| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-395 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2011-02-11 |
Mozambique: "FRIGO" customs clearing in Maputo |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2012-03-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Meat in brine imported from South Africa classified under tariff code 0210.20.00 being subjected to 15% import duty. We have been importing under tarrif code 0210.20.00 for 18 mnths without paying duty. Now a ruling was made on 11 February that duty of 15% is applicable.Mozambique customs does not agree with the tarrif code notwithstanding that this is the code accepted by South Africa as correct. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique confirmed that the duty applied on tariff cod 0210.20.00 is zero. Customs Authorities have rectified the problem and are not charging duty on the product. |
|
|
Products:
|
0210.20: Meat of bovine animals, salted, in brine, dried or smoked |
|
|
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-000-261 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Ondjiva Customs |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Extended and unpredictable turnaround time resulting in additional costs of trucking into Angola. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011 it was reported that customs observations were that truck drivers leave trucks at the Angola borders for 3 or more days and return to Oshikango to resolve personal issues, claiming that they are processing documents. Too many trucks are parked at the border without information where the drivers are. In some cases drivers have reported that they are not clear of the physical addresses of destination of the load in Angola. Angola Customs is investing in creating the best conditions for commercial and non commercial border users. Santa Clara border is undergoing a massive expansion with a view to become a regional and international example of trade facilitation infrastructures. |
|
|
NTB-000-259 |
7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Ondjiva Customs |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Angola effects random increases in excise duties without notifying traders in advance. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011, it was reported that all tariffs and other related fees and charges are gazetted and therefore not charged in ad hoc manner. The Angola Tariff Book is published and available on Angola Customs website (www.alfandegas.gv.ao). |
|
|
NTB-000-254 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Angola Revenue Authority |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of harmonized procedures between Namibian and Angolan customs authorities make exports into Angola very difficult and generally frustrating. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011, it was reported that Angola has modernised customs procedures by reducing dwell time to 48 hours. Angola is also developed simplified trade regimes for informal and small scale traders, incorporating them into the trading system. |
|
|
NTB-000-253 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Ondjiva Customs |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Clearance of goods by the Ondjiva customs at the Oshikango/Santa Clara border post is too time consuming (red tape/inefficient bureaucracy). |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011, Angola reported that its Customs service underwent a structural reform and modernisation resulting in the simplification and harmonisation of customs procedures. Clearance of goods takes maximum 48 hours, if documentation is properly submitted. |
|
|
NTB-000-245 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The acquisition of Pre-shipment inspection numbers and consequent inspection of shipments for exports to Angola make transport pre-planning quite difficult and cause lengthy delays for the transport industry. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011, Angola reported that this NTB lacks clarity and complainant could not be traced to provide additional information. The complaint is therefore considered resolved unless additional information is provided. |
|
|
NTB-000-244 |
7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues |
2009-09-08 |
Angola: Ministry of Home Affairs |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Processing of visa requirements for business travel and professional staff to enter Angola take long. (10 working days),are costly and rapidly fill the pages of one's passport. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTBs national workshop held in Angola on 30 November 2011, Angola reported that Namibian citizens do not require VISA to Angola. VISAs are processed in a period between 2-10 days. |
|
|
NTB-000-108 |
7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure |
2009-07-26 |
Angola: Telecommunications Department |
South Africa |
Resolved
2011-11-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Angola postal and delivery services are unrelaible |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NTB workshop held in Luanda on 30 November 2011, Angola reported that postal services have been improved significantly in the last few years. DHL, and other services are now available in post offices. The NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-375 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2010-02-10 |
SADC |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-11-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There is lack of clarity and information on the authorities issuing and processing SADC certificates of origin in Member states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC secretariat reported that : as stated in rule 9 of the Annex I of the SADC Protocol on Trade, “Member States shall deposit with the Secretariat the names of Departments and Agencies authorized to issue the certificates required […], specimen signatures of officials authorized to sign the certificates and the impressions of the official stamps to be used for that purpose, and those shall be circulated to Member States by the Secretariat.” SADC Secretariat circulates all the documentary evidence to Member States immediately upon reception. Additionally, the SADC Customs Unit is working in a user-friendly customs related link in the SADC Secretariat’s website to accommodate not only issues related to documentary evidence for the process of SADC RoO, but also all the binding documentation that enhances trade in the Region. |
|
|
NTB-000-352 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-10 |
SADC |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The cabotage law applied by SADC Member states contributes to high transport costs. The law does not allow an empty truck to carry back a load from a third country. For example, a South African truck dropping off a load in Namibia cannot pick up a load in Namibia destined for Botswana even though this truck is using trans Kalahari Highway linking the two countries |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC secretariat responded that : the customs term cabotage as stated in Specific Annex E, Chapter 3 of the revised Kyoto Convention, is applied for imported goods that have not been declared under the condition that they must be transported in a vessel other than the importing vessel in which they arrived in the Customs territory are loaded on board a vessel at a place in the Customs territory and are transported to another place in the same Customs territory where they are then unloaded and cleared. The term can also be used for the same purposes for air transportation (domestic flights).
Looking to the complaint technically, one of the SADC Secretariat key objectives is to reduce the costs of doing business in the region. However, some interventions of the Secretariat are bounded by its regional economic integration process. SADC is currently a FTA among its 11 Member States, enabling goods originating in Member States applying the FTA to enter duty free and quota free under certain conditions stated in the SADC Protocol on Trade. For this economic activity, economic operators are not obliged to be registered as economic operators in the countries were goods are delivered. A deeper regional economic integration would be needed in order to allow foreign economic operators to engage in business activities in Member States, benefiting from local business opportunities but also fiscal obligations. This is a level of economic integration closer to common market and which unfortunately, the SADC Protocol on Trade does not provide for. |
|
|
NTB-000-292 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-08 |
SADC |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-11-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Empty space on trucks cannot be utilized due to the 'Third Country' rules. This law should be abolished within SADC |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC Secretariat reported that, reducing costs of doing business in the region is one of the key objectives of the SADC Secretariat. However, some interventions of the Secretariat are bound by its regional economic integration process. SADC FTA enables goods originating in Member States applying the FTA to enter duty free and quota free under provisions in the SADC Protocol on Trade. For this economic activity, economic operators are not obliged to be registered as economic operators in the countries where goods are delivered if only they are delivering goods. A deeper regional economic integration would be needed in order to allow foreign economic operators to engage in business activities in Member States, benefit from local business opportunities but also meeting fiscal obligations arising from such operations. This is a level of economic integration closer to common market and which forms SADC long term vision. |
|
|
NTB-000-196 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-27 |
SADC |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-11-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Delays in communicating signatories that verify certificates of origin. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC Secretariat reported that,in accordance to rule 9 of Annex I of the SADC Protocol on Trade, “Member States shall deposit with the Secretariat the names of Departments and Agencies authorized to issue the certificates required […],specimen signatures of officials authorized to sign the certificates and the impressions of the official stamps to be used for that purpose, and those shall be circulated to Member States by the Secretariat.” SADC Secretariat circulates all the documentary evidence to Member States immediately upon receipt. In addition, the SADC Customs Unit is working in a user-friendly customs related link in the SADC Secretariat’s website to accommodate not only issues related to documentary evidence for the processing of SADC RoO, but also all the binding documentation that enhances trade in the Region. |
|
|
NTB-000-277 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2009-09-08 |
Rwanda: Ministry of Trade |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2011-10-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Export levies of 15% is charged on unprocessed goat hides |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Rwanda hs lifted the ban on exportation of raw hides and skins. However, the 5th EAC regional forum on NTBs held from 1-3 Septmber 2011 noted that the ban was appllied by all EAC countries with the aim to encourage value addition on raw hides towards export. |
|
|
NTB-000-467 |
2.14. Other |
2011-08-08 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-10-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On the 8/8/2011 a trader came with 45 pairs of slippers that is plastic footwear which qualifies the product to be traded using Comesa certificate of Origin under code 6404 since the onset of the project, the trader was charged duty of $72.00 calculated from total value of $31.10 yet she was only to pay vat & p-tax of $7.76, after discussions with Customs Manager she then paid $14.00 for vat, p-tax,and storage charge of $6.00 for 3days. from this day custom then banned importation of plastic footwear under this code 6404 and this ban is only at Kariba border Post, Zimbabwe, yet on Zambian side they give Comesa Certificate of Origin for the same product ,this is now promoting smuggling of this product along Zambezi River if that person dont want to Chirundu route |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the product Plastic Slippers is classified in tariff 6402.2000 which is not on the COMESA STR Common List of products therefore customs officers could not clear under that instrument. However, following consultations between officials from Zimbabwe and Zambia, products in HS code 6402 will be put up for consideration to be included on the COMESA STR list of products at the next reveiw meeting. |
|
|
Products:
|
6404.19: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials (excl. sports footwear, incl. tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, and toy footwear) |
|
|
NTB-000-382 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2010-08-11 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Malawi |
Resolved
2011-10-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The process of clearing trucks at the Beit Bridge Border Post is very low since week beginning 26 July 2010. Trucks take up to 3 days to cross from Messina to Beitbridge? Drivers have reported that South Africa Revenue Authorities are not deploying enough manpower to clear trucks on time. Stops and supervising take ages to be completed |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Cross Border Road Transport Agency Indaba held on 18-19 October 2011, SARS reported that most clearance procedures are now done electronically. SARS is now moving into a paperless environment and is encouraging all Hauliers/Operators to register their road manifest with SARS to cut out on paper work at the border. It now takes as little as 11 minutes for a truck to be cleared on the South African side at Beit Bridge border. |
|
|
NTB-000-192 |
7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-27 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Malawi |
Resolved
2011-09-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Inefficient loading and unloading facilities at Nacala and Beira ports in Mozambique resulting in time delays and occasionally additional warehousing costs. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
In consultations with the Beira Port Authorities, namely, Cornelder, on the 22nd of September 2011, at the Beira Port, Cornelder informed that indeed during the dredging process the Beira port faced a lot of delays but that aspect has been overcome now that the dredging process is over. |
|
|
NTB-000-390 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2011-02-14 |
Mozambique: Customs |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2011-09-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Specific types of packaging are required to export perishable items to the UK. The packaging materials are not available in Mozambique. They can be imported duty-free as long as the exact same number are re-exported. This is almost always impossible because a small percentage of packets always get damaged in the packing process. However if the exact same number of packets are not exported then the company is required to pay duty on the full number of packages imported, not only on the damaged ones which are not re-exported |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique explained that the temporary import of taras and other materials or equipments is legislated by article 28 of the decree 34/2009 of July 6th. For this process duty is not paid at the country entrance. Number 6 of the same article states the various guarantee terms to which such imports are subject. By rule, these must cover the revenue at risk from the damaged packaging and of those whose regularization may not have been justified by re exportation to the origin or definitive importation for local consumption.
In a meeting held between SADC Secretariat and Mozambique focal points, Mozambique reported that duty is only charged only on the damaged packages which are not re-exported. Any company experiencing further problems is advised to consult director of Customs. |
|
|
Products:
|
0703.10: Fresh or chilled onions and shallots |
|
|
NTB-000-391 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2011-02-14 |
Mozambique: Ministry of Finance |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2011-09-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Withholding tax of 20% is charged on any payment made to a company not registered in Mozambique. Export of fresh produce to Europe by airfreight, or to South Africa by refrigerated road haulage cannot be carried out by any company registered in Mozambique. Therefore payment to service providers such as international airlines and road hauliers engaging in export of perishable goods to Europe or South Africa is subject to payment of 20% withholding tax. International airlines and road hauliers do not accept the deduction of this tax meaning the exporting company based in Mozambique must assume this as a cost, thus increasing the cost of export products, and reducing the margin made on exporting these products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the consultative meeting held between SADC Secretariat and Mozambique NTBs focal Points in Maputo on 19 September 2011, Mozambique reported that all compaines doing commercial business in the territory must be registered in that country. Foreign haulage companies wishing to participate in local business must therefore conform with legal requirements. |
|
|
Products:
|
0708.10: Fresh or chilled peas "Pisum sativum", shelled or unshelled |
|
English
Français
