| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-265 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
General export licences and permits issued for all non SACU exports are processed by hand. There is no interface between the MTI permit system and ASYCUDA. The system is unpredictable with ever changing procedures as per the SACU agreement's Jacobsens' Index. The IEM requirements are not widely known, especially among incidental traders. There is limited capacity at MTI to handle and process the import and export permits. At present only one official is handling the permits. HS codes need to be obtained from Customs and Excise since MTI is not equiped to assist in this. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that the system determines the change in the rate of duties but not procedures due to economic and policy considerations. Information leaflets on IEM are readily available at the Customs information centre and more will be available at MTI. |
|
|
NTB-000-266 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The following stringent conditions stringent and cumbersome conditions are applied on the re-export (in bond mainly to Angola) of controlled petroleum products subject to permit:
a) A trade permit obtained from MTI a copy of which is to be supplied to the ministry.
B) The oil company involved and prices qouted shall be reviewed in writing in MTI.
c) Prices shall include all basic purchase costs |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that this information is required for the Government to determine the amount of tax to be paid by the exporting company and for Custom and excise levies |
|
|
NTB-000-290 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Namibia Revenue Authority |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Namibia requires provisional payments for all transit cargo through Namibia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that the provisional payment is required to secure duties and taxes of the goods in transit that can be refunded upon submission of export documents by the exporter. |
|
|
NTB-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Dear Administrator kindly update the status to resolved
Thank you |
|
|
NTB-000-146 |
1.8. Import bans |
2009-07-27 |
Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2010-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
An import ban on wheat flour has been imposed |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Rwanda reported that the issue was resolved internally |
|
|
NTB-000-039 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2004-05-23 |
Rwanda: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya complained that the Authorities in Rwanda has denied market access of galvanized steel sheets. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Rwanda reported that issue was resolved through EAC |
|
|
Products:
|
7301.10: Sheet piling of iron or steel, whether or not drilled, punched or made from assembled elements |
|
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-468 |
3.3. Standards disparities
B6: Product identity requirement |
2011-10-24 |
Rwanda: Akanyaru-Haut |
Burundi |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Burundian mineral water was denied entry into Rwanda on grounds that the water did not comply with Rwanda quality standards. |
|
|
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, Rwanda reported that this NTB had been resolved by Burundi. |
|
|
Products:
|
2201.10: Mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or flavoured |
|
|
NTB-000-580 |
8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) |
2013-04-17 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2014-07-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of parking facilities at Rusumo Border Post is creating congestion and clearance delays. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA reported that there were initiatives to improve this border post and so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-644 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2014-11-16 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Customs Authority
and also in
Majerwa |
Egypt |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are importing Wheat flour from Egypt from one of the Biggest Flour mill and factory in Egypt. We have original Certificate of Origin and Comesa certificate. But they do not accept and put us import Duty. Before it is 100% Duty free. But now since september they are not accepting it. Egypt is part of Comesa and Good produced in Egypt and 100% Duty free. So why is wheat flour not accepted. Please help |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 5th meeting of COMESA NTBs Focal Points, the two parties reported that the certificate of origin was now being recognised and therefore the NTB had been resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
1101: Wheat or meslin flour. |
|
|
NTB-000-679 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-01-23 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda doubts the originating status of wheat flour exported by Egypt |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 5th Meeting of COMESA NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi fro 23-25 August 2016, Egypt reported that the complainant had not been forth coming with additional information to facilitate consideration of this matter by the countries, In that regard, The two parties therefore decided that the matter be considered resolved . |
|
|
NTB-000-705 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2016-04-23 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Burundi |
Resolved
2016-12-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda makes trucks to pay double the certificate of Transit Goods. That is US$400 instead of US$ 200 per truck and trailer separately |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 22nd meeting of the NTBs forum held in December 2016 accepted Rwanda explanation that Rwanda was implementing the revised EAC Regulations on Customs Management Act, 2010.The Act stipulates that a pulling trailer is considered separate from the truck. This NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-707 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2016-05-04 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2017-05-06 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda does not give preferential treatment for rice originating from Tanzania as per the requirement of the EAC Rules of origin |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 23rd Meeting of the EAC NTBs Forum held from 4- 6 MAy 2017 in Kampala, Rwanda reported that she was now according preferential treatment to Rice imported from Tanzania |
|
|
NTB-000-910 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2019-08-28 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2020-09-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Rwanda Revenue Authority has denied preferential treatment on silk coat product from Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, Rwanda reported that the preferential treatment is being granted for these goods. Hence the NTB is resolved.Tanzania to consult the company concerned and provide feedback. |
|
|
NTB-000-940 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2020-01-09 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2020-09-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The newly introduced Rwanda FDA is a double registration and a violation to EAC originating products with standardization quality marks for mutual recognition.
Rwanda FDA was never notified to Kenya/EAC
This will mean products going through double registration/approval systems in EAC. Rwanda to consider exempting EAC products from FDA
These are stringent new requirements on the EAC Community Products:
- when you want to import you need to request for import license, we no longer export/import from EAC, therefore when products have quality standardization mark it serves as one of documents to prove the safety of the products.
- You will also need to provide the product invoice and batch test reports to get the import license, before a products is issued with SMark it must be tested and confirmed that it conforms to the EAC products certification therefore this requirements should be exempted from locally manufactured products with quality marks and Certificate of Origin.
- Registration of the products: it is now mandatory to have the products registered have unique Smark numbers. Authenticity of products can be obtained online on the National bureaus.
- Registration fee will make locally manufactured products noncompetitive. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the RMC meeting the Republic of Rwanda informed that, In addressing such related and persistent NTBs, the EASC in 2018 directed the QATSC to develop a Framework for inter agency regulatory control of food and cosmetics to facilitate cross border trade of these commodities. The final framework was recommended by the EASC for SCTIFI approval in their next meeting and this if Partner States commit to implement will reduce the cost of doing business arising among others from re - registration and re- testing . In respect to the Rwanda FDA, the issue was brought to the attention of the Extraordinary meeting of the EASC held on 12th June 2020. The QATSC was directed to discuss the matter and report in the next EASC meeting held on 23rd July with participation of most Partner States Regulatory Authorities .In that meeting Rwanda FDA reported that they recognize products with the EAC notified Quality -Marks that are issued based on harmonized EAC standards, and what Rwanda FDA was doing was just the listing for such products in building the database. The Registration fees for EAC products is waived and EAC products will be registered automatically. The information is on the website and the the Regulations are attached.The NTB is hence resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-980 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2019-11-30 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
Resolved
2021-03-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda Authorities didn't approve Comesa certificate of origin which is issued from Egypt as they are objecting that the product is not Egyptian production . We will be more than happy to invite the delegates from Rwanda to visit our factory & can do inspection to satisfy themselves. The exporting company provided all the required documents necessary to satisfy the criteria for issuing Comesa Certificate to Rwanda. As per the Rules of Egyptian Government for Comesa we have submitted all the necessary documents. Comesa Certificate No. (0092824) is attached. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
RESOLVED during 1st Meeting of the COMESA Regional NTBs Forum held on 16- 17 March 2021 |
|
|
NTB-001-137 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2023-09-04 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-03-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda has introduced higher excise duties on confectioneries transferred from Kenya to Rwanda thus making the products uncompetitive. We request Rwanda to waive these higher excise duties on confectioneries from Kenya
The Rwanda new excise tax is vide Rwanda Official and special gazette of 14/09/2023 under article 4: products and corresponding rates section 2 at FRW 322/kg to confectionary and Chocolate at FRW 1930/KG and other products. This will greatly increase the tax burden on confectionery and discourage Kenya trans-fer/export to Rwanda. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Rwanda advised that " According to Article 1 of the Law nº 050/2023 of 05/09/2023 establishing the excise duty, which provides that “This Law establishes the excise duty levied on some of the imported products and products manufactured in Rwanda”. It is clear that provision of Article 4 applies to Rwandan manufactured products and foreign manufactured products equally. Therefore, is no issue of discrimination.
On the other hand, this claim related to confectioneries is not an NTB because a non-tariff barrier is any measure, other than a customs tariff, that acts as a barrier to international trade. This issue is related to fees paid by manufacturers of confectioneries be they manufactured in Rwanda or in Kenya. Therefore, this claim of NTB should be withdrawn" |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting Partner States agreed that the NTB be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting, Partner States agreed that this issue be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-000-120 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-07-26 |
Seychelles: Ministry of Trade |
Seychelles |
Resolved
2010-07-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The administrative procedures for issuing import licences require improved efficiency |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Seychelles reported that Infrastructural and human resources limitations being addressed |
|
English
Français
