| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-292 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-07-01 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
Egypt |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
It has been revealed that Kenya imposed a new duty called “Export and Investment Promotion Levy” as of the beginning of July 2025 on several imports, including some steel products on which duties were imposed at a value of 17.5% of the customs value on all exporting countries without exception for customs items 7213 and 7214, even if they were from partner countries such as Egypt, which The COMESA privileges are effectively emptied of their content on the ground upon application and actually lead to raising the total cost of the Egyptian product and undermining the customs exemption privilege granted under the agreement. (Attached is the relevant document, which was issued on June 27, 2025)
These fees come under names such as “market regulation fees” or “infrastructure development fees,” and are used as an indirect tool to limit the price competitiveness of Egyptian products, which practically means that the Egyptian product has begun to incur the same financial burdens imposed on imports from China, Turkey, and others.
It should be noted that Egypt's exports of rebar and iron coils to Kenya during the first half of 2025 amounted to approximately 60 thousand tons, according to data from the General Authority for Export and Import Control, which reflects the importance of the Kenyan market as one of the vital African markets, and highlights the direct impact of these duties on the movement of Egyptian exports.
These measures represent a direct threat to the ability of Egyptian exports to competitively access the markets of member states, and also weaken the effectiveness of the regional agreements that Egypt is striving to activate in order to support intra-trade on the African continent, at the heart of which is the COMESA Agreement.
Accordingly, the relevant authorities in Kenya, to ensure adherence to the signed commitments, and to safeguard the rights of Egypt and its exporters under the agreement |
|
|
NTB-001-272 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-07-08 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya has introduced a 25% excise duty on Aluminium products falling under chapter 76 of the Harmonized System, as stipulated in its financial Act of 2025.This measure is in contravention o the East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol, which seeks to promote the free movement of goods among member states. The imposition of this duty not only disrupts intra- regional trade and delays business operations but also undermines the spirit of regional and economical cooperation within the EAC. |
|
|
Progress:
|
During 39th RMC, Kenya informed the meeting that the matter is being handled internally, it is at the parliament level |
|
|
NTB-001-281 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-08 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania imposition of discriminatory Excise Duty on exports/Transfers that hinders Chocolate export from Kenya into Tanzania. The same is not subjecting to chocolate manufactured in Tanzania |
|
|
Progress:
|
During 39th RMC, URT informed the meeting that she is still consulting and will report back by December 2025 |
|
|
NTB-001-288 |
1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies |
2025-08-20 |
Tanzania: TRA |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT imposition of discriminative Excise Duty on Unilever Soaps, detergents and bleaches -10%; Industrial Development Levy-5-15%
VAT Rate-18%
Impact to business
• Increased production costs due to excise and industrial levies.
• Reduced competitiveness against imported products, especially if inputs are taxed.
• Pressure on pricing, potentially leading to higher consumer prices or reduced margins.
Limited relief for manufacturers despite EAC integration goals.
This tax favours local Tanzania producers of whom do not pay the 10% excise duties, further distorting the market.
3401.11.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3401.19.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.50.00 Soap and detergents 10%, 3402.90.00 Soap and detergents 10% |
|
|
NTB-001-293 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2025-10-12 |
Botswana: Ministry of Lands and Agriculture |
Botswana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Our company is unable to be productive in our business due to shortage of chick supply in the market, caused by delays by the Government (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture) to approve us to import chicks and fertilized eggs for broiler farming. |
|
|
NTB-001-295 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2025-10-20 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Eswatini |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have COMESA certificate but Uganda is not accepting, they are charging import duty 36% instead of 6%. we are making big losses due to import duty |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. After receiving the NTB, the Secretariat followed up with Uganda National Focal Points, who confirmed that they were engaging with the Uganda Revenue Authority on the matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-348 |
1.5. Requirement for counter trade |
2025-11-23 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM) |
Uganda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal (OGEFREM), introduced an additional requirement mandating the acquisition of the OGEFREM Certificate. OGEFREM (Office de Gestion du Fret Multimodal) is a real DRC agency involved in port/freight management and levies.This measure constitutes a Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB), particularly given that it’s paid for both in Uganda and DRC for the same product; apart from livestock, the fees aren’t standardised, and it’s not clear what value It adds. It constrains cross-border trade and undermines the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) agreement, which promotes free movement of goods and regional integration.
Furthermore, this whole process creates delays and extra costs for cross‑border trade.
Traders have therefore proposed that the requirement to have an OGEFREM certificate be removed, and to the least have the cost of the OGEFREM Certificate be standardized and reduced. They note that small-scale traders are disproportionately affected, as they are often subjected to varying and elevated fees for the certificate, in addition to paying further OGEFREM-related charges that aren’t documented upon entry into the DRC. |
|
|
NTB-001-309 |
7.4. Costly procedures |
2025-12-13 |
|
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
KEBS rejected the application to renew the Illovo's Diamond Mark certification which expired on 13Dec2025. The new requirement states that Illovo should appoint a Kenyan registered agent or open up a branch in Kenya. This agent will be awarded a Diamond Mark certificate on behalf of Illovo. This is costly and it also restricts product quality visibility through to the end-user. |
|
|
Progress:
|
On 29 March 2026, Kenya Focal Point reported that:
a) All importers that have the Diamond Mark are required to have an Agent. Under our Diamond Mark scheme, the permit is issued to a local registered entity. The entity assume all responsibilities of the product. This is applied across all manufacturers under the Diamond Mark Scheme.
b) An imported/ Exporter can still ring the product in to the country without the agent under the normal import process procedure either through the PVOC Scheme or Destination Inspection. This will allow the visibility that client is seeking.
c) Illovo can still export the sugar to Kenya without an agent outside the Diamond Mark. Hence there is no NTB and the matter should be considered as resolved
2.Kenya advised that there is another option to faciloitate resolution of the NTB is where the importer can register his products and comply with the requirements. Once registered using the portal at KEBS they will be accepted without inspection. |
|
|
Products:
|
1701.99: Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form (excl. cane and beet sugar containing added flavouring or colouring and raw sugar) |
|
|
NTB-001-333 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2026-02-01 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
ZIMRA is not clearing the products originated in Zambia using the STR Declaration even the products are under the Common List. The goods are subjected to the submission of Formal Customs Declaration and subject to pay customs duties, instead of granting preferential tariff treatment under the COMESA FTA. |
|
|
Products:
|
2009.12: Orange juice, unfermented, Brix value <= 20 at 20°C, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. containing spirit and frozen) |
|
|
NTB-001-302 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2026-02-06 |
Zambia: ZAMBIA REVENUE AUTHORITY |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) Imposed by Zambia
Zambia has introduced a 10% Selected Goods Surcharge (SGS) on CIF value, identified only upon reviewing the attached ASYCUDA import entry for Kenya manufacturer Carbacid LTD recent CO₂ shipment. This surcharge was unexpected and has a significant commercial impact on our exports.
CO₂ Is COMESA Originating and Should Not Be Charged discriminatively.
Carbacid LTD food grade CO₂ (HS 281121) is fully COMESA originating, supported by a valid Certificate of Origin for every shipment.
Under COMESA Treaty Article 49(1), Member States must remove existing NTBs and refrain from imposing new restrictions on goods originating from COMESA countries.
The COMESA NTB Regulations (2020) prohibit new discriminatory or trade restrictive measures.
The SGS surcharge therefore constitutes:
• A discriminatory charge
• A trade restrictive NTB
The surcharge raises the Kenya manufacturer landed cost and undermines Kenya’s products competitiveness in Zambia. As CO₂ is essential for soft drink bottling, the measure operates as a protectionist NTB in violation of COMESA obligations.
Zambia to remove the 10% SGS surcharge on COMESA originating CO₂ and restores compliance with COMESA trade rules, ensuring Kenyan goods are not unfairly discriminated against. |
|
|
NTB-001-329 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2026-02-20 |
Ethiopia: Galafi |
Ethiopia |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Small scale cross border traders who were able to export different live animals and agricultural products to Djibouti through the Galafi Border are required to pay export tax per head of the livestock at the border. The total export amount allowed in a month is up to USD 1,000 per cross border trader that are found in different parts of the Afar region.
The export tax in Dewele border is not yet implemented and it is considered as a discriminatory compared to the Dewele border of the country. |
|
|
Products:
|
0106.13: Live camels and other camelids [Camelidae], 0104.20: Live goats and 0703.10: Fresh or chilled onions and shallots |
|
|
NTB-001-311 |
5.3. Export taxes |
2026-03-02 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Kasumbalesa |
|
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
It is reported by the Truckers Association of Zambia that the DRC Revenue Authority - General Directorate of Taxes, 3 weeks ago, introduced an import and export tax of about $85, and this has been reported at Kasumbalesa Border Post. The procedure and rationale in which this was introduced is unknown to Zambia, therefore, feedback is sought from our colleagues in DRC on this matter. |
|
|
NTB-001-330 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2026-03-11 |
Mozambique: DGA - Mozambique
SARS - South Africa |
Mozambique |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Conferring of origin in a member state on non-originating material. This then affects the issuance of a SADC certificate for the issuing country being Mozambique.
Mozambique customs authority and DGA consider that the process taking place within Mozambique, does not confer origin.
The exact same process carried out in South Africa, receives a SADC certificate from SARS.
SARS as the importing country does not dispute or challenge that the process confers origin and is satisfied that the process under which a SADC certificate is issued, and therefore receives preferential duty in the importing country is sufficient and complies with the SADC trade agreement.
While the SADC agreement, lists simple processes, which do not confer origin, under chapter 63 there is a specific declaration made, where rags is included, before the word, except, and then it lists exceptions. It states that for chapter 63, origin is conferred, the requirement stated is " manufacture from materials of any heading except that of the product"
What is peculiar, is that the issuing country being Mozambique contends the conference of origin, but it has not been raised by the importing country being South Africa.
We know, with absolute certainty, that a SADC for the exact same process is issued by South Africa for exports to Mozambique and to Botswana, and neither of these countries have ever referred them back for investigation or referral on the back of the SADC certificate as is the protocol and possibility if there is a contention. |
|
|
Progress:
|
On April 15th, 2026, Mozambique focal point reported that they are working with the relevant authorities to provide a response on this matter. Within 10 days, we will update the information. |
|
|
Products:
|
6310.10: Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn-out articles thereof, of textile materials, sorted |
|
|
NTB-001-347 |
|
2026-03-17 |
Zimbabwe: |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Informal traders carrying small quantities of goods, such as fresh produce, cooking oil, rice, sugar and pasta.
These traders cross the Victoria Falls border post by bike or foot.
The complaint concerns over 50 traders per day, crossing the border.
When entering Zimbabwe, they get stopped by Customs and will face seemingly arbitrary restrictions on quantities of goods that can enters (which change on a daily basis and depending on the specific officer on duty). When these arbitrary quantities are exceeded, the officers often confiscate all of the goods or demand bribes to release the traders. They also face threats when questioning the behaviour of the officer.
When returning after selling goods on the market in Zimbabwe, and after clearing the Zimbabwe Customs, they will often get stopped by police or soldiers in the no-mans-land between the borders to be demanded further bribes from the proceeds of their sales.
If bringing merchandise from Zimbabwe back to Zambia, depending on the officers at the border and despite the small quantities carried, they will be asked to obtain an export license from Harare. Or to pay another bribe to be released. |
|
English
Français
