| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-514 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-02-06 |
Zambia: Nakonde |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A company by the name of ZAMESCO, is charging transporters to park at the Nakonde border post.
The charge is 24 US dollars per day.
There is no official parking area and so the trucks would normally park along the road.
However, they are forced to park in ZAMESCO's parking area, without being given any alternative.
The Zambian authorities have not regulated these parking charges, nor have they condoned them. These are arbitrary charges imposed by a company that has no authority to do so.
They are uneccessarily increasing the cost of transport on the Dar es Salaam corridor.
Attached are scanned copies of parking receipts.
|
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that ZAMESCO is a private dry port. Vehicles have the option to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-521 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TRA rejects EAC certificates of origin . Tanzania Revenue Authority imposes a duty of 25% of EABL products exported to its subsidiary Serengeti breweries limited in Tanzania |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Tanzania reported that certificates of origin are now issued for all EAC products both ion the STR and normal exports. |
|
|
NTB-000-522 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non recognition of EAC certificate of origin by Tanzania Revenue Athority for furniture products manufactured in Kenya |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Tanzania reported that this was a one off incidence which had been resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-534 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-09-30 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) |
Zambia |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On the aforemention date, one of my fuel tankers, was stopped by Mozambique Environmental Officials at the Machipanda border post. The officials advised that they wanted to inspect the fire extinguishers and the driver cooperated by placing the 4 extinguishers at their disposal.
The Officials then pulled the pin on all four extinguishers and discharged the powder. They then told the driver that they were satisfied that the extinguishers worked, and he could proceed.
You cannot do this to a fire extinguisher. It is not like an aerosol can that keeps its pressure. Once you depress the handle and discharge even a small amount of powder, the fire extinguisher is exhausted and of no further use.
Officials can check if the extinguisher is valid on the certificate on the side of the extinguisher and if the site glass indicates pressure in the green.
If we need an extinguisher and the officials have discharged it, we are at the mercy of the fire. |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, ZambiaMozambique reported that this was a mistake by officer on duty and this matter has since been corrected and therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-549 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area.
The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip.
It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area.
Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads.
Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-20 |
Zambia: Mbala town |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters.
Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day.
This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high. |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-561 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-10-24 |
South Africa: On the main transport routes in Gauteng, South Africa |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The managing director of Cross Country Containers in Zimbabwe, has reported that there had been four incidences of hijacking his vehicles in the Gauteng area.
The first was in October 2011, the second in June 2012, the third in September 2012 and the fourth in October 2012.
All the vehicles hijacked, were carrying copper, from the copper mines in Zambia.
A meeting was held between the road transport industry and the SAPS Hawks, in Pretoria, on the 24th October 2012.
A report of the meeting is attached.
These hijackings have had such a negative impact on Cross Country Containers, that it has stopped operating into South Africa.
The road transport industry, under the guidance of FESARTA, is to send a proposal on the way forward, to the Hawks. |
|
|
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, South Africa requeted that this NTB be removed from the online system on grounds that it was security issue. The meeting agreed that this be categorised as ' Non Actionable'. |
|
|
NTB-000-561 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-10-24 |
South Africa: On the main transport routes in Gauteng, South Africa |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The managing director of Cross Country Containers in Zimbabwe, has reported that there had been four incidences of hijacking his vehicles in the Gauteng area.
The first was in October 2011, the second in June 2012, the third in September 2012 and the fourth in October 2012.
All the vehicles hijacked, were carrying copper, from the copper mines in Zambia.
A meeting was held between the road transport industry and the SAPS Hawks, in Pretoria, on the 24th October 2012.
A report of the meeting is attached.
These hijackings have had such a negative impact on Cross Country Containers, that it has stopped operating into South Africa.
The road transport industry, under the guidance of FESARTA, is to send a proposal on the way forward, to the Hawks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTB SMS Launch meeting held on 9-10 April 2013, in Lusaka, Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe reported that this was a security issue that was being attended to by the relevant authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-516 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2012-07-01 |
Eswatini: Ngwenya |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2013-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My family and I were requested to pay an "alledged" import duty for groceries valued at around 800 Rands even though we clearly stated that we were in transit travelling from South Africa to Mozambique. The customs official kept insisting that we would be given a receipt and to our amazement the receipt had my husband's name but instead of his addressing being Maputo it was registered Manzini.
Would the Swazi focal point(s) please clarify if this is the usual procedure for goods transiting Swazilang, whether commercial or for personal consumption |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 June 2013, Swaziland Focal Point reported that the matter had been settled with the complainant after all information supplied was verified with Swaziland Revenue authority requirements for th eimportation of personal goods. |
|
|
NTB-000-460 |
6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-06-06 |
Botswana: BURS |
Botswana |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana BURS requires a deposit to be lodged with them prior to allowing any goods, being imported into Botswana, to cross the border. They will not accept a small deposit - enough to cover the VAT charges on the goods in question - they require a standard amount of P25 000. The only way to avoid paying this deposit is to meet the goods at the border and pay the amount which has been determined as owing that very day. It can be very difficult to meet trucks coming from Johannesburg at the border, particularly if you don't stay in Gaborone where most of the trucks cross. This results in many additional costs being incurred by the importer and can result in goods being returned to South Africa at the importers expense. For small consignments, where the VAT owed is only a few hundred Pula, more money can be spent on trying to get to Gaborone, at the right time (which often changes) in order to meet the truck and make the VAT payment, than the VAT amount itself. Perishable food products, if they need to be returned, are often lost completely resulting in major losses. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS) confirmed the following 3 available alternatives which enabled traders to pay for VAT/Duties without being at the point of entry so as to grant entry of goods:
i) Apply for gross payment account; through this account, the applicant is able to deposit funds into the account in which payable VAT/duties will be debited upon any importation of goods
ii) Apply for deferred account; this account enables importers to import goods and pay the accrued VAT/duties at the end of the each month (as explained on the NTB status notes initially afforded to you).
iii) Cash payment can be made at any BURS office countrywide after which that particular office will immediately liaise with the office at the point of entry of the imported |
|
|
Products:
|
2008.11: Groundnuts, prepared or preserved (excl. preserved with sugar) |
|
|
NTB-000-493 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-04-16 |
South Africa: Gauteng |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Note: This is not reported by South Africa, but by FESARTA; a sub-regional organization.
The South African National Roads Agency, SANRAL, is planning to introduce new toll fees on its upgraded Gauteng freeways (E-tolls). The proposed fees are in excess of fees agreed at regional level, viz:
In 2007, the SADC-recommended road user charge for South Africa, was US$2.92/100kms, for a heavy goods vehicle. In 2009, this was revised to US$3.46/100kms. These recommended figures were calculated from the road maintenance data submitted to SADC by South Africa in those years.
On its busiest freeway, the N3 from Durban to Gauteng, the 2012 toll fees charged by SANRAL amount to approximately US$13/100kms. This is far in excess of the fees recommended by SADC.
Now, SANRAL is proposing to charge around US$19/100kms for the use of the Gauteng freeways by a heavy goods vehicle.
It is considered that these fees are excessively high and will unnecessarily add to the cost of goods to the consumer in the East and Southern African region. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At its 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, SCTF noted that the report was based on toll fees that were not yet implemented. As such traders are not affected. It was agreed that matter be filed until such time that the fees are effected |
|
|
NTB-000-541 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2012-10-29 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On Monday 29 October I was crossing into South Africa from Mozambique. I was importing used shoes from Mozambique destined to Lesotho, however the customs officials from Lebombo border post on South African could not let my goods pass through and my goods were confiscated.
I was holding the reciept from the seller from Mozambique, the value of the goods was M2,857 (R2,857 or equivalent of 10, 000 Meticais). I was then told by the custom official at the border that I will have to pay R 9000 plus VAT which is not refundable according to the official. This value is way more than the value of the goods.
The other option was that I should hire currier service s very expensive, I was forced to use currier even though I had my own transport and to use an urgent. I was holding an import permit from my country Lesotho at the time however I was told to pay the R 9000 which is not refundable. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 November 2012, South Africa Focal Point reported that each of the SACU member state has its own import/export control regime. For South Africa, importation of used clothing and footwear for resale purposes is not allowed, except in specifically defined conditions. The conditions for used clothing are that, imports should be for the purpose of cutting up to manufacture industrial wiping rags in a customs rebate store. For used footwear, imports are only allowed if the shoes are donated to a registered charity for free distribution in terms of a customs rebate provision.
Given the above background, second hand clothing and footwear imports in transit through SA have to transit SA territory under special procedures: these goods need to be cleared in bond first, and then the goods need to be transported by an in-bond carrier to the country of destination (Lesotho in this case). For this reason the importer was told to use courier services. Such courier service would constitute an in-bond carrier. Such an in-bond remover must have sufficient security in place to cover the duty and VAT on these goods in bond; and this surety would be acquitted with the final clearance upon arrival in Lesotho. If the importer therefore did not comply with the in-bond transit measures, it would explain the duties charged.
During the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Lesotho noted the response by South Africa and undertook to provide clarification upon consultation with the importer. |
|
|
NTB-000-583 |
6.7. Other |
2013-03-26 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kariba border post, Zimbabwe. Imports from Zambia; one truck carrying two imports from Zamleather for two different Zimbabwean companies. VAT paid in Harare and transferred to Kariba by ZIMRA. ZIMRA system has IT problem and duty of 5% was to be charged. Protest was lodged and ZIMRA advised that there is no duty because of the Comesa certificates. A day went by and we were then advised that our one shipment had been cleared: with 2% duty. We were informed that there were new acts passed and duty was now applicable. I could find no record of this and refused to pay extra duty in order to clear the VAT and duty now short on the second shipment. ZIMRA Harare advised that this was an IT issue and they were working on it. Third day begins and Kariba say no way to clear shipment without duty being paid. Harare advise Kariba to raise manual IM4 entry, Kariba say the duty is still payable. We are now going into the weekend and I cannot see my truck being cleared until Monday. I have had this issue before in a slightly different context where ZIMRA took duty paid for a shipment on its way to correct an IM4 done the prior month. No notification was given and it took 6 months for my claim to be accepted and the US$ 5703 to be refunded. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30th July 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the consignments were eventually cleared manually (i.e. outside the Asycuda System) and allowed under the COMESA Free Trade Area (FTA) at Rates of duty 0% as Zambia is party to the COMESA (FTA). ZIMRA would continue to clear such similar consignments manually until such time Kariba customs migrates from Asycuda ++ to Asycuda World and the clearance will be done in the system. The client will not be inconvenienced by the use of either of the two clearing systems. |
|
|
Products:
|
3403.11: Textile lubricant preparations and preparations of a kind used for the oil or grease treatment of leather, furskins or other material containing petroleum oil or bituminous mineral oil (excl. preparations containing, as basic constituents, >= 70% petroleu and 6403.40: Footwear, incorporating a protective metal toecap, with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather (excl. sports footwear and orthopaedic footwear) |
|
|
NTB-000-582 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-03-18 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs charging duty on STR goods which are exempted from paying duty under the Comesa Simplified Trade Regime |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30 July 2013, Zimbabwe Focal point confirmed ZIMRA report that Zimbabwe does not charge customs duty on goods that qualify under STR if the goods have been properly declared as per the requirement. It should however be taken into cognizance that Import Value Added Tax (VAT) at a rate of 15% is payable. Also where the importer does not have a Tax Clearance Certificate (ITF 263) Presumptive Tax at a rate of 10% of the Value of the goods being imported is payable. Clearance under STR is limited to a consignment of us$1000. If the consignment exceeds the US$1000 duty is paid on the excess
List of goods which qualify under STR are displayed at the respective Border Posts. Furthermore TIDOs are placed at the respective Border Posts to assist persons importing such goods understand the clearance procedures. |
|
|
Products:
|
5402.11: High-tenacity filament yarn of aramids (excl. sewing thread and yarn put up for retail sale) |
|
|
NTB-000-577 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-04-12 |
Zimbabwe: Zimra Head Office |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs and Excise (Surtax Tariff) Notice ,2012, Statutory Instrument 112 of 2012,
Customs has introduced surtax on almost most of the agricultural products on the STR list of Eligible products, instead of paying 10% as presumptive tax there are now required to additional tax 25% as surtax that will amount to 35% and those which are not agriculture products instead of paying 25% as vat and presumptave tax there is additional 25% that means they will pay 50%, this a barrier, this will disturb the spirit of STR and all efforts to formalise transactions, and inrease cases of smuggling and corruption ,can there be clarity from Customs/Zimra for this surtax |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 01 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority ( ZIMRA) reported that the introduction of surtax was not targeted at STR products as the surtax is also levied on importations of the same goods from other countries taking into consideration the terms of any trade arrangements or protocols that may exist between Zimbabwe and that trading partner or block. The On 30 July 2013, Zimbabwe Focal Point advised that the NTB be conisdered resolved by the confirmation from ZIMRA that the surtax was not discriminatory. |
|
|
NTB-000-369 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A84: Inspection requirement
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-10 |
South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture |
Zambia |
Resolved
2011-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that Zambia needs to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements to the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries . PQPS certificates can not be issued if the above information is not known. |
|
|
NTB-000-369 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A84: Inspection requirement
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-10 |
South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture |
Zambia |
Resolved
2011-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1 June 2011 , South Afric areported that Zambia was not able to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements. PQPS certificates can therefore not be issued if the above information is not known |
|
|
NTB-000-348 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2010-02-09 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade |
Botswana |
Resolved
2011-07-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana regulates importation and pricing of petroleum products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that petroleum products are not regulated |
|
|
NTB-000-348 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2010-02-09 |
Botswana: Ministry of Trade |
Botswana |
Resolved
2011-07-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana regulates importation and pricing of petroleum products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 22 July 2011, Botswana reported that petroleum products are not regulated |
|
|
NTB-000-558 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-10-06 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-08-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My company was importing a pallet of various alcoholic beverages. The consignment was accompanied by the required SADC origin papers from the manufacturer in South Africa. When the pallet was searched officers found, on the label of one of the products, bottled in south, produce of mexico. Upon seeing this the officers immediately seized the tequila, along with some South African made whiskey. Firstly this is in contravention to the SADC protocols of trade, whereby- Rule 9 of the protocols of trade, sections 3 and 4-
3. The competent authority designated by an importing Member State may in exceptional circumstances and notwithstanding the presentation of a certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, require, in case of doubt, further verification of the statement contained in the certificate. Member States, through their competent authorities, shall assist each other in this process. Such further verification should be made within three months of the request being made by a competent authority designated by the importing Member State. The form used for this purpose shall be that contained in Appendix IV to this Annex.
4.The importing Member State shall not prevent the importer from taking delivery of goods solely on the grounds that it requires further evidence, but may require security for any duty or other charge which may be payable: provided that where goods are subject to any prohibitions, the conditions for delivery under security shall not apply.
This section clearly states the rules and procedures to be followed when there is a query on the legitimacy of the origin of a product. The Zimbabwean border officials ignored these and seized the goods.
Upon seizure we were given the opportunity to appeal the seizure and prove the origin of the goods.
We did this and the Station Manager at Beitbridge completely ignored all of the evidence we sent him. We have documentation from the manufacturer, proving the origin of the goods, further we gave them the contacts of various people in the South African Tax Department to verify their claims. All of this was summarily ignored and we were issued a notice to pay the duties due for a non-sadc product, and a fine. Together this figure amounts to almost double the value of the products. We have since appealed to the ZIMRA Commissioner General to have the fines and duties repealed and the products released, and are awaiting reply. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC Secretariat, in consultation with Zimbabwe Revenue Authority recommended that the NTB be considered resolved and that the importer be educated about issues of origin within the context of a Free Trade Area. ZIMRA reported that seizure of the consignment was done in terms of Section 193 (1) of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which reads "Subject to subsection (3), an officer may seize any goods, ship, aircraft or vehicle (hereinafter in this section referred to as articles) which he has reasonable grounds for believing are liable to seizure". In this case the origin of the goods was incorrect. |
|
|
Products:
|
2208.30: Whiskies and 2208.70: Liqueurs and cordials |
|
English
Français
