| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-419 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2011-04-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2011-09-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Perishable goods for export (cheese) are being held up for several hours despite documents having been pre-cleared, due to key staff (in this case the director) being absent from their posts |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the consultative meeting between SADC secretariat and Mozambique Focal p[oints, on 19 September 2011, Mozambique reported that the customs desk is always manned. In the absence of information on a specific case, this issue is considered resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
0406.30: Processed cheese, not grated or powdered |
|
|
NTB-000-113 |
7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure |
2009-07-26 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
South Africa |
Resolved
2011-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Periodic port congestion in Tanzania makes logistical planning near impossible , which impact negatively on perishable exports. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Tanzania reported that by July 2010, the import container dwell time had been reduced to 10 days, ship waiting time from 13 days to 4 days and ship turnaround time from 19 days to 3 days. This improvement has been attributable to additional investment to increase handling capacity which involved reorganisation of the port area (additional capacity of 14,000 TEU's) and opening of new ICD (additional capacity of 10,000 TEU's). This is complimented by supportive tariff for ICD and punitive tariff for overstayed containers within the port. New customs procedures which include online submission of declarations and supporting documents, reduced percentage of physical verifications, partial submission of manifest all have contributed positively to reduce dwell time. Efforts are now geared towards implementing a single window port community system PCS TO FURTHER REDUCE CONTAINER DWELL TIME TO 5 DAYS.
Establishment of ICD was meant to create additional space of approximately 10,000 TEU's as pointed out earlier.
All transit containers were excluded in the process of being sent to ICD in order to reduce the inconvenience to the customers and also get rid of the double handling that would be created by sending the transit containers to ICD.
ICD are currently working as an extension of the port and hence monitoring of transit containers not sent to ICD will be easily monitored. Therefore this will not be subjected to any charges since all transit containers will be stationed at the port. |
|
|
NTB-000-519 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
Burundi |
Resolved
2013-10-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Payment of double handling charges at the ICDs and at the Dar es Salaam port. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 12th Regional Forum on NTBs held from 14th – 17th, October 2013, at EAC Headquarters, Arusha, Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania (URT) reported that the ICD charges are part of port charges and are therefore not additional charges. The only additional charges are on demurrage. However, Burundi requested to re-submit documentation supporting their submission through the EAC Secretariat. In the meantime, URT to investigate further and revert at the next EAC Regional Forum on NTBs in September, 2013. The meeting agreed to resolve this NTB on the basis of URT submission. |
|
|
NTB-001-062 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2022-03-22 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2022-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our Company is experiencing discretional acceptance of labelling of Arenel sweets by Port Health South Africa. We export jelly sweets among other products to the Republic of South Africa and our packaging has a sticker written “Jelly Babies” and does not state the word “Sweets”. The majority of sweets sold in the importing country (RSA) have similar packaging. On the 22nd of March 2022 our truck was stopped by Port Health South Africa at Beitbridge Border Post and the officials demanded that our truck return to Zimbabwe with the full load because the product labelling does not conform to the importing country`s labelling requirements. It seems there is no uniformity in the Port Health officials at Beit Bridge Border Posts are accepting labelling requirements for sweets entering RSA. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The SA Port Health Authority committed issued Arenel with a six months exemption ( 13 June - 13 December 2022) to continue with their exports to South Africa of apricots and jelly sweets. |
|
|
NTB-001-223 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2024-12-11 |
Uganda: Mutukula |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our company has been engaged in the transportation of Ammonium Nitrate Prill (ANDP) from Tanzania to Uganda using flatbed trailers for several years. Recently, we received notification from the Security Officers at Mutukula stating that the transportation of this product on flat decks is no longer permitted. Instead, we are now required to utilize high-sided, closed-box trailers or containers.
We understand that these regulations are in place to ensure safety and compliance; however, this change represents a significant investment for transporters, both in acquiring new equipment and in adjusting transport rates. In light of this, we kindly request that the relevant laws and specifications pertaining to the transportation of this material be made available to the public. Access to this information would greatly assist us in directing our efforts and resources effectively. Thank you for your consideration. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is not an NTB as it is a requirement by Community Law that Partner States need to abide by. The goods being tranfered are classified as hazadous goods that need special handling while being transported. |
|
|
NTB-001-146 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2023-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo Port |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2025-03-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our Company , Blackwood Hodge Zimbabwe , (PVT. LTD) have been importing Vehicles using Maputo Port and never had challenges with customs since all paper work and documentation is always in order .We are the official distributors of Tata Motors commercial Vehicles here in Zimbabwe. We are a registered company here in Zimbabwe since 2007 and Trading as Blackwood Hodge Zimbabwe limited.
As per our supplier Invoice number 750966093 and BL number MOLU18005431182 DT. 30.09.2023 for one Unit LP 909 40-Seater Bus with Chassis number MAT382042P8R10426 was dispatched from Mumbai port, India via Vessel Eternal Ace to Maputo Port. The Vessel was docked on date- and all the Relevant procedures were done by our representative Payflex Trading Lda RUA ROMAO FERNANDES FARINHA NO:75 1ST FLOOR SUITE NR. 8ALTO MAE B. MAPUTO MOZAMBIQUE NUIT: 400379394 GIVEMORE GURI MOB 879304844 / 849304844.
We are writing to report serious challenges we are facing from the office of the Customs Director, Southern Region Director (DRS) which authorises the release of the bus.
Our bus is now being held by Customs at Maputo port, in our view, without any valid reasons and now we might be facing legal action for fraud from our customer who placed an order for bus and paid us 50% deposit as well. Pls note this bus is for Ministry of Education of Zimbabwe -Bulawayo Polytechnic.
The customs office has been holding on to the clearing process for over 3 weeks and is not communicating the reasons for the delays to us the importer . Our bus belongs to Bulawayo Polytechnic (which is under ministry of Education here in Zimbabwe) and all documents are in order. This incident has caused our Business a Loss of sale as well as hampered our reputation in the market. Also, we should note that this bus was one of the first buses we were to supply to Ministry of Education in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, the Director has refused to release our in-transit cargo to Zimbabwe.
we have attached documentary evidence and report from our Maputo Agents explaining what transpired in detail for your urgent / immediate actions.’ |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 3rd March 2025,the complainant reported to SADC Secretariat that the matter 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-000-467 |
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-000-541 |
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-001-178 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-05-13 |
Uganda: kasindi |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On May 13, 2024 the vehicles of certain economic operators transporting salted fish from South Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania in transit through Uganda destined for the DRC are blocked in Uganda. The reason given by the protection unit was that these vehicles transported small fish whose marketing was formally prohibited in Uganda |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB was resolved through a bilateral meeting between DRC and Uganda. |
|
|
NTB-000-151 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-07-27 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On a number of occasions, Kenyan customs demands that products originating from Tanzania have to be unloaded for physical verification, which means destruction of the product packages. The importer has thereafter to repackage goods at own cost so as to fit original packages. Products most affected include tyres, textiles, cognac spirits and cigarettes. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Issue resolved through COMESA customs and trade comittee |
|
|
NTB-001-013 |
1.8. Import bans |
2021-03-05 |
Kenya: All Kenyans borders |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2021-05-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 5th March, 2021 the Republic of Kenya, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives (Agriculture and Food Authority) issued a letter to the Commissioner of Customs, Kenya to stop importation of maize from the United Republic of Tanzania following a report from a surveillance which indicated high levels of mycotoxins that are very consistently beyond safety limits. The letter that was sent to all Counties bordering the two Partner States was neither notified to the EAC Secretary General nor to the concerned Partner States as per the EAC notification procedures; causing disruption to traders carrying maize at those borders. This incidents has caused loss to our traders. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The REC Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved by the Regional Meeting held in May 2021 |
|
|
NTB-001-047 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2021-12-01 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
|
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 4th December Juba Trades Union reported challenges in clearing their consignment at Mombasa Port due to new regulations, which is not clear to them at the time they getting their goods for the holiday season, the complain of challenges with the new introduce system including the payment which is not clearly justified or oriented to the stakeholders, clearing process at Mombasa come to stop and goods stop flowing to Nimule border of South Sudan, South Sudan National Chamber of Commerce reported the concern to the Ministry of Trade and Industry indicating the impact of the measure on the market prices and lack of goods if no action is taken considering its a holiday season. traders are losing by been charge demurrages at port and arrival of the goods after the season. The Ministry of trade took action by canceling the Certificate of Destination to allow the flow of goods to the county, However the action was not honored by the RSS Customs office in Mombasa, reported by Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association (KIFWA), National Chamber did meet with the RSS Minister of Finance to look at the matter and he promise to communicate to the Revenue Authority since he is not aware of the new regulation and the charges imposed. With the mounting pressure from the stakeholders National Revenue Authority send a letter to Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Port Authority to support the flow of goods to South Sudan unrestricted and the Minister of trade order is to be honored as per NRA letter, lastly on 21st December the official at Customs RSS in Mombasa started releasing the cargo to RSS with only $50 Charges not those mention on the Certificate of Destination Chagres below:-
1- 40ft Container $400
2- 20ft Container $365
3- Vehicle 4x4 $365
4- Regular Vehicle $300
5- All UN Consignment $365
6- Loose cargo $250
The main challenge traders have face is lack of coordination between different institutions and the partner states when introducing new regulations or policies, this current measure is not official resolved by Customs Division of NRA. we hope Kenya and South Sudan should address it to assure its traders they are on regional integration and the free movement of goods and people are a true. Engagement of stakeholders is a key in success of any measure introduce by the government |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the Secretariat reported that the framework under the Single Customs Territory (SCT), but also One-Stop Border Post (OSBP) manual has the provisions that allow the deployment of Customs Officers.
The National Revenue Authority sent a letter to Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Port Authority to support the flow of goods to South Sudan unrestricted. On 21st December the official at Customs RSS in Mombasa started releasing the cargo to RSS with only $50. The two Partner States agreed to handle the matter administratively and should be resolved from the TBP |
|
|
NTB-001-046 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2021-12-03 |
Uganda: Malaba |
|
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 3rd December Traders reported that URA enforce regulation on all transit cargo to South Sudan and DRC, where all consignment are to pay a fee of $150 to $214 depend on the type of cargo, and those charges are collected by private company "Sunco Ltd." its said to be a contract between South Sudan government and K-Polygone SAS. then K-Polygone contracted Sunco Ltd. When the issue was raise to the Ministry of Trade by the National Chamber of Commerce Industry and Agriculture. at the time goods have stop flowing to Nimule border of South Sudan, Then Minister of trade issue ministerial order suspending the contract between its ministry and K-Polygone to allow smooth follow of goods to RSS, Upton date traders are still complaining the charges at Malaba border of Uganda still on going and the matter is not resolve.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that charges are collected by the private company "Sunco Ltd." at the Malaba Uganda border
The two Partner States agreed to handle the matter administratively and is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-821 |
6.5. Variable levies
Policy/Regulatory |
2017-02-21 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 20th and 21st February 2017, Zimbabwean and Kenyan companies involved in distribution of tilapia into Zambia reported that the Government of Zambia had enacted the Customs and Excise Amendment Act number 47 of 2016 effective 1 January 2017.The amendment imposes a surtax of 5% on all imported goods that are produced or manufactured in Zambia. The surtax was meant to encourage local sourcing of inputs for the manufacturing sector in order to reduce the cost of production. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia and Kenya held a bilateral meeting during the 5th TFTA focal points meeting held in Nairobi in August, 2019. Zambia informed Kenya that the measure is under review and has also affected domestic companies and therefore does not violate the national treatment principle. Thus it should not be reported as an NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-194 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-08-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, State Department for Agriculture |
Uganda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 13th August 2024, the Government of Kenya, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development's State Department for Agriculture, imposed a ban on the importation of brown/table sugar into Kenya through an internal communication from the Principal Secretary. This decision was based on the significant improvements in the production of locally manufactured sugar in Kenya as quoted in the letter.
The letter though internal nal was brought to our attention.This action is in direct violation of the East African Community (EAC) Customs Union Treaty. Under Article 75 of the Treaty, the EAC establishes a free trade area for goods and services among partner states, while also outlining the application of Common External Tariffs (CET). Furthermore, Articles 76 and 104 of the Common Market Protocols emphasize the free movement of goods, people, labour, services, and capital between partner states, as well as the rights of establishment and residence, without restrictions that may hinder regional integration.
The ban, therefore, undermines the principles of regional cooperation and integration enshrined in the EAC Treaty.
There is no mention that the ban won't affect member states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 45th SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya reported that the communication was an internal proposal that was not implemented. There is no ban on Sugar transfers from EAC Partner States per the Public Notice of 9 September 2024 issued by the Office of the Cabinet Secretary from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. |
|
|
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-000-657 |
5.15. Other
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-12-11 |
Tanzania: Various State Agencies |
|
Resolved
2023-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Numerous monetary charges required by various agencies in the United Republic of Tanzania on exports of dairy products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIFI noted that the Republic of Uganda and the Republic of Kenya are handling the diary issues bilaterally with the United Republic of Tanzania whereby several meetings at the Ministerial and Summit levels have taken place and are at the final stages to be resolved. Also, the issue is being handled in the ongoing process of harmonization of fees, levies, and charges, and all the charges will be harmonized together with other charges. The SCTIFI hence guided that the NTB should be removed from the Time Bound program and allow the ongoing bilateral processes to be finalized. |
|
|
NTB-000-438 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A9: SPS measures n.e.s. |
2009-09-16 |
EAC |
Kenya |
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Numerous institutions involved in testing goods in the EAC partner states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
There is collaboration among testing agencies |
|
|
NTB-000-493 |
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 |
|
English
Français
