| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-224 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2024-11-22 |
South Africa: South African Revenue Authority |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2025-01-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mauritius Customs is unable to accept the SADC Certificate ZA PQ 56085 issued by Customs in South Africa due to missing of specimen signature at their level. The Mauritius Customs sent a request to RSA Customs to get a confirmation of the signature .Up to date they have not yet received any reply. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the level of MRA Customs, an issue was reported on certificate ZA P956085 which has been resolved since we received communication from SARS on 23rd January 2025. |
|
|
NTB-001-223 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2024-12-11 |
Uganda: Mutukula |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our company has been engaged in the transportation of Ammonium Nitrate Prill (ANDP) from Tanzania to Uganda using flatbed trailers for several years. Recently, we received notification from the Security Officers at Mutukula stating that the transportation of this product on flat decks is no longer permitted. Instead, we are now required to utilize high-sided, closed-box trailers or containers.
We understand that these regulations are in place to ensure safety and compliance; however, this change represents a significant investment for transporters, both in acquiring new equipment and in adjusting transport rates. In light of this, we kindly request that the relevant laws and specifications pertaining to the transportation of this material be made available to the public. Access to this information would greatly assist us in directing our efforts and resources effectively. Thank you for your consideration. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is not an NTB as it is a requirement by Community Law that Partner States need to abide by. The goods being tranfered are classified as hazadous goods that need special handling while being transported. |
|
|
NTB-001-222 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-12-06 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2025-07-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
When submitting invoices to declare goods transiting through Zimbabwe (RIT) for import into Malawi, it was brought to our attention that Zimbabwe requires an Ozone Depleting Substances permit (ODS) for air conditioners, refrigeration units and parts thereof which comes at an exorbitant cost. These are transit goods through Zimbabwe and not fully functional at the time until they are assembled within the importing country therefore it is our understanding that no permit would be required in Zimbabwe . |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the consultative meeting held between the SADC Secretariat and Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe clarified as follows:Environmental
Management (Prohibition and Control of Ozone Depleting Substances,
Greenhouse Gases, Ozone Depleting Substance Dependent Equipment
and Greenhouse Gases Dependent Equipment) Regulations, 2023.
1. The licence is issued under regulation SI 49 , section 5(3) : EnvironmentalManagement (Prohibition and Control of Ozone Depleting Substances,Greenhouse Gases, Ozone Depleting Substance Dependent Equipment
and Greenhouse Gases Dependent Equipment) Regulations, 2023.
2. The regulation is issued to conform to international requirements on licensing of ozone depleting substances
3. The licence is issued based on calender year January - December to allow proper accountability and reporting under the international law
4. The licence will be issued electronically as of 1st August 2025 therefore no added costs
5. Cost of the annual licence is USD $50 |
|
|
NTB-001-221 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B8: Conformity assessment related to TBT |
2024-10-03 |
Kenya: Lunga Lunga OSBP |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non-recognition of Standards certificate from TBS by KBS for salt transferred by Neelkant Tanzania company into Kenya, charging six thousand Kenya shillings for each shipment. The EAC Partner States are implementing a harmonised standard on salt. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 38th RMC Kenya informed that the NTB was on lime and not salt as reported. The meeting was also informed that there are two harmonized and gazetted standards on lime, but other Partner States are still using their national standards.
Hence if a Partner State is using National Standards, retesting and inspection has to be done
The meeting requested TBS to adopt the harmonized standards EAS;73, EAS;1165;2024 or write to EAC Secretariat in case of any specific reasons for not adopting the standard for further consideration by other Partner State
Hence the NTB is resolved |
|
|
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-001-217 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-09-24 |
Tanzania: Kabanga |
Burundi |
Resolved
2026-03-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
URT reported that the matter is not discriminative. The measure applies to all entry and exit points and it applies to Tanzanians as well. The Republic of Burundi confirmed that the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-216 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2024-10-06 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mombasa county charges: At Mombasa Port they charge county fees where they pay 700 KEShs but these fees are never communicated to the truck driver in any way. Consequently, after some months you get a message that you have parking fees arrears with fines for late payment which can reach 7,000 KEShs.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The meeting considered the matter and noted that as per the evidence provided, the charges were related to parking fees. The meeting highlighted that it is the obligation of the driver to pay for related parking fees whenever he parks in a chargeable area hence the issue is not as an NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-215 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2024-10-03 |
Kenya: Traffic Police |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Arbitrary fines charged to drivers in Kenya not commensurate to the fines specified in Kenya Traffic Control Act 2015
For instance, the driver was fined 25,000 Kenyan shillings where he was supposed to pay only 10,000 Kenyan shillings (Section 53 (1) and 67). Also, Kenya Traffic Control Act (2015) prohibits someone from driving a commercial vehicle for more than a total of eight hours in any 24-hour period (section 66A). This should not apply to transit trucks since the international best practice for maximum driving time for truck drivers is between 11 and 14 hours a day.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya informed the meeting that the driver was arrested on 12 / 09 / 2024 while driving a Motor Vehicle with Registration No. RAE 579B / RL2395 M / Benz Actros and was consequently presented before Makindu Law Court charged with the following offenses:
● Count 1: Failing to maintain parts and equipment of the M / Vehicle contrary to Section 55 (1) as read with Section 58 (1) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya without rear reflectors). The accused pleaded guilty and was fined KSHS 15,000
● Count 2: Causing obstruction, contrary to Section 53 (1) as read with Section 53 (4) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya. The accused pleaded guilty and fined KSHS 10,000 / =
Hence amounting to a total of KSHS. 25,000
The Republic of Rwanda submitted that there is need to notify counterparts in case a National of one Partner States is charged in another Partner States and Traffic offenses should be distinguished from crime. |
|
|
NTB-001-214 |
6.6. Border taxes |
2024-10-01 |
Tanzania: Rusumo, Mutukula, Kabanga |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Through Port Health at Rusumo, Kobero / Kabanga and Mutukula/Mutukula, the United Republic of Tanzania charges the Republic of Rwanda and the Republic of Burundi Trucks 5 USD or the equivalent in Tshs as Free Pratique which is not in the EAC legal framework for free movement of cross-border trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This charge is not discriminative. |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting Partner States agreed that the NTB be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting, Partner States agreed that this issue be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-212 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2024-10-01 |
Uganda: URA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya is experiencing unfair treatment by URA. Where the institution refuses to recognize the weights of export documents of the sealed goods, C2 and road consignment notes. Uganda usually issues notice of seizure for mis appropriation of weight across items. Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border officials have not been fruitful because the officers demand for 100% verification for all the consignments every time at the cost of the manufacturer. This is regardless the products being fragile and without good equipment to offload and load. At times the items brake causing loses to paid products.
All shipments to Uganda are subjected to 100% verification by URA, This has huge cost implications and delay in delivery of the goods. Some of the products affected include ceramic products - Close Couple Toilet, Basin and Pedestal. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Senior Officials noted that it is a customs procedure to verify goods transferred and not an NTB. The meeting further emphasized the need for due consideration to be given considering the nature of the products which are fragile. |
|
|
NTB-001-211 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2024-10-01 |
Uganda: UNBS |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya is experiencing unfair treatment by UNBS. Where the institution refused to recognize PERMITS Issued by KEBS. Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border and Headquarters UNBS officials have not been fruitful because the manufacturer didn't receive any help insisting that Kenya manufacturers pay the destination Inspection fee despite products having standardization marks with harmonized standards.
UNBS demand that payments for destination must be done without any other documents issued by UNBS.
Additionally, it’s been a challenge getting sample receipts when UNBS pick samples for every consignment. Manufacturers would demand drivers to pay for lack of evidence of the huge samples taken by UNBS. Also clients receive less paid items due to samples collected by UNBS. This is unfair and has raised concerns to Kenya manufacturers and clients in Uganda.
Affected products include cosmetics products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
EAC has Harmonized Standards for Furniture, but they are not exhaustive. The trader was transferring types of furniture falling in a category where no harmonized standard exists. In such circumstances the goods might be subject to retesting.
The meeting hence noted that this was not an NTB but an operational challenge and should be referred to the Committee on Standards for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-210 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2023-05-02 |
Kenya: Mombasa County |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Agricultural Produce Cess on tea into Mombasa County
Mombasa county charges charges Cess on tea in transit to the auction market. Mombasa County is charging the cess on all tea destined for Mombasa at the rate Kshs 7000, for a truck of seven tonnes and above.Charging the cess on tea being trucked into Mombasa Countyincreases the cost of doing business. This tea is dstined outside Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya informed the meeting that Cess is not discriminatory. |
|
|
NTB-001-209 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Additional fees are charged on timber in transit.
Kenya charges Ksh 48000 on transit vehicles carrying forest and timber products from Uganda that transit through Kenya to destinations outside the EAC. Transit vehicles are charged fees for a transit license in addition to payment of road user fees. The timber products are extracted from forests in Uganda and not Kenya. This additional fee is wrongly charged and causes additional costs to trade in forest products from Uganda. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is a consolidated charge for movement permits for timber on transit for 18 trucks, the fees and charges are contained in the Fourth Schedule of Legal Notice No. 21 of 2016 (item 9) as follows: Movement permit per consignment- 2000, VAT 16% 320, E citizen fee 50. Total 2370
The movement permits are meant to provide control, traceability as well as monitoring the movement of forest products till they reach the required destination and is not discriminatory. |
|
|
NTB-001-208 |
5.15. Other |
2024-05-01 |
Uganda: Fish protection unit |
Kenya |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda is intercepting fish export from Kenya which is in transit to DRC on grounds that Kenya is transferring immature fish that is not accepted in Uganda.
The fish protection unit in Uganda opens the goods on transit in the sealed containers which is against the provisions of goods in transit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The meeting also noted that Uganda had signed an MoU with Kenya on the movement of fish
The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was resolved |
|
|
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-001-202 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-09-16 |
Uganda: Elegu |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda through the Fisheries Protection Unit intercepted fish from South Sudan at Pakwach Check Point and Elegu One Stop Border Post, breaking seals and inspecting fish which is in transit to DRC, on the grounds that RSS is transferring immature fish that are not accepted in Uganda. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 38th RMC was informed that the NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-200 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-07-16 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2026-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets.
Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702.
However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible.
On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse.
As of today, the import license has still not been secured. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 3rd July 2026, Malawi Private sector focal point reported that the NTB had been resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-194 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-08-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, State Department for Agriculture |
Uganda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 13th August 2024, the Government of Kenya, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development's State Department for Agriculture, imposed a ban on the importation of brown/table sugar into Kenya through an internal communication from the Principal Secretary. This decision was based on the significant improvements in the production of locally manufactured sugar in Kenya as quoted in the letter.
The letter though internal nal was brought to our attention.This action is in direct violation of the East African Community (EAC) Customs Union Treaty. Under Article 75 of the Treaty, the EAC establishes a free trade area for goods and services among partner states, while also outlining the application of Common External Tariffs (CET). Furthermore, Articles 76 and 104 of the Common Market Protocols emphasize the free movement of goods, people, labour, services, and capital between partner states, as well as the rights of establishment and residence, without restrictions that may hinder regional integration.
The ban, therefore, undermines the principles of regional cooperation and integration enshrined in the EAC Treaty.
There is no mention that the ban won't affect member states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 45th SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya reported that the communication was an internal proposal that was not implemented. There is no ban on Sugar transfers from EAC Partner States per the Public Notice of 9 September 2024 issued by the Office of the Cabinet Secretary from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. |
|
English
Français
