from lesotho as we need to pay VAT on all goods coming to exhibitions. This is extremely time consuming process and then I have to claim the VAT back when I bring unsold goods back over the border! |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 24 March 2015, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved and therefore must be removed from the pending cases. |
|
|
Products:
|
5105.29: Wool, combed (excl. that in fragments "open tops") |
|
|
NTB-000-645 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2015-01-23 |
Botswana: Ngoma |
|
Resolved
2015-02-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I have a consignment of used vehicles imported from UK and the USA. They are being denied entry to Botswana on transit to Zimbabwe because they are not registered. Apparently Botswana does not allow unregistered vehicles to drive on their roads |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The affected company reported that they managed to get assistance from the Namibia Customs officials who escorted the consignment back into Namibia then to the Zambia border. They used the Zambia route which is 400 kilometers longer. The company reported that the Department of Transport in Botswana informed them that there won't be a waiver for vehicles not registered in SADC or COMESA region. Only COMESA and SADC registered vehicles are allowed road transit in Botswana
However, tourism vehicles registered outside COMESA and SADC and vehicles destined for Botswana are allowed to be driven in Botswana.
FESARTA confirmed that, according to the regional policy, all vehicles not registered in COMESA or SADC would have to be loaded on other vehicles. |
|
|
Products:
|
8704.22: Motor vehicles for the transport of goods, with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine "diesel or semi-diesel engine" of a gross vehicle weight > 5 t but <= 20 t (excl. dumpers for off-highway use of subheading 8704.10 and special purpose |
|
|
NTB-001-164 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-04-26 |
Mozambique: |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2024-08-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I was about to clear my stuff by the Border at Komatiport or Lebombo border post when the Police man of Mozambique by the name of Maphosa asked me to check my truck then asked for papers for the vehicle, my license, car insurance and important documents on my file, I gave him everything he wanted. He said I should clear my stuff and come back to him.
I went for clearing but then I was asked to bring truck papers and license, at that time Maphosa was no where to be found, I asked some police men about him but they said he is in Maputo and I have to go back to Maputo to fetch my things at the police station but never mentioning which police station should I go to, I had to leave all my goods at alfandegars storeroom which is renting even now.
I drove back to Lesotho without my license and some documents and luggages because the clearing could not be completed since the truck papers and my license were not available due to that Police officer. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The driving licence has been returned to the owner. |
|
|
NTB-000-483 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B33: Packaging requirements |
2012-01-03 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Malawi |
Resolved
2012-01-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days.
The reasons for the being held are the following:
1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco.
2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco.
3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border.
There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues.
The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company.
In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth.
The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions:
i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit.
ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals.
iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility
iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco.
It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012.
South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows:
‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’ |
|
|
NTB-000-483 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B33: Packaging requirements |
2012-01-03 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Malawi |
Resolved
2012-01-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days.
The reasons for the being held are the following:
1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco.
2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco.
3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border.
There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues.
The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company.
In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth.
The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions:
i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit.
ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals.
iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility
iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco.
It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012.
South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows:
‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’ |
|
|
NTB-000-570 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-02-26 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Namaacha |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I'm doing the carton business in Mozambique but factory is in Swaziland. Every time I'm going to pass the border my company always pay 100 USD for every truck of goods I only deliver in Maputo they say it is a road fund every week I use at least 8-10 trucks I'm doing this business since 2009 and until now i need to pay that road fund I want to know why I'm paying this Money. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April in Lusaka Zambia, Mozambique reported that this is a levy on use of national roads and that this amount ranges from US$75-US$100 per trip. Almost all countries in the region have road tax specially for foreign trucks crossing the border.
With this explanation, meeting agreed to resolve the matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-104 |
1.8. Import bans |
2023-03-06 |
Kenya: Kenya Diary Board |
Uganda |
Resolved
2023-03-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
IMPORT BANS AND DENIAL OF MARKET ACCESS BY KENYA.
On 6 Mar 2023,the government of Kenya through the Kenya Diary Board stopped the issuing of import permits for powdered milk as a means of cushioning the surplus production and low producer prices in Kenya.
By this, Kenya is breaching EAC customs union protocol and the customs union that makes us a common market as well.This is denying ugandan powdered milk access to the kenyan Market and will negatively impact trade relations between the two countries. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIF noted that the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-064 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2009-07-23 |
Lesotho: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Import licences procedure is cumbersome. Different departments issuing licences for different products. The multi-departmental authorisation is cumbersome and the procedures are too long. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho reported that this is no longer the case because One Stop Business Facilitation Center has been established. Almost all licensing departments from different ministries have been housed under one roof. |
|
English
Français
