| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-209 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Additional fees are charged on timber in transit.
Kenya charges Ksh 48000 on transit vehicles carrying forest and timber products from Uganda that transit through Kenya to destinations outside the EAC. Transit vehicles are charged fees for a transit license in addition to payment of road user fees. The timber products are extracted from forests in Uganda and not Kenya. This additional fee is wrongly charged and causes additional costs to trade in forest products from Uganda. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This is a consolidated charge for movement permits for timber on transit for 18 trucks, the fees and charges are contained in the Fourth Schedule of Legal Notice No. 21 of 2016 (item 9) as follows: Movement permit per consignment- 2000, VAT 16% 320, E citizen fee 50. Total 2370
The movement permits are meant to provide control, traceability as well as monitoring the movement of forest products till they reach the required destination and is not discriminatory. |
|
|
NTB-001-249 |
6.5. Variable levies |
2025-02-04 |
Kenya: KRA |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Excise duty being charged on onions, potatoes, potato crisps and potato chips transferred from Uganda to Kenya.
This means they are being treated as imports. This was effective 1st July 2022, at a rate of 25% imposed against the EAC CUP.
Kenya is requested to consider removing the excise duty with immediate effect |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Uganda submitted that the discriminatory Law was repealed through the Finance amendment Act of 2025. |
|
|
NTB-001-246 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2024-11-01 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Agriculture |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Quantitative restrictions on Ugandan Sugar transfers to Tanzania only up to 20,000 MT, are accepted
These Quotas have been subject to bilateral negotiations to allow market access for Uganda Sugar.
We request that Tanzania to remove quantitative restrictions. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Tanzania removed all restrictions related to Sugar from the Community. The two Partner States to trade in normal EAC terms. |
|
|
NTB-001-214 |
6.6. Border taxes |
2024-10-01 |
Tanzania: Rusumo, Mutukula, Kabanga |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Through Port Health at Rusumo, Kobero / Kabanga and Mutukula/Mutukula, the United Republic of Tanzania charges the Republic of Rwanda and the Republic of Burundi Trucks 5 USD or the equivalent in Tshs as Free Pratique which is not in the EAC legal framework for free movement of cross-border trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
This charge is not discriminative. |
|
|
NTB-001-275 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2025-08-18 |
Tanzania: Namanga |
Kenya |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Customs has raised doubts regarding the Certificate of Origin issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). However, TRA has failed to provide any written explanation for its objections and has refused to verify the certificate directly with KRA via email.
As a result, the goods have been held at the Namanga border, causing delays and financial losses to the consignee. This action by TRA Customs constitutes a violation of the EAC Protocols and Regulations, undermines the rights of the importer, and damages the legitimate business interests of Kenyan enterprises engaged in intra-EAC trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The goods were released without any payment. |
|
|
NTB-001-287 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-09-04 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2025-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT denial of the preferential treatment to blankets that have been manufactured in Kenya and instead subjecting the blankets to full CET of 25% duty on the blankets transferred from Kenya into URT by Spinner and Spinners LTD with reason that the company is benefitting from DRS. The raw material used in the manufacture of the blankets is EAC wide remission on HS Code 5402.33.00 as a regionally eligible code under the DRS. The affected consignment is Assessment Ref: TRA Namanga, Entry Ref. 158254115-25-9900817 subjecting to 25% duty. This creates an unfair trade barrier, distorts competition, and frustrates intra-EAC trade integration goals.
URT to grant preferential treatment to blankets enjoying regional DRS
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The consignee did not request for preferential tariff treatment when making his declaration and thus he was required to pay a total tax of Tshs 37 million. Later an amendment was done on 11th October 2025 and currently the taxes assessed are Tshs 13 million. This resolved the matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-283 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-07-07 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2026-02-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory EXCISE DUTY OF TZS 400/KG on exports/Transfers that hinders ON SAFETY MATCHES export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to SAFETY MATCHES manufactured in Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The REC Focal point advised that this matter is in the courts therefore cannot be considered as NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-238 |
1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation |
2025-02-16 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2026-02-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our delivery truck (ADS 3378, AFQ 8744, AFQ 8746) destined for South Africa was detained at Beitbridge border post last night by South Africa Port Health authorities due to concerns regarding a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe and the potential risk of contamination in the water. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Public Health concern has since been uplifted and a number of consignments of purified water have been allowed to enter the South African market. |
|
|
NTB-001-030 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-08-17 |
South Africa: SARS Customs |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council (SADC BC) convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges with variances in alignment of HS codes between Mauritius and South Africa(RSA).
1. …For exports from Mauritius to RSA, where a SADC is applicable, an exporter can insert 10 HS CODES on one SADC certificate. This is because the SADC certificate has now become electronic while before it was manual.
2. When it was manual, if someone had a nice handwriting, the person could insert more than 10 HS CODES as long as it legible.
3. When importing from RSA, Mauritian importers receive SADC certificates with 1 HS CODE only. Meaning RSA issues SADC certificates with ONE Line HS code only.
4. Thus if a Mauritian exporter is sending 10 different items to RSA and SADC is applicable, only one SADC certificate will be issued by Mauritian Revenue Authourity CUSTOMS.
5. On the other hand, if a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter sends only 3 different items to Mauritius, and of course SADC is applicable, SARS will issue THREE sadc certificates.
6. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT: SADC certificates are payable at both ends. Meaning a local broker will charge an exporter when issuing a SADC certificate and SARS will charge a SOUTH AFRICAN exporter when issuing on their side.
If a Mauritian exporter has 18 ITEMS to be exported out of Mauritius and a SADC certificate is applicable, he/she will have to have TWO SADC certificates only WHILE on the other hand, if a Mauritian imports 18 ITEMS from RSA, he/she will have 18 SADC certificates with each certificate obtained at a cost which represents a huge amount for the one who pays for these certificates. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The update received from the SA Focal Point indicated that SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49 (8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annexe I, which has been long in the making. Therefore, this matter can be considered s resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-029 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: South Africa Revenue Services ( SARS) |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The update received from the SA Focal Point indicated that SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annexe I, which has been long in the making. Therefore, this matter can be considered s resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-028 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-09-07 |
South Africa: SARS |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 6 September 2021, the SADC Business Council convened an online Non Tariff Barrier Workshop with the private sector in Mauritius. In the meeting, participants indicated challenges in the application for SADC for export to South Africa. Mauritian exporters need to make a fresh application to customs each and every time they export to South Africa even if the manufacturing process remains the same and same materials are used. They need to resubmit all documents (raw material import documents, BOE, Stock movement statement etc) at each shipment. This is time consuming and complicates export procedures. It also put exporters at risk if they don’t get the certificate or it is delayed and the goods have already been produced.
Mauritian exporters request the region's policy makers to develop a longer certificate of origin that can be used repeatedly for similar shipments. And may be a yearly review/assessment by Customs for renewal |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The update received from the SA Focal Point indicated that SARS require regular Traders to apply for an Origin Determination that is available under Section 49(8) of the Customs and Excise Act No. 91 of 1964 as amended. This is a best practice that can be included in the Proposed Amendments to Annexe I, which has been long in the making. Therefore, this matter can be considered s resolved. |
|
|
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-001-059 |
7.10. Other |
2017-03-07 |
South Africa: |
Botswana |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A Botswana based company, MOTOVAC reporting challenges is struggling to get payment of its Value Added Tax (VAT) import refunds from the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in time. It is reported, VAT refunds are not processed by SARS. The outstanding payments date back as far as 2017 with the company owed BWP 3,528,278.07 in VAT refunds by SARS.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Secretariat organised consultative meetings among the relevant stakeholders, which concluded that the Motovac issue had been resolved. However, it was established that the issue affected more Botswana exporters, hence the need for further consultations with South Africa to address policy challenges affecting the effective payment of VAT refunds. |
|
|
NTB-001-151 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2023-09-13 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Malawi |
Resolved
2026-02-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Malawi pigeon pea export consignment to India has been detained at Beira port in Mozambique for the following reasons:
1. 275Mt for Grey Matter - Investigation on issues of origin. However, the consignment bears Malawi custom seals and documents, emphasizing its Malawi origin.
2. 1500MT for Africa Fertilizer Ltd – Rules regarding fumigation. All the consignment loaded in trucks in Malawi, and stuffing was done in containers in Beira.
3. 3275MT for Afrisian Ltd – Customs verification if the cargo is in transit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The complaint is marked as resolved under the update provided above. |
|
|
NTB-001-026 |
8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) |
2021-08-18 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-02-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
There has been noticeable decrease in the volume of traffic crossing the Beitbridge border on the Zimbabwean side of the border for a few months now. On a normal working day +/- 1 500 trucks can cross the North South Corridor Border. The crossing entails Customs releases with the verification of other Government agencies to test and verify safety and security of the goods (Consignment).
However, in the last few months, the number has reduced to a maximum of +/- 400 trucks crossing the North South corridor. The drop in the movement of cargo is a combination of many factors and cannot be blamed solely on the hard infrastructure layout. An alignment with clear roles, responsibility, risk management profile , screening and removing of old outdated manual processes is required.
The challenge emanates from lack of harmonisation by enforcement Government agencies operating at the border which creates a huge bottleneck with minimal peace of mind, i.e SAPS on the South African side, Zimbabwe with its multiple Other Government Agencies involvement and linkage to a Private security company controlling the flow of cargo movement.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The complaint has been resolved, taking into account the new developments provided above. |
|
|
NTB-000-953 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2020-04-11 |
|
Namibia |
Resolved
2026-02-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
At Katima Mulilo border post between the Republic of Namibia and the Republic of Zambia, Zambian Authorities/ Command centres, specifically the Zambia Police Service and the Ministry of Health Officials stationed at Katima Mulilo border post from the Provincial Administration in Western Province tasked to screen truck drivers at the border post, are charging Namibian transporters and truck drivers to meet logistical costs of escorting their respective quarantined truck drivers to Kazungula, Livingstone, Lusaka and Kasumbalesa transits especially perishables and other essential commodities such as medicines, clearly at variance with World Customs Organisation (WCO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Protocols on Trade, destined for the Republic of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo via the Walvis Bay - Ndola - Lubumbashi Development Corridor (Namibia, Zambia, DRC). In the Republic of Zambia and other SADC Member states, and in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) Public Health Protocols, screening, testing and quarantining of truck drivers for covid - 19 are State operations and are at variance with the agreed SADC Guidelines on Harmonisation and Facilitation of Cross Border Transport Operations during the covid - 19 outbreak. This is an added cost of doing business, unnecessary cross border delays without prior notification to transporters and a Non - Tariff Barrier to Trade.
This is unprecedented, Namibian transporters are being charged as much as K800 for each Police Officer for at least 3 days and each convoy of trucks has at least 3 Police officers. The cost is meant to cover lodging and subsistence allowance for the officers.
This is an encumbrance to trade, against the SADC Guidelines on movement of goods and services in the region amid covid - 19 and adds to the cost of doing business, against WCO, WTO, and WHO best practices on global trade facilitation and Public Health. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Based on the update provided above, the complaint can be considered as resolved. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-676 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2015-07-31 |
|
Mauritius |
Resolved
2026-02-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The 2 stage transformation needed on clothing is too stringent as it stifles investment in manufacture of clothing due to economic reason and prices. Our company would want to invest in Bio organic fabrics. We invest in stock form India for knitted fabric jersey 100% but with this fabric we have issues to get the SADC certificate of origin as in the rules of origin it does not have 2 value added process. But we are a brand, we produce the garment here in Mauritius we do also the printing at our factory. Therefore there is two process, the cloth is cut here, and then printing.Please can our case be studied as we are a SME factory and for our survival we need to export to Africa. Can this case be study for the rules of origin be modified if the printing process is big part on the value of this product |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mauritius recommends marking the complaint as resolved, based on the commitment to propose a review of the Rules of Origin during the upcoming TNF meeting. The current regulations lack the necessary flexibility, hindering their effective application. A review would enable Member States to address these challenges and enhance our collaborative efforts. |
|
|
NTB-000-745 |
6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies |
2017-01-19 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-02-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
“SARS received an escalation in January 2017 from Deloitte, regarding a complaint by fuel exporters from South Africa. The complaint is regarding Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) Circular No. 9 of December 2016, notifying its officers “that all fuel imported from South Africa under preferential arrangements should be subjected to payments of a monetary deposit equivalent to the full customs duty payable.
The modalities of collection of the said deposit will be temporarily suspending both SSA and SDC preferential rates against goods of HS 2710.12.10 and 2710.19.10 until the Origin verification process is finalised”.
SARs is of the view that the collection of the monetary deposits on fuel imported from South Africa is against the spirit of the SADC Protocol on Trade and the WTO, as this treatment applies only to oil imported from South Africa. It pre-supposes that the ZRA is nullifying the SADC Protocol on Trade relating to those specific products without following the proper procedures regarding derogation on infant industries.
SARs has tried several times to get answers from Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to explain their reasoning behind the circular and so far, they have not provided any correspondence to this matter. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Resolved based on the update provided above. |
|
|
NTB-001-224 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2024-11-22 |
South Africa: South African Revenue Authority |
Mauritius |
Resolved
2025-01-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mauritius Customs is unable to accept the SADC Certificate ZA PQ 56085 issued by Customs in South Africa due to missing of specimen signature at their level. The Mauritius Customs sent a request to RSA Customs to get a confirmation of the signature .Up to date they have not yet received any reply. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the level of MRA Customs, an issue was reported on certificate ZA P956085 which has been resolved since we received communication from SARS on 23rd January 2025. |
|
English
Français
