| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Dear Administrator kindly update the status to resolved
Thank you |
|
|
NTB-001-028 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: 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-001-029 |
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-001-238 |
1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation |
2025-02-16 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2026-02-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our delivery truck (ADS 3378, AFQ 8744, AFQ 8746) destined for South Africa was detained at Beitbridge border post last night by South Africa Port Health authorities due to concerns regarding a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe and the potential risk of contamination in the water. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Public Health concern has since been uplifted and a number of consignments of purified water have been allowed to enter the South African market. |
|
|
NTB-001-283 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-07 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2026-02-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory EXCISE DUTY OF TZS 400/KG on exports/Transfers that hinders ON SAFETY MATCHES export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to SAFETY MATCHES manufactured in Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The REC Focal point advised that this matter is in the courts therefore cannot be considered as NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-287 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-09-04 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT denial of the preferential treatment to blankets that have been manufactured in Kenya and instead subjecting the blankets to full CET of 25% duty on the blankets transferred from Kenya into URT by Spinner and Spinners LTD with reason that the company is benefitting from DRS. The raw material used in the manufacture of the blankets is EAC wide remission on HS Code 5402.33.00 as a regionally eligible code under the DRS. The affected consignment is Assessment Ref: TRA Namanga, Entry Ref. 158254115-25-9900817 subjecting to 25% duty. This creates an unfair trade barrier, distorts competition, and frustrates intra-EAC trade integration goals.
URT to grant preferential treatment to blankets enjoying regional DRS
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The consignee did not request for preferential tariff treatment when making his declaration and thus he was required to pay a total tax of Tshs 37 million. Later an amendment was done on 11th October 2025 and currently the taxes assessed are Tshs 13 million. This resolved the matter. |
|
|
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-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-001-246 |
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-001-249 |
6.5. Variable levies |
2025-02-04 |
Kenya: KRA |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Excise duty being charged on onions, potatoes, potato crisps and potato chips transferred from Uganda to Kenya.
This means they are being treated as imports. This was effective 1st July 2022, at a rate of 25% imposed against the EAC CUP.
Kenya is requested to consider removing the excise duty with immediate effect |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Uganda submitted that the discriminatory Law was repealed through the Finance amendment Act of 2025. |
|
|
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-001-210 |
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-001-120 |
7.5. Lengthy procedures |
2023-06-12 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: |
Zambia |
Resolved
2026-01-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SADC Truck drivers at all Borders with DRC are experiencing cumbersome payment procedures for the scanner costing $100 and forced parking costing $30 which has led to congestion (long queues) subjecting drivers to as; no sanitation, delayment on average by 8 days and serious security concerns; and Delayed document processing by mining houses i.e. It takes an average of 14 - 30 days to be cleared after loading. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Considering the Zamia NMC report above, which indicates that the Truckers Association of Zambia stated that the parking fees and scanner charges had been lifted, this NTB is therefore considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-184 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-08-09 |
Zimbabwe: Forbes |
Zambia |
Resolved
2026-01-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 10 August 2024, Zimbabwe imposed a requirement enforcing payment of duty on fuel in transit at the Port of Entry at all border posts ‘in order to secure duty and levies on fuel imported under Removal in Transit Facility’. Such duty and levies shall be recovered on acquittal at the Port of Exit. Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) advised that the payment of duty for fuel in transit was to mitigate against transit fraud. With effect from 10 August 2024 all fuel, petrol, diesel, paraffin and jet A1, in transit imported through ports of entry by road is now required to pay duty and levies on entry. The duty and levies will be refunded at the port of exit upon compliance with all the transit procedures, including submission of proof that the fuel has been exported. Consignee’s and/or their representatives should approach ZIMRA at the port of entry to initiate the fuel clearance and payment process. For the refund process, once the fuel has been exported, they should approach ZIMRA at the port of exit to initiate the requisite refund process.
This requirement increases cost of transport. The refund procedures are not clear, and the risk of delayed refunds is very high negatively affecting cashflows for transporters. Also this requirement is treating compliant and non-compliant transporters without distinction and is penalizing the transporters who have been compliant to the Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS) where the alleged abuse has been detected.
We therefore request The Minister to urgently reconsider improving this measure to facilitate movement of fuel at reasonable costs. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Under the Finance Act, 2025 [Chapter 23:04], Zimbabwe removed the requirement for a deposit for duties on transit of fuel, with specific reference to Article 57 Amendment of section 234 of Cap. 23.02 |
|
|
NTB-001-294 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2025-10-28 |
Botswana: Tlokweng Gate |
Botswana |
Resolved
2026-01-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
BOBS Division Closing their service times during Holidays, weekends and festive days while Cross-border traders and Borders run through out. We urge that there be service aligned with all borders operating times and services. Consignments are then detained until their working times. we then loose revenue, standing times, conditions or goods be affected and further be exposed to risks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB can be considered resolved, taking into account the update provided by the Botswana NCP, with the BOBS information attached. |
|
|
NTB-000-938 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2020-02-08 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2026-01-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Arenel (Pvt) Ltd was incorporated in the Republic of Zimbabwe in 1961. Arenel is manufacturer, seller and distributor of food and beverages with renowned brands in Biscuits and Sweets both locally, SADC Region and beyond. On Saturday, the 8th of February, 2020, our truck was subjected to inspection by Port Health, South Africa. The inspectorate then detained the truck on the premise that the labeling of our products was not complying to regulation No. R146 of 2010. The truck is still detained. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
NTB-000-938 concerning consignment detained at Beitbridge border post on the 8th of February 2020 was resolved following consultative meetings facilitated by the SADC Business Council. |
|
|
Products:
|
1905.31: Sweet biscuits |
|
|
NTB-001-069 |
7.7. Complex variety of documentation required |
2016-09-15 |
Egypt: Chamber of Commerce
Egyptian Embassy
Ministry of Foreign Trade |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2025-10-08 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A number of procedural requirements are currently impeding the exports of Mauritian products to Egypt. To that effect, the concerned authorities in Mauritius have made enquiries with a registered trader in Egypt and it has been brought to its attention that for an exporter to start trading with an Egyptian importer, the following documents, duly certified by the Chamber of Commerce and approved by the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt, have to be submitted as per Ministerial Decree 43/2016:
i. A registration form by the legal representative of the factory or authorised person;
ii. A certificate of legal status of the factory and the issued license of the factory;
iii. A list of products of the factory and their brand;
iv. The brand of the product and the Trademark produced according to a license from the owner;
v. A certificate that the factory has a Quality Control System from a recognised body of The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) or from an Egyptian or Foreign Government body approved by the Minister of Foreign Trade.
The authorities in Mauritius consider that these procedural requirements constitute a Non-Tariff Barrier and in that regard contravene Article 49 of the COMESA Treaty.
We would appreciate that the authorities concerned in Egypt review these procedures in order to facilitate trade in line with the spirit of the COMESA Treaty.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Egypt has approved the accreditation of Mauritius Standards Bureau (MSB) as a government entity to issue quality management system certificates, as required for registration by Ministerial Decree No. 43 of 2016. The NTB can now be marked as 'Resolved' |
|
|
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-001-240 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-11-01 |
Kenya: Kenya Diary Board (KDB) |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Government of Kenya, through the Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), has not issued export permits for Ultra-High Temperature (UHT) milk destined for Kenya since November 2024. This action constitutes a violation of the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol and the Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) Act, which is designed to facilitate the free movement of goods within the region.
The continued restriction has had severe consequences for Ugandan traders, leading to significant financial losses and, in many cases, the closure of their export businesses. This situation not only undermines regional trade commitments but also disrupts economic integration efforts within the EAC. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya informed the 38th RMC that:
1. Transfers of milk from Uganda to Kenya is ongoing
2. 10 million litres of milk were transferred from Uganda to Kenya between January and March 2025
3. 70 million Kgs have been transferred from Uganda to Kenya in 2024, and 67 million Litres transferred in the same period.
4. Kenya has no quotas on milk, and over 100 importers have been registered to transfer milk from Uganda to Kenya
5. Issued permits for milk if not absorbed effectively, do not allow for extension as per the regulations.
Kenya confirmed that the applications for the permits applied in November 2024 by Uganda were issued in March 2025 and provided evidence to Uganda for that matter. Hence, the NTB was resolved |
|
English
Français
