Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 261 to 280 of 914

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status	Actions
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-001-226	1.1. Export subsidies	2024-11-20	Lesotho: Maseru Bridge	Lesotho	Resolved 2026-04-15	View
Complaint:	Samples being sent by road-freight to South Africa for testing at an accredited laboratory were refused passage. Company was informed that the only way to send the samples for testing was to send via air. The challenges are that bulk orders do not fit on an Airlink flight and therefore would require a specific mode of chartered transport .This increases costs significantly and could potentially be the cause that orders are cancelled
Resolution status note:	The SADC NTBs held in Johannesburg South Africa resolved this NTB referencing (General regulations made in terms of the medicines and related substances act of 1965(Act No:101 of 1965)- Amendment published on the 1st August 2025). The amended legislation designate Maseru border post as Land Border Posts for import of any medicine or scheduled substance into the Republic of South Africa provided that the Authority is notified of and approves the intended importation. The email has been sent to BMA requesting for confirmation of the enforcement of the amended legislation by 15 April 2026. The amended legislation is attached for ease of reference.
NTB-001-217	1.1. Export subsidies	2024-09-24	Tanzania: Kabanga	Burundi	Resolved 2026-03-04	View
Complaint:	URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024.
Resolution status note:	URT reported that the matter is not discriminative. The measure applies to all entry and exit points and it applies to Tanzanians as well. The Republic of Burundi confirmed that the NTB was resolved.
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.
NTB-000-141	5.3. Export taxes	2009-07-27	Mauritius: Ministry of Trade	South Africa	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Mauritius charges an export tax on sugar
Resolution status note:	Mauritius reported that taxes were eliminated in 2004
NTB-000-103	5.3. Export taxes	2009-07-26	Namibia: Ministry of Trade	South Africa	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Namibia imposed export levies on live animals, hides and skins .
NTB-000-277	5.3. Export taxes	2009-09-08	Rwanda: Ministry of Trade	Rwanda	Resolved 2011-10-27	View
Complaint:	Export levies of 15% is charged on unprocessed goat hides
Resolution status note:	Rwanda hs lifted the ban on exportation of raw hides and skins. However, the 5th EAC regional forum on NTBs held from 1-3 Septmber 2011 noted that the ban was appllied by all EAC countries with the aim to encourage value addition on raw hides towards export.

<< Previous 1 2 3...12 13 14 15 16...44 45 46 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints