| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-458 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2011-09-08 |
Botswana: Martins Drift |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Time taken to clear both side, high cost of paid to clearing agents both sides and attitude of Botswana customs officials is a seriuos concern and a mojr NTB. What you encounter at boarders is inconsistant and contradicts what the government preaches in relation to SMME development. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that BURS is committed to ensuring that all procedures are standard, transparent and consistent at all times to all traders and are working hard to ensure that this is maintained. BURS are working hard on those issues to ensure efficient service delivery to all traders including SMMEs as they recognize the fact that they also contribute hugely to the growth of the country’s economy.
With regards to clearance, Botswana reported that, under normal circumstances, when one has all requirements in place, electronically processed customs declaration will be processed within 4 hours and manual declarations within 24 hours.
Clearing agents’ fees vary from agent to agent, however the average clearing fee for Imports is P650.00 and P450.00 for exports, this depends on mostly the weight, volume and type of commodity. These fees are set by the market. In order for the trader to be able to bypass the clearing agents they need to have registered for the ASYCUDA system with BURS, traders who trade at least every week and meet other mandatory requirements are given rights to use the ASYCUDA system. |
|
|
NTB-000-460 |
6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-06-06 |
Botswana: BURS |
Botswana |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana BURS requires a deposit to be lodged with them prior to allowing any goods, being imported into Botswana, to cross the border. They will not accept a small deposit - enough to cover the VAT charges on the goods in question - they require a standard amount of P25 000. The only way to avoid paying this deposit is to meet the goods at the border and pay the amount which has been determined as owing that very day. It can be very difficult to meet trucks coming from Johannesburg at the border, particularly if you don't stay in Gaborone where most of the trucks cross. This results in many additional costs being incurred by the importer and can result in goods being returned to South Africa at the importers expense. For small consignments, where the VAT owed is only a few hundred Pula, more money can be spent on trying to get to Gaborone, at the right time (which often changes) in order to meet the truck and make the VAT payment, than the VAT amount itself. Perishable food products, if they need to be returned, are often lost completely resulting in major losses. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS) confirmed the following 3 available alternatives which enabled traders to pay for VAT/Duties without being at the point of entry so as to grant entry of goods:
i) Apply for gross payment account; through this account, the applicant is able to deposit funds into the account in which payable VAT/duties will be debited upon any importation of goods
ii) Apply for deferred account; this account enables importers to import goods and pay the accrued VAT/duties at the end of the each month (as explained on the NTB status notes initially afforded to you).
iii) Cash payment can be made at any BURS office countrywide after which that particular office will immediately liaise with the office at the point of entry of the imported |
|
|
Products:
|
2008.11: Groundnuts, prepared or preserved (excl. preserved with sugar) |
|
|
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-000-477 |
7.4. Costly procedures
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-02 |
South Africa: Kopfontein |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-08-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
With effect from the 1st of January 2012 SARS will no longer be accepting bank guaranteed cheques as a mode of payment for the 14% VAT on imports into South Africa. A note from SARS reports that the reason for this major is due to modernization that SARS customs is currently under going and has impact on various areas of business including revenue division whereby every process will be automated.
With SARS having stopped allowing foreign clients to participate in the deferment in 2007 and with SARS having on its cards at some point in 2012 they will discontinue those foreign clients who registered fro a deferment account prior 2007. This means foreign companies importing into South Africa will effectively have to pay cash or make use of a South African clearing agent with a deferred account at the boarders. Other alternatives given would be 1. Establish a company in SA which will be invoiced for all products sent to SA and would be liable for the 14% VAT and then on - sell to our current customers. 2. Approach SARS clearing agent, who would then pay the VAT and charge for it as well as clearing our products, note that current monthly VAT payments can go up to a million rands. 3. Approach our SA customers to open VAT deferred accounts with SARS which as proven difficult. further more SARS no longer accepts export documents that are filled in by individual companies, the requirement is that companies use the services of the SA clearing agents, of which a charge of 150 per document in rands is required. An average truck carrying various products for various clients could easily run into thousands of rands per truck load. It is increasingly becoming difficult to export into South Africa. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
In their letter dated 28 August 2012 to Focal Point South Africa, Sout Africa Revenue Services reported that the NTB had been resolved bilaterally. |
|
|
NTB-000-531 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-28 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-08-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Chobe municipality is charging foreign transporters a fee to pass through its area of jurisdiction.
There is no justification for any municipality to charge transporters for travelling on the national roads through their areas.
The municipalities do not provide services to the transporters and the national roads are maintained by the national roads authorities.
This practice was started by Zambian municipalities and was halted by the Zambian government.
However, some Zambian municipalities continue to charge.
The practice also does not align with the RECs requirement that the transporters should pay road user charges and not other charges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point advised that the Chobe Municipality no longer charges foreign transporters the fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-685 |
1.15. Other |
2016-03-01 |
Zimbabwe: |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-03-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
As of the 1st of March 2016 Zimbabwe introduced a system whereby you need to obtain a certificate of conformity in order to export into Zimbabwe. One needs to obtain this certificate from Bureau Veritas. Trucks have been piling up at the Plumtree border while they await clearance with charges up to $250.00 per consignment. No formal communication has been reported by the Government of Zimbabwe to Botswana on this new development. Furthermore we have no record of which products will be affected and who needs to apply for this certificate. We are not even aware of where the Bureau Veritas offices are located in Botswana. As they are situated in South Africa. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 18th March 2016, the Zimbabwe Focal Point from ZIMRA reported that a verification with the Station Manager at Plumtree Border Post had not revealed any cases of trucks piling up at the Border Post. It would be appreciated if the client furnishes more details relating to the Companies affected, the dates, the vehicles involved and the registration numbers so that the Station Manager carries out further verification if need be. The goods affected are listed in Statutory instrument 132 of 2015 which was published on 18 December 2015. The Statutory Instrument (SI) is as available at Printflow (formerly Government Printers) in Zimbabwe, which is too large to attach here. |
|
|
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-000-078 |
1.1. Export subsidies
B41: TBT regulations on production processes |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: SANAS |
Angola |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa does not accept standards from other SADC Member States except SABS |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that SADC is in the process of implementing the TBT annex and establishing the necessary regional institutions to create a regional accreditation system. Until the structures are developed and operational, South Africa will continue to request that products which are not accredited by recognized international accreditation bodies be retested by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). This exercise is not meant to deny SA trading counterpart’s access to the South African market, but simply to protect South African consumers. |
|
|
NTB-000-697 |
1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions |
2009-07-16 |
|
|
Resolved
2019-08-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of coordination among the numerous institutions involved in testing and clearance of goods at the Borders |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
.The NTBs meeting of Focal Points held on 19- 21 August 2019 was informed that the EAC agreed to harmonise the operations of their institutions. This NTB no longer was resolved in the EAC Time Bound mechanism. |
|
|
NTB-000-600 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-07-17 |
South Africa: Durban sea Port |
SADC |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) is fining transporters for transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban without a cross-border permit. The fine is R2000 (USD200) per truck.
The goods are being transported from Botswana and offloaded in a warehouse in Gauteng, South Africa.
The goods are then re-loaded on to different vehicles and transported to Durban.
The vehicles transporting the goods from Botswana, have cross-border permits.
There should be no reason for vehicles transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban to have cross-border permits, even though the goods come from Botswana. The transportation is wholly within South Africa and on South African vehicles.
See NTB 535/6 for a similar complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. The explanation from CBRTA was acceptable to FESRATA |
|
|
NTB-000-605 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2013-10-03 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
COMESA |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The unstable situation at the Kasumbalesa border post between Zambia and the DRC, is causing serious delays on the North-South corridor.
Over the past 6 months, lawlessness on the DRC side of the border, is leading to drivers foreign to DRC being harassed and, on some occasions, being attacked. Police have been unnecessarily harassing drivers for speeding, unroadworthy vehicles and incorrect documentation. The lack of security has resulted in two drivers being shot and wounded; the latest being Patrick Murifi, 31, a Zimbabwean truck driver.
This has caused drivers preparing to enter DRC from the South, to become agitated and, on two occasions, go on strike and effectively close the border to heavy vehicle traffic.
Copperbelt Police chief Joyce Kasosa has confirmed in an interview recently, that calm has been restored but trucks are still not crossing into and from DRC because the drivers want to be addressed and assured of their security while in that country.
It is clear that the situation is volatile and likely to erupt into violence at any time, for the slightest reason.
This situation is not conducive to intra-regional trade and unacceptable to the road transport industry.
A deputation from DRC yesterday to the drivers on the Zambian side, has convinced the drivers to start moving again.
However, the drivers have warned that if there should be further occurrences of the problem, they will blockade the border for 3 weeks.
SADC and COMESA are requested to intervene and call on the government of the Katanga province to take control of the situation and provide a stable environment conducive to intra-regional trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 5th Meeting of the COMESA NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi from 23-25 August 2016, DRC reported that the matter had been resolved following consultations with COMESA Secretariat and other interested parties . |
|
|
NTB-000-608 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-10-04 |
Zambia: Ministry of Transport, Works, Supply and Communications |
COMESA |
Resolved
2016-03-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is to introduce toll fees for all road users, on 1st November 2013.
The structure of the fees is detailed in the attachments.
The introduction is considered an unfair practice, since the tolls apply to foreign vehicles, and these vehicles pay road user charges on entry into the country.
The road user charges that the foreign vehicles pay (between USD10 per 100 kms and USD16 per 100 kms), are set to cover the road usage cost by the vehicles as they travel the country's roads.
The level of road user charges was recommended by COMESA, of which Zambia is a member.
Updated road user charges are being developed by the COMESA/EAC/SADC Tripartite and, when finalized, will be disseminated to member countries for their implementation.
Thus there is no justification for Zambia to introduce toll fees for foreign vehicles, as it is a duplication of the road user charges paid by them on entry into the country.
The added fees mean that foreign vehicles will be paying more than their fair share for road usage, and merely add to the cost of goods consumed in landlocked countries. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point reported that Toll fees are charged once at the port of entry for road usage from one point to the other and back. Transporters are only charged extra if they divert from their original route. The toll fees are discriminatory. |
|
|
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-000-645 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2015-01-23 |
Botswana: Ngoma |
|
Resolved
2015-02-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I have a consignment of used vehicles imported from UK and the USA. They are being denied entry to Botswana on transit to Zimbabwe because they are not registered. Apparently Botswana does not allow unregistered vehicles to drive on their roads |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The affected company reported that they managed to get assistance from the Namibia Customs officials who escorted the consignment back into Namibia then to the Zambia border. They used the Zambia route which is 400 kilometers longer. The company reported that the Department of Transport in Botswana informed them that there won't be a waiver for vehicles not registered in SADC or COMESA region. Only COMESA and SADC registered vehicles are allowed road transit in Botswana
However, tourism vehicles registered outside COMESA and SADC and vehicles destined for Botswana are allowed to be driven in Botswana.
FESARTA confirmed that, according to the regional policy, all vehicles not registered in COMESA or SADC would have to be loaded on other vehicles. |
|
|
Products:
|
8704.22: Motor vehicles for the transport of goods, with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine "diesel or semi-diesel engine" of a gross vehicle weight > 5 t but <= 20 t (excl. dumpers for off-highway use of subheading 8704.10 and special purpose |
|
|
NTB-000-651 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2014-12-11 |
Tanzania: Along Central corridor |
|
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania has several weigh bridge stations along the central corridor |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 21st EAC NTBs Regional Forum , Tanzania reported that the NTB had been resolved because there are only three weigh bridges Vigwaza at the coastal region, Njuki in Singida and Nyakahura in Kagera region weigh in motion weighbridges. It takes maximum of 4 days to exit the border from Dar Port and 2 days for fuel tankers. |
|
|
NTB-000-657 |
5.15. Other
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-12-11 |
Tanzania: Various State Agencies |
|
Resolved
2023-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Numerous monetary charges required by various agencies in the United Republic of Tanzania on exports of dairy products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIFI noted that the Republic of Uganda and the Republic of Kenya are handling the diary issues bilaterally with the United Republic of Tanzania whereby several meetings at the Ministerial and Summit levels have taken place and are at the final stages to be resolved. Also, the issue is being handled in the ongoing process of harmonization of fees, levies, and charges, and all the charges will be harmonized together with other charges. The SCTIFI hence guided that the NTB should be removed from the Time Bound program and allow the ongoing bilateral processes to be finalized. |
|
|
NTB-000-671 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2015-04-08 |
Mozambique: Beira |
|
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique Police in Beira issued a ticket or fine for 50,000 metical or US $1500 to the driver of a Zimbabwe registered vehicle AC 5376 owned by Suncrest Transport for supposedly violating the third country rule by collecting a load in South Africa, transiting Zimbabwe and delivering or offloading in Beira, Mozambique and this route not being covered by a cross-border permit.
The fine or ticket issued referred to Article 102 of the Road Traffic Act (Places in which Pedestrians may walk) and is not related to the offence, also the fine or ticket does not specify the nature of the offence and only refers to the detention or removal of documents as per Article 122 of the Road Traffic Act (see attached ticket).
The cross-border permits for the subject vehicle (AC 5376) and attached hereto confirm that the vehicle was authorized to use this route and therefore was improperly fined by the Mozambique Police.
This is harrasment of the driver and the action required is the revoking of the fine. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-673 |
7.3. Corruption |
2015-06-14 |
Botswana: Martins Drift |
|
Resolved
2016-02-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Zambulk Tanker carrying Fuel was weighed at the subject weighbridge with the following axle masses: Steer axle - 6960 kg (legal limit 8000 kg); Drive axles - 17660 kg (legal limit 18000 kg); Trailing axles - 24160 kg (legal limit 24000 kg). Tolerance is 5% on an axle set or on GVM, in this case it would be 1200 kg on the trailing axle set. The weighbridge official printed a weighbridge ticket for the driver which reflected the weights indicated above and showed the legit limits as indicated above with the Total GVM being 48780 kg and the max or legal limit being 50000 kg. This vehicle was within the legal limit on GVM and well within the tolerance on the trailing axle set. Yet printed at the bottom the weighbridge ticket is the comment - TRUCK MUST EXIT AND RETURN TO DISPATCH IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THE LOAD CAN BE CORRECTED!!! (see attached weighbridge ticket). When the driver queried this with the weighbridge official he was told that he must park off the truck and move fuel from the rear tank to the front tank to correct the load. This is clearly not an option and highly dangerous given the nature of the product being carried. The driver went back and started negotiating and gave her Pula 200. The Operator refused to give the driver 5% when entering Botswana. The Operator said it is only applicable AFTER the Martins Drift Weigh Bridge. At Serule and Francistown there was no problem.
This is obviously an attempt a corrupt activity that is taking place at this weighbridge and needs to be stamped out immediately. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 26th February 2016, Botswana Focal Point reported that the general public and business community were encouraged to report all corruption cases with Botswana Police as and when they happen. There are police officers stationed at all Botswana entry points. This will assist in addressing corruption issues. However, it should be noted that the 5% is not applicable at the 1st weigh bridge in Botswana but AFTER the 1st weigh bridge. In this instance, it will be applicable in Serule or Francistown. |
|
|
NTB-000-681 |
7.2. Discrimination
Policy/Regulatory |
2015-10-12 |
Uganda: Malaba |
|
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda discriminatively imposed a 10 percent duty on Kenya manufactured Laundry bar soaps. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At he 21st EAC NTBs Forum, Uganda reported that the 10% charged is Excise duty on cosmetics and soaps.
The NTB was resolved upon receipt of the statutory instrument from Uganda. |
|
|
NTB-000-683 |
2.14. Other
Policy/Regulatory |
2016-02-10 |
Zimbabwe: Mt. Selinda |
|
Resolved
2016-03-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
ZIMRA has introduced a new ruling at all its border posts effective 10 February re the vehicle manifest without proper pre-dialogue with regional and border post stakeholders as well as transporters who are being affected the most by this ruling and which is in breach of the SADC protocol to which Zimbabwe is a signatory. The attached Notification and copy of the ZIMRA Manifest Form No. 1 are self-explanatory, the ZIMRA manifest is just a duplication of a standard vehicle manifest with the ZIMRA logo on it and official form number, however ZIMRA are refusing to allow clearing agents to submit any other format of the manifest other than the attached document and transporters are being delayed for days on end until such time as the clearing agent submits documents with the ZIMRA manifest. the average cost per day for a transporter to stand at the border post is US $250 which ultimately will be added onto the cost of an already outrageous transportation cost for the end user consumer to pay. This practice is unethical, in breach of the SADC Protocol on Trade and Transport and not conducive to trade facilitation in the region. Imagine the chaos this situation would cause if all countries or member states in the SADC region adopted the same principal as Zimbabwe has, the transporter would have to fill in a different manifest for every country entered or transited.
This matter requires the immediate and urgent intervention of the focal point representative in Zimbabwe. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 18 march 2016, Zimbabwe Focal Point from ZIMRA advised that submission to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) of a Manifest (Form 1) on importation of goods by Road has always been a requirement. This is in terms of Section 6 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations published in Statutory Instrument 154 of 2001 which reads "6 The report in terms of section 26 of the Act on vehicles engaged in the transportation of goods, other than trains, shall be made in form No. 1, completed at the time of loading the goods in the country of exportation, signed jointly by the transporter who loaded the goods and the person in charge of the vehicle, together with such copies as may be required by the officer to whom the report is made". Section 26 of the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) is on "26 Person in charge of vehicle to report goods in his or her charge" The Form 1 (Manifest) is a ZIMRA form and is a prescribed form in terms of the said Regulations and therefore it is a requirement that it be standard. It is thus not proper for Clearing Agents to use other formats of the Manifest. For the convenience of the clients arrangements are being made for the Manifest to be available for downloading from the ZIMRA Website .
However the Zimbabwe Focal point advised that the Commissioner Customs and Excise had temporarily given a reprieve and is accepting other formats of the Manifest as submitted by the Agents. The Act and the Regulations were submitted. |
|
English
Français
