| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-070 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2009-07-23 |
Lesotho: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2011-07-28 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
VAT clearance procedures at the border posts are open to corruption. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Lesotho Revenue Authority (LRA) reported that they have all the necessary measures to combat corruption for all customs procedures and there is a high intolerance for corruption as there is a Corruption Investigation Unit within the LRA. LRA are in the process of introducing an automated system. |
|
|
NTB-001-254 |
2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections |
2025-04-01 |
Malawi: Songwe |
Malawi |
Resolved
2025-06-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a company that exports groundnuts from Malawi to Kenya. On average we export three containers in a month to Kenya. Before loading the cargo into the container, the cargo is being inspecting by the MRA official who certify the accuracy of the cargo being loaded into the container for Export.
Once the container is loaded, a seal is placed on it till the container reaches the exit border post, where this seal is removed again for the second confirmation of the load being exported. This requires offloading the consignment, running the risk of contamination, damage and delays as well as cost of offloading and loading. We have been exporting to Kenya since 2022. However, since October 2024, we have been encountering these challenges of being forced to offload cargo at the exit boarder post for inspection purposes by MRA officials, both to and from. This is despite that the cargo is being loaded into the container in the presence of the MRA official at the point of origin of goods. As a result of this we are paying unnecessary costs which is expensive and at times delays the clearance process. All these costs are being encountered by the exporter/importer.
The exit border has machine scanners which have been out of service for some time now. If these were working, we could not encounter this delay and expense which is originating from the offloading and loading of the cargo. At the same times some of the exported or imported cargo gets damaged when carrying out this exercise. Hygiene is also another issue, considering the places where we are doing the off-loading and loading exercise.
A resolution needs to be found ASAP to avoid such delays, repetitive inspections and costs before exiting the country. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The NTB 001-254 issue is now effectively resolved. In a productive virtual meeting on June 17, 2025, key stakeholders—including the SADC Secretariat, a representative from the concerned company in Malawi, the Malawi Revenue Authority, the SADC Business Council, and GIZ—came together to address challenges experienced by exporters at the Songwe Border Post. The Malawi Revenue Authority took the initiative to inform exporters of the obstacles encountered during border crossings and clearly outlined the customs procedures necessary for a smooth export process from Malawi. This collaborative effort demonstrates a commitment to enhancing trade efficiency and supporting exporters. |
|
|
Products:
|
1202.42: Groundnuts, shelled, whether or not broken (excl. seed for sowing, roasted or otherwise cooked) |
|
|
NTB-001-014 |
1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies
Policy/Regulatory |
2021-03-17 |
South Africa: Rhodes Quality, Cape Town |
Botswana |
Resolved
2026-04-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a freight logistics company based in Gaborone, Botswana(100% citizen). During registration on supplies portals in South Africa they require us (Foreign freight logistics companies without branches in South Africa ) to be BBBEE compliant despite we providing them with all company documents verifying that we are foreign based with Head Offices out of South Africa borders. Because of the nature of our business which compels us to conduct cross border transportation, South African supplies would immediately inform us we can't do business with them on the basis of non - compliant on BBBEE requirements. Arrangement in place promotes South African transporters to do cross border and prohibits foreign transporters to haul commodities back to country of operation. Please note we are not issued with any documents as a dispensation on our Head offices out of South African borders.
Kindly assist in the best possible way. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The SADC Regional workshop on NTBs heled on 14-15 April 2026 agreed that the requirement by South Africa for foreign companies to comply by the national investment codes is not a NTB therefore this matter is 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-000-486 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-02-15 |
SADC |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a South African Transport Company transporting goods into DRC. We are paying on weekly basis exorbitant road duties in Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe & DRC if we offload loads from Johannesburg RSA to Mutanda DRC. Our cost on a tri-axle on road fee is 1060 Pula on return trip (Martinsdrif to Kazangula and back), insurance 50P for 3 months and then about 100 Pula on a yearly level also. Zambia insurance 300 000KW for year, then toll fee for 285USD on return trip Kazangula to DRC border and back, 200 000KW carbon tax, 70 000KW for extra toll fees on road. Zimbabwe insurance 170USD for year, the 100USD on toll fees, then coupons another 10USD and environmental cost depends on the load and weight up to 160USD & 90USD carbon 3 months. Going into the DRC, border customs parking 133USD, entry fee and costing 350USD, 300USD PEAGE, 4x 150USD for toll fees going to Mutanda and coming back.
None of the foreign trucks from DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana or Namibia pay this cost when entering South Africa. We drive on the roads to supply clients with goods, we provide a service, the same as for the foreign transporters, but they don't pay similarly high costs when entering South Africa. We need an explanation from the countries listed above as to why is this done. At the moment, we give to a driver for one load going to DRC from JHB, 2400USD, 2500 PULA & R5000 to cover these expenses and we cannot increase our rates easily, without risking losing our clients. What can be done about this situation? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal Points from Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe reported the current standard official charges and argued that these are in accordance established regional protocols. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013, South Africa focal point requested that the NTB be considered non actionable as they could not trace the complainant.
However, the NTB is considered resolved as it does not fall under the ' non actionable' category of complaints. |
|
|
NTB-000-878 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2019-01-29 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2019-02-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are experiencing delays by SARS customs who are taking time to inspect our container that is in transit. The delay is causing difficulties to meet the vessel to carry the shipment as it will be closing on Thursday 31st January at 06:00am and we are running out of time. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This NTB was resolved too late and the consignment missed the vessel thereby adding to transport costs. Lesotho reported that:
1. The inspection took long resulting in the consignment missing the vessel in Durban Harbour; trader incurred additional costs by taking the consignment to Cape Town instead of Durban; and
2. the congsinor was charged provisional payments upon the release of the consignment.
Lesotho observed that SARS treatment of Lesotho transit goods compromises prospects of Lesotho's international trade opportunities as the country seeks to expand and diversify both products and markets to contribute to economic growth and poverty reductionNTB Focal Point in South Africa are requested to assist in clarifying the situation on inspection with SARS at Maseru Border Post to expedite the process. |
|
|
NTB-001-183 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade |
2024-08-08 |
Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are experiencing unfair treatment by KEBS, Where the institution refused to recognize PERMITS Issued by UNBS.
Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border KEBS officials have not been fruitful because we didn't receive any help insisting we pay the Inspection fee. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The SCTIFI noted that this was not an NTB but an operational challenge and should be referred to the Committee on Standards for consideration. |
|
|
Products:
|
4412.94: Laminated wood as blockboard, laminboard or battenboard (excl. of bamboo, plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood <= 6 mm thick, sheets of compressed wood, inlaid wood and sheets identifiable as furniture components) |
|
|
NTB-001-183 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade |
2024-08-08 |
Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are experiencing unfair treatment by KEBS, Where the institution refused to recognize PERMITS Issued by UNBS.
Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border KEBS officials have not been fruitful because we didn't receive any help insisting we pay the Inspection fee. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the Sectoral Committee on Trade meeting, Partner States agreed that this was not an NTB but an operational challenge and was referred to the East African Standards Committee (EASC) for consideration. |
|
|
Products:
|
4412.94: Laminated wood as blockboard, laminboard or battenboard (excl. of bamboo, plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood <= 6 mm thick, sheets of compressed wood, inlaid wood and sheets identifiable as furniture components) |
|
|
NTB-001-183 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade |
2024-08-08 |
Kenya: Kenya Bureau of Standards |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-05-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are experiencing unfair treatment by KEBS, Where the institution refused to recognize PERMITS Issued by UNBS.
Unfortunately, efforts to engage with border KEBS officials have not been fruitful because we didn't receive any help insisting we pay the Inspection fee. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the38th RMC, the meeting agreed that this is an operational issue which was considered by the Standards Committee in April 2025. Hence the NTB is resolved |
|
|
Products:
|
4412.94: Laminated wood as blockboard, laminboard or battenboard (excl. of bamboo, plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood <= 6 mm thick, sheets of compressed wood, inlaid wood and sheets identifiable as furniture components) |
|
|
NTB-000-533 |
7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) |
2012-09-24 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are importing fuel tankers from South Africa to Zambia. The trailers are SA Registered (Valid licence and Registration Plates - deregistered once in Zambia). The Truck Tractors are from our Zambian Fleet. On arrival at Beit Bridge, the documents are accepted by ZIMRA as trailers being exported to Zambia, drawn on their own wheels, in transit across Zimbabwe to Victoria Falls. The act of exporting the trailers on their own wheels is thus condoned by ZIMRA at Beit Bridge.
When we get to Victoria Falls, we are then told by ZIMRA that exported motorised vehicles must be carried on the back of a flat deck trailer. A statutory instrument is eluded to, but we have yet to see this.
Our arguement is as follows. The trailers have valid registrations and licences (not to mention all the Police Clearances for export), they are not motorised (self propelled), ZIMRA Beit Bridge has condoned the export on wheels and we are actually presenting ourselves at Vic Falls and have not disappeared with the units illegally into Zimbabwe.
Placing these units on flat decks is prohibitively expensive. We are not transporting imported cars from overseas that are deregistered and for which we understand the need to be transported whilst in transit across Zimbabwe on a flat deck etc.
There is no clear statutory instrument that we have seen on exports of this nature eg licenced trailers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the treatment by Beitbridge to allow the trailers on their wheels when transiting through Zimbabwe for re-exports to Zambia was the correct treatment. The legislation on movement of goods in transit through Zimbabwe is in terms of Section 234(3) of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which reads "Where the goods in transit concerned are motor vehicles, no such motor vehicle shall be driven on any road in Zimbabwe but shall be transported on a long-haul motor vehicle carrier". This requirement was inserted by Act 3 of 2010 and was with effect from 1 November 2010. The requirement only affects motor vehicles and does not affect trailers as they cannot be driven but are rather pulled by mechanical horses. This interpretation had been discussed with the Station Manager Victoria Falls who shared the same view and assured that there would be no issues raised in this regard on trailers being re-exported to Zambia. |
|
|
NTB-000-644 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2014-11-16 |
Rwanda: Rwanda Customs Authority
and also in
Majerwa |
Egypt |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are importing Wheat flour from Egypt from one of the Biggest Flour mill and factory in Egypt. We have original Certificate of Origin and Comesa certificate. But they do not accept and put us import Duty. Before it is 100% Duty free. But now since september they are not accepting it. Egypt is part of Comesa and Good produced in Egypt and 100% Duty free. So why is wheat flour not accepted. Please help |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 5th meeting of COMESA NTBs Focal Points, the two parties reported that the certificate of origin was now being recognised and therefore the NTB had been resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
1101: Wheat or meslin flour. |
|
|
NTB-000-611 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2013-11-15 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Malawi |
Resolved
2014-09-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are the drivers of a Malawi transport company (name supplied) coming to carry clinker from Beira to Malawi. Were here at Beira port, on 15 November 2013 and we have got a problem of document processing since morning up to this period (1600hrs). Mozambique customs officials on duty (name supplied) are receiving unrecorded money from others therefore not attending to those who have not paid him. We re quest that the Mozambique authorities facilitate that our documents are processed without us having to pay un- recorded fees. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 5 September 2014, Mozambique focal point reported that Mozambique had increased surveillance activities therefore these kind of situations were under control . Mozambique had not received any similar complaints after surveillance started. This NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-971 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2020-07-14 |
Zambia: Halfway Patrol |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2021-03-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We export to Zambia and use our own truck (an 8tonne truck with yellow plates)to dispatch the products. We have exported for 5 times without any incident. On the above mentioned date our driver got a fine apparently for "plying for hire and reward". We have been exporting to Botswana since 2016 and we have never come across such an incident.We are not into transport business therefore our truck is specifically for dispatching to our customers hence the Yellow plates. We have a PTA Carrier Licence.
Please assist us. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point contacted the exporter to provide further information on whether it was a one of or repeated challenge . Exporter has not provided feedback. RESOLVED DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE |
|
|
NTB-000-976 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2020-08-10 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Zambia |
Resolved
2023-10-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have a fleet of trucks and the problem is there is no fixed procedure to calculate the toll that BURS charges. They see the weights on the trailers mentioned on the blue plates which many a times shows 36,000kgs on the small trailer and 36,000 on the big trailer. That means they charge each truck toll for 72000 kgs. Some trailers with the same load and same trailers end up paying 4200Pulas and some trailers with the same cargo and same type of trailers are told to pay 6700 pulas. When the agent goes to ask that if you are charging us for 72000kgs will you allow the truck to carry such weights. They just tell him to leave the office and say there is no negotiation. We fail to understand how 1 truck having the same trailer and same cargo pay 4300 pulas and other truck with same trailer and same cargo is told to pay 6700 pulas. This on our transporters part is unfair. They should come with a fixed charge option that trucks with tri axel trailers will pay this much and trucks with interlinks trailers will pay this much. Please we will be obliged if this issue is raised on top priority. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
In this particular case, there was difference in weights between those indicated in the white book and the data plate affixed to the truck. Assistance was sought from the Weighbridge and due to other circumstances the attempt was unsuccessful. In concluding the query, the truck driver was assisted using the previous permits which he had no objections to.
The inconsistency with information from the trucker resulted in the inconsistency of the charges. This was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-689 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2016-03-23 |
Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-04-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana.
The trailer manufacturers states the GVM to be 36 000 kg per unit (see attached vehicle registration papers)
This is the combined weight of the front and back link. However that is not what is reflected on the disc.
What it should say on the disc, is that the carrying capacity:
a) on the front link is 13000 kg.
b) The rear link is 23000kg.
c) The combined weight is thus 36 000kg.
We all know that it is not possible to carry 36000kgs on the front link and 36000kgs on the rear link. The axle configurations do not permit this to say the very least.
The problem arises on entry into Botswana at the border posts. They charge their road user fees per disc weight on the front and rear trailer.
therefore we end up paying for 36000kgs for the front trailer and 36000kgs for the rear trailer, this is 72 000kgs per unit.
To change the SA disc the following procedure will have to be followed.
1) W/bridge
2) Road worthy
3) Registration certificate
4) Certificate of compliance
5) Certificate model
6) Builders certificate
7) Ten days to change details of GVM per trailer.
a) It is very costly
b) it is very time consuming
c) it is not practical
d) It defeats the object of standardization and harmonization in the SADC region.
In this day and age where we are all trying to tighten our belts in order to survive, we can ill afford such additional costs.
This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
It’s a long term and policy issue so the recommendation is that it is removed from the System and negotiatiosn continue under the policy organs process. Transporters can log the NTB again if not resolved under the negotiations process. |
|
|
NTB-001-094 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade |
2022-12-12 |
Mozambique: |
South Africa |
Resolved
2024-05-08 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have been applying for a Vet Import Permit to export Nestle Allegra to Mozambique as it has been treated as a dairy product. Nestle Allegra is a non-dairy product and we would like it to be exempt from Vet import permit and treated as non-dairy.
There hasn't been any incident to date. and we cannot quantify the cost. Because the product is treated as a dairy product, it must go through process of vet import permit which delays trade of product. so the cost is indirectly/directly linked to the trade delays which impact working capital cycle. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
It was raised as a suggestion, so it can be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-117 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2023-05-02 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2024-05-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have done trade with Eswatini for 33 years and tried to be fully compliant with SARS, but they keep changing the rules and moving the goal posts. We have paid R709,000-00 in provisional VAT taxes that have not been returned to my Company via our clearing agent, Kayhil Freight. Kayhil Freight says that SARS is not processing the acquittal documents and paying them. I do not know who is telling the truth, but we remain short on cash flow by R709,000-00 despite submitting each acquittal on time and without fault. SARS officials are now insisting on Removal in Bond licenses for us to use our own vehicles to deliver to customers in Eswatini, and as such we are not allowed to cross the border. We have been charged Penalties, despite trying to follow the rules imposed by SARS. Please help us we are desperate. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved successfully |
|
|
Products:
|
3003.90: Medicaments consisting of two or more constituents mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale (excl. antibiotics containing hormones or steroids used as hormones, but not containing antibiotics, al |
|
|
NTB-000-686 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2016-03-10 |
Zimbabwe: Blantyre |
Malawi |
Resolved
2016-05-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We understand that as of 1st March, 2016 goods exported into Zimbabwe need a certificate of clearance from Bureau Veritas. The complaint (Nampak Malawi Limited) which has informed us that their goods destined for Bulawayo were inspected by Bureau Veritas on 10th March, 2016 on Nampak Malawi premises.
However, to date the company has not received clearance for the goods to be exported to Zimbabwe. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 22nd April 2016, Bureau Veritas confirmed that, having received an inspection request on 8 March 2016, the inspection of the consignment was done on 10 March 2016 and subsequently issued on 24 March 2016.However,because the certificate is only issued after payment ,it could not be immediately released on 24 March until after the Easter Holiday which began on 25 March 2016 and ended on 28 March 2016.
However,please note that Bureau Veritas has taken the necessary steps to improve the overall efficiency with regards to the issuance of CBCA certificates. Kindly note that we have developed alternative compliance routes(Registration or Licensing) where manufacturers can now get a Certificate of Conformity issued within 48 hours from the date of request. All Manufacturers are encouraged to apply for qualification under the Licensing Compliance routes.We also have a platform conformity. zimbabwe@bureauveritas.com which is a complaints resolution platform that is dedicated to also explain procedures,to give clarification and to immediately remedy any situation in a proactive manner. |
|
|
NTB-000-686 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2016-03-10 |
Zimbabwe: Blantyre |
Malawi |
Resolved
2016-05-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We understand that as of 1st March, 2016 goods exported into Zimbabwe need a certificate of clearance from Bureau Veritas. The complaint (Nampak Malawi Limited) which has informed us that their goods destined for Bulawayo were inspected by Bureau Veritas on 10th March, 2016 on Nampak Malawi premises.
However, to date the company has not received clearance for the goods to be exported to Zimbabwe. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Exporter recieved feedback |
|
|
NTB-000-557 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2012-03-01 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-05-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We would appreciate of Zimra can starndize their operations for duty purposes from the onset of STR project CIF (cost insurence freight) was not charged on on all STR goods, but as of now CIF is being charged, 6% is charged on the total value of a consingment, example plastic spoons costing K1400000.00=$280.00 plus 6% comes to $296.80 if cif was not charged the trader was going to pay $70.00 as vat & p-tax but including cif the trader pays $74.20 we know Zimra is government agent for revenue collection but this must be clear, because some officers, they do not charge this 6% cif and all the borders namely Kariba,Chirundu, Victoria Falls and Nyamapanda they charge differently why not uniformity, |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 27 May 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority advised that the correct method to value commercial consignments imported into Zimbabwe is on a Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) basis. Simplified Trade Regime (STR) importations are commercial importations and therefore this method is applicable. The current practice to value STR goods on a CIF basis is therefore the correct approach. Where the insurance and transport has not been proved the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) of Zimbabwe provides for 1% and 5% of the value the consignment to make it 6% to be considered as the charges respectively. Guidelines on valuation would be recirculated to all stations. |
|
English
Français
