| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-576 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-04-16 |
South Africa: Pretoria |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
In 2011 the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, raised its cross-border road transport permits by up to 600%.
Not only was this increase unjustified, but it was done without negotiation with the road transport industry.
The resultant costs are also out of line with the costs for road transport permits in other countries.
FESARTA sent a letter (attached) to the Minister of Transport in South Africa, copied to SADC, but no response was received.
The South African Road Freight Association (RFA) has taken legal action against the increases.
The resultant permit fees put unecessarily high increases on the costs to transport goods to landlocked countries.
This is against trade facilitation. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-600 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-07-17 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
SADC |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) is fining transporters for transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban without a cross-border permit. The fine is R2000 (USD200) per truck.
The goods are being transported from Botswana and offloaded in a warehouse in Gauteng, South Africa.
The goods are then re-loaded on to different vehicles and transported to Durban.
The vehicles transporting the goods from Botswana, have cross-border permits.
There should be no reason for vehicles transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban to have cross-border permits, even though the goods come from Botswana. The transportation is wholly within South Africa and on South African vehicles.
See NTB 535/6 for a similar complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. The explanation from CBRTA was acceptable to FESRATA |
|
|
NTB-000-631 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2014-04-22 |
South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2015-03-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I apparently needed a certificate from the State Vet to carry wool tops over the border! This proved impossible to get in Ficksburg. I have also experienced many problems bringing craft goods over to South Africa from lesotho as we need to pay VAT on all goods coming to exhibitions. This is extremely time consuming process and then I have to claim the VAT back when I bring unsold goods back over the border! |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 24 March 2015, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved and therefore must be removed from the pending cases. |
|
|
Products:
|
5105.29: Wool, combed (excl. that in fragments "open tops") |
|
|
NTB-000-632 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2014-05-23 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Copper Moon Trading, the company that is running the Lebombo dry port at Komatipoort, near the Lebombo/Ressano Garcia border post, is forcing transporters to use and pay for its parking facilities in Komatipoort.
This instruction is supported by the Komatipoort municipality.
Attached are invoices for this parking and a "ticket" for a truck not parking in the identified facility.
As with the situation at the Tunduma/Nakonde border post between Tanzania and Zambia, private companies, supported by the municipalities, cannot force transporters to use their parking facilities.
Transporters' vehicles are required to visit the SARS customs clearing offices at the Lebombo dry port and so parking should be provided for them, free of charge, by SARS.
If parking is not provided, then trucks must be allowed to park along the roadway. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-639 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-08-25 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Director, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, South Africa, has instructed that, due to the outbreak of the ebola virus in DRC, no DRC citizens may enter South Africa until further notice.
See the attached notice.
Whilst it is accepted that the outbreak of the ebola virus is a serious issue, the transport industry recommends that other preventative measures be taken at the borders, rather than stop DRC citizens from entering the country? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-688 |
8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) |
2016-03-29 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-05-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa Immigration Offices at Beit Bridge gives drivers maximum 14 days on their passports when entering into SA at point of entry. When a driver departs before the 14 days are fully utilized, the next time you want to enter, they tell you to use those remaining days before they can add more days on your passport. This causes drivers to end up running short of days should their trip be longer than the remaining days before the normal 14 days. Zimbabwe transporters are therefore forced to send their drivers back to Beit Bridge without their trucks to get their passports re stamped or they are faced with fines or worse still, they will not be allowed to enter SA again for not exiting on or before the set day when they entered SA initially. This is increasing the cost of doing business. Transporters have lost business during the time drivers are hiking to the border to get passports stamped, the extra night allowances and bus fares and also the down time spent in the process. This problem is a lot worse if loads are short in SA as well.
This matter needs urgent attention on the part of Home Affairs in South Africa as the hampering of transporter and driver movements is not in the interests of trade facilitation and inters regional trade in the region. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 09 May 2016, the South African Focal Point provided the current Visa and Immigration requirements that state that: ‘Visas are not required by passport holders of Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Malawi who are entering the Republic as commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers provide their visits do not exceed 15 days and on condition that they can produce a letter confirming their employment with a transport company on entry.
The same principle applies to Zimbabwean commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers, except that their sojourn may not exceed 30 days at a time. The afore-mentioned does not apply to commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers who transport goods for a South African transport company. Such drivers must be in possession of a valid work visa.’
The requirements are uploaded onto the Notifications window of the Online system www.tradebarriers.org as information to stakeholders . This document can be dowloaded by the public . |
|
|
NTB-000-694 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2016-05-10 |
South Africa: OR Tambo International Airport |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2016-05-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The South African Revenue Authority ( SARS) are delaying release of goods imported through OR Tambo airport . SARs has detained ur goods for seven days now since 10th May without an explanation. It is the second time that the goods we are importing for business are detained at OR Tambo by Customs. The goods arrived on 10 May 2016, and they are still not released by today 17 May 2016. We are concerned that SARS may demand us to pay for storage and yet we do not understand why Customs has detained the goods for this long? My company has already lost revenue and missed on opportunity to sell and the demand for storage payment will cripple our business? We therefore request that SARS expedites release of our goods . |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The consignment was identified by SARS Case selection for inspection by the Customs Border Control Unit and subsequent to the inspection, the consignment was detained for proof of payment, original invoice and also to verify the importer’s code. Due to the Master Airway Bill stating final destination as Johannesburg (refer to Airway Bill attached under Airport of Destination), it was difficult for the inspection team to identify if the goods were in transit. This was only discovered after the client informed SARS that the goods in question was an RIT entry to Lesotho.
After the client informed SARS of the status of the consignment, the goods were then released on 17 May 2015
Our advise going forward is that in order to avoid future delays, the documents should clearly state the final destination as Maseru, Lesotho. |
|
|
NTB-000-722 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2016-08-29 |
South Africa: OR Tambo International Airport |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2016-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The South African Revenue Services at OR Tambo have detained consignment destined for Maseru since 29 August 2016 without explanation. This is yet another time when our goods are detained for more than a week and yet they are destined for Lesotho and not South Africa. The airway bill clearly has the address of the importer being in Lesotho but South African Customs detains the goods nonetheless. South African Customs is requested to explain the rationale for detaining goods destined for other countries , in this case Lesotho and whether it is lawful that goods which arrived on 29 August are still detained? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Dear Focal Points South Africa and Lesotho,
This issue was resolved long time ago. However, the SADC secretariat recommended that a long term solution be secured that responds to such questions as asked by Lesotho on above comment. You are kindly requested to recommend a way forward on the long term solutions. Otherwise we need to resolve this NTB as per current status . South Africa Focal point is of the view that we resolve it and I agree. This NTB is therefore resolved on the understanding that the Focal Points of Lesotho and South Africa will make necessary arrangements to ensure that the problem does not repeat itself in future now that it has been identified.
System administrator |
|
|
NTB-000-797 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2018-01-02 |
South Africa: The DTI |
South Africa |
Resolved
2019-08-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Distell, a Tape Town based exporting company is experiencing delays and high costs of processing SAD500 entries and SADC certificates for their wine exports to Zimbabwe. The current procedure where the Distell driver cannot take the SAD500 entry and SADC certificate to Customs to have it stamped and signed over the counter is cumbersome and costly for the company. The company has to wait for at least 2 days for either the release notification or the stamped and signed SADC certificates. This leads to the truck waiting at the depot for the documents, which results to either standing time cost at the depot or standing time at the border.
The requirement is as follows: Distell Company loads Bulk orders in Tanktainers and Drums from Monis in Paarl or Adam Tas in Stellenbosch, Cape Town which goes by road to Zimbabwe. Currently export documents can only be done by the Freight forwarder immediately after the Tanktainer or Drums are loaded. Export documentation cannot be processed earlier, as company has to wait for the final weight loaded into the truck. The alternative method to use flow meters and cut off the loading on a specific amount of liters is used because it is does produce accurate measurements.
Actual Current process for Bulk - Tanktainers (Tankerservices transport)
- Truck to be arranged for loading very early on a Tuesday morning @ 07:00am
- Most of the time 2 to 3 truckloads which will load one after the other.
- The following is all also done on the Tuesday:
o The wine is loaded.
o Distell invoices and forward the relevant documentation to Imperial Logistics in Johannesburg.
o Imperial Logistics processes the Customs entry via EDI.
- Once EDI release is received (after at least 2 days), Imperial Logistics sends the Release notification via e-mail.
- Distell advises Tanker Services to collect the relevant documentation and leave for the border.
- Imperial Logistics will have the SADC certificate stamped at the border.
- Tanker services driver to collect the original SADC certificates at the border.
A permanent solution for exporters in Cape Town to provide an over the counter service for our SAD500 & SADC entries is required. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved . South Africa was issuing SAD500 on time |
|
|
Products:
|
2204.10: Sparkling wine of fresh grapes |
|
|
NTB-000-938 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2020-02-08 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2026-01-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
NTB-000-938 concerning consignment detained at Beitbridge border post on the 8th of February 2020 was resolved following consultative meetings facilitated by the SADC Business Council. |
|
|
Products:
|
1905.31: Sweet biscuits |
|
|
NTB-000-878 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2019-01-29 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2019-02-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are experiencing delays by SARS customs who are taking time to inspect our container that is in transit. The delay is causing difficulties to meet the vessel to carry the shipment as it will be closing on Thursday 31st January at 06:00am and we are running out of time. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This NTB was resolved too late and the consignment missed the vessel thereby adding to transport costs. Lesotho reported that:
1. The inspection took long resulting in the consignment missing the vessel in Durban Harbour; trader incurred additional costs by taking the consignment to Cape Town instead of Durban; and
2. the congsinor was charged provisional payments upon the release of the consignment.
Lesotho observed that SARS treatment of Lesotho transit goods compromises prospects of Lesotho's international trade opportunities as the country seeks to expand and diversify both products and markets to contribute to economic growth and poverty reductionNTB Focal Point in South Africa are requested to assist in clarifying the situation on inspection with SARS at Maseru Border Post to expedite the process. |
|
|
NTB-000-891 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2019-04-09 |
South Africa: Cape Town |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2020-02-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SARs stopped containers for inspection and are demanding proof of payment from consignee/buyer to the exporting company (Supplier) for the goods in transit to Eswatini. The affected company, Long Wei Investments are experiencing delays and incurring storage and demurrage charges at the port of discharge in Cape Town. SARS has withheld the consignment for over seven days from 9th April 2019. SARs are asking for different documentation at different times and dates thereby further delaying the inspection process and release of the consignments. The affected products are on Bill of Lading No. COSU6198384160 |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point for Eswatini reported that the matter had been resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-895 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2019-08-08 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2020-02-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Container been detention for physical exam for too long now, which will delay our exports. The requested documents were provided long time. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 Februaru 2020, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the complaint had confirmed that the container had been released |
|
|
NTB-000-894 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B9: TBT Measures n.e.s. |
2019-05-14 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2019-05-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SARS inspection process takes too long thereby delaying transit of goods destined for the Port. TZICC Clothing Manufacture, requesting SARS to expedite clearance of their declaration which was done last May 14, 2019. The container has not been cleared as at Wednesday 22 May 2019 our Container has not been release yet. The Export Container is going to United States of America and there is a schedule that the company need to meet specially the vessel Stack Dates in Durban. Case # 313253631 was pending since Wednesday and it took so long for SARS to answer or response on the query. 1st we do the VOC 2nd they ask for the Sales Contract 3rd they ask for the Provisional Payment amounting R28866.87 which was already done paying Friday 17 May 2019, everything was uploaded on Friday but SARS has not responded as on 22 May 2019. TZICC are not in a position to know what is going on as SARS are not answering on the system.
This container will cost a lot if the consignment misses the vessel again in Capetown just because of SARS Customs. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 22 May 2019, South Africa Focal Point reported that discrepancies that were picked up which resulted in the delay of the declared consignment were rectified. The case has been finalised and released. |
|
|
NTB-000-898 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-05-30 |
South Africa: SGS South Africa |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2020-01-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
All consignments subject to Pre-Shipment Verification of Conformity (PVoC) must obtain the Certificate of Confirmity (CoC) prior to shipment.
On average, it takes SGS South Africa about 3-5 days to respond to a request made by the exporter for issuing the CoC, and it takes them further 15-20 days to produce the CoC. In the meantime, the Mauritian exporting company has to incur several financial constraints while waiting for the CoC. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 17 January 2020, Mauritius Focal Point advised that the exporter has negotiated with SGS South Africa to reduce the number of days taken to obtain the Certificate of Conformity (CoC). SGS South Africa is taking a maximum of 12 days to process the CoC instead of 25 days.
The exporter has advised that they are now satisfied with the processing time. |
|
|
NTB-000-962 |
5.4. Quotas |
2020-04-07 |
South Africa: International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC)
South African Revenue Services (SARS) |
|
Resolved
2020-11-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Export permits were identified by participants as a major issue in South Africa but not an issue outside South Africa. To apply for an export permit, a company engaging in international trade concurrently applies for the export permit approval from the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC), Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the National Department of Health (NDOH). Once approved by DTIC and NDOH, ITAC provides the exporter with a permit. Once the permit is issued by ITAC, the exporter will send the permit approval to South African Revenue Services (SARS) to issue a customs clearance for export to take place. However, one could have an ITAC permit and not have a SARS customs clearance. Without the SARS clearance, medicines will not be exported.
The issue of export permits is discussed in detail below:
1. Due to the COVID-19, South Africa restricted the export of pharmaceutical products to meet domestic demand. While the objective to meet domestic demand is noble, the challenge is that some medicines limited to export permits are unrelated to COVID-19.
2. Also, application forms keep changing even after engagements with stakeholders with the export products restricted under a single HS code.
3. Another challenge is that essential medicines that are exempt from export permits are subject to export permits. This violates SADC regional guidelines for harmonising and facilitating movement of critical goods and services across the region during the COVID-19
4. Products that are readily available locally are also subjected to export permits (the exception being countries in the Southern Africa Customs Union-SACU). This in turn restricts movement of lifesaving medicines to needy markets and affects company profitability.
5. Participants also highlighted frustration with the slow approval of permits (although it is improving) in South Africa by the International Trade Administration Committee (ITAC), South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry which is received in a fragmented fashion, resulting in delays, thereby putting products at risk.
6. The above challenges on export permits in South Africa were confirmed by a participant from Mauritius. According to the participant, his company has been unable to order new stock from South Africa since March 2020. Their stock has been depleted due to delays in issuance of export permits by ITAC.
7. Lastly, participants also expressed their frustration with the slow processes by the SARS in processing customs clearance of export permits and noting that the requirements are changing on a regular basis without proper notice.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Following a series of meetings organised by the SADC Business Council and subsequent follow-ups with the Department of Trade Industry and Competition (DTIC) in South Africa, the DTIC on 26 November 2020 amended the COVID-19 export control regulation issued in February 2020 which removed, with immediate effect, the restrictions on export of essential
medicines for SADC countries. |
|
|
NTB-000-985 |
1.8. Import bans |
2020-10-12 |
South Africa: Grobler's Bridge |
Zambia |
Resolved
2026-02-19 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certified organic honey that is American Foulbrood Disease (AFB)free, complete with Certificate of Analysis from accredited lab Intertek in Germany (accredited by the German National Accreditation body DAkkS - national accreditation body for the Federal Republic of Germany) they are also ISO/IEC 17025 certified and they do engage in proficiency testing) has been banned from entering SA unless irradiated.
2015 bilateral agreement allowed Zambian honey into SA without irradiating due to there being no AFB in Zambia.
SA claims that their ARC lab has tested samples from Forest Fruits and others and found them to be positive for AFB. The ARC lab has always produced inconsistent results and they cannot replicate the results. Sometimes positive and after a retest it is negative. ARC lab is not even SANAS accredited, has no ISO certification and does not engage in proficiency testing for AFB tests. On 23 October 2020 at a round table meeting of SA honey importers and various DAFF departments - meeting called by DAFF NPPO, it was clearly stated and admitted that ARC has performance "gaps".
DAFF scientists have to make decisions based on faulty science and results. The Intertek results consistently come back as negative for AFB disease. The result is in Non Compliance notices being sent to Zambia for samples that get retested and are negative!
As recent as last year, Zambia Veterinary Services did a national survey and found no AFB disease in Zambia.
SA DAFF NPPO is creating haphazard barriers to Zambian honey.
All Zambian exports are now affected.
Since 2015 a considerable amount of business with South African companies has developed in Zambia exporting honey to them. This ban affects the livelihoods of over 140,000 subsistence villagers. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia reported that the complaint had been resolved. Please refer to the progress report provided above on 10th December 2025. |
|
|
NTB-001-028 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: SARS |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The update received from the SA Focal Point indicated that SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annexe I, which has been long in the making. Therefore, this matter can be considered s resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-029 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: South Africa Revenue Services ( SARS) |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The update received from the SA Focal Point indicated that SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annexe I, which has been long in the making. Therefore, this matter can be considered s resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-041 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B6: Product identity requirement |
2021-11-04 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2021-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa Port Health officials demanding an extended description on one of our products. The product is a sweet type described as Apricots on both packaging and invoice but the officials want us to have the packaging written Apricots sweets. We have been exporting the sweet to South Africa for more than 5 years. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The company had been allowed to export its consignment to South Africa after removing prohibited products. The NTB was resolved are following required procedures |
|
|
Products:
|
2008.50: Apricots, prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit (excl. preserved with sugar but not laid in syrup, jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit purée and pastes, obtained by cooking) |
|
English
Français
