| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-247 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-05-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In Namibia the same information has to be provided and captured more than once in the import and export supply chain, e.g. Namport, Custom & Excise, MoF, MTI, NCCI, Carriers and Agents on imports of copper concentrate from DRC and RSA which becomes cumbersome. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that Copper is a controlled product that needs verification to determine the value for tax purposes and subsequent issuance of permit by he Ministry of Trade and Industry. |
|
|
NTB-000-248 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2011-02-08 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In Namibia the same information has to be provided and captured more than once in the import and export supply chain, e.g. Namport, Custom & Excise, MoF, MTI, NCCI, Carriers and Agents on imports of fuel from RSA. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This NTB has been resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-249 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In Namibia the same information has to be provided and captured more than once in the import and export supply chain, e.g. Namport, Custom & Excise, MoF, MTI, NCCI, Carriers and Agents on exports of salt to West Africa and RSA,. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012, Namibia reported that, a client can obtain an import or export permit in one hour at the Ministry of Trade and Industry if all the required documents are provided. With regard to the export permit the delay comes in when the product is a controlled product where the client is expected to obtain a clearance certificate from the relevant Ministry for tax purposes or when the importing country policies and regulations requires that the imported product be accompanied by authorised documents from the relevant authorities. The meeting accepted Namibia’s submission to resolve this NTB |
|
|
NTB-000-218 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-27 |
Mozambique: Ministry of Trade |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In Mozambique, any wine consignment which is not escorted by police attracts a US$ 30 fine. It is not clear what the offence is and at what point the police should start escorting the consignments |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that monitoring tax is part of security measures and revenue assurance at risk, there are others situations like this, the most common being the provision of guarantee or security at the starting point of transit. The management system of transit guarantee of SADC, of which Mozambique is a signatory establishes the principle of extra-territorial validity of the warranty |
|
|
NTB-000-359 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2010-02-10 |
Kenya: Ministry of Home Affairs |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2011-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In Kenya, police can claim that a container is security risk and arrest it until customs people come. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the NMC meeting held in Nairobi on 29 August 2011, Kenya reported that this was an isolated case which did not repeat. |
|
|
NTB-000-281 |
5.12. Export restraint arrangements
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-08 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Namibia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In 2004, the South African authorities introduced a commercial export permit requirement for Namibian grown oysters before these oysters could enter South Africa. In addition, an import permit is required from the South African authorities. The industry views this measure as a punitive trade measure, intended to protect the South African industry. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that the importation and exportation of all products is subject to control measures. This is to ensure that there is compliance with specified environmental legislation and with terms and
conditions of permits and other authorisations issued in terms of that legislation. For more information please contact:
Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Tel: 021 402 3911
Fax: 021 402 3367 |
|
|
NTB-000-837 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges
Policy/Regulatory |
2018-10-23 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Uganda |
Resolved
2018-11-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imposition of withholding tax of 20% on demurrage charges by Kenya. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
NTB was resolved during the SCTIFI |
|
|
NTB-000-341 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2009-12-11 |
Mozambique: Ministry of Health |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of Medicine experience serious clearance delays because pre -inspection certificate is issued on time. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that the obligation of pre- inspection in medicine import is not a NTB, because the medicine are listed as positive range of products whose the import process requires pre-shipment inspection and a permit from the Ministry of Health |
|
|
NTB-000-339 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-12-10 |
Mozambique: Mozambique Customs |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of medicine experience delays in clearance because pre-inspection certificates are not issued on time. |
|
|
NTB-000-340 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2009-12-10 |
Mozambique: Mozambique Revenue Authority |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of medicine experience delays in clearance because pre-inspection certificates are not issued on time. |
|
|
NTB-000-728 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2016-11-01 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2018-01-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Importers of beans, ground nuts and sweet potatoes from Zambia into Botswana have complained that they have of late, been charged amount in excess on BWP 1 000 by some Zambian border authority for which receipts are never issued. A number of those complaints have revealed that no receipts were issued to denote what the BWP 1 000 was being paid for. No explanation was also given. These importers have, while in Zambia paid all the charges relating to phytosanitary and other charges for their goods-receipts for such are duly produced.
The additional charge is suspected to be charged without any legal basis from Zambia Government. This additional charge is placing a burden on small traders whose livelihood depends on selling the products in Botswana. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25th January 2018, Zambia reported that no Zambian Border Authority Charges this Fee and without receipt for that matter. Border Agencies suspect this could be a case of false representation of a Government agency. The matter will be passed on to security wings for further interrogation. If additional information could be availed to assist in identifying those involved. This NTB is considered resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
1202.41: Groundnuts, in shell (excl. seed for sowing, roasted or otherwise cooked) |
|
|
NTB-000-463 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2011-09-21 |
Botswana: Sir Seretse Khama International Airport |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imported whey permeate from the U.S. was charged an import duty amounting to P10 755.90 for goods valued at USD $4 875.00 (approximately P4100). In addition, they refused to recognize the product as being a whey product, which carries a lower rate of duty than the category for which we were charged. The product we were importing, known as Versilac, is a type of whey permeate, being the material passing through the filter used for extracting whey protein from whey. The only dairies producing whey permeate are those producing whey protein concentrate. No dairy in Southern Africa produces either whey protein concentrate or whey permeate. Our only option is to buy imported permeate and concentrate from South African importers, or to import it ourselves. Why should anyone pay a duty amounting to 262% of the value of the goods when similar goods are not produced anywhere in the region? The officers at BURS in Gaborone insisted they were making correct charges and calculations but we were not provided with an analysis, only the receipt we received once we paid the full amount. Our goods had already been at the airport a week trying to sort the issue out. Finally, we were forced to pay as we needed to begin production. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 November 2012, the comlainant reported that the issue was partially resolved a few months later, when the company received a refund for some of the duty charged. BURS acknowledged that they had the wrong duty amount for that classification in their system. It is therefore assumed that the correct duty will now be charged from that time onwards. The company will continue to engage BURS to consider possibility of waiving duty 0n grounds that the product is for use in treatment of acute malnutrion, in other words it is a life-saving product. This NTB is therefore considered resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
0404.10: Whey and modified whey, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter |
|
|
NTB-000-035 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2008-12-22 |
Uganda: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Import Tariffs
Kenya complained that Ugandan authorities were utilizing 1994 tariff levels as base year for calculating COMESA discounts. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Uganda reported that she is no longer using 1994 tariff levels as base year for calculations |
|
|
NTB-000-168 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-27 |
Mauritius: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2012-03-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Import restrictions on sugar |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the last NTB meeting in March 2011, Mauritius informed the meeting that import restrictions on sugar in Mauritius have been lifted |
|
|
NTB-000-224 |
5.4. Quotas
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-28 |
SADC |
Zambia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Import Quotas into SACU member states for sugar |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that this is a SACU wide policy decision. |
|
|
NTB-000-064 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2009-07-23 |
Lesotho: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Import licences procedure is cumbersome. Different departments issuing licences for different products. The multi-departmental authorisation is cumbersome and the procedures are too long. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho reported that this is no longer the case because One Stop Business Facilitation Center has been established. Almost all licensing departments from different ministries have been housed under one roof. |
|
|
NTB-001-104 |
1.8. Import bans |
2023-03-06 |
Kenya: Kenya Diary Board |
Uganda |
Resolved
2023-03-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
IMPORT BANS AND DENIAL OF MARKET ACCESS BY KENYA.
On 6 Mar 2023,the government of Kenya through the Kenya Diary Board stopped the issuing of import permits for powdered milk as a means of cushioning the surplus production and low producer prices in Kenya.
By this, Kenya is breaching EAC customs union protocol and the customs union that makes us a common market as well.This is denying ugandan powdered milk access to the kenyan Market and will negatively impact trade relations between the two countries. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIF noted that the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-570 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-02-26 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Namaacha |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I'm doing the carton business in Mozambique but factory is in Swaziland. Every time I'm going to pass the border my company always pay 100 USD for every truck of goods I only deliver in Maputo they say it is a road fund every week I use at least 8-10 trucks I'm doing this business since 2009 and until now i need to pay that road fund I want to know why I'm paying this Money. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April in Lusaka Zambia, Mozambique reported that this is a levy on use of national roads and that this amount ranges from US$75-US$100 per trip. Almost all countries in the region have road tax specially for foreign trucks crossing the border.
With this explanation, meeting agreed to resolve the matter. |
|
|
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’ |
|
English
Français
