| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-147 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2023-10-17 |
Kenya: Namanga |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2024-07-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Increased valuation of sales price of ceramic tile imported with no reasonable explanation from the local tax authorities. As far a cost is concerned, the production cost plus, long-distance transportation and customs clearance fees is higher than these of local producers. Therefore, we request Republic of Kenya to remove the requirements of uplifting the custom value and to use the local price. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The issue was considered during the bilateral meeting that took place in Kisumu. During the meeting, Both Parties agreed that no administrative measures including uplifting the customs value of products from the other Party be taken without consultations. Kenya has since reviewed the customs values downwards. The issue was hence resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-234 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2025-01-20 |
Botswana: Tlokweng Gate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2025-05-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a small female-owned company based in Gaborone, Botswana that manufactures small leather goods, mostly for corporates, government and individuals. Our team consists of 5 female employees with 4 full time and 1 on contractual basis. We import our raw material (which is mostly finished leather) from South Africa. We have been importing our material since 2019, however, since 2021 we have been facing a challenge of our raw materials being misclassified. we import finished leather products which is not subjected to Veterinary requirements since it is a finished product. However, we are subjected to go through veterinary regulations which causes delays and confusions on the applicable regulations. We request the proper application of regulations be applied when dealing with our product. The veterinary processes must be done away if there are not applicable.
Our company imports material about 3 times a month from South Africa, with a total average of 3200 dm of finished leather. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
A virtual meeting was held on the 29th of April, 2025, between Customs Services(External Eelations & Classification office), the Tlokweng Border Post Manager, Ministry of Trade officials, SADC officials, and the trader to learn more about the trader's challenge. The trader was given the contact details of the Tlokweng Border Manager for assistance in case she faces similar challenges in the future. |
|
|
Products:
|
4113.20: Leather further prepared after tanning or crusting "incl. parchment-dressed leather", of pigs, without hair on, whether or not split (excl. chamois leather, patent leather and patent laminated leather, and metallised leather) |
|
|
NTB-000-372 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-10 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Zambia |
Resolved
2011-08-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Beira port authority arbitrarily assign security escort for randomly selected containers and charge US$150 without the knowledge of the importer. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 8th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade Facilitation ,Mozambique reported that the US$150 is a scanning charge gazette and information available to port users. Security is not assigned arbitrarily. |
|
|
NTB-000-372 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-02-10 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Zambia |
Resolved
2011-08-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Beira port authority arbitrarily assign security escort for randomly selected containers and charge US$150 without the knowledge of the importer. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique advised that consultations with the CORNELDER - the Company responsible for the Beira Port had been completed and that the issue had been resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-381 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2010-06-08 |
Mozambique: Posto Fiscal de Cobue |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-03-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique police are charging fines to transporters although their Registration Books have been notarised by the Mozambique Embassy. Notarised Documents are acceptable throughout Mozambique except in other areas particularly the Beira region. Transporters from Malawi and Zimbabwe entering through Mulange/Muloza ; Forbes/Machipanda; Nyamapanda/Cuchamano; Dedza/Calomue and Mwanza/Zobue border posts are affected by these fines. Authorities in these corridors do not accept certified copies of the documents. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that the Interior Ministry advised that the Road Traffic Code states that the circulation within Mozambican territory with a photocopied document is illegal. Article 42 ( 2) of the Road Traffic Code and Article 7 (2) of Decree no. 68/2008 of 30th December. The fine is set at 200,00 Mts and not 2000,00Mts as was reportedly charged.
2. In a meeting held between SADC secretariat and Mozambique focal [points on 19 September 2011, it was agreed that the SADC secretariat would facilitate consultations between reporting and imposing country on this matter.
3. On 27 March 2012, Mozambique reiterated its position that , the road code in Mozambique states clearly that the driving is subject to an original valid driving license only.
Certified copies of driving licenses are not allowed. Following NTB mission in September, 2011 this complain is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-373 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2010-02-10 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
Zambia |
Resolved
2011-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Dar es Salaam port arbitrarily transfers containers to Inland Container Deports without the knowledge of importers and charges importers between US$150-US$200 depending on the type of ICD the containers are sent to. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Tanzania reported that, currently the TPA is discouraging the Transit Cargo to be transferred to ICDs by keeping them at the port or by operating the system of Whole Ship Transfer to ICDs with no additional charges. |
|
|
NTB-000-423 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2011-07-12 |
Mozambique: Dondo |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-03-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe transport hauliers companies continue to have problems with certain Mozambique authorities. Mozambique authorities (Police at Dondo) are not accepting certified copies of registration books on grounds that if the vehicle does get stolen there are no legal document to prove the vehicle belongs to transporting company. CVR amendments are also not accepted. It looks like the Police are unnecessary targeting Zimbabwe registered vehicles. They are being unreasonable with their fines which are imposed citing very minor faults on vehicles. The police at Dondo hassle the drivers and find no apparent reason to issue tickets.
Forbes border post is hassling drivers, especially the agriculture department. They say that an agriculture permit is required but the documents s gets checked in Beira, Dondo and Inchope. But when they get to the border they claim that this permit is required. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
In a consulative meeting held between SADC Secretariat and Focal Points on 19 September 2011 in Maputo, Mozambique reported that, according to existing laws, it is illegal to carry notarised documents. The SADC secretariat in liaison with reporting and imposing country, will facilitate further consultations on the matter if necessary.
2. With regards to agriculture documentation, Moambique reported that documentation is processed by the relevant departments and institutions at the border , therefore this issue does not arise and is considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-523 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2012-08-06 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: On all roads |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
the traffic police and other authorities in DRC, are enforcing a 40km/hr speed limit on all roads.
If the speed is exceeded, a spot fine of US$500 is imposed.
If the truck is impounded, a further US$100 per day is charged for parking.
This is an unacceptable acitivity, since the normal speed limits are clearly marked with road signs.
40km/hr throughout the country is not a realistic speed limit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 02 December 2012, the Department of Transport in the DRC advised that an agreement between the drivers and the DRC government was reached that , until 30 January 2013, there will be no speed limits imposed. The DRC government will look at the drivers behaviour and will come back with a final solution to this issue after 30 January 2013. |
|
|
NTB-000-563 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-01-11 |
Zimbabwe: Chitungwiza |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's vehicle has once again been held up by the road traffic authorities in Zimbabwe, for the vehicle not complying strictly to the Zimbabwe vehicle regulations.
In this instance, the rear lights of the truck were not in precisely the right position, according to the Zimbabwe regulations.
The official, in this instance, was constable Munaki, official number 060189F.
After intervention by the road transport industry and much delay, the vehicle was released with a warning.
This complaint is similar to that in NTB 524, where the information plate on the vehicle did not comply with the Zimbabwe regulations.
The practice of Zimbabwe road traffic authorities harassing transporters over trivial vehicle equipment regulations is not acceptable.
Vehicles foreign to Zimbabwe, comply with the regulations in their own countries and receive a certificate of fitness to show that they are compliant.
This certificate of fitness should be acceptable to the Zimbabwe authorities, unless, of course, the vehicle is clearly not roadworthy. The rear lights being in a different position, or the information plate giving different information, does not make the vehicle unroadworthy.
Two of the clauses in one of the bi-lateral road transport agreements that Zimbabwe holds with another country, state that each country should "promote fair and equitable treatment for carriers from both countries" and "strengthen their economic and commercial relations in the spirit of co-operation and friendship".
The actions of the Zimbabwe road traffic authorities do not subscribe to the above requirements and the authorities are requested to adhere to the objectives of the bi-lateral agreements. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-590 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-05-16 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-03-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE FOR ESCORTING VEHICLES, BY MOZAMBIQUE CUSTOMS
Mozambique customs at Beira should only require the escorting of vehicles between Beira and Machipanda, and return, under special circumstances, eg abnormal or high value loads. The decision to call for escorts is made by the head of customs in Beira.
However, the escorting process is not efficient and reasonable, viz:
• Escorting is called for randomly and often for trucks carrying normal cargo such as tobacco and sugar
• The escorting fee is high at USD100 per truck
• Delays are caused whilst customs waits for 3 or more trucks to be escorted together. Or they may wait until the next day to suit their convenience
• Often, a customs officer does not even travel with the vehicles, but goes in a separate vehicle to take the documents to the next check point. On occasion, the trucks have to wait at the next check point because the officer is not there with the documents
• It is suggested that the escorting fees are merely split up between the various officers.
Escorting should not be necessary since transit bond guarantees are in place and the route between Beira and Machipanda is simple, direct and short. Furthermore, there are several check points along the route. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Mozambique Revenue Authority clarified that the referred escort fee of USD 100 was illegal. Mozambique Revenue Authority issued the Circular nº09/GD/DRC/2013, of 1st July, that has been published in all customs branches, and also uploaded onto the online system which states in summary that:
• The Fiscal Escort happens only and uniquely in the case of customs transit of high risk merchandise in terms of loss of revenue.
• In this case, Mozambique Revenue Authority will have to support the Escort expenses.
• It is prohibited to collect any values and deductions when this Escort is determined by customs. |
|
|
NTB-000-614 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-12-02 |
Mozambique: Inhamizua Road block in Beira |
Malawi |
Resolved
2013-12-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Malawian truck (registration number given) is being detained at Inhamizua road block in Beira Mozambique for no proper reason since 12 hours ago. The time of this complaint is 20 32hrs. Traffic Police officer claims Fire Extinguisher is empty which is not the case because it is new and in perfect working condition. Her fellow officers agrees that the Fire Extinguisher is perfect but the lady traffic police officer is refusing to give back the driver cargo documentation until we pay a fine of MTC 5,000. The reason for us paying the fine being that she has already written a fine receipt. Our understanding is we are supposed to pay a fine when we are on the wrong side of the law not when the Police officer is not well conversant with things I.e. Fire extinguishers. Please assist. (Driver’s name and contact details provided) |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 26 December 2013, Mozambique Focal Point reported that the problem of Beira has been resolved, and that the lord in question has left the detention area at the road block. |
|
|
NTB-000-618 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-12-06 |
Zambia: Nakonde |
|
Resolved
2016-03-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Resolved NTB 514 refers, whereby ZAMESCO had been forcing transporters to park in its parking area at Nakonde border post, and pay a daily fee.
In April 2013, Zambia reported that this practice was no longer occurring and the NTB was considered resolved.
However, transporters report that ZAMESCO continues to force transporters to park in its area and pay an increased US$35 per day.
This is unacceptable. If trucks have to park at the border to await clearance, there should be free parking available. If they wish to use ZAMESCO's facility, it should be their choice. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point reported that there was variety of parking at Nakonde Border which transporters can use. The situation where transporters were being coerced to park at ZAMESCO had been addressed. Therefore, given the availability of variety of packing spaces, Zambia advise that the transporters should explore and opt for best options available. Given this development, this complaint was considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-609 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-11-05 |
Botswana: About 100 km North of Gaborone on the Gaborone- Francistown road |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-11-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's truck was pulled over at the weigh bridge, about 100 km North of Gaborone, on the Francistown road, at about 3:00pm on the 3rd November 2013.
The weighbridge officials on duty at that time demanded a spot fine – payable immediately alleging that it did not meet the applicable dimensions. The reason for the fine was that the truck was over length – which it was not. The allowance is 22m and .30m for the bull-bar and spotlights. The total length of the vehicle was 22.26 m; 4cm under the allowed length. This truck passed the length inspection on this exact same spot in Botswana the week before.
The official, who did not want to give his name, said that he did not care what happened last time. The truck was over length and would not move until he was satisfied.
The official did not want to speak to the transporter's management and said it was between the official and the driver. They did not want to let the truck go before the unrecorded payment was made. They indicated they would keep it till Monday, when the driver would have the opportunity to pay the fine.
This is not the first time that Botswana officials have issued unrecorded fines for either over height, over length or over width vehicles.
Transport operators request the Botswana central government authorities to clamp down on officials that are unjustifiably harassing drivers and not facilitating the flow of goods along the corridors. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana focal point reported that the legal length of any vehicle combination as per the Botswana Road Traffic Act is 22m, which conforms to the requirements of the SADC Protocol on Transport and Metereology. There was no allowance in the Botswana regulations for inclusion of any other fitted devices to the vehicle since they are considered as part of the 22m. However the Botswana Ministry of Transport and Communication is in consultation with the relevant agencies on the matter of those vehicles which are more than 22m long. Botswana was in the process of reviewing the regulations .
On 24 November 2014, FESARTA reported that, following high-level discussions between SA and Botswana on dimensions, Botswana had agreed that there won’t be prosecutions whilst the regulations were being updated.
Botswana was given till March 2015 to complete this.
FESARTA advised that this NTB be considered resolved on the above basis.
Please remove the NTB. |
|
|
NTB-000-609 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-11-05 |
Botswana: About 100 km North of Gaborone on the Gaborone- Francistown road |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-11-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's truck was pulled over at the weigh bridge, about 100 km North of Gaborone, on the Francistown road, at about 3:00pm on the 3rd November 2013.
The weighbridge officials on duty at that time demanded a spot fine – payable immediately alleging that it did not meet the applicable dimensions. The reason for the fine was that the truck was over length – which it was not. The allowance is 22m and .30m for the bull-bar and spotlights. The total length of the vehicle was 22.26 m; 4cm under the allowed length. This truck passed the length inspection on this exact same spot in Botswana the week before.
The official, who did not want to give his name, said that he did not care what happened last time. The truck was over length and would not move until he was satisfied.
The official did not want to speak to the transporter's management and said it was between the official and the driver. They did not want to let the truck go before the unrecorded payment was made. They indicated they would keep it till Monday, when the driver would have the opportunity to pay the fine.
This is not the first time that Botswana officials have issued unrecorded fines for either over height, over length or over width vehicles.
Transport operators request the Botswana central government authorities to clamp down on officials that are unjustifiably harassing drivers and not facilitating the flow of goods along the corridors. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana focal point reported that the legal length of any vehicle combination as per the Botswana Road Traffic Act is 22m, which conforms to the requirements of the SADC Protocol on Transport and Metereology. There was no allowance in the Botswana regulations for inclusion of any other fitted devices to the vehicle since they are considered as part of the 22m. However the Botswana Ministry of Transport and Communication is in consultation with the relevant agencies on the matter of those vehicles which are more than 22m long. Botswana was in the process of reviewing the regulations.
On 24 November 2014, FESARTA reported that, following high-level discussions between SA and Botswana on dimensions, Botswana had agreed that there won’t be prosecutions whilst the regulations were being updated. Botswana was given till March 2015 to complete the exercise.
FESARTA advised that this NTB be considered resolved on the above basis. |
|
|
NTB-000-609 |
7.1. Arbitrariness
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-11-05 |
Botswana: About 100 km North of Gaborone on the Gaborone- Francistown road |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-11-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's truck was pulled over at the weigh bridge, about 100 km North of Gaborone, on the Francistown road, at about 3:00pm on the 3rd November 2013.
The weighbridge officials on duty at that time demanded a spot fine – payable immediately alleging that it did not meet the applicable dimensions. The reason for the fine was that the truck was over length – which it was not. The allowance is 22m and .30m for the bull-bar and spotlights. The total length of the vehicle was 22.26 m; 4cm under the allowed length. This truck passed the length inspection on this exact same spot in Botswana the week before.
The official, who did not want to give his name, said that he did not care what happened last time. The truck was over length and would not move until he was satisfied.
The official did not want to speak to the transporter's management and said it was between the official and the driver. They did not want to let the truck go before the unrecorded payment was made. They indicated they would keep it till Monday, when the driver would have the opportunity to pay the fine.
This is not the first time that Botswana officials have issued unrecorded fines for either over height, over length or over width vehicles.
Transport operators request the Botswana central government authorities to clamp down on officials that are unjustifiably harassing drivers and not facilitating the flow of goods along the corridors. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana focal point reported that the legal length of any vehicle combination as per the Botswana Road Traffic Act is 22m, which conforms to the requirements of the SADC Protocol on Transport and Metereology. There was no allowance in the Botswana regulations for inclusion of any other fitted devices to the vehicle since they are considered as part of the 22m. However the Botswana Ministry of Transport and Communication is in consultation with the relevant agencies on the matter of those vehicles which are more than 22m long. Botswana was in the process of reviewing the regulations.
On 24 November 2014, FESARTA reported that, following high-level discussions between SA and Botswana on vehicle dimensions, Botswana agreed that there won’t be prosecutions whilst the regulations were being updated. Botswana was given till March 2015 to complete the exercise.
FESARTA advised that this NTB be considered resolved on the basis of this development. |
|
|
NTB-001-215 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2024-10-03 |
Kenya: Traffic Police |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Arbitrary fines charged to drivers in Kenya not commensurate to the fines specified in Kenya Traffic Control Act 2015
For instance, the driver was fined 25,000 Kenyan shillings where he was supposed to pay only 10,000 Kenyan shillings (Section 53 (1) and 67). Also, Kenya Traffic Control Act (2015) prohibits someone from driving a commercial vehicle for more than a total of eight hours in any 24-hour period (section 66A). This should not apply to transit trucks since the international best practice for maximum driving time for truck drivers is between 11 and 14 hours a day.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Kenya informed the meeting that the driver was arrested on 12 / 09 / 2024 while driving a Motor Vehicle with Registration No. RAE 579B / RL2395 M / Benz Actros and was consequently presented before Makindu Law Court charged with the following offenses:
● Count 1: Failing to maintain parts and equipment of the M / Vehicle contrary to Section 55 (1) as read with Section 58 (1) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya without rear reflectors). The accused pleaded guilty and was fined KSHS 15,000
● Count 2: Causing obstruction, contrary to Section 53 (1) as read with Section 53 (4) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya. The accused pleaded guilty and fined KSHS 10,000 / =
Hence amounting to a total of KSHS. 25,000
The Republic of Rwanda submitted that there is need to notify counterparts in case a National of one Partner States is charged in another Partner States and Traffic offenses should be distinguished from crime. |
|
|
NTB-000-349 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2010-02-10 |
South Africa: Ministry of Transport |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2011-03-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa charges on refrigerated trucks that come to pick bananas from Mozambique are too high |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that this is no longer existing |
|
|
NTB-000-258 |
6.2. Administrative fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-09-08 |
Namibia: Namibia Agronomic Board |
Namibia |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Namibian Agronomic Board decided not to register agents for white maize imports anymore. The permit fee is now NAD51.00/permit and the permit is valid for a specific period (one month) only |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Namibia reported that there is no need for agents for white maize imports. The permit fee of N$ 51.00 covers administrative costs only. Period of validation is one month because all imports are effected in one month. The import of maize and maize products from all 3rd parties is only regulated for the time the local harvest is not taken up by the local milling sector. |
|
|
NTB-000-464 |
6.2. Administrative fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-09-12 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
With effect from 12 September 2011, Zambia Revenue Authority has introduced exorbitant examination fees of K360, 000.00 for 2000 units @ ZMK 180 plus the CED fee of K50, 040.00. The inspection fee and CED are put together and charged as customs clearance fee (asycuda fee) - K410, 040.00 meaning the CED fees have gone up. The total customs clearance fee is now $100 per entry increasing by USD85.00 from USD15.00. The inspection fee does not change relative to the number of units exported/imported. It is a standard fee regardless of the units imported. The units referred to in the Statutory Instrument do not refer to units imported or exported but rather is just a unit of measurement determined by government. The charges, applicable to Imported into the country and those destined for Export out of Zambia, negatively impact on the landed cost of goods and defeat the whole concept of poverty alleviation in Africa. Zambia justifies the objective of the fee as to maintain the inspection equipment e.g. X – rays. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012,Zambia reported that the examination fee was removed through a statutory instrument therefore the NTB is resolved. Zambia will forward the SI for posting onto the system. |
|
|
NTB-000-592 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2013-05-27 |
Mozambique: Posto Fiscal de Calomue |
Malawi |
Resolved
2013-09-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
administrative charges - transporter was requested to pay 10US$ memorandum of understanding fees |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
However, on 05 June 2013, Mozambique focal point advised that all the vehicles transporting merchandise to Calómue frontier, and others are subject to following payments:
1. On transit, revenue authorities shall cover for one Transit Memo the value of 550, 00 MT. Therefore, Custom Affairs would not collect additional funds.
2. On imports, competent memo is emitted with the stamp that guides the clerk driver to a Tete Customs Affairs, to follow-up the process of customs clearance.
The value of 10 000 meticais being paid by the complainant could possibly refer to fees paid to a customs broker. Therefore, Mozambique requested complainant to provide statements specifying who was responsible for this charge, and present the actual payment receipt, or other document that to enable further action on this issue.
As at 26 September 2013, complainant had not submitted proof of payment as per request from focal point Mozambique, so that Mozambique could introduce some measures to resolve the particular complaint. This complaint is therefore considered resolved on grounds that the response by Focal Point could have adequately answered the query. |
|
English
Français
