| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-001-208 |
5.15. Other |
2024-05-01 |
Uganda: Fish protection unit |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda is intercepting fish export from Kenya which is in transit to DRC on grounds that Kenya is transferring immature fish that is not accepted in Uganda.
The fish protection unit in Uganda opens the goods on transit in the sealed containers which is against the provisions of goods in transit. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The RMC of 17th October 2024, noted that this act is against Trade Facilitation Laws on goods in Transit and urged the Republic of Uganda to respect the free movement of transit cargo and allow transit fish from RSS, Kenya and Tanzania to transit freely to DRC. Transit goods should not be subjected to TBT regulations under the WTO Agreement of Trade Facilitation and EAC Instruments.
The Republic of Uganda committed to follow up with relevant institutions to allow transit trucks carrying fish to go through Ugandan territory without any restrictions or interceptions in the Uganda territory. |
|
|
NTB-001-178 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-05-13 |
Uganda: kasindi |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On May 13, 2024 the vehicles of certain economic operators transporting salted fish from South Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania in transit through Uganda destined for the DRC are blocked in Uganda. The reason given by the protection unit was that these vehicles transported small fish whose marketing was formally prohibited in Uganda |
|
|
Progress:
|
The RMC of 17th October 2024, noted that this act is against Trade Facilitation Laws on goods in Transit and urged the Republic of Uganda to respect the free movement of transit cargo and allow transit fish from RSS, Kenya and Tanzania to transit freely to DRC. Transit goods should not be subjected to TBT regulations under the WTO Agreement of Trade Facilitation and EAC Instruments.
The Republic of Uganda committed to follow up with relevant institutions to allow transit trucks carrying fish to go through Ugandan territory without any restrictions or interceptions in the Uganda territory. |
|
|
NTB-001-168 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B11: Prohibition for TBT reasons |
2024-05-14 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We have been told by Port Health via SAHPRA that as per regulations 6 & 7 of the Medicines Control Act of 1965, we are no longer allowed to transport medications to our customers in Eswatini by road In- transit through South Africa. This is despite the fact that we have done so since May of 1990 up 13 May 2024. We have 2 order ready, packed and waiting to be supplied, but we are being prevented from making declarations to deliver to our customers.
This summary decision to prevent Trade with Eswatini is totally unacceptable. We ask for your help to resolve this issue urgently! |
|
|
Products:
|
3003.10: Medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale, 3003.20: Medicaments containing antibiotics, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale (excl. medicaments containing penicillins or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycins or derivatives thereof) and 3003.31: Medicaments containing insulin, not in measured doses or put up for retail sale |
|
|
NTB-001-167 |
5.5. Import licensing requirements |
2024-05-16 |
South Africa: All border crossings by road, air or sea |
Namibia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Nakara (pty) , a Namibian company formally requests a dispensation from the South African Veterinary (SA VET) import permit required for imports of Namibian finished leather. Nakara (pty) Ltd, a Namibian tannery, has maintained an unblemished record and has never been implicated in any wrongdoing in the past. However, due to the current regulatory framework, we find ourselves inadvertently impacted by the necessity of the SA VET import permit on Namibian leather exports. It is important to note that no other country imposes such a requirement on imports of finished leather into South Africa. South Africa is Nakara's biggest export market and the aforementioned unnecessary NTB puts Nakara into a competitive disadvantage. A disadvantage that hinders further growth in the trade relationship between Namibia and South Africa in the leather sector, both being members of the SADC region. |
|
|
Products:
|
4107.99: Leather "incl. parchment-dressed leather" of the portions, strips or sheets of hides and skins of bovine "incl. buffalo" or equine animals, further prepared after tanning or crusting, without hair on (excl. unsplit full grains leather, grain splits leath |
|
|
NTB-001-191 |
1.15. Other |
2024-05-20 |
South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I am writing on behalf of Mind Health, a Lesotho-registered company actively engaged in the research and development of medicinal products. We are currently collaborating with the University of the Free State (UFS) in South Africa to conduct studies on one of our products. This relationship is critical for advancing our work in the medicinal sector, a key area of growth for Lesotho.
However, we have encountered significant challenges due to the implementation of Section 4.8 of the Guideline for the Importation and Exportation of Medicines (Regulatory Compliance Unit) by SAHPRA. The guideline requires the use of specific ports of entry, namely Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, and OR Tambo International Airport, for the export of medicines. Consequently, we are prohibited from using more practical and geographically closer border posts such as the Maseru Bridge or Ficksburg Bridge.
Given Lesotho's landlocked nature and the fact that the University of the Free State is only 227 km from our facility, this regulation has drastically inflated the cost of exporting small quantities of medicinal samples. For instance, we are now compelled to fly samples from Maseru to OR Tambo, have them cleared by customs, and then transport them by road back to the university—a total of 424 km. What would have cost us a few hundred rand using nearby border posts now costs several thousand rand. Additionally, this significantly increases shipment times, delaying our research and impacting the efficiency of our studies. |
|
|
NTB-001-180 |
1.15. Other |
2024-06-17 |
South Africa: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
MG Health Ltd cultivates and manufactures cannabis products for the European market. We started exporting Cannabis and transiting via Maseru Bridge since September 2020. On the 17 July 2024, after getting all export documents and submitting them to SARS on the South African side we were informed that Cannabis cannot be exported via Maseru Bridge as it not amongst designated ports according to South African law. MG Health's truck was then returned to Lesotho.
MG health initiated Meetings thereafter and the response that MG Health received was that this practice that MG Health and others who are in the same industry are accustomed to was a measure adopted during COVID-19 restrictions. It was explained to SARS that Lesotho is landlocked as a result the consignment will have to be flown out to get to OR Tambo. Secondly, given the quantities that are exported, using available flights will require multiple flights for just one consignment thus making the export process difficult and expensive. SARS response was that Medical Cannabis must be exported using designated ports irrespective of whether it is in transit or it is being exported to SA as the SA law is very clear on this matter and MG Health cannot make reference to Article 16 SACU Agreement. |
|
|
Products:
|
5302.90: True hemp "Cannabis sativa L.", processed but not spun; tow and waste of hemp, incl. yarn waste and garnetted stock (excl. retted hemp) |
|
|
NTB-001-199 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-06-20 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has instituted a suspension on the transfer of grey cement and clinkers to its Western and Eastern regions. This action raises concerns as it disrupts trade flows and hinders the movement of these essential construction materials within the region.
Such a suspension could have broader implications for trade and economic cooperation within the region, affecting both producers and consumers. The measure may also contravene regional trade agreements aimed at facilitating the free movement of goods, as outlined in the East African Community (EAC) protocols, and could undermine the spirit of regional integration.
A review of this suspension is essential to ensure the continued trade of critical materials and to uphold the principles of regional cooperation.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.
The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States.
The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19. |
|
|
NTB-001-205 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2024-07-01 |
Uganda: Busia |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda's denial of market access of biscuit and wafers manufactured and transferred into Uganda by Sunveat Industries of Kenya. Reason being that wheat flour materials supplied by Kenblest LTD benefited from imported wheat under Duty Remission Scheme (DRS) |
|
|
Progress:
|
The RMC of 17th OCTOBER 2024 noted that the Republic of Uganda had written to the Republic of Kenya requesting some information that would guide them to make an informed decision but the letter had not been responded to. The Republic of Kenya committed to respond to URA on the information requested. |
|
|
NTB-001-220 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2024-07-01 |
Uganda: Uganda Revenue Authorities |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certificate of Origin Declined (Issues of RoO)
Uganda has declined to recognize the Certificate of Origin for chewing gum manufactured by Kenafric Industries transferred to M/S Glorre International Limited on concern that the manufacturing process does not exceed the provisions in Rule 7 of the EAC Rules of Origin, 2015. Kenya NMC suggests that the process involves the use of machinery and technical expertise. Therefore, the process of manufacturing chewing gum exceeds the provisions under Rule 7 of the EAC rules of origin. |
|
|
NTB-001-200 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-07-16 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets.
Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702.
However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible.
On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse.
As of today, the import license has still not been secured. |
|
|
NTB-001-201 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-07-16 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In June 2024, a member of Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited, entered into an agreement with a Zimbabwean company, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, to supply them with blankets.
Starting on July 11, 2024, Nuline Textiles Blanket Manufacturers Limited completed all the necessary procedures in Malawi to facilitate the export of blankets to Zimbabwe under the COMESA trade agreement to ensure they would receive preferential treatment. On July 16, 2024, the Export Bill of Entry No. E 3645 (dated July 15, 2024) was released by Customs in Malawi, and the consignment was loaded onto Truck No. NE 10666 / NE 10702.
However, on the same day, just as the truck driver was about to depart, Nuline Textiles received a call from their client in Zimbabwe, instructing them to hold off on the shipment. The following day, the client, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd, informed Nuline Textiles that the blankets required an import permit or license, which the client had not yet obtained. They assured Nuline Textiles that they were working to secure the permit as quickly as possible.
On July 18, 2024, Middlefield Investment Pvt. Ltd requested additional time to work on obtaining the import license and asked Nuline Textiles to offload the truck and return the blankets to their warehouse.
As of today, the import license has still not been secured. We request the Ministry of Trade in Zimbabwe to assist on this.
|
|
|
NTB-001-184 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-08-09 |
Zimbabwe: Forbes |
Zambia |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 10 August 2024, Zimbabwe imposed a requirement enforcing payment of duty on fuel in transit at the Port of Entry at all border posts ‘in order to secure duty and levies on fuel imported under Removal in Transit Facility’. Such duty and levies shall be recovered on acquittal at the Port of Exit. Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) advised that the payment of duty for fuel in transit was to mitigate against transit fraud. With effect from 10 August 2024 all fuel, petrol, diesel, paraffin and jet A1, in transit imported through ports of entry by road is now required to pay duty and levies on entry. The duty and levies will be refunded at the port of exit upon compliance with all the transit procedures, including submission of proof that the fuel has been exported. Consignee’s and/or their representatives should approach ZIMRA at the port of entry to initiate the fuel clearance and payment process. For the refund process, once the fuel has been exported, they should approach ZIMRA at the port of exit to initiate the requisite refund process.
This requirement increases cost of transport. The refund procedures are not clear, and the risk of delayed refunds is very high negatively affecting cashflows for transporters. Also this requirement is treating compliant and non-compliant transporters without distinction and is penalizing the transporters who have been compliant to the Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS) where the alleged abuse has been detected.
We therefore request The Minister to urgently reconsider improving this measure to facilitate movement of fuel at reasonable costs. |
|
|
NTB-001-190 |
2.4. Import licensing |
2024-08-30 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade |
Kenya |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I am writing to bring to your attention an important issue concerning the trade of Kenyan sweets. Recently, the government of Malawi has imposed restrictions on the importation of sweets from Kenya. This action has raised significant concerns, particularly because it appears to contravene the trade agreements under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), to which both Kenya and Malawi are signatories. Additionally, there is an entry for goods to be exported however the customer could not manage to import the goods. We are concerned on the potential impact on trade relations within the COMESA region.
The restriction not only affects our trade dynamics but also sets a concerning precedent for the implementation of COMESA agreements. It is crucial for us to address this issue promptly to ensure that regional trade agreements are upheld and that such trade barriers do not hinder economic cooperation and growth within our region.
We kindly request the COMESA secretariat to review the attached documents and consider the following actions:
Engagement with Relevant Authorities: Facilitate discussions with Malawian trade officials to seek clarification and resolution regarding the export restrictions.
Support for Kenyan Exporters: Provide guidance and support to affected Kenyan manufacturers and exporters to navigate this situation.
Advocacy for Compliance with COMESA Agreements: Advocate for adherence to COMESA regulations and work towards resolving any discrepancies that may arise.
Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. We believe that with collective effort, we can address these trade challenges effectively and reinforce the commitment to regional economic integration.
Thank you for your cooperation and support. |
|
|
NTB-001-206 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2024-08-31 |
Kenya: Kenya Revenue Authority |
Uganda |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya granted a lower tariff rate of 25% on alcohol imports from the United Kingdom under their Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), a move that contravenes the spirit of the East African Community (EAC) and the Common External Tariff (CET) framework. The CET for alcohol within the EAC region is set at 35%, and this preferential treatment for UK imports creates a significant inconsistency in the application of regional trade policies.
This action undermines the principles of the EAC Customs Union, which promotes uniformity in tariff application to enhance regional integration and fair trade among partner states. The granting of preferential tariffs to non-EAC countries could distort competition and negatively impact regional businesses, highlighting the need for adherence to the established CET structure within the EAC.
It is crucial for this issue to be addressed to uphold the integrity of the EAC trade framework and ensure equal treatment for all partner states in line with the objectives of the community. |
|
|
Progress:
|
On 20 October 2024, the EAC NTB Unit reported that the meeting noted that while it was true that Kenya signed an EPA with the EU. The Partner State was yet to commence trade under that agreement. The meeting was informed that there are modalities under which such goods shall be treated once they are imported into the Community and hence it shall become an NTB once trade starts and affects East African Partner States. There is no proof of an NTB as yet. |
|
|
NTB-001-197 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-09-11 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Ministry of External Trade |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) suspended the transfer of soft drinks and beer from other countries, citing that only products from nations with bilateral agreements will be accepted. This suspension directly contravenes the spirit of the East African Community (EAC) and its commitment to fostering free trade and economic cooperation among Partner States.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that limits acceptance of products to those from countries with bilateral agreements undermines the EAC's principles of regional integration and free movement of goods. It creates unnecessary trade barriers and hinders the seamless exchange of goods between EAC Partner States, which is fundamental to the EAC Customs Union's objectives.
Addressing this issue is critical to ensuring that all EAC partner States can trade without restrictions and continue to benefit from the shared economic goals outlined in the EAC Treaty. |
|
|
Progress:
|
DRC informed the RMC meeting of 17th October 2024 that the measure is temporary based on WTO Law on Safeguard measures and is meant to protect domestic industries.
The RMC meeting noted that even based on WTO Rules, DRC had not followed the right procedures for the application of the safeguard measures as there was no investigation done to show proof of serious injury or threat to injury caused to DRC factories by the excess transfer of drinks from other Partner States and there was no investigation done to establish the causal link between the closure of the factories and the transferred of goods from EAC Partner States.
The meeting further observed that DRC is a member of EAC and any safeguards measures taken should be per the EAC Customs Union Protocol Safeguard Measures stipulated under Article 19. |
|
|
NTB-001-202 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2024-09-16 |
Uganda: Elegu |
Tanzania
(Kenya) |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda through the Fisheries Protection Unit intercepted fish from South Sudan at Pakwach Check Point and Elegu One Stop Border Post, breaking seals and inspecting fish which is in transit to DRC, on the grounds that RSS is transferring immature fish that are not accepted in Uganda. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The RMC of 17th October 2024, noted that this act is against Trade Facilitation Laws on goods in Transit and urged the Republic of Uganda to respect the free movement of transit cargo and allow transit fish from RSS, Kenya and Tanzania to transit freely to DRC. Transit goods should not be subjected to TBT regulations under the WTO Agreement of Trade Facilitation and EAC Instruments.
The Republic of Uganda committed to follow up with relevant institutions to allow transit trucks carrying fish to go through Ugandan territory without any restrictions or interceptions in the Uganda territory. |
|
|
NTB-001-189 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-09-17 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade & Industry |
Kenya |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi Ministry of Trade & Industry has introduced a new regulation for imports of sweets. Our customer applied for Import Permit 3 times and each time it was rejected. Our customer has tried every possible way however he has not managed. Malawi authorities are not giving the reason in writing. They have informed our customer verbaaly that because of the shortage of forex in Malawi, their superiors have informed them that they are not to issue the Import Permit for sweets. Also, there is a local manufacturer already making sweets so there is no reason to import.
This action has raised great concerns, as it contravenes the trade agreements under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), to which both Kenya and Malawi are signatories.
We kindly request this issue be addressed promptly. |
|
|
Progress:
|
1. On 17 September 2024, Kenya reported that Malawi has introduced a measure that requires Kenya importers to Malawi should apply for a permit. Kenya was ready to comply with the new measure however her application has been rejected three times without any explanation.
2. On 25 September 2024, Malawi uploaded the measure which contains a list of products are are affected by the measure. and advised that since the regulation came into effect, the Ministry of Trade had issued several import licenses of Sweets to importers who applied and met all the necessary requirements. In this case, Malawi requested that Kenya importers apply for the licenses and follow all the necessary requirements. Malawi Focal Point clarified that the new regulation is not only for Sweets, but other products as well that are subject to import and export licensing.
3. On 20 October 2024, Kenya responded that their records showed that Malawi had not issued licences for applications applied since August 2024 when the new notice was issued. Kenya exporters and their clients in Malawi had applied and followed all necessary requirements and the applications were shared in August 2024 however, Malawi had not issued a licence as at October 2024. Kenya therefore requested Malawi to facilitate the issuance of the license to facilitate trade as the specific Kenya manufactured sweets for Malawi orders are stranded for the much-awaited licence. |
|
|
NTB-001-217 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2024-09-24 |
Tanzania: Kabanga |
Burundi |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS imposed by port health on borders. This case is for 2 borders : Kabanga and Mutukula with different dates: 24 September 2024 and 02 October 2024. |
|
|
NTB-001-204 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2024-10-01 |
Rwanda: Gatuna |
Uganda |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Rwanda is charging un harmonized flat rates for vehicles transiting through the Rwanda borders. This is against the agreed principle of distance x weight for transit vehicles.
Uganda is upholding the principle of distance*weight.
|
|
|
Progress:
|
The RMC of 17th October 2024 was informed that the NTB on discriminatory road user charges was considered by the 45th Council of Ministers which noted the following submission from Partner States:
The Republic of Rwanda informed the Council that:
a) The decision of TCM to calculate the Road User Charges based on weight and distance is discriminatory in nature. It favours big states and discriminates against smaller ones. In view of the above, Rwanda being a small state and landlocked as well cannot accept being punished based on its size.
b) The EAC Partner States had gone beyond this level by harmonizing fees and charges. The harmonization of charges, Levies and fees is ongoing. From 1 7 to 21 June 2024 in Entebbe - Uganda, the Community convened a regional meeting to identify and compile Fees, Levies and charges in Agriculture and Transport Sectors. The Republic of Rwanda proposes to continue in the same spirit of harmonizing charges and fees by putting in place flat rates.
c) That Road User Charges which are calculated based on axle load and distance should only apply to cargo trucks which originate from non-EAC Partner States i.e. SADC & COMESA Countries. EAC Partner States should enjoy equal benefits of regional integration by removing anything identified as barriers
d) That high transportation costs, including levies, fees, and charges, result in higher final prices, impacting businesses, trade, and end consumers, particularly in landlocked countries.
e) There is a need for the EAC to agree on fair and fact-based Road User Charges, not only focusing on micro-level factors like axle load/weight and distance but also considering other factors that favour all of us as a region
f) There is a need to do a study to determine the impact of the Road User Charges on the EAC economies.
The Republic of Burundi informed the Council that:
a) The bilateral meeting between the Republic of Burundi and the United Republic of Tanzania as directed by the TCM has not yet been convened by the Secretariat; and
b) They were still consulting on the matter.
The Council therefore observed that:
a) Road User Charges are intended for infrastructural development and maintenance, end-to-end facilitation of transportation, and not revenue; and
b) All the Partner States participated in the meeting of the SC TCM that adopted the proposals and recommendations of SC TCM on harmonisation of Road User Charges.
The Sectoral Council (TCM) Directed:
a) Partner States to apply the distance + weight (axles) charging principle;
b) Partner States that use flat rates to abolish them and adopt distance + weight (axles) charging principle.
c) Partner States to charge Road User Charges based on the following three categories of vehicles:
• Buses;
• Trucks of three or less axles; and
• Heavy Goods Vehicles of more than three axles (truck with a drawbar trailer or articulated vehicles/semi-trailers);
d) Partner States applying COMESA harmonised rates between themselves to continue doing so;
e) Partner States to reciprocate the distance + weight (axles) rates charged by counterpart states;
f) The Secretariat to prepare Terms of Reference for a study to review the existing Road User Charges and develop harmonised charging formulas to be applicable in the EAC;
g) Secretariat to mobilise funds for the study in (vi) above;
h) Foreign registered vehicles to be charged RUCs on the basis of a round trip from the point of entry to the destination and back provided the destination is within the country of entry;
i) Partner States to always display the gazetted RUC rates at all points of entry; and
j) Partner States to prepare a schedule of distances and their respective computed charges from their point of entry to various destinations within their respective territories and display them at all points of entry.
The Council directed the Secretariat to refer the Harmonization of Road User Charges in the Community back to the Sectoral Council on Transport Communication and Meteorology (TCM) for consideration and report back to the 46th meeting of Council (EAC/CM 45/ Directive 56).
As per the directives of TCM, there are two Road User Charges adopted in the Community.
(i) distance + weight (axles) rates
(ii) COMESA harmonised rates of USD 10 per 100 KM
The Republic of Rwanda committed to consult and revert during the 38th RMC. |
|
|
NTB-001-214 |
6.6. Border taxes |
2024-10-01 |
Tanzania: Rusumo, Mutukula, Kabanga |
Rwanda
(Burundi) |
In process |
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. |
|
|
Progress:
|
The United Republic of Tanzania submitted that Free Pratique is an internal health practice for taking samples, inspections, maintenance, vaccination, and sanitising at points of entry and exit. The fee which is charged once per vehicle per journey, is charged based on the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009 http://elibrary.osg.go.tz/bitstream/handle/123456789/1006/01-2009%20The%20Public%20Health%20Act%2c%202009%20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y and International Health Regulations 2005.
Free Pratique in the Tanzania Public Health Act 2009
Definition:
"free pratique" means permission for a ship or an aircraft to enter a port embark or disembark, discharge or load cargo or stores;
When is it granted:
Section 40 (3) Where the Port Health Officer is satisfied that -
a) a communicable or infectious disease is not on board;
b) The Responses on the Maritime Declaration of Health Form are negative:
c) the Ship Sanitation Control Certificate or Ship Sanitation Control Exemption Certificate is valid; and
d) there is no other reason for the ship to be further inspected he shall grant a certificate for free pratique and allow the ship to enter the port as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Act,
Section 43. Except in the case of danger, the Master of a vessel arriving at any port or place in the country and a person on board the vessel, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with the shore or any other vessel, other than by signal, until a certificate for free pratique has been granted to that vessel in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any other relevant laws.
Partner States expressed their concern on the discriminatory fee charged at Rusumo, Kabanga and Mutukula OSBPs only and is demanded on truck drivers without any service being provided to them. |
|
English
Français
