| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-399 |
7.3. Corruption |
2011-02-21 |
Zimbabwe: kariba border post |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-03-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lake harvest company was refused to export fish using kariba bridge on this particular date yet they were allowed to do so ,the man who was on interpol this day wanted some money from this company as bribe ,after refusal he denied to stamp the gate pass, this led to the fish to be bad and it was 4tonnes,all that fish perished as they took long in negitiating |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This issue was discussed by the National Monitoring Committee at their workshop held on 21 July in Harare which noted that such incidences do occur and proposed that the concerned authorities, namely Police Department and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce take up the matter for investigation with a view to putting in place systems for detterement of such practices in future.
On 22 March 2012, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Focal Point reported that ZIMRA had since had consultations with Zimbabwe Republic Police on this once off incident. The two parties expect that this would not happen again. The Lake Harest Company was advised that, in future , they should report such incidences immediately either to ZIMRA or the the Senior police officers at Kariba so that they are dealt with immediately . This matter is therefore considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-413 |
7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure |
2010-03-31 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Crossborders buses are not allowed to cross over Kariba Bridge, which in turn will force a number of cross border traders to use Chirundu via Makuti which is expensive to the traders then(can the tonnage limit be reviewed by Zambezi River Authority and the Ministry of transport) |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 9th meeting of the SADC Sub-committee on trade facilitation, Zimbabwe reported that a eeting between Zimbabwe and Zambezi river Authority had agreed on th elifting of the ban. The ban has been lifted to allow cross border buses and small commercial transport of up to 11tonnes to use the bridge. |
|
|
Products:
|
0302.11: Fresh or chilled trout "Salmo trutta, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Oncorhynchus clarki, Oncorhynchus aguabonita, Oncorhynchus gilae, Oncorhynchus apache and Oncorhynchus chrysogaster" |
|
|
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-000-416 |
5.10. Prohibitions |
2011-01-01 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe government absolute ban of the importation of potatoes and tomatoes |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 9th meeting of the SADC Sub-committee on trade facilitation, Zimbabwe reported that there is no ban on importation of tomatoes and potatoes as reported by the Ministry of Agriculture at the NMC meeting held on 21 July 2011. |
|
|
Products:
|
2002.10: Tomatoes, whole or in pieces, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid |
|
|
NTB-000-426 |
1.8. Import bans |
2011-07-01 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ban on all Potatoes as Directed by the Ministry of Agriculture |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Zimbabwe reported that banning of potatoes was done to protect plants from pests originating across the borders. This is therefore a NTM. |
|
|
NTB-000-427 |
1.8. Import bans |
2010-10-14 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
RE: Importation of Day old Chicks |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Zimbabwe reported that banning of day old chicks was done to protect animals from diseases originating across the borders. This is therefore a NTM. |
|
|
NTB-000-432 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2010-09-01 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2016-03-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) is charging duty on of fridges and freezers manufactured in Swaziland and exported into Zimbabwe under the FTA preferential trade regime querying the originating status. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 24th March 2016, Zimbabwe Focl Point reported that a joint verification mission on the Palfridge case was carried out during the period 19 to 21 January 2016 in Swaziland between the Swaziland Revenue Authority (SRA) and the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA). In attendance was the COMESA Secretariat and representatives from the Ministries responsible for Trade from the two countries. After deliberations and tests carried out SRA and ZIMRA agreed that he fridges and freezers are listed as goods of economic importance to Swaziland and should acquire a minimum value addition of 25% for them to qualify under COMESA preferential treatment. The freezers and fridges qualify as originating from Swaziland under COMESA as they acquired a minimum value addition of 25% should therefore be accorded preferential treatment when imported into Zimbabwe |
|
|
Products:
|
8418.50: Furniture "chests, cabinets, display counters, show-cases and the like" for storage and display, incorporating refrigerating or freezing equipment (excl. combined refrigerator-freezers with separate external doors, household refrigerators and freezers of |
|
|
NTB-000-457 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2011-09-14 |
Zimbabwe: Plumtree |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
charges for carbon tax and insurance affecting our traveling costs that needs to be removed for easer movement |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Zimbabwe explained that charging carbon tax and insurance are standard procedures in the SADC region. There is no violation of SADC or COMESA regulations. A carbon tax is for the protection of the environment therefore this NTB should be considered resolved.
1. Botswana requested that Zimbabwe provides the available information on the specific fees and or charges specifying whether the charges are per trip or for the whole year.
2. It was agreed that this NTB should be considered resolved once Zimbabwe has provided the requested information. |
|
|
NTB-000-557 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2012-03-01 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-05-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We would appreciate of Zimra can starndize their operations for duty purposes from the onset of STR project CIF (cost insurence freight) was not charged on on all STR goods, but as of now CIF is being charged, 6% is charged on the total value of a consingment, example plastic spoons costing K1400000.00=$280.00 plus 6% comes to $296.80 if cif was not charged the trader was going to pay $70.00 as vat & p-tax but including cif the trader pays $74.20 we know Zimra is government agent for revenue collection but this must be clear, because some officers, they do not charge this 6% cif and all the borders namely Kariba,Chirundu, Victoria Falls and Nyamapanda they charge differently why not uniformity, |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 27 May 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority advised that the correct method to value commercial consignments imported into Zimbabwe is on a Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) basis. Simplified Trade Regime (STR) importations are commercial importations and therefore this method is applicable. The current practice to value STR goods on a CIF basis is therefore the correct approach. Where the insurance and transport has not been proved the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) of Zimbabwe provides for 1% and 5% of the value the consignment to make it 6% to be considered as the charges respectively. Guidelines on valuation would be recirculated to all stations. |
|
|
NTB-000-465 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2006-07-01 |
Zimbabwe: Makuti turn-off to Kariba, from Chirundu-Harare highway. |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-08-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TONNAGE LIMIT ROAD SIGN is still indicating retrictive tonnages. The sign should be removed to allow busses and small commercial trucks for traders to pass on Kariba Bridge. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal point reported that the Ministry of Transport removed the sign post in August 2012. |
|
|
NTB-000-467 |
2.14. Other |
2011-08-08 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-10-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On the 8/8/2011 a trader came with 45 pairs of slippers that is plastic footwear which qualifies the product to be traded using Comesa certificate of Origin under code 6404 since the onset of the project, the trader was charged duty of $72.00 calculated from total value of $31.10 yet she was only to pay vat & p-tax of $7.76, after discussions with Customs Manager she then paid $14.00 for vat, p-tax,and storage charge of $6.00 for 3days. from this day custom then banned importation of plastic footwear under this code 6404 and this ban is only at Kariba border Post, Zimbabwe, yet on Zambian side they give Comesa Certificate of Origin for the same product ,this is now promoting smuggling of this product along Zambezi River if that person dont want to Chirundu route |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the product Plastic Slippers is classified in tariff 6402.2000 which is not on the COMESA STR Common List of products therefore customs officers could not clear under that instrument. However, following consultations between officials from Zimbabwe and Zambia, products in HS code 6402 will be put up for consideration to be included on the COMESA STR list of products at the next reveiw meeting. |
|
|
Products:
|
6404.19: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials (excl. sports footwear, incl. tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, and toy footwear) |
|
|
NTB-000-484 |
7.10. Other |
2012-01-03 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls Weighbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-10-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Old and inaccurate weighbridge. The Vic Falls weighj bridge is a manual weighbridge and transporters have endless trouble there with trucks which pass all Zambian electronic weighbridges and are then declared overweight in Vic Falls. The fines also are astronomical. They will not allow a reweigh and when the fine is paid the truck is allowed to proceed without any adjustment or offloading and it then passes all other Zimbabwe weighbridges and RSA weighbridges without any overweight. The weighbridge is old and inaccurate and should not be used for enforcement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 October 2012, FESARTA reported that they had recieved input from the Zimbabwe VID, to the fact that the Victoria Falls weighbridge is reasonably new and calibrated regularly. FESARTA reported that there had been no reports of problems at this weighbridge and therefore FESARTA recommended that this NTB can be removed from the system. |
|
|
NTB-000-524 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-08-06 |
Zimbabwe: At road blocks |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries.
An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-528 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-10 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2015-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Port Health at Nyamapanda, Zimbabwe, has issued a notice to the effect that all goods transiting the border are to be inspected, from 10th September.
The inspection in itself is not a problem.
However, a charge is to be levied for this inspection. This is unacceptable.
Port Health is a government department, which has a duty to perform, in the course of its daily work.
This duty is part of Port Health's daily workload and it budgeted for from Central Government.
Health inspections are done in the interests of the country and are not asked for by the transporter.
There should be no extra charge for this.
What would happen if every government department charged citizens for carrying out their daily duties? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of COMESA Heads of Customs Sub- Committee held in Nairobi on 19-20 June 2015, Zimbabwe reported that the NTB was an internal control measure and what was required was sensitization of stakeholders on various import and export requirements. This was resolved at the 31st COMESA Trade and Customs Committee meeting held on 7-10 September 2015. |
|
|
NTB-000-533 |
7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) |
2012-09-24 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are importing fuel tankers from South Africa to Zambia. The trailers are SA Registered (Valid licence and Registration Plates - deregistered once in Zambia). The Truck Tractors are from our Zambian Fleet. On arrival at Beit Bridge, the documents are accepted by ZIMRA as trailers being exported to Zambia, drawn on their own wheels, in transit across Zimbabwe to Victoria Falls. The act of exporting the trailers on their own wheels is thus condoned by ZIMRA at Beit Bridge.
When we get to Victoria Falls, we are then told by ZIMRA that exported motorised vehicles must be carried on the back of a flat deck trailer. A statutory instrument is eluded to, but we have yet to see this.
Our arguement is as follows. The trailers have valid registrations and licences (not to mention all the Police Clearances for export), they are not motorised (self propelled), ZIMRA Beit Bridge has condoned the export on wheels and we are actually presenting ourselves at Vic Falls and have not disappeared with the units illegally into Zimbabwe.
Placing these units on flat decks is prohibitively expensive. We are not transporting imported cars from overseas that are deregistered and for which we understand the need to be transported whilst in transit across Zimbabwe on a flat deck etc.
There is no clear statutory instrument that we have seen on exports of this nature eg licenced trailers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the treatment by Beitbridge to allow the trailers on their wheels when transiting through Zimbabwe for re-exports to Zambia was the correct treatment. The legislation on movement of goods in transit through Zimbabwe is in terms of Section 234(3) of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which reads "Where the goods in transit concerned are motor vehicles, no such motor vehicle shall be driven on any road in Zimbabwe but shall be transported on a long-haul motor vehicle carrier". This requirement was inserted by Act 3 of 2010 and was with effect from 1 November 2010. The requirement only affects motor vehicles and does not affect trailers as they cannot be driven but are rather pulled by mechanical horses. This interpretation had been discussed with the Station Manager Victoria Falls who shared the same view and assured that there would be no issues raised in this regard on trailers being re-exported to Zambia. |
|
|
NTB-000-544 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-01 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs Manager Churundu, Zimbabwe, he is not giving Value to STR Simplified Trade Regime under Comesa, all congnments with a $1000 value, though it is the value threshold he is revaluing the goods in order to exceed $1000 so that the trader will will not have the benefit of not paying duty, thereby confusing traders and prejudicing them of their priviledges and rights given to then by the gorvnment of not paying duty if they buy products on the List of Eligible products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1st June 2013, ZImbabwe Revenue Authority explained that the price paid or payable which is the transaction value is normally used to arrive at the value for duty purposes. For STR consignments where the transport and insurance has not been proved the value will be uplifted by 6% as the value for duty purposes in Zimbabwe is on a Cost, Insurance and Freight Basis.There is never an intention by Chirundu or any ZIMRA Office to deny importers their right to clear goods under STR where the goods are properly declared. Where the goods are not properly declared the offices may be forced to resort to revaluation. It should borne in mind that value of goods under STR are generally predictable as the suppliers are few, known and their range of prices can be common.
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority further observed that, this complaint is too general and is not pointing to a particular incident. Should they have a specific query, the complainant is encouraged to make a write up to the Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority so that investigations are carried out and the query responded to. In the spirit of transparency the complainant is also advised to raise any issues with the Regional Manager responsible for Chirundu who is based at Kurima House in Harare.
In the absence of specific reference to affected product or incidence, this complaint will be considered resolved on the basis of the explanations above. |
|
|
NTB-000-546 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2010-09-01 |
Zimbabwe: Harare offices |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has too many agencies issuing agricultural Permits, thereby giving problems to those who would want to obtain them, for example you have to go to gugunyana offices then you go to Mazowe Plant and Quarantine offices then also you have to go to AMA (agricultural marketing authority) this process we feel its too long why cant it be done under one roof, or one just live your application then the move around into different offices is done within the office bearers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that most of the issues are of policy nature therefore awareness programmes with relevant stakeholders and government agencies will be undertaken . |
|
|
NTB-000-551 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-02 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwean Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is levying a toll of US$30 per trip, for the crossing of the Victoria Falls bridge. Ref: SI 171 of 2012.
This toll is not justified because it was never discussed with those who are having to pay the toll and there is no reconciliation for the amount of the toll.
Furthermore, transporters pay road user charges, which are to cover the wear and tear caused to the roads and bridges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-552 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Zimbabwe: Head Office Zimra |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-08-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
form 47 which is customs declaration form on Rebate states, who enjoys travellers rebate and marked(excluding) reads excluding Any person employed as the pilot or master or any member of the crew of an aircraft, ship or vehicle arriving from outside Zimbabwe ,bus crew members,drivers are also included,why are they not given rebate allowance as other nationalities, this is a national benefit why excluding them , what benefits do they have as bus crew members? even the remission they dont understand about it even to be given that remmission they are not, this is the other reason why bus crew members are involved in smuggling with border officials, give them an allowance on daily basis |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7th August 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue authority reported that , travelers rebate excludes "any person employed as the pilot or master or any member of the crew, of an aircraft, ship or vehicle arriving from outside Zimbabwe" This is in terms of Section 114 of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise General Regulation Statutory Instrument 154 of 2001. This is therefore a legal requirement and it is mandatory that this be implemented. The same regulations also provide for a remission of duty for a consignment of a maximum value of US$20.00 every time one travels. Once the consignment exceeds the US$20.00 duty is paid on the full value of the consignment. Please note that smuggling of goods is an offence which may lead to seizure of the goods and at times prosecution and is therefore discouraged.
Based on this explanation, SADC secretariat advised that the NTB be marked resolved. |
|
|
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
