Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 561 to 580 of 855

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-000-512	8.6. Vehicle standards	2012-06-01	Tanzania: Tunduma	South Africa	Resolved 2013-04-10	View
Complaint:	While the SADC and most EAC countries as well as most international countries allow a vehicle length (semi truck and trailer) of 18,5 M Tanzania only allows 17,5M. This is, in itself, not really a problem, and we are willing to buy permits in order to comply with that country's rules. However the only way you can obtain a permit is to arrive at Tunduma border post (or any border post ) then you have to pay someone to catch a bus for about 900 Kms and apply in Dar es Salaam. This can take days and then to aggravate the situation, the permits will only be issued on a Thursday, then the runner has to catch a bus all the way back to the border post in unreliable busses etc. It only took two days to clear the transit goods into Tanzania for transit into Kenya, however we have had to wait approximately ten days just to get a permit for being the normal SADC length of vehicle. We are carrying UN goods and we have now missed the deadline for the goods to be loaded onto the ship in Mombasa. It is entirely unacceptable that Thousands of Dollars of time and money are now lost due to such a rule that the rest of world has moved past. Also if Tanzania wishes to continue to collect revenue for permits then is it not an easier solution for them to have an office at the border (possibly VID) that can issue a permit and allow goods to move in due time. At the very least could Tanroads, or the Ministry not simply allow pre purchase or order of the permits via internet and let VID issue and check the vehicle dimensions at the border? Why does this have to be such a difficult and time consuming issue that slows down trade into and across Tanzania's borders
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Tanzania had consultations with South Africa and agreed it was a one off incident and if any issues arise they should contact Tanroad office at the Tunduma Border.
NTB-000-514	8.4. Transport related corruption	2012-02-06	Zambia: Nakonde	South Africa	Resolved 2013-04-10	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. A company by the name of ZAMESCO, is charging transporters to park at the Nakonde border post. The charge is 24 US dollars per day. There is no official parking area and so the trucks would normally park along the road. However, they are forced to park in ZAMESCO's parking area, without being given any alternative. The Zambian authorities have not regulated these parking charges, nor have they condoned them. These are arbitrary charges imposed by a company that has no authority to do so. They are uneccessarily increasing the cost of transport on the Dar es Salaam corridor. Attached are scanned copies of parking receipts.
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that ZAMESCO is a private dry port. Vehicles have the option to park along the road side.
NTB-000-515	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees	2012-06-27	Zambia: Kazungula Ferry	South Africa	Resolved 2016-09-07	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Siavonga 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. Please refer to NTB 480
Resolution status note:	Zambia advised 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 measure shall be uploaded onto the online NTMs database .
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-000-524	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2012-08-06	Zimbabwe: At road blocks	South Africa	Resolved 2013-09-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries. An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues.
Resolution status note:	On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved.
NTB-000-526	1.1. Export subsidies Policy/Regulatory	2012-08-26	Zambia: Chirundu	South Africa	Resolved 2016-10-07	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Zambian Ministry of Agriculture has cancelled all export permits and required exporters to apply for an individual permit for each truck. No notice was given. This has resulted in significant delays in that trucks en route have to wait at the border whilst new permits are applied for. In addition, permits are only being issued for up to 30 tons. 56-ton gross combination mass vehicle combinations can load 33 tons and over, meaning a reduction of at least 10% of the load. There is no legal justification for restricting the load to 30 tons, since the road traffic regulations control loads through axle loads, gvm and gcm. Never the load on the vehicle. This will result in an increase in cost to transport the goods.
Resolution status note:	FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present.
NTB-000-549	8.1. Government Policy and regulations Policy/Regulatory	2012-11-01	Mozambique: Maputo	South Africa	Resolved 2013-04-10	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area. The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip. It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area. Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads. Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade.
Resolution status note:	Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities.
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-000-551	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees Policy/Regulatory	2012-11-02	Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls	South Africa	Resolved 2016-09-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Zimbabwean Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is levying a toll of US$30 per trip, for the crossing of the Victoria Falls bridge. Ref: SI 171 of 2012. This toll is not justified because it was never discussed with those who are having to pay the toll and there is no reconciliation for the amount of the toll. Furthermore, transporters pay road user charges, which are to cover the wear and tear caused to the roads and bridges.
Resolution status note:	On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved.
NTB-000-548	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2012-11-30	Botswana: Kazungula Ferry	South Africa	Resolved 2015-03-25	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Botswana Department of Veterinary Services is requiring a permit for agricultural products to be purchased in Gaborone and for the original to be carried on the truck. This procedure is time-consuming and inefficient. The process should be done electronically and the truck carry an electronic copy.
Resolution status note:	On 25 March 2015, Botswana Focal Point reported that transit permits are now issued in various Veterinary Offices countrywide. Issuance of such permits has now been decentralized. Botswana still requires that permits original (hard) copies MUST always accompany consignment. It must be noted that 1 consignment requires 1 permit which is neither time consuming nor inefficient. Introduction of electronic copies (for convenience) is still being considered. With this explanation, and that transporters can obtain permits easily, the NTB should be considered resolved
NTB-000-553	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2012-11-20	Zambia: Mbala town	South Africa	Resolved 2013-04-10	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters. Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day. This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high.
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side.
NTB-000-575	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2013-03-14	Zimbabwe: Beitbridge	South Africa	Resolved 2017-06-09	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The old bridge at Beitbridge cannot be opened to traffic because of an existing agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a private sector company. It is accepted that it is an old bridge and that it may not be safe for many heavy trucks using it at one time. However, there is a railway line over it and there does not seem to be any refusal to allow trains to use it. It could be used by private motorists, so freeing the new bridge for heavy goods. There seems to be no justification to renew the existing agreement.
Resolution status note:	Zimbabwe reported that the two Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa had agreed that the old Bridge remain closed following commissioning of the new bridge that is functioning properly without congestion.
NTB-000-563	7.1. Arbitrariness	2013-01-11	Zimbabwe: Chitungwiza	South Africa	Resolved 2013-09-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. A transporter's vehicle has once again been held up by the road traffic authorities in Zimbabwe, for the vehicle not complying strictly to the Zimbabwe vehicle regulations. In this instance, the rear lights of the truck were not in precisely the right position, according to the Zimbabwe regulations. The official, in this instance, was constable Munaki, official number 060189F. After intervention by the road transport industry and much delay, the vehicle was released with a warning. This complaint is similar to that in NTB 524, where the information plate on the vehicle did not comply with the Zimbabwe regulations. The practice of Zimbabwe road traffic authorities harassing transporters over trivial vehicle equipment regulations is not acceptable. Vehicles foreign to Zimbabwe, comply with the regulations in their own countries and receive a certificate of fitness to show that they are compliant. This certificate of fitness should be acceptable to the Zimbabwe authorities, unless, of course, the vehicle is clearly not roadworthy. The rear lights being in a different position, or the information plate giving different information, does not make the vehicle unroadworthy. Two of the clauses in one of the bi-lateral road transport agreements that Zimbabwe holds with another country, state that each country should "promote fair and equitable treatment for carriers from both countries" and "strengthen their economic and commercial relations in the spirit of co-operation and friendship". The actions of the Zimbabwe road traffic authorities do not subscribe to the above requirements and the authorities are requested to adhere to the objectives of the bi-lateral agreements.
Resolution status note:	On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved.
NTB-000-565	8.1. Government Policy and regulations Policy/Regulatory	2013-02-05	Zambia: Copperbelt	South Africa	Resolved 2016-03-31	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. When a vehicle foreign to Zambia, enters that country and wishes to operate to the copperbelt, the driver has to identify the destination town and pay the relevant road user charge. During the trip, after offloading, the transporter may wish to load at a different town on the copperbelt. The driver then has to purchase additional road user charges to that town, from Ndola, which is the only town issuing rucs. The vehicle may not be going to Ndola. This is very inconvenient and costly to the transporter.
Resolution status note:	On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point advised that it is mandatory for transporters to pay Road User Chargers in all cities in Zambia. This applies to the cited area (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo) in the complaint posted. The charges apply during working days and over the weekend, transporters can only pay at the border post (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo). Given this clarification, Zambia therefore recommended that this complaint be resolved.
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-000-566	8.6. Vehicle standards Policy/Regulatory	2013-02-12	Botswana: Pioneer Gate	South Africa	Resolved 2016-09-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The Botswana traffic authorities at Pioneer Gate, are applying outdated overall vehicle width and overall vehicle height limits. The are applying maximum 2.5m width and 4.1m height. For many years, SADC has recommended 2.6m width and 4.3m height. Most of the countries in the Southern African region, have 2.6m and 4.3m, and so the vehicles are built to suit these dimensions. They cannot be reduced to 2.5m and 4.3m without major structural alterations. Furthermore, the 2.6m width was set so that an ISO shipping container, which is 2.4m wide, can be loaded onto a trailer that has sideboards. This cannot be done on a trailer that is 2.5m wide, since the sideboards take up at least 100mm width. The 2.6m also allows two standard pallets to be loaded side-by-side inside a pantechnicon body. On occasions, when this problem has arisen in the past, the traffic officials have agreed that, to facilitate trade, the vehicles can operate in Botswana. But, there are also occasions, such as the present case, when traffic officials have insisted that the smaller dimensions must be enforced. This is a serious inconvenience and extra cost to transporters. For trade facilitation, Botswana must change its act to the larger dimensions, and, in the meantime, allow vehicles with those dimensions to operate freely.
Resolution status note:	On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. Botswana is in the process of ammending the regulations to conform wit the requirements.
NTB-000-594	8.8. Issues related to transit	2013-05-21	Zambia: Chirundu	South Africa	Resolved 2013-09-13	View
Complaint:	Zambian Police are holding South African CRBTA Permits as security until fines are paid.
Resolution status note:	On 11th July 2013, Zambia focal point reported that, when truck drivers both local and international are found with a case, they are fined and normally asked to pay the fine. However, the drivers give an excuse that they have no money to pay. The Police at that particular check point would then use their initiative of asking for surety from that driver to ensure that the driver pays on his way back. However, since the practice is not covered by law, the officers were sensitized on the issue and have stopped the practice. On 25 September 2013, South Africa focal point confirmed that the complainant had been consulted and he confirmed that the practice by Zambian police had been stopped. The complaint can therefore be moved to 'resolved complaints’.
NTB-000-590	7.1. Arbitrariness	2013-05-16	Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road)	South Africa	Resolved 2014-03-17	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE FOR ESCORTING VEHICLES, BY MOZAMBIQUE CUSTOMS Mozambique customs at Beira should only require the escorting of vehicles between Beira and Machipanda, and return, under special circumstances, eg abnormal or high value loads. The decision to call for escorts is made by the head of customs in Beira. However, the escorting process is not efficient and reasonable, viz: • Escorting is called for randomly and often for trucks carrying normal cargo such as tobacco and sugar • The escorting fee is high at USD100 per truck • Delays are caused whilst customs waits for 3 or more trucks to be escorted together. Or they may wait until the next day to suit their convenience • Often, a customs officer does not even travel with the vehicles, but goes in a separate vehicle to take the documents to the next check point. On occasion, the trucks have to wait at the next check point because the officer is not there with the documents • It is suggested that the escorting fees are merely split up between the various officers. Escorting should not be necessary since transit bond guarantees are in place and the route between Beira and Machipanda is simple, direct and short. Furthermore, there are several check points along the route.
Resolution status note:	The Mozambique Revenue Authority clarified that the referred escort fee of USD 100 was illegal. Mozambique Revenue Authority issued the Circular nº09/GD/DRC/2013, of 1st July, that has been published in all customs branches, and also uploaded onto the online system which states in summary that: • The Fiscal Escort happens only and uniquely in the case of customs transit of high risk merchandise in terms of loss of revenue. • In this case, Mozambique Revenue Authority will have to support the Escort expenses. • It is prohibited to collect any values and deductions when this Escort is determined by customs.
NTB-000-604	7.5. Lengthy procedures	2013-09-19	Zambia: Chirundu	South Africa	Resolved 2013-11-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. There are excessive delays at the Chirundu border post between Zimbabwe and Zambia Trucks are taking around 5 days to transit the border and are completing only one trip Beira, Zambia and return, per month. Their monthly kilometres travelled is down to around 5000 kms per month. No transporter can accommodate such a low utilization of his fleet. The queue on the Zimbabwe side, stretches for anything up to 10 kms. There are several reasons for the delays at this border post, including: Strict application of new rules and procedures by the Bank of Zambia and ZRA The scanning machine has been under repair There were special arrangements for Ministers visiting the border and so restricting the passage of trucks The commercial operating hours are from 0800 to 1630. This is insufficient for the traffic flow A tug-of-war between ZRP and ZIMRA as to which should control the traffic on the Zim side When a crisis like this occurs, officials "make a plan" and clear the border of backlog. It is understood that it costs $10 to get to the front of the queue and $20 to get into customs. Transit can then be made in 12 hours. This is not acceptable. There should be a permanent process in place to ensure the border does not get congested. One solution, is to open the border from 6am to midnight, as with Beitbridge. Extra security will have to be put in place to accommodate this night traffic and parking. Urgent and effective measures must be taken.
Resolution status note:	On 7th October 2013, the Zimbabwe Focal Point reported that the relevant NMC members comprising Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce held a meeting on 4 October 2013 to consider the urgent complaint raised by the Transport Operators’ Association of Zimbabwe also posted on the online system as NTB 604. The meeting observed that that the congestion was a result of increased traffic on the North South Corridor and also increase in traffic from Beira Port. This is coupled with inadequate infrastructure at the border which was not designed to contain the large volume of traffic. The meeting identified the following factors that contributed towards the congestion as well as a way forward to address the problem resulted in clearing the congestion. 1. The congestion which was experienced recently was partly caused by break down of scanner on the Zambian side due to heat. The Zambians are scanning 100% on commercial cargo. This also contributed to the problem. 2. Inadequate infrastructure is the main challenge at the border. North-bound trucks are only released four at a time because there is no holding space on the Zambian side. 3. ZIMRA has a challenge of accommodation at the border, so when they send their relief staff they will be staying in Kariba, which is also costly for them. 4. Problems of congestion at Chirundu can only be solved by engaging the Zambian counter-parts since the problem is brought about by north bound traffic. 5. ZIMRA is pre-clearing most trucks but Clearing Agents release trucks in batches to minimise movement across the border. This creates additional congestion. However, ZIMRA have already engaged the agents on the issue. 6. ZIMRA has already engaged ZRA and they have made an administrative arrangement to work up to 10pm whenever the traffic volume is high. ZIMRA have also reacted to ease the congestion problem by sending 19 additional staff. 7. It emerged that there is lack of control of trucks outside the border area. The police and the Rural District Council seem not to be playing their role. The trucks would also be mixed with that carrying hazardous and flammable goods which is very risk. 8. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development is going to set up a committee which will visit Chirundu Border Post to get more information from the people on the ground. Way forward 1 Zimbabwe set up a committee to visit the border to establish facts from the people on the ground. 2. Zimbabwe will make effort to engage her Zambian counter-parts so that they create some holding space for north-bound traffic. 3. Zimbabwe Ministry of Transport is working on creating temporary parks on the Zimbabwean side as well as building accommodation for border agencies.
NTB-000-604	7.5. Lengthy procedures	2013-09-19	Zambia: Chirundu	South Africa	Resolved 2013-11-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. There are excessive delays at the Chirundu border post between Zimbabwe and Zambia Trucks are taking around 5 days to transit the border and are completing only one trip Beira, Zambia and return, per month. Their monthly kilometres travelled is down to around 5000 kms per month. No transporter can accommodate such a low utilization of his fleet. The queue on the Zimbabwe side, stretches for anything up to 10 kms. There are several reasons for the delays at this border post, including: Strict application of new rules and procedures by the Bank of Zambia and ZRA The scanning machine has been under repair There were special arrangements for Ministers visiting the border and so restricting the passage of trucks The commercial operating hours are from 0800 to 1630. This is insufficient for the traffic flow A tug-of-war between ZRP and ZIMRA as to which should control the traffic on the Zim side When a crisis like this occurs, officials "make a plan" and clear the border of backlog. It is understood that it costs $10 to get to the front of the queue and $20 to get into customs. Transit can then be made in 12 hours. This is not acceptable. There should be a permanent process in place to ensure the border does not get congested. One solution, is to open the border from 6am to midnight, as with Beitbridge. Extra security will have to be put in place to accommodate this night traffic and parking. Urgent and effective measures must be taken.
Resolution status note:	On 13 November 2013 ZIMRA reported that the problem of long queues at Chirundu had been resolved and there were no queues at the border thereby resolving this NTB.

<< Previous 1 2 3...27 28 29 30 31...41 42 43 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints