| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-400 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A52: Irradiation |
2011-02-22 |
South Africa: The Department of Trade and Industry |
Zambia |
Resolved
2015-08-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Zambian honey sector have come against repeated resistance from the South African authorities to allow organic honey to enter the South Africa market without the unnecessary requirement of irradiation. Therefore, our traders are requesting the South African government for an exemption from the irradiation requirements for the importation of honey from Zambia as set out by the National Department of Agriculture (RSA).
An analysis undertaken by the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) of South Africa collected honey samples from across Zambia during a national disease survey funded by the World Bank in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture of Zambia. The findings of this analysis by the NDA reveal that there is no American Foulbrood Disease in Zambia. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa advised that all honey exports from Zambia were now accepted into that market. |
|
|
Products:
|
0409.00: Natural honey |
|
|
NTB-000-411 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A15: Authorization requirement for importers for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons |
2011-03-23 |
South Africa: National Dept Agricultural
Registrar : Act no 36 of 1947 |
South Africa |
Resolved
2011-04-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My company submitted renewal of existing Farm Feed Registrations at 12 Dec 2010
All the FF regestrations have expired on 28 Feb. 2011
We have enqeired numerous times on the renewal with no satisfaction.
Th ecompany is stuck with 1000mt of cotton oilcake and 100mt of meat and bone meal that can not come in to South Africa from Zimbabwe and Namibia
The local feed plants and feed lots are running out of stock with no local stocks to supply. We therefore seek help to have our applications processed by the relevant Ministry/Department |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Department of Agriculture & Fisheries renewd the licence on 28 March 2011 |
|
|
Products:
|
1207.2: - Cotton seeds : |
|
|
NTB-000-483 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B33: Packaging requirements |
2012-01-03 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Malawi |
Resolved
2012-01-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days.
The reasons for the being held are the following:
1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco.
2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco.
3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border.
There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues.
The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company.
In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth.
The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions:
i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit.
ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals.
iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility
iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco.
It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012.
South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows:
‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’ |
|
|
NTB-000-483 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B33: Packaging requirements |
2012-01-03 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Malawi |
Resolved
2012-01-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days.
The reasons for the being held are the following:
1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco.
2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco.
3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border.
There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues.
The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company.
In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth.
The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions:
i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit.
ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals.
iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility
iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco.
It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012.
South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows:
‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’ |
|
|
NTB-000-477 |
7.4. Costly procedures
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-02 |
South Africa: Kopfontein |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-08-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
With effect from the 1st of January 2012 SARS will no longer be accepting bank guaranteed cheques as a mode of payment for the 14% VAT on imports into South Africa. A note from SARS reports that the reason for this major is due to modernization that SARS customs is currently under going and has impact on various areas of business including revenue division whereby every process will be automated.
With SARS having stopped allowing foreign clients to participate in the deferment in 2007 and with SARS having on its cards at some point in 2012 they will discontinue those foreign clients who registered fro a deferment account prior 2007. This means foreign companies importing into South Africa will effectively have to pay cash or make use of a South African clearing agent with a deferred account at the boarders. Other alternatives given would be 1. Establish a company in SA which will be invoiced for all products sent to SA and would be liable for the 14% VAT and then on - sell to our current customers. 2. Approach SARS clearing agent, who would then pay the VAT and charge for it as well as clearing our products, note that current monthly VAT payments can go up to a million rands. 3. Approach our SA customers to open VAT deferred accounts with SARS which as proven difficult. further more SARS no longer accepts export documents that are filled in by individual companies, the requirement is that companies use the services of the SA clearing agents, of which a charge of 150 per document in rands is required. An average truck carrying various products for various clients could easily run into thousands of rands per truck load. It is increasingly becoming difficult to export into South Africa. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
In their letter dated 28 August 2012 to Focal Point South Africa, Sout Africa Revenue Services reported that the NTB had been resolved bilaterally. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
NTB-000-518 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-07-09 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is wanting to fine trucks for not having road transport permits for the complete trip from Durban to the DRC.
In terms of the bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and South Africa, Zimbabwe had issued a permit to a transporter for the Durban-Zimbabwe leg of the trip.
Zimbabwe could not issue a bi-lateral permit all the way to DRC because there is no bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and DRC.
Both Zimbabwe and DRC are members of COMESA and therefore Zimbabwe was able to issue a COMESA PTA Carriers Licence to the transporter, to operate between Zimbabwe and the DRC.
Thus, effectively, the transporter had permits to cover the complete trip from Durban to DRC.
The fact that neither the CBRTA nor Zimbabwe could issue a single permit for the full trip, was not the fault of the transporter.
The CBRTA should be facilitating trade between the three countries and not be trying to find any opportunity to fine transporters. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-535 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-10-12 |
South Africa: Vioolsdrift |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by the Road Freight Association.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is requiring cross-border permits for two vehicles to take one load from South Africa to Namibia.
One permit is required to take the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington, and another permit to take the load from Upington to Namibia.
The Truck taking the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington should not require a cross-border permit, since the transport is being done wholly in South Africa.
The CBRTA quotes the following excerpt from the Act: "“cross-border road transport” means the transport of passengers for reward or the transport of freight to or from the Republic crossing or intending to cross its borders into the territory of another state or in transit across the Republic or the territory of another state with a vehicle on a public road; (xv)"
If this clause means that two permits are required, then the clause must be changed.
In the meantime, a moratorium to remove the requirement for two permits, must be put in place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 April 2014, Namibia Focal Point reported that the explanation provided by South Africa Focal Point confirming that CBRTA was acting within the legal framework was adequate evidence to have this NTB resolved. This NTB is therefore resolved on the grounds that the CBRTA action was legal. |
|
|
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-000-595 |
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-000-561 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-10-24 |
South Africa: On the main transport routes in Gauteng, South Africa |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The managing director of Cross Country Containers in Zimbabwe, has reported that there had been four incidences of hijacking his vehicles in the Gauteng area.
The first was in October 2011, the second in June 2012, the third in September 2012 and the fourth in October 2012.
All the vehicles hijacked, were carrying copper, from the copper mines in Zambia.
A meeting was held between the road transport industry and the SAPS Hawks, in Pretoria, on the 24th October 2012.
A report of the meeting is attached.
These hijackings have had such a negative impact on Cross Country Containers, that it has stopped operating into South Africa.
The road transport industry, under the guidance of FESARTA, is to send a proposal on the way forward, to the Hawks. |
|
|
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 in Lusaka Zambia, South Africa requeted that this NTB be removed from the online system on grounds that it was security issue. The meeting agreed that this be categorised as ' Non Actionable'. |
|
|
NTB-000-561 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-10-24 |
South Africa: On the main transport routes in Gauteng, South Africa |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The managing director of Cross Country Containers in Zimbabwe, has reported that there had been four incidences of hijacking his vehicles in the Gauteng area.
The first was in October 2011, the second in June 2012, the third in September 2012 and the fourth in October 2012.
All the vehicles hijacked, were carrying copper, from the copper mines in Zambia.
A meeting was held between the road transport industry and the SAPS Hawks, in Pretoria, on the 24th October 2012.
A report of the meeting is attached.
These hijackings have had such a negative impact on Cross Country Containers, that it has stopped operating into South Africa.
The road transport industry, under the guidance of FESARTA, is to send a proposal on the way forward, to the Hawks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTB SMS Launch meeting held on 9-10 April 2013, in Lusaka, Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe reported that this was a security issue that was being attended to by the relevant authorities. |
|
|
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 |
|
English
Français
