| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-400 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A52: Irradiation |
2011-02-22 |
South Africa: The Department of Trade and Industry |
Zambia |
Resolved
2015-08-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Zambian honey sector have come against repeated resistance from the South African authorities to allow organic honey to enter the South Africa market without the unnecessary requirement of irradiation. Therefore, our traders are requesting the South African government for an exemption from the irradiation requirements for the importation of honey from Zambia as set out by the National Department of Agriculture (RSA).
An analysis undertaken by the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) of South Africa collected honey samples from across Zambia during a national disease survey funded by the World Bank in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture of Zambia. The findings of this analysis by the NDA reveal that there is no American Foulbrood Disease in Zambia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa advised that all honey exports from Zambia were now accepted into that market. |
|
|
Products:
|
0409.00: Natural honey |
|
|
NTB-000-411 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A15: Authorization requirement for importers for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons |
2011-03-23 |
South Africa: National Dept Agricultural
Registrar : Act no 36 of 1947 |
South Africa |
Resolved
2011-04-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My company submitted renewal of existing Farm Feed Registrations at 12 Dec 2010
All the FF regestrations have expired on 28 Feb. 2011
We have enqeired numerous times on the renewal with no satisfaction.
Th ecompany is stuck with 1000mt of cotton oilcake and 100mt of meat and bone meal that can not come in to South Africa from Zimbabwe and Namibia
The local feed plants and feed lots are running out of stock with no local stocks to supply. We therefore seek help to have our applications processed by the relevant Ministry/Department |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Department of Agriculture & Fisheries renewd the licence on 28 March 2011 |
|
|
Products:
|
1207.2: - Cotton seeds : |
|
|
NTB-000-414 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B33: Packaging requirements |
2011-03-01 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-05-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ban on plastics of thickness less than 30 micro meters |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The ban is being effected under Statutory Instrument 98 of 2010 - Environmental Management (Plastic Packaging and Plastic Bottles) Regulations , 2010 issued by the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Management in terms of section 140 of the Environment Management Act ( Chapter 20:27) to protect the environment |
|
|
Products:
|
3923.29: Sacks and bags, incl. cones, of plastics (excl. those of polymers of ethylene) |
|
|
NTB-000-438 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A9: SPS measures n.e.s. |
2009-09-16 |
EAC |
Kenya |
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Numerous institutions involved in testing goods in the EAC partner states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
There is collaboration among testing agencies |
|
|
NTB-000-444 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A83: Certification requirement
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-09-02 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture |
Uganda |
Resolved
2014-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non recognition by Kenya for SPS certificates issued by Uganda for tea destined for Mombasa action. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, Kenya reported that the requirement would be abolished. Kenya reported that tea destined for auction at Mombasa for export must be warehoused in a bonded Customs warehouse (Transit Go down) of their choice. This NTB is therefore resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-456 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A83: Certification requirement |
2011-09-03 |
EAC |
Kenya |
Resolved
2014-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
EAC Standards Bureaus have varying procedures for issuance of certification marks, inspection and testing. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 16th NTBs forum held in Kigali in December 2014, EAC Secretariat reported that Partner States Regulatory Agencies are collaborating in clearance of goods and that there is now mutual recognition of certificates issued by Partner States Testing bodies. This NTB was therefore resolved. |
|
|
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-000-506 |
1.1. Export subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-03-14 |
Kenya: Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2014-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Delays by Partner States to harmonize SPS protocol has resulted in cut-flower from Tanzania for re-exports to Europe and Russia blocked by Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, Kenya reported that the blockage had been lifted. This NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-526 |
1.1. Export subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-08-26 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zambian Ministry of Agriculture has cancelled all export permits and required exporters to apply for an individual permit for each truck. No notice was given.
This has resulted in significant delays in that trucks en route have to wait at the border whilst new permits are applied for.
In addition, permits are only being issued for up to 30 tons.
56-ton gross combination mass vehicle combinations can load 33 tons and over, meaning a reduction of at least 10% of the load.
There is no legal justification for restricting the load to 30 tons, since the road traffic regulations control loads through axle loads, gvm and gcm. Never the load on the vehicle.
This will result in an increase in cost to transport the goods. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-567 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2013-02-01 |
Kenya: Namanga |
Zambia |
Resolved
2013-02-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A consignment of sugar exported from Zambia to Kenya by Zambia Sugar has been delayed at the border for more than 20 days, and still has not been released. The COMESA secretariat has assisted in verifying the Certificate of origin that was apparently the initial reason for the delay. However the sugar has still not been processed for release |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 27 February 2013, the Coordinator Border Coordination Management, Kenya Revenue Authority advised that, upon
verification of the certificate of origin, all consignments of sugar exports from Zambia into Kenya were released by 23 February 2013. KRA submitted a status report to the Focal Point, Kenya, indicating specific release dates for individual consignmenet as evidence. |
|
|
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-000-816 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2018-03-01 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authorities |
Kenya |
Resolved
2019-10-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
LACK OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS FROM KENYA BY TANZANIA |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 Tanzania has implemented the recommendations of the verification mission on confectionaries. Hence the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-115 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2023-02-01 |
|
Kenya |
Resolved
2023-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda subjecting full CET to export/transfered from Kenya Kenknit to Uganda. We urge Uganda to grant preferential treatment to Kenknit products that conform to origin. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 3rd July 2023, the EAC NTB Unit reported the trader confirmed through the EAC Secretariat that the issue had been resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-138 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2023-02-01 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authroity |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-03-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SCT TRA at the ICD Kenya is delaying approval of export documents causing costly delays and non-timely delivery of products to clients in URT.
To release the tuck took 5 days. We have an issue with TRA where the physical documents have to be submitted manually. Exporters lodges documents waits for release, goes back for BT and still for a movement sheet and this is an online thing you must wait.
In case the movement sheet is not transmitted, exporters submit again for retransmission.
There is always a long queue in the ICD-TRA office that consumes a lot of time for exporters to be attended to.
This back-and-forth process is delaying the export process.
1. We request URT to resolve the matter and grant timely approval of export documents.
2. URT should automate the approvals and avoid manual approval.
3. When the SCT system is down, there should be quick resolution and an agreed time to release goods manually.
We request for timely delivery of goods to avoid the costly delays caused by URT.
Truck loaded on 24/10/2023
25/10/2023-Submitted physical file to Tra, release denied we were told to provide ETR receipt and tax invoice
26/102023- Submitted the file with all new requirements, release denied again, that the tax invoice does not match with the invoice on the assessment documents, the assessment document was declared based on proforma invoice
27/10/2023-Submitted the file again and release was issued ,BT was declared and received the same day from the agent..
30/10/2023-submitted the file again movement sheet was generated.
TZNG-23-1438288 & TZNG-23-1437343
26/9/2023- The files for the above assessment documents were submitted to TRA at ICD
• TZNG-23-1437343 - release was issued.
• TZNG-23-1438288 -was asked to compare manifest and compared the same date.
27/9/2023- the files were submitted again at 11 am
• TZNG-23-1437343- nothing was done.
• TZNG-23-1438288- release was issued.
On 27/9/2023 at 3 pm the files were submitted again
• TZNG-23-1437343-Movement sheet was generated.
• TZNG-23-1438288-movement sheet was generated.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Secretariat advised that this issue is operational and was not considered as an NTB" |
|
|
NTB-001-139 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2023-02-01 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-03-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
1. stoves manufactured by the Burn Manufacturers company have been denied preferential market access when being transferred to URT; the reason being the company was under duty remission scheme. However, the gazette notice has since expired, and reconciliations done on the consumption of they earlier DRS inputs. Further, Burn Manufacturing Kenya, did not apply for renewal of the gazettement of DRS in the current financial year, 2023-2024.
1)That Burn manufacturing was gazette for duty remission in the financial year, 2022-2023.
2)That the gazette notice has since expired, and reconciliations done on the consumption of they earlier DRS inputs (sample clearance letters attached)
3)That Burn Manufacturing Kenya, did not apply for renewal of the gazettement of DRS in the current financial year, 2023-2024.
Kenya request URT to allow the stoves being transferred by Burn manufacturing be accorded preferential treatment since they are originating in Kenya, in accordance with EAC Rules of Origin, 2015, and the company is nolonger under any remission scheme.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Secretariat reported that the company was under duty remission and had not fulfilled the procedures they needed to follow after the expiry of the gazette" |
|
|
NTB-001-240 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-11-01 |
Kenya: Kenya Diary Board (KDB) |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Government of Kenya, through the Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), has not issued export permits for Ultra-High Temperature (UHT) milk destined for Kenya since November 2024. This action constitutes a violation of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol and the Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) Act, which is designed to facilitate the free movement of goods within the region.
The continued restriction has had severe consequences for Ugandan traders, leading to significant financial losses and, in many cases, the closure of their export businesses. This situation not only undermines regional trade commitments but also disrupts economic integration efforts within the EAC. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya informed the 38th RMC that:
1. Transfers of milk from Uganda to Kenya is ongoing
2. 10 million litres of milk were transferred from Uganda to Kenya between January and March 2025
3. 70 million Kgs have been transferred from Uganda to Kenya in 2024, and 67 million Litres transferred in the same period.
4. Kenya has no quotas on milk, and over 100 importers have been registered to transfer milk from Uganda to Kenya
5. Issued permits for milk if not absorbed effectively, do not allow for extension as per the regulations.
Kenya confirmed that the applications for the permits applied in November 2024 by Uganda were issued in March 2025 and provided evidence to Uganda for that matter. Hence, the NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-301 |
5.3. Export taxes
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Madagascar: Department of Customs |
Madagascar |
Resolved
2010-07-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Royalty levy of 1,5% is charged exports of transformed wood |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is a measure to safeguard the environment. The elimination of non-tariff barriers will be done gradually.
|
|
|
NTB-000-309 |
5.3. Export taxes
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of Trade |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Export duty is levied on timber. |
|
English
Français
