| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-001-074 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2022-08-19 |
Namibia: Namibia Vet Authroities |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
a. On the 19th August 2022, a Nestle Cremora stock was held at the border in Namibia, but subsequently released 2 days later. To trade export, Nestle Cremora into Nambia , Nestle Cremora products are now required to be accompanied by a Vet Import Permit to enter Nambia. The authorities there argue that CREMORA is a dairy product and as such should be accompanied by Vet Import Permit. Nestle is arguing that CREMORA is a non-dairy product as ingredients indicate.Nestlé CREMORA® is composed of the following ingredients:
i. Glucose syrup solids, Vegetable Oils (Palm Kennel Oil and Palm Fruit), Stabilisers (E340ii, E451i). Sodium Caseinate (milk protein), Hydrolised Wheat Protein (gluten), Emulsifier (E481), Salt, Anti-caking Agent (E551), Flavouring, Colourants: Riboflavin (E101i) and Beta Carotene (E160a). DocuSign Envelope ID: CE740444-68E4-45B9-A6C0-69A8F1392060 – 2
ii. Sodium Caseinate which is a milk protein contributes about 0.8% of the recipe with ±0.2% milk protein level. 1 – this is below requirements for dairy products.
b. Nestle therefore, confirms that CREMORA® is a non-dairy creamer based on the ingredients used on the product. That CREMORA is labelled a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” is complying with the Imitation Dairy Standard in R1510: Dairy & Imitation Dairy Product Regulation of South Africa. Labelling regulations requires that Nestlé CREMORA® is classified as a “Coffee & Tea Creamer” and that its front-of-pack is labelled as such. Labelling regulations further denote other requirements to which the Nestlé CREMORA product and its packaging must comply with
c. Also Cremora’s tariff code is classified as HS 2106.90.09 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included – Other.
d. The exact date when the truck was held up at the border was the 19th August 2022 and prior to that we had no episode similar to this. During August, there was no financial impact as the orders were allowed with the warning that the next shipment (if not preceded by the paper work) will be sent back, however, the order for September that Nestle in possession of is valued at R 2,841mio. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Dear Administrator kindly update the status to resolved
Thank you |
|
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-899 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2017-07-28 |
Tanzania: TFDA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2019-08-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TFDA (Tanzania Foods & Drugs Authority) imposes a 1.5% fees on FOB value on all imports (food, drugs & cosmetics). This is badly hurting local and regional trade as well as local manufacturers. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Extra Ordinary SCTIFI of August 2019 noted that since TFDA had been dissolved, there is no more fees paid to TFDA. Hence the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-216 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2024-10-06 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mombasa county charges: At Mombasa Port they charge county fees where they pay 700 KEShs but these fees are never communicated to the truck driver in any way. Consequently, after some months you get a message that you have parking fees arrears with fines for late payment which can reach 7,000 KEShs.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The meeting considered the matter and noted that as per the evidence provided, the charges were related to parking fees. The meeting highlighted that it is the obligation of the driver to pay for related parking fees whenever he parks in a chargeable area hence the issue is not as an NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-230 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2024-11-28 |
Tanzania: Ngara District Council |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania charged 100,000Tsh on trucks transporting agricultural products from Kahama and Ngara District to Rwanda, and this is not fair for goods in transit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the RMC, Tanzania reported that it is a district developmental fee and is charged non-discriminatorily to all traders transferring agricultural produce from the districts and provided evidence for the same.
Hence, the NTB is resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-273 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2024-10-05 |
Kenya: Sirari |
|
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Sodium cyanide convoy of 10trucks delayed due to one truck rects online exit point internal input message reading exit Taveta |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The meeting noted that the exporter did not pay but suffered 8 Days delay at the OSBP with trucks carrying hazardous goods. This is dangerous to the environment and the community around.
However, the issue is operational other than an NTB and should be referred to the Customs Committee for consideration
The NTB was referred to SCOC for consideration and resolution
The NTB was resolved by the COC:
The Sectoral Committee on Customs committed to strengthen inter agency communication and coordination among Partner States Customs authorities to avoid similar incidents in the future. |
|
|
NTB-000-505 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2012-03-14 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Uganda |
Resolved
2013-12-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Requirement by KRA for transporters to have introductory letters from URA on certain products / consignments, e.g. tyres and spirits. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 5 December 2013, Kenya focal point reported that this NTB had been resolved. Kenya Revenue Authority issued a notice to all Transporters , shipping agents, clearing and forwarding agents on the electronic cargo tracking systems as the principal systems for monitoring the movement of cargo under customs territory and all stakeholders were expected to comply by 31st January 2014 .
The Vehicles that are fitted with Electronic Cargo Tracking Systems WOULD:
1. Get waiver of TGL fees
2. Be able to carry goods on transfer to other partner states and within Kenya subject to approval
3. Enjoy the priority loading at the all customs areas and
4. Move without customs escort through the Northern corridor.
Transporters and shipping lines and agents are now allowed to carry goods along the corridor without challenges previously affecting them. |
|
|
NTB-000-812 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2017-11-17 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2018-11-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Delays in releasing trucks at Tunduma & Rusumo border post by Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) as a result of manual lodging of import documents |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB was resolved during the meeting of SCTIFI of 16th November,2018 |
|
|
NTB-000-830 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2018-07-16 |
Botswana: Martins Drift |
Zambia |
Resolved
2026-02-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Zambian Registered Tanker carrying sulphuric acid from South Africa was weighed at the Martins Drift weighbridge with the following axle masses: Steer axle - 5200 kg (legal limit 8000 kg); Drive axles - 18200 kg (legal limit 18000 kg); Trailing axles - 22800 kg (legal limit 24000 kg). Tolerance is 5% on an axle set or on GVM, in this case it would be 900 kg on the driving axle set. The weigh bridge official instructed the Driver to Park telling him that his driving axle was overloaded without the application of the 5% tolerance. It is observed that only at this weigh bridge there is no application of the 5% tolerance. In the spirit of harmonization South Africa, Zambia and Botswana the legal limits are the same with a 5% tolerance except at Martins Drift weighbridge. Kindly assist to resolve this issue at Martins Drift which is causing unnecessary loss of transit time and charges. Please note that this is not a one off incidence. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The complaint can be considered resolved, taking into account the update provided by the Botswana Focal Point and confirmed by the Zambia Focal Point. |
|
English
Français
