| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-124 |
2.14. Other |
2009-07-26 |
SADC |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Training of new customs recruits in the region |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Seychelles reported that training of new recruits is a point of concern for Seychelles. Training especially for customs officers, on R.O.O, clearing process, investigation, inspection, to conduct time release study ect...is in progress. |
|
|
NTB-000-125 |
7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Seychelles: Port Victoria |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Some businesses complained that port handling facilities at the ports are unable to handle containers that exceed 6methers (20ft) thereby limiting exporters in implementing the most cost effective way of transporting their products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Seychelles reported that a new plan for handling of containers has been designed and is expected to ease the current burden in the handling of containers; however it is not too clear when the renovation project will kick start. |
|
|
NTB-000-071 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Raw sugar can only be exported through a single channel |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that all excess raw sugar is exported by SASA on behalf of producers simply to safeguard on logistical costs etc to minimize the distortive effects of the world market. The manner in which it is done in SA does not conform to what is normally referred to as single channel - the implications of single channel can be much broader. |
|
|
NTB-000-076 |
1.1. Export subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa offers a large number of export incentives for to promote locally produced exports. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that export incentives are offered to promote manufactured exports and exports in general |
|
|
NTB-000-106 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland imposed import levy for dairy products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that there is an import levy on dairy products imposed and collected by Swaziland Dairy Board |
|
|
NTB-000-128 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: Bordergate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of standardization in application of regulations, which currently differ per individual officer, per border post. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that Standards in application of procedures are in place. Where these are not clear officers may use discretion. This results in non uniformity. |
|
|
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-000-101 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-26 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Agriculture |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has single marketing channel for basic commodities. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that this is no longer obtaining. |
|
|
NTB-000-394 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A84: Inspection requirement
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-01-15 |
Angola: At the point of offloading. |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-04-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ministry of Agriculture in Angola has implemented decree Nr 02/08. This decree requires the inspector to be present at the time of offloading, and to draw samples per load, line item and batch. As there are on average over 100 lines per container and more than one batch per line, this can result in as many as 300 samples being drawn per container. The remaining items will need to be placed in quarantine until testing is finalized and release given.
Given that on average 3 containers arrive in Luanda daily, more than 900 items from Shoprite alone will create a problem for the Lab. Their turn around time of 3 days will be impossible to maintain.
Many of the products are also time sensitive, which means that by the time final release is given, there may be very little shelf life left, if at all.
Then there is also the cost to consider. Sampling and testing is part and parcel of the business but taken to the extreme as is the case here, it becomes a very costly and ultimately damaging excercise both to the Business and the end consumer (reduced shelf life, less choice).
Suggestions:
1. Allow a South African authority (SABS, NRCS) to sample and inspect the goods before dispatching and issue a certificate against the findings, to accompany the load.
2. Allow Shoprite to send samples of the goods onboard via courier company so that the inspection can commence and thus be completed and the certificates issued by the time that the load arrives at the store level. The batch number can be verified by an independant body. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7th April 2015, South Africa Focal Point reported that they had received confirmation from the complainant that NTB 394, reported by SA against Angola should be recorded as 'resolved' because what was complained about had not been enforced |
|
|
Products:
|
0401.10: Milk and cream of a fat content by weight of <= 1%, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter and 1601.00: Sausages and similar products, of meat, offal or blood; food preparations based on these products |
|
|
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-000-425 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-07-21 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
DRC transit charges are too exhorbitant. For example, a truck delivering to Tenke, will have to pay $340 + 750 + 125 + 125 = $1340 for one return trip.That is, providing the truck doesn’t wait more than one day at the Zambian border.
There have been many complaints about it, but little seems to be done. There are ongoing efforts by the RFA and other stakeholders to get the toll fees as low as possible yielded some positive resulted in a once off reduction of the fees which still are too high. Each trip through Kasumbalesa to Lubumbashi costs a staggering US$ 125.There is need for transparency and fair toll fees at regional level. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-523 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2012-08-06 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: On all roads |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
the traffic police and other authorities in DRC, are enforcing a 40km/hr speed limit on all roads.
If the speed is exceeded, a spot fine of US$500 is imposed.
If the truck is impounded, a further US$100 per day is charged for parking.
This is an unacceptable acitivity, since the normal speed limits are clearly marked with road signs.
40km/hr throughout the country is not a realistic speed limit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 02 December 2012, the Department of Transport in the DRC advised that an agreement between the drivers and the DRC government was reached that , until 30 January 2013, there will be no speed limits imposed. The DRC government will look at the drivers behaviour and will come back with a final solution to this issue after 30 January 2013. |
|
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st May 2012, Mozambique reported that , consultations were held with authorities responsible for transport regulations which submitted the following update:
Decree 14/2008 of 25 June 2008, “approves the Regulations for weights and dimensions, Combinations and spreading of Cargo in Motor vehicles and Trailers and revokes Articles 18, 19, 24, and 27 of the Road Code”
Article 5 “ Maximum dimensions”
Nº. 1. The contour of vehicles involving all accessories, except rear view mirrors and direction indicators may not exceed the following values regarding the types of vehicles:
A. Length:
a) Vehicle with one or more axles -13m
b) Articulated vehicles with 3 or more axles -18m
c) Sets Vehicle-trailer -22m
d) Trailers with one or more axles -13m
e) Trailers for agricultural traction of:
i. One axle -7m
ii. Two or more axles -10m
B. Width - 2,60 m
C. Height - (measured from the ground) – 4,3m~
Nº. 2. Articulated vehicles specially adapted and approved by the National Traffic Institute for the transport of containers. The maximum length for this type of vehicles is 16,50m.
N° 8. The National Traffic Institute may authorize:
a) The transit of vehicles that transport indivisible objects that exceed the limits;
b) The registration or transit of special vehicles with dimensions exceeding the limits.
This Article must be read with Article 58 (1) of the new Road Traffic Code - Decree Nº 1/2011.
Art. 58 “Special Authorization”
N.º 1. According to the conditions specified in the Rules, INAV may allow the transit of vehicles exceeding the weight or dimensions legally allowed or transporting indivisible objects that exceed the size of the vehicles.
N.º 2 The referred authorizations require a favourable opinion from ANE and the Municipal Councils, depending on the cases, regarding the nature of the road paving, the resistance of art works along the routes or the technical specifications of the public roads. Thus limiting the access of such vehicles to roads whose specifications allow such transit.
From the above mentioned articles it is understood that, although the law specifies the limit of 16.5 m, the transporter or operator may request from INAV a “Transit Permit” which will involve police escort. This permit costs 398, 00MTn which is equivalent to approximately R 110.00.
Vehicles are expected to conform to the decree. |
|
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 February 2015, Mozambique Focal Point requested that this NTB be resolved on grounds that FESARTA was not forthcoming with additional information on proof of payment and the place where the accident occurred to assist with the investigation on the incident. Further, according to the existing Regulation (Decree 14/2008 of 25 June), it should be noted that Mozambique does not have infrastructure prepared to adopt the specifications of South Africa, so that the movement of carriers in Mozambique is made on specific routes. The Portuguese version is uploaded onto the system for reference. However, Mozambique was working towards adapting their laws in line with SADC recommendations about size and weights of vehicles. |
|
|
NTB-000-480 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-07 |
Zambia: Chililabombwe Municipal Council, Zambia |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Chililabombwe Municipal Council. There is no justification for such a fee since the transporters do not receive any services from the Council. The transporters are travelling on national roads, which are maintained by the government and not the Council. The transporters pay road user charges to the government to maintain the roads. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7 September 2016, Zambia Focal point reported that All Levies collected by the Council are guided by Section 69 and 70 of the Local Government Act CAP 281 of the Laws of Zambia which specifies the Levies to be collected. Under this Act (CAP 281), no Council is mandated to collect motor vehicle fees. The supporting Local Government Act was uploaded for reference |
|
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 February 2015, Mozambique Focal Point advised that the NTB be resolved in according to the existing Regulation (Decree 14/2008 of 25 June) and that it should be noted that Mozambique did not have infrastructure prepared to adopt the specifications of South Africa, so that the movement of carriers in Mozambique is made on specific routes. However, Mozambique was working towards conforming to SADC specifications on vehicle length and weights.
FESARTA confirmed that there had been no reports of recent problems with NTB 478 and therefore the NTB should be resolved. FESARTA made an observation that the regulation was probably introduced many years ago, when there could have been a particular issue that resulted in the regulation and that the regulation may not have any relevance now. |
|
|
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-000-486 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-02-15 |
SADC |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a South African Transport Company transporting goods into DRC. We are paying on weekly basis exorbitant road duties in Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe & DRC if we offload loads from Johannesburg RSA to Mutanda DRC. Our cost on a tri-axle on road fee is 1060 Pula on return trip (Martinsdrif to Kazangula and back), insurance 50P for 3 months and then about 100 Pula on a yearly level also. Zambia insurance 300 000KW for year, then toll fee for 285USD on return trip Kazangula to DRC border and back, 200 000KW carbon tax, 70 000KW for extra toll fees on road. Zimbabwe insurance 170USD for year, the 100USD on toll fees, then coupons another 10USD and environmental cost depends on the load and weight up to 160USD & 90USD carbon 3 months. Going into the DRC, border customs parking 133USD, entry fee and costing 350USD, 300USD PEAGE, 4x 150USD for toll fees going to Mutanda and coming back.
None of the foreign trucks from DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana or Namibia pay this cost when entering South Africa. We drive on the roads to supply clients with goods, we provide a service, the same as for the foreign transporters, but they don't pay similarly high costs when entering South Africa. We need an explanation from the countries listed above as to why is this done. At the moment, we give to a driver for one load going to DRC from JHB, 2400USD, 2500 PULA & R5000 to cover these expenses and we cannot increase our rates easily, without risking losing our clients. What can be done about this situation? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal Points from Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe reported the current standard official charges and argued that these are in accordance established regional protocols. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013, South Africa focal point requested that the NTB be considered non actionable as they could not trace the complainant.
However, the NTB is considered resolved as it does not fall under the ' non actionable' category of complaints. |
|
|
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-000-497 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-05-08 |
Eswatini: Bordergate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland is to impose Quantitive import restrictions on imported edible cooking oil from within the SADC region as well as 15% import duties over and above the quantitive restriction. Such has happen already on Wheat Flour and after 8 years of 'Infancy Protection', NO IMPORT permits are issued to date. Court Case is currently being heard by the High Court of Swaziland. (Various Stakeholders versus Government of Swaziland) |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At their meeting held on 23 May 2013, the SCTF recalled Articles 3 and 7 of the Trade Protocol, on elimination of trade barriers and quantitative restrictions. Swaziland reported that measure was implemented in the context of the SACU, which provides for quantitative restrictions and protection of infant industry protection. SCTF requested Swaziland to provide its relevant national legal instrument and information on how the measure is applied including whether or not it is applicable to trade with non-SACU SADC FTA Member States. Swaziland undertook to provide the information as requested. Swaziland submitted the legislation as per requirement . This NTB is therefore resolved . |
|
|
Products:
|
1205.10: Low erucic acid rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of < 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of < 30 micromoles/g", 1205.90: High erucic rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of >= 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of >= 30 micromoles/g", whether or not broken and 1206.00: Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken |
|
English
Français
