| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-140 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-27 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi controls quantities of imports of wheat products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Malawi reported that there is no quantitative control of wheat products |
|
|
NTB-000-173 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-27 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Restriction on importation of Kitchen and table salt |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Malawi reported that there is no restriction but salt is licensed to ensure only iodised kitchen and table salt is imported |
|
|
NTB-000-176 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-27 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Restriction on importation of poultry, including day old chicks |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Malawi reported that there is no restriction but licensing measures were introduced when there was an outbreak of bird flu disease |
|
|
NTB-000-166 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-27 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There is an Import restriction on Portland cement |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Malawi reported that NTB had been resolve internally. |
|
|
NTB-000-223 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2009-07-28 |
Zambia: Ministry of Trade |
Zambia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Restricted importation of fruits and vegetables |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia reported that she does not restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables as long as they fulfill the necessary import requirements. |
|
|
NTB-000-347 |
5.1. Quantitative restrictions |
2010-02-09 |
Botswana: Ministry of Agriculture |
Botswana |
Resolved
2010-11-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana regulates importation of grains |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that it has multi channel maize marketing. Ministry of Agriculture issue import permits to ensure balance between local sourcing and importation. |
|
|
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-000-224 |
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-000-185 |
5.4. Quotas |
2009-07-27 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Annual quota allocations for sugar into SACU |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa report3ed that Quota allocations have been agreed to on the Sugar Protocol which is also part of the SADC Protocol on Trade |
|
|
NTB-000-962 |
5.4. Quotas |
2020-04-07 |
South Africa: International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC)
South African Revenue Services (SARS) |
|
Resolved
2020-11-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Export permits were identified by participants as a major issue in South Africa but not an issue outside South Africa. To apply for an export permit, a company engaging in international trade concurrently applies for the export permit approval from the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC), Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the National Department of Health (NDOH). Once approved by DTIC and NDOH, ITAC provides the exporter with a permit. Once the permit is issued by ITAC, the exporter will send the permit approval to South African Revenue Services (SARS) to issue a customs clearance for export to take place. However, one could have an ITAC permit and not have a SARS customs clearance. Without the SARS clearance, medicines will not be exported.
The issue of export permits is discussed in detail below:
1. Due to the COVID-19, South Africa restricted the export of pharmaceutical products to meet domestic demand. While the objective to meet domestic demand is noble, the challenge is that some medicines limited to export permits are unrelated to COVID-19.
2. Also, application forms keep changing even after engagements with stakeholders with the export products restricted under a single HS code.
3. Another challenge is that essential medicines that are exempt from export permits are subject to export permits. This violates SADC regional guidelines for harmonising and facilitating movement of critical goods and services across the region during the COVID-19
4. Products that are readily available locally are also subjected to export permits (the exception being countries in the Southern Africa Customs Union-SACU). This in turn restricts movement of lifesaving medicines to needy markets and affects company profitability.
5. Participants also highlighted frustration with the slow approval of permits (although it is improving) in South Africa by the International Trade Administration Committee (ITAC), South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry which is received in a fragmented fashion, resulting in delays, thereby putting products at risk.
6. The above challenges on export permits in South Africa were confirmed by a participant from Mauritius. According to the participant, his company has been unable to order new stock from South Africa since March 2020. Their stock has been depleted due to delays in issuance of export permits by ITAC.
7. Lastly, participants also expressed their frustration with the slow processes by the SARS in processing customs clearance of export permits and noting that the requirements are changing on a regular basis without proper notice.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Following a series of meetings organised by the SADC Business Council and subsequent follow-ups with the Department of Trade Industry and Competition (DTIC) in South Africa, the DTIC on 26 November 2020 amended the COVID-19 export control regulation issued in February 2020 which removed, with immediate effect, the restrictions on export of essential
medicines for SADC countries. |
|
|
NTB-000-940 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2020-01-09 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2020-09-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The newly introduced Rwanda FDA is a double registration and a violation to EAC originating products with standardization quality marks for mutual recognition.
Rwanda FDA was never notified to Kenya/EAC
This will mean products going through double registration/approval systems in EAC. Rwanda to consider exempting EAC products from FDA
These are stringent new requirements on the EAC Community Products:
- when you want to import you need to request for import license, we no longer export/import from EAC, therefore when products have quality standardization mark it serves as one of documents to prove the safety of the products.
- You will also need to provide the product invoice and batch test reports to get the import license, before a products is issued with SMark it must be tested and confirmed that it conforms to the EAC products certification therefore this requirements should be exempted from locally manufactured products with quality marks and Certificate of Origin.
- Registration of the products: it is now mandatory to have the products registered have unique Smark numbers. Authenticity of products can be obtained online on the National bureaus.
- Registration fee will make locally manufactured products noncompetitive. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the RMC meeting the Republic of Rwanda informed that, In addressing such related and persistent NTBs, the EASC in 2018 directed the QATSC to develop a Framework for inter agency regulatory control of food and cosmetics to facilitate cross border trade of these commodities. The final framework was recommended by the EASC for SCTIFI approval in their next meeting and this if Partner States commit to implement will reduce the cost of doing business arising among others from re - registration and re- testing . In respect to the Rwanda FDA, the issue was brought to the attention of the Extraordinary meeting of the EASC held on 12th June 2020. The QATSC was directed to discuss the matter and report in the next EASC meeting held on 23rd July with participation of most Partner States Regulatory Authorities .In that meeting Rwanda FDA reported that they recognize products with the EAC notified Quality -Marks that are issued based on harmonized EAC standards, and what Rwanda FDA was doing was just the listing for such products in building the database. The Registration fees for EAC products is waived and EAC products will be registered automatically. The information is on the website and the the Regulations are attached.The NTB is hence resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting Partner States agreed that the NTB be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-001-213 |
5.14. Restrictive licenses
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-01-01 |
Rwanda: Rwanda FDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Rwanda requires manufacturers in Kenya to register their cosmetic products with FDA. The process of pproduct registration is cumbersome, not clear and it takes long, sample of evidence attached shows payment was done in 2021 for 63 products but up to date only 37 products have been registered.
The registration and payment are demanded despite the products having the Kenya recognized quality marks (SMark) with harminised standard. This is a violation of the SQMT Act. In addition, Rwanda FDA had committed that they are not going to retest nor charge the same fees to products that have been certified with recognised SMark.
Invoice number $14,150 and invoice $1,600 FDA. Rwanda use these FDA registration to restrict our cosmetics products and food into Rwanda as Rwanda has not issued licenses for cosmetics since 2021. Additionally, these has reduced shipments of goods to Rwanda and the charges charged to products has made the prices rising. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting, Partner States agreed that this issue be referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
NTB-000-036 |
4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A82: Testing requirement |
2004-05-21 |
Uganda: Uganda Bureau of Standards |
Kenya |
Resolved
2010-11-29 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya complained that Ugandan authorities were requesting for samples of milk to Uganda Dairy Development Authority for testing and that they were not accepting the certificate of analysis from Kenya Bureau of Standards on Kenyan Products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Uganda reported that the Uganda Dairy Development Authority (DDA) has never denied entry of milk from Kenya except for a one-off incident that happened in 2007 where the denial of entry was attributed to the water content, about 27%, in the imported milk.
The Uganda DDA respects quality certification from the country of origin and does not subject that milk to fresh certification. Some companies however prefer to bring into Uganda samples for analysis but neither the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) nor the Uganda (DDA) analyze items that have been analyzed by the Kenya Bureau of Standards( KEBS). They only monitor and consult with the sister bureaux of standards in the EAC Partner States. |
|
|
Products:
|
0402.10: Milk and cream in solid forms, of a fat content by weight of <= 1,5% |
|
|
NTB-000-727 |
4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A53: Fumigation |
2016-12-01 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Zambia |
Resolved
2017-05-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana border officials demand fumigation certificate for molasses. To my knowledge, foodstuffs like molasses cannot be fumigated and on the Botswana import permits (plant protection), this is not among the requirements. This leads to delays, additional costs (e.g demurrage), possible loss of business and risk of product going bad. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 17- 18 May 2017, Botswana reported that Sanitary import permit is required only for molasses meal. No Sanitary or Phytosanitary import permit is required for liquid molasses and molasses powder and therefore no fumigation certificate is needed for molasses. According to the conditions set as per the Sanitary import permit, imported molasses has to be free of protein of animal origin and not contain any prohibited substances such as growth hormones. Officials from Botswana and Zambia have had a bilateral meeting and the issue has been addressed. |
|
|
NTB-000-813 |
4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A1: Prohibitions/restrictions of imports for SPS reasons
Policy/Regulatory |
2017-11-17 |
Uganda: Ministry responsible for Agriculture |
Kenya |
Resolved
2018-05-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ban on importation of poultry and poultry products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 25th EAC Regional Forum on NTBs held from 9- 12 May 2018, Kenya and Rwanda reported that the ban on entry of poultry products from Uganda based on the ban from the Veternary and Health Regulatory Authorities had been lifted . |
|
|
NTB-001-019 |
4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures
A1: Prohibitions/restrictions of imports for SPS reasons |
2021-03-01 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Kenya |
Resolved
2021-07-06 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
PVOC is currently a requirement for seed shipment into Uganda. This is causing considerable delays in seed shipment. In addition, the enforcement of PVOC requirements in Uganda is based on Uganda standards 821. There is however a disconnect between the Uganda standards and the parent seed regulations in terms of some of the conformity requirements such as label markings where the UG standards is asking for markings that are not in the Seed regulations. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is a legal requirement where all commodities under mandatory standards go through PoVC inspection and the standard in question is a harmonized East African Standard and not an NTB. Hence the issue is operational and should be resolved in the system |
|
|
NTB-000-628 |
6.3. Special supplementary duties |
2014-03-01 |
Malawi: Malawi Revenue Authority |
Malawi |
Resolved
2014-09-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi is currently applying a discriminatory excise duty regime that discriminates against imported cigarettes and foreign manufacturers of cigarettes. The Malawian government formally introduced the two-tier discriminatory cigarette excise regime on 3 June 2011. Currently, for imported cigarettes, a specific excise tax of US$ 30 per 1000 cigarettes is levied, compared to the excise rate of US$ 15 per 1000 cigarettes with more than 70% local content. This practice infringes the national treatment principle which requires that cigarettes, once they have crossed the border and entered the domestic market of Malawi, be taxed no less favourably than locally produced cigarettes. In this regard, and under its regional commitments, Malawi should not be allowed to discriminate against foreign made cigarettes by applying higher and discriminatory excise duties. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 November 2014, Focal Point Malawi reported that this NTB had been resolved (Customs and Excise (Tariffs) (Amendment) order 2014 ) and Malawi applies a uniform rate. Communication to COMESA Secretariat, currently coordinating the tripartite process, had since been sent and a report of the same was also submitted to the NTBs Focal Point meeting that was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 23 - 25 September, 2014.
uploaded for clarity. |
|
|
Products:
|
2402.20: Cigarettes, containing tobacco |
|
|
NTB-000-468 |
3.3. Standards disparities
B6: Product identity requirement |
2011-10-24 |
Rwanda: Akanyaru-Haut |
Burundi |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Burundian mineral water was denied entry into Rwanda on grounds that the water did not comply with Rwanda quality standards. |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Rwanda reported that this NTB had been resolved by Burundi. |
|
|
Products:
|
2201.10: Mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or flavoured |
|
|
NTB-000-100 |
1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership |
2009-07-26 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi practices state trading for tea, basic commodities, and tobacco |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Malawi reported that the economy was liberalized in the late 1980s. Government only enforces regulation and legislation to facilitate smooth market operations. |
|
English
Français
