| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-503 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-03-14 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Uganda |
Resolved
2012-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya has introduced Cash Bond on used clothes and shoes / other items considered of high value |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 7th EAC forum Kenya reported that the Cash Bonds on used shoes and clothes was been abolished as recommended by the Mombasa Ministerial meeting on NTBs in March 2012 |
|
|
NTB-000-541 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2012-10-29 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On Monday 29 October I was crossing into South Africa from Mozambique. I was importing used shoes from Mozambique destined to Lesotho, however the customs officials from Lebombo border post on South African could not let my goods pass through and my goods were confiscated.
I was holding the reciept from the seller from Mozambique, the value of the goods was M2,857 (R2,857 or equivalent of 10, 000 Meticais). I was then told by the custom official at the border that I will have to pay R 9000 plus VAT which is not refundable according to the official. This value is way more than the value of the goods.
The other option was that I should hire currier service s very expensive, I was forced to use currier even though I had my own transport and to use an urgent. I was holding an import permit from my country Lesotho at the time however I was told to pay the R 9000 which is not refundable. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 November 2012, South Africa Focal Point reported that each of the SACU member state has its own import/export control regime. For South Africa, importation of used clothing and footwear for resale purposes is not allowed, except in specifically defined conditions. The conditions for used clothing are that, imports should be for the purpose of cutting up to manufacture industrial wiping rags in a customs rebate store. For used footwear, imports are only allowed if the shoes are donated to a registered charity for free distribution in terms of a customs rebate provision.
Given the above background, second hand clothing and footwear imports in transit through SA have to transit SA territory under special procedures: these goods need to be cleared in bond first, and then the goods need to be transported by an in-bond carrier to the country of destination (Lesotho in this case). For this reason the importer was told to use courier services. Such courier service would constitute an in-bond carrier. Such an in-bond remover must have sufficient security in place to cover the duty and VAT on these goods in bond; and this surety would be acquitted with the final clearance upon arrival in Lesotho. If the importer therefore did not comply with the in-bond transit measures, it would explain the duties charged.
During the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Lesotho noted the response by South Africa and undertook to provide clarification upon consultation with the importer. |
|
|
NTB-000-661 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2014-12-11 |
Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2015-03-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda charges 25% duty rate on scrapping rolls manufactured in Kenya and also on products manufactured in Kenya using glucose. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Kenya NMC NTBs meeting held in Nairobi on 16th March 2015, Kenya confirmed that Uganda had scrapped the 25% duty .This position was endorsed by the 17th NTB forum thereby resolving this issue. |
|
|
NTB-000-765 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures
Policy/Regulatory |
2017-05-05 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania does not recognize price adjustments for duty purposes particularly the reduction by milk processors in Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Regional Monitoring Committee meeting of 2018, Tanzania reported that, this is not an NTB but a valuation issue that can be resolved between the revenue authority and the importer. KRA and TRA were therefore quested to hold a bilateral meeting to resolve the matter by 21st November 2018.2. The Regional meeting held from 29 April - 3 May 2019 referred the matter to the Committee on Customs for resolution. |
|
|
NTB-000-946 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures
Policy/Regulatory |
2017-03-01 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Agriculture |
Kenya |
Resolved
2021-04-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania introduced new discriminative fees levied against animal and animal products vide Animal Diseases (Animal and Animal products Movement Control) amendment GN no. 475. This discriminatory fees to Kenya (EAC) animal and animal products i.e. beef and beef products, milk and milk products vis-à-vis Tanzania products has increased levies to 4800Tsh per Kg of meat (Ksh from 200 to 500) and 1800 Tsh per Kg for milk. This is against the spirit of the EAC where Tanzania (Partner States) is required to accord equal treatment to products from Kenya. This has negatively affected Kenya beef and beef products into Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Tanzania NMC meeting held in April 2021, the Meeting was informed that the charge is on Imports from outside the Region and not transfers from the East African Partner States. Since the Republic of Kenya has not produced any evidence of the complaint, the NTB should be resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-339 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-12-10 |
Mozambique: Mozambique Customs |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of medicine experience delays in clearance because pre-inspection certificates are not issued on time. |
|
|
NTB-000-329 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2009-09-09 |
Eswatini: Customs |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2010-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland borders are seriously understaffed and there is to control smuggling. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that the Swaziland Revenue Authority (SRA) started operating in January 2011 and replaces the Department of Customs and Excise. The organization is therefore fairly new and is still in process of developing appropriate customs clearances procedures which will be uniformly applied at all border posts. This also applies to recruitment and training of staff which is still is ongoing to reach the desired levels which will bring efficiencies in the provision of service at all borders. |
|
|
NTB-000-340 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2009-12-10 |
Mozambique: Mozambique Revenue Authority |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of medicine experience delays in clearance because pre-inspection certificates are not issued on time. |
|
|
NTB-000-595 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2013-06-10 |
South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2015-03-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Exporter's containers (in transit to USA) are stopped by South African Revenue Services (SARS) at Ficksburg border post, South Africa and consignments are checked exclusively notwithstanding the fact that they are being checked by the Lesotho Revenue Authority (LRA) before they are dispatched. SARS requires certificate of origin before they can process Electronic Data Interchange and that goods be off-loaded from the containers and then re-loaded and this requires extra manpower thereby adding on the cost of manufacturing. Moreover, exporters have to pay standing charges for transporters as they have to stay overnight at the border as the process takes about 6-12 hours and this impacts negatively on many other shipping processes. The process also causes goods to reach their destinations after the agreed timeframe and as a result exporters fail to meet their customers' requirements.
The incident has happened on more than one occassion. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 March 2015, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved and therefore must be removed from the pending cases. |
|
|
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-000-906 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-04-05 |
Uganda: Uganda Weight and Measures Authority |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda does not recognize the Calibration Certificate issued by the Weight and Measures Agent (WMA) for oil tank from URT: Republic of Uganda does not accept the Calibration Certificate of tanks from URT. As a result, our traders are forced to undergo recalibration by Ugandan counterpart Authority (Uganda Bureau of Standards) at a charge odd USD 230. This increases the cost of doing business. The trader paid Uganda shillings 2,655,600. It was stated that the certificate from URT is valid for the period of one year. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 27th EASC meeting of April 2025 recommended:
(a) approved the Draft EAC Harmonized Procedures for calibration and verification of road and rail tankers;
(b) Urge Partner States to adopt and implement EAC Harmonized Procedures for calibration and verification of road and rail tankers as per the implementation roadmap
The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-922 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-05-30 |
Uganda: UNBS |
Kenya |
Resolved
2020-09-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of recognition of online KEBs standardization mark validity.
Delay in release of shipment , increased cost of transportation
UNBS and KEBS to mutually recognize online standardization mark validities/online KEBs certificate to avoid any costly delays. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The SCTIFI held in September 2020, noted that the issue is operational and should be referred to the quality assurance technical subcommittee for consideration and resolution. The NTB is resolved from this EAC Time Bound Programme. |
|
|
NTB-000-934 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2019-05-30 |
Kenya: Ministry of Industry, Trade & Cooperatives |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2020-07-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Under the PVoC (Pre-Shipment Verification of Conformity) program, all regulated products to be imported in Kenya have to undergo verification and testing in the country of supply and a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) has to be issued to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the applicable national standards or approved equivalents and technical regulations. The CoC is mandatory for customs clearance.
However, all consignments subject to PVoC must obtain the CoC prior to shipment. This is where it becomes a barrier.
As a result of this measure, Mauritian exporters of HS 22071090 have to bear additional time and cost in shipping the products to Kenya.
We are therefore requesting the relevant Kenyan authority to amend its measure so that the Certificate of Conformity be requested upon the arrival of consignment instead of prior to shipment. The procedures to obtain the CoC and the shipment of the products can be done in parallel. By the time the products reach Kenya, the COC will be ready to be submitted at the port of entry. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya appreciate Mauritius concerns on NTB No. 934 regarding pre-shipment verification. We therefore confirm that this NTB has been resolved as evidenced by legal notice no. 78 dated 28th April 2020, where clause 9(1) allows for destination inspection. Subsequently, Kenya notified the same to the WTO under notification number G/TBT/N/KEN/1002. |
|
|
NTB-001-144 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2023-11-10 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2024-05-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Release Documents is 7 days prior to vessel arrival because of cargo dues and upon receiving Arrival Notice. The EDI document was sent for release on the 9th of November 2023 the query came in on the 10th of November 2023, and normally it would be released in less than 6 hours but up to date it hasn't been released. We need the import urgently to be released in order to avoid any delays with our Export Orders. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved successfully |
|
|
Products:
|
6006.32: Dyed fabrics, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibres, of a width of > 30 cm (excl. warp knit fabrics "incl. those made on galloon knitting machines", those containing by weight >= 5% of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, and pile fabrics, incl. "long and 6006.34: Printed fabrics, knitted or crocheted, of synthetic fibres, of a width of > 30 cm (excl. warp knit fabrics "incl. those made on galloon knitting machines", those containing by weight >= 5% of elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, and pile fabrics, incl. "lo |
|
|
NTB-001-211 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2024-10-01 |
Uganda: UNBS |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya is experiencing unfair treatment by UNBS. Where the institution refused to recognize PERMITS Issued by KEBS. Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border and Headquarters UNBS officials have not been fruitful because the manufacturer didn't receive any help insisting that Kenya manufacturers pay the destination Inspection fee despite products having standardization marks with harmonized standards.
UNBS demand that payments for destination must be done without any other documents issued by UNBS.
Additionally, it’s been a challenge getting sample receipts when UNBS pick samples for every consignment. Manufacturers would demand drivers to pay for lack of evidence of the huge samples taken by UNBS. Also clients receive less paid items due to samples collected by UNBS. This is unfair and has raised concerns to Kenya manufacturers and clients in Uganda.
Affected products include cosmetics products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
EAC has Harmonized Standards for Furniture, but they are not exhaustive. The trader was transferring types of furniture falling in a category where no harmonized standard exists. In such circumstances the goods might be subject to retesting.
The meeting hence noted that this was not an NTB but an operational challenge and should be referred to the Committee on Standards for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-254 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2025-04-01 |
Malawi: Songwe |
Malawi |
Resolved
2025-06-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a company that exports groundnuts from Malawi to Kenya. On average we export three containers in a month to Kenya. Before loading the cargo into the container, the cargo is being inspecting by the MRA official who certify the accuracy of the cargo being loaded into the container for Export.
Once the container is loaded, a seal is placed on it till the container reaches the exit border post, where this seal is removed again for the second confirmation of the load being exported. This requires offloading the consignment, running the risk of contamination, damage and delays as well as cost of offloading and loading. We have been exporting to Kenya since 2022. However, since October 2024, we have been encountering these challenges of being forced to offload cargo at the exit boarder post for inspection purposes by MRA officials, both to and from. This is despite that the cargo is being loaded into the container in the presence of the MRA official at the point of origin of goods. As a result of this we are paying unnecessary costs which is expensive and at times delays the clearance process. All these costs are being encountered by the exporter/importer.
The exit border has machine scanners which have been out of service for some time now. If these were working, we could not encounter this delay and expense which is originating from the offloading and loading of the cargo. At the same times some of the exported or imported cargo gets damaged when carrying out this exercise. Hygiene is also another issue, considering the places where we are doing the off-loading and loading exercise.
A resolution needs to be found ASAP to avoid such delays, repetitive inspections and costs before exiting the country. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB 001-254 issue is now effectively resolved. In a productive virtual meeting on June 17, 2025, key stakeholders—including the SADC Secretariat, a representative from the concerned company in Malawi, the Malawi Revenue Authority, the SADC Business Council, and GIZ—came together to address challenges experienced by exporters at the Songwe Border Post. The Malawi Revenue Authority took the initiative to inform exporters of the obstacles encountered during border crossings and clearly outlined the customs procedures necessary for a smooth export process from Malawi. This collaborative effort demonstrates a commitment to enhancing trade efficiency and supporting exporters. |
|
|
Products:
|
1202.42: Groundnuts, shelled, whether or not broken (excl. seed for sowing, roasted or otherwise cooked) |
|
|
NTB-000-159 |
4.1. Issues related to sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures
A83: Certification requirement |
2009-07-27 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Health |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2011-08-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Cumbersome certification procedures for certification of milk inputs.Certification officers are based in Dar es Salaam and going to Tunduma for verification is very cumbersome |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Tanzania Revenue Authority reported that TRA does random physical verification as part of risk management analysis before clearing mainly on textiles motor vehicles. |
|
|
NTB-000-038 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2008-12-22 |
Malawi: Malawi Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2011-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya complained that Malawian Government require submission of Form 18 along with COMESA Certificate of Origin. On Form 18, exporter has to justify that value addition amounts to 51% contrary to the COMESA value addition requirement of 35%. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At their meeting eld on 29 August 2011, Kenya NMC reported that Kenya is no longer encountering this problem and are therefore happy to get it considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-047 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2007-05-29 |
Madagascar: Ministry of Trade |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2009-02-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland complained that the Government of Madagascar were not exempting import duties on Swaziland original goods (Madagascar Customs said Swaziland is not part of COMESA any more as of 1st February, 2007) |
|
|
NTB-000-031 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2008-12-23 |
Egypt: Ministry of Trade |
Uganda |
Resolved
2009-02-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
: Authorisation fees for endorsement of COMESA Certificate of Origin
Uganda has complained that Egypt authorities require that Certificates of Origin be endorsed by the Egyptian Embassy in Kampala before dispatch of the goods |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Issue was resolved through COMESA Customs and Trade Committee |
|
English
Français
