| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-126 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: Ministry of Trade |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Single channel marketing for sugar and sugar products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that the status quo remains because the Sugar Act has not been reviewed. |
|
|
NTB-000-497 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-05-08 |
Eswatini: Bordergate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Swaziland is to impose Quantitive import restrictions on imported edible cooking oil from within the SADC region as well as 15% import duties over and above the quantitive restriction. Such has happen already on Wheat Flour and after 8 years of 'Infancy Protection', NO IMPORT permits are issued to date. Court Case is currently being heard by the High Court of Swaziland. (Various Stakeholders versus Government of Swaziland) |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At their meeting held on 23 May 2013, the SCTF recalled Articles 3 and 7 of the Trade Protocol, on elimination of trade barriers and quantitative restrictions. Swaziland reported that measure was implemented in the context of the SACU, which provides for quantitative restrictions and protection of infant industry protection. SCTF requested Swaziland to provide its relevant national legal instrument and information on how the measure is applied including whether or not it is applicable to trade with non-SACU SADC FTA Member States. Swaziland undertook to provide the information as requested. Swaziland submitted the legislation as per requirement . This NTB is therefore resolved . |
|
|
Products:
|
1205.10: Low erucic acid rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of < 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of < 30 micromoles/g", 1205.90: High erucic rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of >= 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of >= 30 micromoles/g", whether or not broken and 1206.00: Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken |
|
|
NTB-000-516 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2012-07-01 |
Eswatini: Ngwenya |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2013-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My family and I were requested to pay an "alledged" import duty for groceries valued at around 800 Rands even though we clearly stated that we were in transit travelling from South Africa to Mozambique. The customs official kept insisting that we would be given a receipt and to our amazement the receipt had my husband's name but instead of his addressing being Maputo it was registered Manzini.
Would the Swazi focal point(s) please clarify if this is the usual procedure for goods transiting Swazilang, whether commercial or for personal consumption |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 June 2013, Swaziland Focal Point reported that the matter had been settled with the complainant after all information supplied was verified with Swaziland Revenue authority requirements for th eimportation of personal goods. |
|
|
NTB-000-058 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2009-02-09 |
Eritrea: Eritrea Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya reported that the Government of Eritrea is rejecting the COMESA Certificate of origin on processed meat exports from the Farmers Choice in Kenya due to authenticity of Signatures. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Eriteria reported that the issue was resolved by the COMESA customs and trade committee meeting |
|
|
Products:
|
2102.10: Active yeasts |
|
|
NTB-000-031 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2008-12-23 |
Egypt: Ministry of Trade |
Uganda |
Resolved
2009-02-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
: Authorisation fees for endorsement of COMESA Certificate of Origin
Uganda has complained that Egypt authorities require that Certificates of Origin be endorsed by the Egyptian Embassy in Kampala before dispatch of the goods |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Issue was resolved through COMESA Customs and Trade Committee |
|
|
NTB-000-030 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2008-12-22 |
Egypt: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
Resolved
2011-05-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya complained that Egyptian authorities were demanding the galvanized steel coils should be engraved with the wording 'Made in Kenya as proof of origin' |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Egypt reported that the issue had been resolved through diplomatic channels. the Egyptian authorities forwarded an official reply in this regard through diplomatic channels including that the technical standard on Egyptian imports of galvanized steel coils, as well as the COMESA rules of origin does not require codification of the indication of origin on the product. |
|
|
Products:
|
7208.39: Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of >= 600 mm, in coils, simply hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated, of a thickness of < 3 mm, not pickled, without patterns in relief |
|
|
NTB-000-006 |
2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers |
2004-05-29 |
Egypt: Egypt Revenue Authority |
Uganda |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Authorisation fees for endorsement of COMESA Certificate of
Origin
Uganda has complained that Egypt authorities require that Certificates of Origin be endorsed by the Egyptian Embassy in Kampala before dispatch of the goods. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Egypt reported that she does not require consular or Embassy export documentation. A ministerial Decree issued by the Government of Egypt was circulated to all COMESA Member States on March 22 2007. |
|
|
NTB-000-678 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-08-25 |
Egypt: Egyptian Customs Authority - Ministry of Finance |
Kenya |
Resolved
2016-02-08 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non acceptance of COMESA certificates of origin on mill white sugar, LG Electronics (TV sets) originating from Kenya |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 8th February 2016 , Focal Point for Egypt reported that the NTB be considered resolved on the basis of a recommendation from a joint visit on the spot verification for Mill White Sugar and LG products (TV Sets) was undertaken that White sugar & LG Electronics (TV sets) qualify for preferential treatment according to COMESA protocol of ROO. |
|
|
NTB-000-933 |
7.7. Complex variety of documentation required |
2018-10-12 |
Egypt: Port Said Sea Port |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2020-10-08 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Egyptian authorities require a number of lengthy and costly documentation for clearance of consignment at customs. The identified cumbersome documentation requirements are as follows:
1. All export documents must be signed and stamped by the exporter's legal representative
2. All export documents must be signed and stamped by the Prime Minister's Office of Mauritius (Apostille requirement)
3. All export documents must be signed and stamped by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mauritius (Apostille requirement)
4. All export documents must be signed and stamped by the Egyptian Embassy in Mauritius
5. All export documents must be signed and stamped by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Some products also require a Certificate of Origin issued by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry despite being already accompanied by a COMESA Certificate of Origin. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 5th Meeting of the COMESA Trade and Trade Facilitation Sub Committee held on 6- 8 October , Mauritius reported that the NTB had been resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-058 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2022-03-12 |
Egypt: Egypt Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
Resolved
2023-04-06 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Egyptian customs rejected to apply the COMESA certificate of origin issued by Madagascar attached because the signature is different. COMESA Secretariat is therefore requested to check the attached received from the shipper and advise on way forward. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the COMESA Workshop on Capacity building for Member States held on 2- 6 April 2023, which reviewed this NTB, Egypt National Focal Point was requested to update status of the rejected consignment which was accompanied by the COMESA Certificate of Origin in the online system. However, on further review, it the meeting recommended that this complaint be regarded as resolved because the COMESA Certificate of Origin in question was not confirmed to be authentic. |
|
|
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-000-379 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-19 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
Namibia |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
DRC is charging exorbitant fees which are not in line with SADC and COMESA harmonized fees.From 01/02/10 DRC did not reduce their tolls they instead greatly increases
them. Road tolls in DRC are about 15 ( 1500 % ) times greater than the SADC
recommended. Today a foreign transporter entering DRC at Kasumbalesa going to Tenke
Fungurume mine ( 300 kms each way ) is subject to the following tolls and
fees (distance of 300 kms into DRC and 300 kms out of DRC): Road toll Kasumbalesa/Lubumbashi return $ 300 ; Road tolls Lubumbashi/Likasi return $ 300; Road tolls Likasi/Tenke return $ 150 ; Government tax $ 50 ; Fumigation Fees $ 50 ; Card entry $ 15 ; Tourism/Vaccination fees $ 35 ; Visa for truck $ 25 ; Break bulk fees $ 20. Total cost to the transporter in Fees and Tolls is $ 945. That works out at $
157.5 per 100 kms. The SADC agreed is $ 10 per 100 kms. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-256 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2009-09-08 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
Namibia |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
DRC customs, cause problems on road transport through delaying trucks to depart on time to Lubumbashi |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-311 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of trade |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
High road charges and transport costs for exporters |
|
|
NTB-000-309 |
5.3. Export taxes
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of Trade |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Export duty is levied on timber. |
|
|
NTB-000-304 |
2.14. Other |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-12-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of knowledge of regulations by customs officials |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
DRC is participating in the SADC Customs Management project where by the customs officials are now actively involved in regional matters. |
|
|
NTB-000-358 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2010-02-10 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of Trade |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2023-02-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The process of obtaining DRC Ogeframe certificate delays cargo at the port and increases costs. Procedure is too long as it involves exporter paying fees at Tanzania Revenue Authority in DAr es Salaam Office and then take the document for endorsement by DRC. This is applicable only to transit goods to DRC. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Member States agreed to resolve on the strength that no complaints had been received . |
|
|
NTB-000-307 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2009-09-09 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Resolved
2010-12-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Limited knowledge of customs procedures and documentation therefore officials impose arbitrary requirements at border posts |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
DRC is actively participating inthe SADC Customs Cooperation Committee thereby increasing knowledge of customs procedures and requirements |
|
|
NTB-000-425 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-07-21 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
DRC transit charges are too exhorbitant. For example, a truck delivering to Tenke, will have to pay $340 + 750 + 125 + 125 = $1340 for one return trip.That is, providing the truck doesn’t wait more than one day at the Zambian border.
There have been many complaints about it, but little seems to be done. There are ongoing efforts by the RFA and other stakeholders to get the toll fees as low as possible yielded some positive resulted in a once off reduction of the fees which still are too high. Each trip through Kasumbalesa to Lubumbashi costs a staggering US$ 125.There is need for transparency and fair toll fees at regional level. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-517 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-07-16 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: KIPUS Mine |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2012-07-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania Truck Owners Association (TATOA) reported that Tanzania Trucks, after delivering a consignment they carried from Tanzania to Congo, are charged $100,000/= per truck if they want to carry another consignment on their way back to Dar es Salaam. The attached receipt is just evidence for one transaction but there are other transporters who have paid such charges while there are also other transporters whose vehicles have been detained until now. This fee is charged at KIPUS mine in the name of LOCAL INCOME TAX WHILE LOADING CARGO. Tanzania regards this as an NTB and she needs to know the reason for charging such a huge amount of money from transporters. DRC focal point is requested to treat this matter as urgent since a number of tracks are still detained at Kipus Mine in the D. R. Congo. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 08 October, Tanzania focal point reported that the DRC released the trucks held at the KIPUS Mine . This NTB is therefore considered resolved. |
|
English
Français
