Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 581 to 600 of 799

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 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 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-000-078	1.1. Export subsidies B41: TBT regulations on production processes	2009-07-23	South Africa: SANAS	Angola	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa does not accept standards from other SADC Member States except SABS
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that SADC is in the process of implementing the TBT annex and establishing the necessary regional institutions to create a regional accreditation system. Until the structures are developed and operational, South Africa will continue to request that products which are not accredited by recognized international accreditation bodies be retested by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). This exercise is not meant to deny SA trading counterpart’s access to the South African market, but simply to protect South African consumers.
NTB-000-081	1.1. Export subsidies B14: Authorization requirements for importing certain products	2009-07-23	South Africa: Ministry of Trade	Tanzania	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa places adhoc requirements on the importation of perishable goods in the form of standards
Resolution status note:	Soth Africa reported that compulsory specifications for perishable goods are aimed at ensuring the health and safety of the consumer and fair trading practices. The relevant internationally recognised Codex Standards and Codes of Practice are used as a basis for these compulsory specifications. Documents from Codex are specifically referenced by the WTO-SPS Agreement.
NTB-000-094	1.1. Export subsidies B15: Authorization requirements for importers	2009-07-26	South Africa: Ministry of Trade	Mauritius	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Mauritian exports of canned Tuna are denied entry into South Africa because South Africa does not recognize Ministry of Fisheries in Mauritius as being the regulatory body even though product qualifies for EUR1 certificate and is exported to the EU
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that all inspections are carried out according to the requirements of the compulsory specification for “The manufacture, production, processing and treatment of canned fish, canned marine molluscs and canned crustaceans”, and these inspections are non-discriminatory. Furthermore, rejections on products are not done by an individual but by a panel and it is important to note that FAI is accredited by SANAS to the requirements of ISO 17020 ( accreditation for inspection bodies)
NTB-000-221	1.1. Export subsidies B31: Labelling requirements	2009-07-28	South Africa: SANAS	Zambia	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Restrictions of exports on account of standards and provision of user instructions in specified local languages.Restriction of coffee exports and exports of paste detergents to South Africa and Zimbabwe
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that SADC is in the process of implementing the TBT annex and establishing the necessary regional institutions to create a regional accreditation system. Until the structures are developed and operational, South Africa will continue to request that products which are not accredited by recognized international accreditation bodies be retested by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). This exercise is not meant to deny SA trading counterpart’s access to the South African market, but simply to protect South African consumers.
NTB-000-369	1.1. Export subsidies A84: Inspection requirement Policy/Regulatory	2010-02-10	South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture	Zambia	Resolved 2011-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that Zambia needs to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements to the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries . PQPS certificates can not be issued if the above information is not known.
NTB-000-369	1.1. Export subsidies A84: Inspection requirement Policy/Regulatory	2010-02-10	South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture	Zambia	Resolved 2011-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	On 1 June 2011 , South Afric areported that Zambia was not able to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements. PQPS certificates can therefore not be issued if the above information is not known
NTB-000-272	1.1. Export subsidies A9: SPS measures n.e.s.	2009-09-08	Zambia: Other Zambia	Namibia	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Issuing of Phytosanitary Certificates for exports of cotton cake to Namibia by Zambian Authorities is too slow.
Resolution status note:	Zambian reported that authorities process the above certificates as quickly as possible. The only time there is a delay is when the client does not have the right documentation, or has missing documentation
NTB-000-394	1.1. Export subsidies A84: Inspection requirement Policy/Regulatory	2011-01-15	Angola: At the point of offloading.	South Africa	Resolved 2015-04-07	View
Complaint:	Ministry of Agriculture in Angola has implemented decree Nr 02/08. This decree requires the inspector to be present at the time of offloading, and to draw samples per load, line item and batch. As there are on average over 100 lines per container and more than one batch per line, this can result in as many as 300 samples being drawn per container. The remaining items will need to be placed in quarantine until testing is finalized and release given. Given that on average 3 containers arrive in Luanda daily, more than 900 items from Shoprite alone will create a problem for the Lab. Their turn around time of 3 days will be impossible to maintain. Many of the products are also time sensitive, which means that by the time final release is given, there may be very little shelf life left, if at all. Then there is also the cost to consider. Sampling and testing is part and parcel of the business but taken to the extreme as is the case here, it becomes a very costly and ultimately damaging excercise both to the Business and the end consumer (reduced shelf life, less choice). Suggestions: 1. Allow a South African authority (SABS, NRCS) to sample and inspect the goods before dispatching and issue a certificate against the findings, to accompany the load. 2. Allow Shoprite to send samples of the goods onboard via courier company so that the inspection can commence and thus be completed and the certificates issued by the time that the load arrives at the store level. The batch number can be verified by an independant body.
Resolution status note:	On 7th April 2015, South Africa Focal Point reported that they had received confirmation from the complainant that NTB 394, reported by SA against Angola should be recorded as 'resolved' because what was complained about had not been enforced
Products:	0401.10: Milk and cream of a fat content by weight of <= 1%, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter and 1601.00: Sausages and similar products, of meat, offal or blood; food preparations based on these products
NTB-000-400	1.1. Export subsidies A52: Irradiation	2011-02-22	South Africa: The Department of Trade and Industry	Zambia	Resolved 2015-08-10	View
Complaint:	The Zambian honey sector have come against repeated resistance from the South African authorities to allow organic honey to enter the South Africa market without the unnecessary requirement of irradiation. Therefore, our traders are requesting the South African government for an exemption from the irradiation requirements for the importation of honey from Zambia as set out by the National Department of Agriculture (RSA). An analysis undertaken by the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) of South Africa collected honey samples from across Zambia during a national disease survey funded by the World Bank in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture of Zambia. The findings of this analysis by the NDA reveal that there is no American Foulbrood Disease in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	South Africa advised that all honey exports from Zambia were now accepted into that market.
Products:	0409.00: Natural honey
NTB-000-411	1.1. Export subsidies A15: Authorization requirement for importers for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons	2011-03-23	South Africa: National Dept Agricultural Registrar : Act no 36 of 1947	South Africa	Resolved 2011-04-21	View
Complaint:	My company submitted renewal of existing Farm Feed Registrations at 12 Dec 2010 All the FF regestrations have expired on 28 Feb. 2011 We have enqeired numerous times on the renewal with no satisfaction. Th ecompany is stuck with 1000mt of cotton oilcake and 100mt of meat and bone meal that can not come in to South Africa from Zimbabwe and Namibia The local feed plants and feed lots are running out of stock with no local stocks to supply. We therefore seek help to have our applications processed by the relevant Ministry/Department
Resolution status note:	The Department of Agriculture & Fisheries renewd the licence on 28 March 2011
Products:	1207.2: - Cotton seeds :
NTB-000-414	1.1. Export subsidies B33: Packaging requirements	2011-03-01	Zimbabwe: Chirundu	Zimbabwe	Resolved 2011-05-10	View
Complaint:	Ban on plastics of thickness less than 30 micro meters
Resolution status note:	The ban is being effected under Statutory Instrument 98 of 2010 - Environmental Management (Plastic Packaging and Plastic Bottles) Regulations , 2010 issued by the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Management in terms of section 140 of the Environment Management Act ( Chapter 20:27) to protect the environment
Products:	3923.29: Sacks and bags, incl. cones, of plastics (excl. those of polymers of ethylene)
NTB-000-438	1.1. Export subsidies A9: SPS measures n.e.s.	2009-09-16	EAC	Kenya	Resolved 2016-06-30	View
Complaint:	Numerous institutions involved in testing goods in the EAC partner states.
Resolution status note:	There is collaboration among testing agencies
NTB-000-444	1.1. Export subsidies A83: Certification requirement Policy/Regulatory	2011-09-02	Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture	Uganda	Resolved 2014-12-11	View
Complaint:	Non recognition by Kenya for SPS certificates issued by Uganda for tea destined for Mombasa action.
Resolution status note:	At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, Kenya reported that the requirement would be abolished. Kenya reported that tea destined for auction at Mombasa for export must be warehoused in a bonded Customs warehouse (Transit Go down) of their choice. This NTB is therefore resolved
NTB-000-456	1.1. Export subsidies A83: Certification requirement	2011-09-03	EAC	Kenya	Resolved 2014-12-11	View
Complaint:	EAC Standards Bureaus have varying procedures for issuance of certification marks, inspection and testing.
Resolution status note:	At the 16th NTBs forum held in Kigali in December 2014, EAC Secretariat reported that Partner States Regulatory Agencies are collaborating in clearance of goods and that there is now mutual recognition of certificates issued by Partner States Testing bodies. This NTB was therefore resolved.
NTB-000-483	1.1. Export subsidies B33: Packaging requirements	2012-01-03	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Malawi	Resolved 2012-01-25	View
Complaint:	I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days. The reasons for the being held are the following: 1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco. 2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco. 3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border. There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues. The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company. In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change.
Resolution status note:	The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth. The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions: i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit. ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals. iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco. It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012. South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows: ‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’
NTB-000-483	1.1. Export subsidies B33: Packaging requirements	2012-01-03	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Malawi	Resolved 2012-01-25	View
Complaint:	I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days. The reasons for the being held are the following: 1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco. 2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco. 3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border. There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues. The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company. In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change.
Resolution status note:	The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth. The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions: i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit. ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals. iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco. It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012. South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows: ‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’
NTB-000-506	1.1. Export subsidies Policy/Regulatory	2012-03-14	Kenya: Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services	Tanzania	Resolved 2014-12-11	View
Complaint:	Delays by Partner States to harmonize SPS protocol has resulted in cut-flower from Tanzania for re-exports to Europe and Russia blocked by Kenya.
Resolution status note:	At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, Kenya reported that the blockage had been lifted. This NTB is therefore 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-000-567	1.1. Export subsidies	2013-02-01	Kenya: Namanga	Zambia	Resolved 2013-02-27	View
Complaint:	A consignment of sugar exported from Zambia to Kenya by Zambia Sugar has been delayed at the border for more than 20 days, and still has not been released. The COMESA secretariat has assisted in verifying the Certificate of origin that was apparently the initial reason for the delay. However the sugar has still not been processed for release
Resolution status note:	On 27 February 2013, the Coordinator Border Coordination Management, Kenya Revenue Authority advised that, upon verification of the certificate of origin, all consignments of sugar exports from Zambia into Kenya were released by 23 February 2013. KRA submitted a status report to the Focal Point, Kenya, indicating specific release dates for individual consignmenet as evidence.
NTB-000-631	1.1. Export subsidies	2014-04-22	South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge	Lesotho	Resolved 2015-03-24	View
Complaint:	I apparently needed a certificate from the State Vet to carry wool tops over the border! This proved impossible to get in Ficksburg. I have also experienced many problems bringing craft goods over to South Africa from lesotho as we need to pay VAT on all goods coming to exhibitions. This is extremely time consuming process and then I have to claim the VAT back when I bring unsold goods back over the border!
Resolution status note:	On 24 March 2015, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved and therefore must be removed from the pending cases.
Products:	5105.29: Wool, combed (excl. that in fragments "open tops")

<< Previous 1 2 3...28 29 30 31 32...38 39 40 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints