| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-048 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B31: Labelling requirements |
2022-01-03 |
Tanzania: Standards Authority |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-04-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Vague Labelling requirement "Statutory Warning" Clause 12 (k), rejection of the UK Chief Medical Warning which is accepted in other African countries such as Uganda, Kenya without any objection in addition to their requirement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The labelling dispute previously raised with the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) has been resolved, and exports currently continue in line with the agreed framework.
However, as exporters to Tanzania, South African producers are required to:
Register with appointed inspection companies
Undergo container inspections at a cost of USD450 per container
Pay annual registration fees, renewable every 12 months. |
|
|
NTB-001-047 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2021-12-01 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
|
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 4th December Juba Trades Union reported challenges in clearing their consignment at Mombasa Port due to new regulations, which is not clear to them at the time they getting their goods for the holiday season, the complain of challenges with the new introduce system including the payment which is not clearly justified or oriented to the stakeholders, clearing process at Mombasa come to stop and goods stop flowing to Nimule border of South Sudan, South Sudan National Chamber of Commerce reported the concern to the Ministry of Trade and Industry indicating the impact of the measure on the market prices and lack of goods if no action is taken considering its a holiday season. traders are losing by been charge demurrages at port and arrival of the goods after the season. The Ministry of trade took action by canceling the Certificate of Destination to allow the flow of goods to the county, However the action was not honored by the RSS Customs office in Mombasa, reported by Kenya International Freight & Warehousing Association (KIFWA), National Chamber did meet with the RSS Minister of Finance to look at the matter and he promise to communicate to the Revenue Authority since he is not aware of the new regulation and the charges imposed. With the mounting pressure from the stakeholders National Revenue Authority send a letter to Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Port Authority to support the flow of goods to South Sudan unrestricted and the Minister of trade order is to be honored as per NRA letter, lastly on 21st December the official at Customs RSS in Mombasa started releasing the cargo to RSS with only $50 Charges not those mention on the Certificate of Destination Chagres below:-
1- 40ft Container $400
2- 20ft Container $365
3- Vehicle 4x4 $365
4- Regular Vehicle $300
5- All UN Consignment $365
6- Loose cargo $250
The main challenge traders have face is lack of coordination between different institutions and the partner states when introducing new regulations or policies, this current measure is not official resolved by Customs Division of NRA. we hope Kenya and South Sudan should address it to assure its traders they are on regional integration and the free movement of goods and people are a true. Engagement of stakeholders is a key in success of any measure introduce by the government |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the Secretariat reported that the framework under the Single Customs Territory (SCT), but also One-Stop Border Post (OSBP) manual has the provisions that allow the deployment of Customs Officers.
The National Revenue Authority sent a letter to Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Port Authority to support the flow of goods to South Sudan unrestricted. On 21st December the official at Customs RSS in Mombasa started releasing the cargo to RSS with only $50. The two Partner States agreed to handle the matter administratively and should be resolved from the TBP |
|
|
NTB-001-046 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2021-12-03 |
Uganda: Malaba |
|
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 3rd December Traders reported that URA enforce regulation on all transit cargo to South Sudan and DRC, where all consignment are to pay a fee of $150 to $214 depend on the type of cargo, and those charges are collected by private company "Sunco Ltd." its said to be a contract between South Sudan government and K-Polygone SAS. then K-Polygone contracted Sunco Ltd. When the issue was raise to the Ministry of Trade by the National Chamber of Commerce Industry and Agriculture. at the time goods have stop flowing to Nimule border of South Sudan, Then Minister of trade issue ministerial order suspending the contract between its ministry and K-Polygone to allow smooth follow of goods to RSS, Upton date traders are still complaining the charges at Malaba border of Uganda still on going and the matter is not resolve.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that charges are collected by the private company "Sunco Ltd." at the Malaba Uganda border
The two Partner States agreed to handle the matter administratively and is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-045 |
|
2021-11-22 |
Kenya: Poultry products from Uganda have been banned from entering the Kenyan market. |
|
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The government of Kenya without giving any reason arbitrarily banned all poultry products from Uganda from accessing the Kenyan market. It is not clear when the ban will end or if it will end. My clients have lost and continue to lose a lot of money thanks to this arbitrary and protectionist measure by the government of Kenya going against all the principles of the International Trade especially Kenya's obligations as a part of the East African Community Customs Union. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that the ban was lifted as a result of the Bilateral meeting of the two Partner States in December 2021.
So, the matter is resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-044 |
1.15. Other |
2021-12-03 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Kenya |
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda Revenue Authority has introduced a mandatory requirement for import certificate for export and transit cargo to DRC and South Sudan.
This requirement is causing delays to transit cargo to Congo and Sudan and comes with an extra cost to the customers since they have to pay customs agents to secure the certificates on their behalf. This negatively affects export business. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that this requirement is causing delays to transit cargo to Congo and South Sudan and comes with an extra cost to the customers since they have to pay customs agents to secure the certificates on their behalf.
The SCTIFI meeting was informed that this was upon the request of RSS and DRC and was later recalled. Hence the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-042 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2021-12-13 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Kenya |
Resolved
2022-05-05 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda denial of preferential market access for footwear manufactured in Kenya by Umoja Rubber |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Uganda Focal Point advised that this assessment was done before full declaration. The consignment wasn't charged all the indicated taxes after submission of relevant origin documents as in the attachment posted in the system. |
|
|
Products:
|
6402.99: Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics (excl. covering the ankle or with upper straps or thongs assembled to the sole by means of plugs, waterproof footwear of heading 6401, sports footwear, orthopaedic footwear and toy footwear) |
|
|
NTB-001-041 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B6: Product identity requirement |
2021-11-04 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2021-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa Port Health officials demanding an extended description on one of our products. The product is a sweet type described as Apricots on both packaging and invoice but the officials want us to have the packaging written Apricots sweets. We have been exporting the sweet to South Africa for more than 5 years. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The company had been allowed to export its consignment to South Africa after removing prohibited products. The NTB was resolved are following required procedures |
|
|
Products:
|
2008.50: Apricots, prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit (excl. preserved with sugar but not laid in syrup, jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit purée and pastes, obtained by cooking) |
|
|
NTB-001-040 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2021-10-14 |
Tanzania: URT TRA |
Kenya |
Resolved
2023-05-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania denial of preferential market access for Apple Juice and Strawberry manufactured in Kenya while citing reasons that the products are not originating from Kenya. URT delayed the shipment instead of facilitating clearance as is required by the protocal and the EAC Rules of Origin then follow the process of reporting the matter to the secretariat for action/guidance. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The RMC noted that the Verification report was considered and approved by the Committee on Customs and the SCTIFI in May and June 2023 respectively. The verification recommendations have been implemented whereby the qualified products have been granted preferential treatment. The SCTIFI noted that the products that qualify for preferential treatment can be allowed to access the market as the two Partner States consult bilaterally on the two products that do not qualify. Hence the NTB is resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-038 |
6.5. Variable levies |
2021-10-10 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania is charging FULL CET, RDL among other levies on Kenyan wholly produced cement despite the Verification Report recommending that products qualify should be accorded preferential treatment
Additionally, despite URT commitment in the Bilateral and SCTIFI that URT grants preferential treatment to wholly produced cement as required by the EAC rules of Origin, URT is still charging duties of 35%. This is despite Tanzania not being under any stay of application.
Kenya urges Tanzania to accord preferential treatment to Kenya wholly produced cement as per the verification findings and recommendation and URT commitment on facilitation of trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, the EAC Secretariat reported that a verification mission was conducted and recommended that the products qualified should be accorded preferential treatment.
Additionally, URT committed in the Bilateral and SCTIFI to grant preferential treatment to the wholly produced cement as required by the EAC Rules of Origin.
The NTB is resolved |
|
|
NTB-001-037 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2018-03-01 |
Tanzania: TZ MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES |
Kenya |
Resolved
2022-11-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries letter reference number CA.21/206/01/257 dated 13th October 2021 and an earlier letter ref: NC.2000/247/01/68 dated 10th October, 2018. The letter ban Turkey meat and its products from Kenya on the basis that there’s a bird flu in the world. In addition, the letter encourages Tanzanians to source chicks from Kenya for eggs or meat as well as sourcing meat in United Republic of Tanzania (URT) and not from the local EAC market.
Kenya has neither reported nor experienced the Bird Flu infection that URT is referring to. Further, URT is interested with Kenya’s live chicks and not processed meat. This clearly demonstrate that URT is outrightly denying market access for Kenya turkey meat on unsubstantiated blanket claim of prescence of Bird Flu in the world.
URT has been declining approval of permit for Kenya exporters of Turkey meat since 2018 by delaying and declining approval of permit despite payment of various required discriminative fees of Livestock Board, Atomic Energy among others. This has become a revenue collection for URT which has negatively affected Kenya Manufacturers who have been a major exporter of these highly demanded turkey meat in URT.
This violates the EAC Treaty Article 75(6) and Article 15 of the EAC Common Market Protocol on the establishment of the East African Community Customs Union where Partner States undertook to refrain from enacting legislation or applying administrative measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against the same or like products of other Partner States. This is to create a level playing field and avoid any discrimination on treatment of community’s manufactured products within the region.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During SCTIFI that took place in May, 2022, the two parties agreed that the competent authorities in the two countries would resolve the issue administratively and report in the next bilateral meeting on 26th May 2022. Hence the matter was removed from the Time Bound Programme. |
|
|
NTB-001-033 |
1.8. Import bans |
2018-08-01 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries |
Kenya |
Resolved
2021-10-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania denial of Permission for importation of Turkey meat into Tanzania and instead decline approval of permit and ask local distributors to source it locally in Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Transfer of meat and meat products to Tanzania is allowed, reference is made to the importation permit issued on 24th August, 2021 (Which is attached by the importer). Also, The Animal and Animal products Movement Regulations, GN 489 published on 29th June, 2020 does not prohibit transfer of turkey meat to Tanzania. There is no evidence attached by importer to show that turkey meat from Kenya was denied market in Tanzania. Hence this is not an NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-031 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2021-06-30 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
Resolved
2026-07-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.
• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…
• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.
• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The finance bill of 2023 undergone through the public participation and through the parliament as per attached evidence. Excise duty on Pasta is not discriminatory as per section 43 (iv) herein attached, that underwent through parliament process and public participation process. |
|
|
NTB-001-031 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2021-06-30 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Egypt |
Resolved
2026-07-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Kenyan Government, through the Finance Act 2021, introduced a new Excise Duty on imported pasta of tariff 1902 whether cooked or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, couscous, whether or not prepared, at
the rate of 20%. This Excise Duty is to be levied at the point of importation and is effective from 1st July 2021.
• Excise Duty is a tax imposed on goods and services manufactured in Kenya or imported into Kenya and specified in the first schedule of the Excise Duty Act (2015). This is usually considered on luxury products such as Alcohol, Fuel, Chocolates, Airtime, etc…
• Excise Duty is different from Customs Duty (imposition of tax on imports to protect local industries) Imposition of this new Excise Duty came as a surprise to us since it was not part of the Finance Bill 2021 that had been tabled before the Kenyan Parliament and was only introduced as a new amendment to the Bill on 24 June 2021 at the second reading stage, in Parliament.
• The Kenyan Constitution as well as the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Kenyan Government to call for public participation on the Finance Bill before amendment of tax laws through the enactment of the Finance Act. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case since the amendment introducing the Excise Duty was done way after public participation on the Bill had taken place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 11th meeting of the Trade and Trade facilitation Sub Committee held on 20- 23 July 2026, Kenya repoted tha the 20% excise duty was lifted through amendment on 27 December 2024 . Duty is no longer applicable . Kenya to share the Act by 22nd July 2026 |
|
|
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-001-027 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2021-07-26 |
Madagascar: Toamasina Port à gestion autonome ( sea port) |
|
Resolved
2021-10-04 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Dear All,
Shipment of 3 Shipment Ex port-Louis - Toamasina
B/L 912715161 (3 isotanks) et 912706516 (2 isotanks) ETD Port-Louis 21/7/2021 ETA Toamasina 26/7/2021
B/L 912756116 31/07/2021 ETD 31/07/2021 ETA Toamasina 05/08/2021
For B/L 912715161 et 912706516- After all the proper import procedures were made. Goods were delivered to our client premises. Customs requested for another product testing and a minutes was signed between customs and my client (Sama)
FYI, kindly note that for all product of this kind a product sample is provided to the ministry of health for a certificate of conformity. Same was received for both shipments.
Despite all the export and import procedures were followed scrupuciously and in good faith. To-date our client has not received any notification regarding the product testing and its results. The goods are in our client premises but cannot be used as long as clearance is not obtained from customs. All the queries made by our client to the customs has been unfruitful.
B/L 912756116 - Those isotanks are blocked in the port. No clearance will be received as long previous shipment has not received clearance form customs. All the storages incurred will be on the behalf of our client.
This situation is severely jeopardising our client activities given they are almost out of stock. On our side, we have not received any payment from our client given that there is no visibility about this customs issue.
We hope the above will help and remain at your disposal for any further info you may require.
Very best regards
JEAN FRANCOIS DESVEAUX
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Ground Floor2
Hi Tech Center
Coastal Road
Pointe Aux Sables
Mauritius
Office: +230 235 02 69
Mobile:+230 5 254 70 20
E-mail: jeanfrancoisd@skvaint.com
Website: www.skvaint.com
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Malagasy Customs Attache based in Mauritius facilitated the exchange of information with the Malagasy Customs and the issue was resolved. All containers have been cleared as confirmed by the exporter on 4th October 2021. The issue is resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
3808.94.9: --- Other: |
|
|
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-001-025 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-08-10 |
Malawi: SONGWE KARONGA BOX 8 WEIGHBRIDGE |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2023-04-06 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Rwanda truck carrying Fertilizer TPT from Tanzania to Malawi Lilongwe was refused to enter Malawi and charged USD 1000 for violating third country rule a provision that is being applied betwen Zambia and Malawi to protect their national transport operators against foreign transporters not registered in Malawi. This is a discrimination against other trucks transporting goods to Malawi |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The COMESA workshop on Capacity building for Member States held on 2- 6 April 2023, reviewed this matter and recommended that the Secretariat to recommend to Rwanda to regard this NTB as resolved considering that there are Legal Instruments supporting its implementation. The relevant transport instruments would be shared with Rwanda. |
|
|
NTB-001-023 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2021-07-26 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: The DRC government. Ministry of Transport |
South Africa |
Resolved
2026-04-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The DRC has just published legislation prohibiting foreign vehicles from loading mining products and to remove (export) them from the DRC. The unofficial translation of the new DRC amendment:Article 4-It is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the Democratic Republic of Congo to load goods, in this case mining products from the national territory; In the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk.
According to an unofficial translation of article four of the amendment affecting the DRC's road freight sector, "it is strictly forbidden for any vehicle not registered in the DRC to load goods, in this case mining products, from the national territory”.
The article continues, saying "in the event of violation of the above paragraph, the goods are immediately unloaded at the shipper's risk”. The decision is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on exports out of the DRC's Copperbelt region, with some transporters going so far as to say that it's wholly impractical and a protectionist strategy that is bound to boomerang against the government in Kinshasa. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the SADC Regional workshop on resolution of NTBs it was agreed that SADC Carbotage regulations do not allow foreign trucks to load on return trip |
|
English
Français
