Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Active complaints

Showing items 81 to 87 of 87

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status New Complaint registered with REC In process Resolved Non-actionable	Actions
NTB-001-380	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees	2026-07-31	Zambia: Ministry Of Commerce	Botswana	New	View
Complaint:	BW transporters expected to pay combines border/road/toll fees in excess of $900 whilst other vehicles from neighbouring regions pay approximately $300. We are an exporter of Steel from Selebi Phikwe to Zambia at a rate of 1000+ tons that is 30+ trucks with planned demand increasing to 4000+ tons, this emplies cost differences up to $18,000 currently. This greatly inhibits Botswana transporters from uplifting our product significantly affecting our sales to Zambia.
Progress:	1. On 21 September 2026, the Secretariat sent reminder to Zambia Focal Point to indicate timeframes regarding undertaking internal consultations on to resolve the matter. 2. On 23 September 2026, Zambia Focal Point reported that internal consultations and meetings with concerned stakeholders were being undertaken during the weeks 25 September - 02 August 2026 after which way forward on the matter would be communicated to the Secretariat .
NTB-001-381	1.8. Import bans Policy/Regulatory	2026-08-05	Rwanda: Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (RFDA)	Tanzania	New	View
Complaint:	On 5 August 2026, the Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (RFDA) suspended imports and ordered the recall of certain spirit products from several East African Community (EAC) Partner States, including Tanzania. This action appears inconsistent with the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which allows products certified to harmonized EAC standards and bearing the EAC Quality Mark to circulate freely within the Community. The affected products have been certified by the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) and comply with the applicable EAC standards. If RFDA had concerns regarding their quality or safety, it should have followed the SQMT notification procedures before taking unilateral action. Tanzania therefore requests Rwanda to remove this non-tariff barrier and allow trade in the affected products to resume.
Progress:	During the 41st RMC, Rwanda reported that the matter arises from public health concerns and market surveillance findings. • Certain products were found to have regulatory compliance concerns. • Temporary measures were introduced to protect public health while investigations continue. • Public health measures are permitted under WTO and EAC frameworks when scientifically justified. • Any restrictions should be supported by scientific evidence Furthermore, Rwanda clarified that the measures taken were in line with main objective No 1 of the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which is “protect and improve the health and safety of consumers and the public in general”, and this agrees with Article 22(1)(c) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. Where urgent safety or health problems arise or threaten to arise. This decision was an emergency and temporary measure to protect public health and consumer safety following serious health concerns, including prevention of further potential harm to consumers after reported cases of illness and death associated with the consumption/use of the alcoholic spirits. The measures undertaken by Rwanda cannot be classified as an NTB as Rwanda “like products” were affected by the same measures. • Rwanda informed the RMC meeting that there are ongoing regional discussions regarding this matter. On 20 August 2026, the EAC Secretariat convened a consultative meeting attended by representatives from Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and the EAC Secretariat. They agreed on a couple of actions and way forward including Rwanda to submit scientific analysis as evidence. • Rwanda Therefore updated the meeting that the investigation is still ongoing and requested enough time due to the complexity of this issue on public health and that the scientific analysis as evidence will be shared to the Secretariat before the Next RMC meeting. The matter should continue to be addressed through relevant EAC technical and standards committees alongside NTB discussions.
NTB-001-384	1.8. Import bans	2026-08-05	Rwanda: Rwanda Food and Drug Authority	Uganda	New	View
Complaint:	SUSPENSION OF IMPORTATION OF SELECTED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY RWANDA On 5 August 2026, the Government of Rwanda, through the Rwanda Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), announced a temporary suspension of the importation of selected alcoholic beverages. The suspension has disrupted the normal flow of trade and trade-related activities between Rwanda and its trading partners, thereby creating a potential Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) to trade. The measure is also inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the East African Community (EAC) Customs Union and Common Market, particularly the commitment of Partner States to facilitate and promote the free movement of goods and enhance intra-EAC trade. The Government of Rwanda is therefore requested to provide clarification on the basis and duration of the suspension and to consider appropriate measures to ensure that any regulatory interventions are implemented in a manner consistent with EAC obligations and do not unnecessarily impede legitimate trade among Partner States.
Progress:	1. On 22nd September 2026, the Secretariat reported that ; during the 41st RMC, Rwanda reported that the matter arises from public health concerns and market surveillance findings. • Certain products were found to have regulatory compliance concerns. • Temporary measures were introduced to protect public health while investigations continue. • Public health measures are permitted under WTO and EAC frameworks when scientifically justified. • Any restrictions should be supported by scientific evidence Furthermore, Rwanda clarified that the measures taken were in line with main objective No 1 of the EAC Standardization, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing (SQMT) Act, 2006, which is “protect and improve the health and safety of consumers and the public in general”, and this agrees with Article 22(1)(c) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. Where urgent safety or health problems arise or threaten to arise. This decision was an emergency and temporary measure to protect public health and consumer safety following serious health concerns, including prevention of further potential harm to consumers after reported cases of illness and death associated with the consumption/use of the alcoholic spirits. The measures undertaken by Rwanda cannot be classified as an NTB as Rwanda “like products” were affected by the same measures. • Rwanda informed the RMC meeting that there are ongoing regional discussions regarding this matter. On 20 August 2026, the EAC Secretariat convened a consultative meeting attended by representatives from Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and the EAC Secretariat. They agreed on a couple of actions and way forward including Rwanda to submit scientific analysis as evidence. • Rwanda Therefore updated the meeting that the investigation is still ongoing and requested enough time due to the complexity of this issue on public health and that the scientific analysis as evidence will be shared to the Secretariat before the Next RMC meeting. The matter should continue to be addressed through relevant EAC technical and standards committees alongside NTB discussions. 2. On 24 September 2026, Rwanda Focal Point reported that Rwanda does not consider this measure to constitute an NTB. The suspension was introduced as a public health measure and was applied equally to the affected products produced domestically and those imported from partner states and globally. The measure was therefore not targeting any country or product in specific. However, Rwanda also suspended the manufacture and distribution of the affected products by local manufacturers due to the same public health concerns. Accordingly, the measure should not be considered discriminatory, as it applied equally to locally manufactured and imported products. Rwanda therefore requests that NTB-001-384 be removed from the NTB Regional Online Reporting System.
NTB-001-383	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2026-08-07	Burundi: Burundi Customs	Uganda	New	View
Complaint:	The Republic of Burundi, through the Surtaxe sur le Fer à Béton (SFB), is imposing a 10% surtax on imports from Uganda, particularly steel reinforcement bars with diameters ranging from 8mm to 32mm. The measure appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of the EAC Customs Union Protocol, particularly the following: • EAC Customs Union: Under Article 2(4)(a) and (b) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the EAC Customs Union, Customs duties and other charges of equivalent effect imposed on imports within the Customs Union are to be eliminated, while Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) to trade among Partner States are to be removed. • National Treatment and Non-Discrimination against EAC Goods: The measure is also inconsistent with Article 15 of the EAC Customs Union Protocol on National Treatment, which prohibits Partner States from applying legislation or administrative measures that directly or indirectly discriminate against like products originating from another Partner State. It further prohibits the application of internal taxation measures that impose a higher tax burden on products from another Partner State than that imposed on similar domestic products. Conclusion: The imposition of the 10% surtax may constitute a Non-Tariff Barrier to intra-EAC trade and appears to undermine the principles of the EAC Customs Union, particularly the principles of free movement of goods, national treatment and non-discrimination among Partner States.
NTB-001-382	2.9. Issues related to transit fees	2026-08-24	South Africa: Maseru Bridge	Lesotho	In process	View
Complaint:	Members of CBW-Africa Lesotho Chapter, a group of Women are travelling to Botswana to participate in an Expo each one carrying different products - ranging from cosmetics to herbs and spices, for exhibiting at the expo, and give out as samples as necessary. We have faced a challenge whereby the clearing agent informed the group that we will need to pay R5000 as what she referred to as 'security bond', in addition to the 15% VAT we would have to pay at the Botswana border. As micro enterprises, we don't have these kind of funds, as we are already bootstrapping. This requirement for a M5000 security bond at the SA border therefore represents a barrier to us for accessing the potential intra-Africa trade benefits we are anticipating from our attendance of the Otshwereng Expo. We stand to lose immediate revenue from the Expo and future revenue-earning potential and trade linkages because we are not going to be able to raise this R5000 required by South Africa from us to transit to Botswana through their country. We are therefore requesting for a speedy resolution of our plight.
Progress:	On 25th August 2026, Botswana Focal Point advised that the reported VAT and R5,000 security bond are South African customs requirements and are therefore not charges imposed by Botswana. For goods being brought into Botswana for exhibition purposes, there is a provision for a temporary admission of qualifying goods, including commercial samples owned abroad and imported for the purposes of being shown or demonstrated at an exhibition in Botswana. To benefit from the applicable exemption/temporary admission facility, the exhibitors should write to the Director, Department of Trade Development in advance, providing details of the products and clearly stating that the products are being brought into Botswana solely for exhibition, display or demonstration purposes. The exhibitors should ensure that the goods are not intended for commercial sale and comply with the applicable temporary admission requirements. Please note that Botswana’s standard VAT rate is 14%.
Products:	0910.9: - Other spices :, 1901.90.90: -- Other, 3304.9: - Other :, 0902.10: Green tea in immediate packings of <= 3 kg and 2007.99: Jams, jellies, marmalades, purées or pastes of fruit, obtained by cooking, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excl. citrus fruit and homogenised preparations of subheading 2007.10)
NTB-001-389	2.6. Additional taxes and other charges	2026-09-04	South Sudan: State Revenue Authority	Uganda	New	View
Complaint:	South Sudan – Reintroduction of Stamp Duty and Fire Safety Fees The Government of the Republic of South Sudan, through the State Revenue Authority, has resumed the collection of stamp duty and fire safety fees from traders. The reintroduction of these charges has increased the cost of conducting cross-border trade and may adversely affect traders engaged in commercial activities between Uganda and South Sudan. The measure raises concerns regarding its consistency with the EAC integration framework, particularly the commitment to facilitate trade and promote free movement of goods among Partner States. The imposition of additional charges on traders has the potential to restrict market access, increase the cost of doing business and impede the development of intra-EAC trade.
Progress:	Upon submission of the complaint, Uganda requested that the matter be raised through the appropriate EAC NTB and bilateral mechanisms to seek clarification on the basis of the charges and assess their conformity with applicable EAC commitments, with a view to securing their removal or harmonisation where appropriate.
NTB-001-400	4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures A9: SPS measures n.e.s.	2026-09-25	Namibia: all borders	Namibia	New	View
Complaint:	Following the FMD outbreak in Namibia, Veterinary Public Notification No. 15 of 2026, announced the “Suspension of imports, exports and in-transit of all cloven-hoofed animals and their raw products.” Despite this notification specifically referring to raw products, Namibian exporters of fully tanned&processed leather are currently prohibited from exporting unless they provide written confirmation from the competent authorities of each importing country that finished leather from Namibia remains permissible. This restriction has already caused economic losses for Namibian leather exporters, resulting in short-time arrangements, layoffs and an increasing risk of permanently losing established international customers to alternative suppliers. Unless resolved urgently, the continued disruption threatens to cause irreversible damage to the Namibian leather industry, undermining years of market development, export competitiveness and employment. Although Section 13(7) of the Animal Health Act provides that a veterinary health certificate is not required where the competent authority of the importing country does not require one, subject to the exporter providing written proof thereof, a more fundamental question remains: On what legal basis is finished leather subjected to vet. export controls intended for animal products particularly when the importing country itself does not impose equivalent veterinary requirements? The responsibility for obtaining these government-to-government confirmations has effectively been placed on the private sector, requiring the Namibian leather industry to approach the authorities of every country to which it exports. On what legal basis is fully tanned and chemically processed leather being classified as a "raw product" under the current FMD restrictions, particularly when it has undergone extensive industrial processing and is fundamentally distinct from untreated hides and skins?
Products:	4107.1: -Whole hides and skins :

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Active complaints