Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 561 to 580 of 914

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status	Actions
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-001-030	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2021-08-17	South Africa: SARS Customs	Mauritius	Resolved 2026-02-12	View
Complaint:	On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council (SADC BC) convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges with variances in alignment of HS codes between Mauritius and South Africa(RSA). 1. …For exports from Mauritius to RSA, where a SADC is applicable, an exporter can insert 10 HS CODES on one SADC certificate. This is because the SADC certificate has now become electronic while before it was manual. 2. When it was manual, if someone had a nice handwriting, the person could insert more than 10 HS CODES as long as it legible. 3. When importing from RSA, Mauritian importers receive SADC certificates with 1 HS CODE only. Meaning RSA issues SADC certificates with ONE Line HS code only. 4. Thus if a Mauritian exporter is sending 10 different items to RSA and SADC is applicable, only one SADC certificate will be issued by Mauritian Revenue Authourity CUSTOMS. 5. On the other hand, if a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter sends only 3 different items to Mauritius, and of course SADC is applicable, SARS will issue THREE sadc certificates. 6. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT: SADC certificates are payable at both ends. Meaning a local broker will charge an exporter when issuing a SADC certificate and SARS will charge a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter when issuing on their side. If a Mauritian exporter has 18 ITEMS to be exported out of Mauritius and a SADC certificate is applicable, he/she will have to have TWO SADC certificates only WHILE on the other hand, if a Mauritian imports 18 ITEMS from RSA, he/she will have 18 SADC certificates with each certificate obtained at a cost which represents a huge amount for the one who pays for these certificates.
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-001-040	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2021-10-14	Tanzania: URT TRA	Kenya	Resolved 2023-05-16	View
Complaint:	Tanzania denial of preferential market access for Apple Juice and Strawberry manufactured in Kenya while citing reasons that the products are not originating from Kenya. URT delayed the shipment instead of facilitating clearance as is required by the protocal and the EAC Rules of Origin then follow the process of reporting the matter to the secretariat for action/guidance.
Resolution status note:	The RMC noted that the Verification report was considered and approved by the Committee on Customs and the SCTIFI in May and June 2023 respectively. The verification recommendations have been implemented whereby the qualified products have been granted preferential treatment. The SCTIFI noted that the products that qualify for preferential treatment can be allowed to access the market as the two Partner States consult bilaterally on the two products that do not qualify. Hence the NTB is resolved
NTB-001-058	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2022-03-12	Egypt: Egypt Revenue Authority	Egypt	Resolved 2023-04-06	View
Complaint:	The Egyptian customs rejected to apply the COMESA certificate of origin issued by Madagascar attached because the signature is different. COMESA Secretariat is therefore requested to check the attached received from the shipper and advise on way forward.
Resolution status note:	During the COMESA Workshop on Capacity building for Member States held on 2- 6 April 2023, which reviewed this NTB, Egypt National Focal Point was requested to update status of the rejected consignment which was accompanied by the COMESA Certificate of Origin in the online system. However, on further review, it the meeting recommended that this complaint be regarded as resolved because the COMESA Certificate of Origin in question was not confirmed to be authentic.
NTB-001-124	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2023-05-01	Tanzania: Namanga	Kenya	Resolved 2024-11-23	View
Complaint:	URT denial of preferential Treatment to Motorcycle Accessories exported to TZ by Silverline Accessories LTD in Kenya. URT is charging full CET despite the exported spares having the EAC Certificate of origin confirming that the spares have been manufactured in Kenya and qualify for the EAC preferential treatment. In addition, URT have declined to respond to interventions by the Kenya Revenue Authority and the EAC Secretariat. We request URT to grant preferential treatment to Motorcycle Accessories exported by Silverline LTD in Kenya and incase URT have any doubts on the origin they should facilitate delivery of the goods and follow the ROO/protocal/EACCMA procedures to verify & ascertain their concerns.
Resolution status note:	The 45th SCTIFI meeting noted that a verification was undertaken whereby the headlamps, tail lamps, and indicators qualified for preferential treatment and are being granted preferential treatment in the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the 44th SCTIFI. The side mirrors however that had not qualified in the first verification also qualified for preferential tariff treatment under Rule 4(1) (b) of the EAC Rules of Origin, 2015, since they met both criteria i.e. material content and Change in Tariff Heading (CTH) after a second verification.
NTB-001-153	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-01-26	Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY	Tanzania	Resolved 2026-04-14	View
Complaint:	The ZB Card company shipped a shipment to Zambia at the end of January which is subject to the original SADC laws. When you arrived at ZRA, they refused to allow it, claiming that the HS Code is incorrect, so they ordered ZB Card to change it. ZB Card did that but ZRA has rejected the CoO claiming that it is not authentic. We have contacted TCCIA so that they can confirm its authenticity and TCCIA has done so but since 10/02/2024 there has been no success
Resolution status note:	During the NTBs workshop held in Johannesburg on 14 April 2026, Zambia and Tanzania reported that this issue was resolved , There is no new complain regarding this issue.
NTB-001-205	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-07-01	Uganda: Busia	Kenya	Resolved 2025-04-29	View
Complaint:	Uganda's denial of market access of biscuit and wafers manufactured and transferred into Uganda by Sunveat Industries of Kenya. Reason being that wheat flour materials supplied by Kenblest LTD benefited from imported wheat under Duty Remission Scheme (DRS)
Resolution status note:	Uganda advised that the NTB was resolved and attached the evidence of the movement of good
NTB-001-220	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-07-01	Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authorities	Kenya	Resolved 2025-05-30	View
Complaint:	Certificate of Origin Declined (Issues of RoO) Uganda has declined to recognize the Certificate of Origin for chewing gum manufactured by Kenafric Industries transferred to M/S Glorre International Limited on concern that the manufacturing process does not exceed the provisions in Rule 7 of the EAC Rules of Origin, 2015. Kenya NMC suggests that the process involves the use of machinery and technical expertise. Therefore, the process of manufacturing chewing gum exceeds the provisions under Rule 7 of the EAC rules of origin.
Resolution status note:	The 38th RMC was informed by the Republic of Kenya that the NTB was resolved
NTB-001-246	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2024-11-01	Tanzania: Ministry of Agriculture	Uganda	Resolved 2025-11-25	View
Complaint:	Quantitative restrictions on Ugandan Sugar transfers to Tanzania only up to 20,000 MT, are accepted These Quotas have been subject to bilateral negotiations to allow market access for Uganda Sugar. We request that Tanzania to remove quantitative restrictions.
Resolution status note:	Tanzania removed all restrictions related to Sugar from the Community. The two Partner States to trade in normal EAC terms.
NTB-001-275	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2025-08-18	Tanzania: Namanga	Kenya	Resolved 2025-11-25	View
Complaint:	The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Customs has raised doubts regarding the Certificate of Origin issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). However, TRA has failed to provide any written explanation for its objections and has refused to verify the certificate directly with KRA via email. As a result, the goods have been held at the Namanga border, causing delays and financial losses to the consignee. This action by TRA Customs constitutes a violation of the EAC Protocols and Regulations, undermines the rights of the importer, and damages the legitimate business interests of Kenyan enterprises engaged in intra-EAC trade.
Resolution status note:	The goods were released without any payment.
NTB-000-290	8.8. Issues related to transit	2009-09-08	Namibia: Namibia Revenue Authority	South Africa	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Namibia requires provisional payments for all transit cargo through Namibia.
Resolution status note:	Namibia reported that the provisional payment is required to secure duties and taxes of the goods in transit that can be refunded upon submission of export documents by the exporter.
NTB-000-437	8.8. Issues related to transit	2010-05-12	EAC	Kenya	Resolved 2015-09-24	View
Complaint:	Delays in transit bonds cancellation by EAC partner states
Resolution status note:	Now with the introduction of the Single Customs Territory using a single bond from the port up to final destination, the issue has been addressed.
NTB-000-448	8.8. Issues related to transit	2011-09-02	EAC	Rwanda	Resolved 2014-12-11	View
Complaint:	Inadequate Police Escort mechanism.
Resolution status note:	At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, EAC Secretariat reported that the All Partner States were providing police escorts. This NTB is therefore resolved
NTB-000-453	8.8. Issues related to transit	2011-09-03	Tanzania: Ministry of Transport	Burundi	Resolved 2012-04-26	View
Complaint:	No movements of Cargo Trucks beyond 6:00 pm within Tanzania. This affects trucks from Rwanda, Burundi & Uganda
Resolution status note:	At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Burundi agreed that this NTB be resolved on the basis that Tanzania was modernising the tracking equipment so as to have electronic devices that can be monitored electronically along the transport corridor to the final destination. This provision allows Tanzania Revenue Authprity to make the necessary timely interventions. Burundi and Tanzania have signed a joint MoU in joint patrol and were provided equipment to maintain security along the affected areas. However Tanzania wouldl notify Burundi on the operationalization of the Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS).
NTB-000-454	8.8. Issues related to transit	2011-09-03	Tanzania: Central Corridoor,Tanzania	Uganda	Resolved 2012-04-26	View
Complaint:	TRA has introduced check points in the Central Corridor with timeframes and imposed charges for the delays to reach the destinations
Resolution status note:	At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Tanzania reported that the time frame of clearance of Transit goods from the point of entry to the point of exit had been used as control measure to ensure that there was no divergence of transit goods into local markets. In the Central corridor there are 3 check points that is Missugusugu, Dumila and Isaka. From all these check points it takes 5 days to across border. In the southern corridor there are also 3 check points and it takes about 3 days to cross borders. Tanzania launched Electronic cargo Tracking System (ECTS) on 12th March, 2012 which was expected to commence operations in June, 2012. With ECTS there will be no need for Time frame as the goods would be monitored electronically. The legal document was given to Rwanda
NTB-000-455	8.8. Issues related to transit	2011-09-03	Kenya: Central Corridor	Rwanda	Resolved 2011-09-19	View
Complaint:	Varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya. Kenya demands that trucks should noit weigh more than 48Tonnes axle load whereas other partner states allow 56tons.
Resolution status note:	The 6th EAC Regional Forum on Non tariff barriers held from 12-13 March 2012, adopted recoomendation from the meetin of EAC permanent secretaries of the sectoral Council of transport , communications and metrology held in Nairobi on 16-19 August 2011 that a meeting of experts be convined by EAC secretariat to develop supportive legal, institutional and operative framework for approval by the council in 2012. This NTB is therefore considered resolved by the regional forum.
NTB-000-455	8.8. Issues related to transit	2011-09-03	Kenya: Central Corridor	Rwanda	Resolved 2011-09-19	View
Complaint:	Varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya. Kenya demands that trucks should noit weigh more than 48Tonnes axle load whereas other partner states allow 56tons.
Resolution status note:	The axle load was agreed at 56 tons in the recent past and could possibly be a case where a hiccup arises due to lack of information by the implementing agency. When we have such cases of varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya along the Northern Corridor (Weighbridge), then it is useful to specify the weighbridge and give necessary details for us to follow and address the complain . However, the issue of varying application of axle load specifications should no longer occur because the region has adopted a uniform applicable axle load of 56 Tonnes
NTB-000-500	8.8. Issues related to transit	2012-03-14	Tanzania: Along MAjor highways	Rwanda	Resolved 2015-11-30	View
Complaint:	Weighing of empty trucks in Tanzania
Resolution status note:	Tanzania introduced weighing in motion
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-000-519	8.8. Issues related to transit	2012-06-20	Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port	Burundi	Resolved 2013-10-17	View
Complaint:	Payment of double handling charges at the ICDs and at the Dar es Salaam port.
Resolution status note:	At the 12th Regional Forum on NTBs held from 14th – 17th, October 2013, at EAC Headquarters, Arusha, Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania (URT) reported that the ICD charges are part of port charges and are therefore not additional charges. The only additional charges are on demurrage. However, Burundi requested to re-submit documentation supporting their submission through the EAC Secretariat. In the meantime, URT to investigate further and revert at the next EAC Regional Forum on NTBs in September, 2013. The meeting agreed to resolve this NTB on the basis of URT submission.

<< Previous 1 2 3...27 28 29 30 31...44 45 46 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints