Active complaints

Showing items 81 to 100 of 102
Complaint number NTB Type
Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments
Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures
Category 5. Specific limitations
Category 6. Charges on imports
Category 7. Other procedural problems
Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding
Check allUncheck all		 Date of incident Location
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Reporting country or region (additional)
COMESA
EAC
SADC
Status
 Actions
NTB-000-830 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 2018-07-16 Botswana: Martins Drift Zambia In process View
Complaint: A Zambian Registered Tanker carrying sulphuric acid from South Africa was weighed at the Martins Drift weighbridge with the following axle masses: Steer axle - 5200 kg (legal limit 8000 kg); Drive axles - 18200 kg (legal limit 18000 kg); Trailing axles - 22800 kg (legal limit 24000 kg). Tolerance is 5% on an axle set or on GVM, in this case it would be 900 kg on the driving axle set. The weigh bridge official instructed the Driver to Park telling him that his driving axle was overloaded without the application of the 5% tolerance. It is observed that only at this weigh bridge there is no application of the 5% tolerance. In the spirit of harmonization South Africa, Zambia and Botswana the legal limits are the same with a 5% tolerance except at Martins Drift weighbridge. Kindly assist to resolve this issue at Martins Drift which is causing unnecessary loss of transit time and charges. Please note that this is not a one off incidence.  
Progress: 1. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that SADC has set up a Task Force to look into this matter among other NTBs.
2. On 22nd June 2020, Botswana Focal Point reported that they have contacted the relevant institution and they stated that they are still investigating on the matter and will give their feedback sometime during week 30 June - 4 July 2020 		 
NTB-000-823 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2018-06-01 Botswana: BURS South Africa In process View
Complaint: Botswana government is imposing daily double tax on imported alcohol beverages to Botswana. The motivation for imposing the excise and not imposing on local manufacturers is that local manufacturers create jobs and have manufacturing plant in the country. It is the Wine Industry submission that wine as a commodity cannot be manufactured in Botswana due to the weather conditions.
SA Wine Companies, pay excise in South Africa and do not expect to pay another excise in Botswana for the very same products. We appeal for the repeal of the Regulations to allow both local and importers to be treated the same. Locals have more competitive edge compared to importers. Furthermore, the methodology as per Regulations is different from what is practically implemented. Enclosed self explanatory email clarifying the differences. Botswana is in breach of the WTO GATT Agreement, Article 34 		 
NTB-000-818 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B42: TBT regulations on transport and storage 		2018-05-17 Botswana: Ministry of Transport South Africa In process View
Complaint: Failure to implement Article 5.8 (6.2 Road Traffic Policy) leading to variable treatment of the transport of High Cube containers with height exceeding 4.3 metres.

The transport of High Cube Containers, on “standard” deck height (1.5 metres) vehicles and trailers results in overall height of approximately 4.5 metres.
Botswana: Imposes requirement for abnormal load permits for each load.
South Africa threatens to repeal moratorium on prosecution from 1 Jan 2019
Other countries ignoring “illegal” height, but “illegality” leaves insurance threats to operators.
Zambia (4.8), Zimbabwe 4.65), Malawi (4.6); Tanzania (4.6) have increased legal height to at least 4.6 metres.
Uncertainty in region is causing growing concerns regarding viability of international transport routes amid fears of further enforcement costs and barriers. 		 
Progress: The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 in Gaborone reported that MCBRTA standards agreed at the TSMCI of 31 October 2029 maximum vehicle height of 4.6m which will resolve this NTBs if South Africa complies with this standard.  
NTB-000-803 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2018-02-28 Tanzania: Importation into Tanzania Malawi In process View
Complaint: CORI Ltd visited Tanzania last year to look for export markets for cooking oil in Tanzania. CORI was informed that the government in Tanzania does not promote/support importation and that Tanzania has a 15% surcharge on the importation of cooking oil.  
Progress: 1. The SADC Secretariat is advising the Malawi should provide additional information to assist resolve the NTB. Malawi was therefore requested to provide information on the origin of the goods or where it is manufactured and any other relevant information .
2. On 23rd June 2020, Malawi Focal point responded that the cooking oil is wholly produced in Malawi and therefore meets the SADC rule of origin for exportation into Tanzania . 		 
NTB-000-769 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2017-05-05 Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority Kenya In process View
Complaint: Despite Kenya Tobacco raw material being fully sourced in Kenya, the manufacturers are required to pay 80 per cent higher excise for cigarettes exports into Tanzania. Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco.  
Progress: 1. The Bilateral meeting that took place in January 2018 noted that Kenya and Tanzania need to harmonize their domestic taxes and local content policies and request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization in all partner states.The meeting also agreed that the two Partner States should take cognizance of the national treatment provision under Article 15 of Custom Union Protocol not to impose directly or indirectly internal taxation on goods from other partner states in excess of that imposed on similar domestic goods.
2.During the Bilateral Meting held from 23- 27 April 2019, both parties reiterated their 2018 commitments to champion harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies and therefore request the EAC Secretariat to fast track the process of harmonization. In this regard, United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol. The bilateral Meeting therefore agreed to escalate this matter to the Council of Ministers.
3.Status as at 13th September, 2019:
United Republic of Tanzania maintained that, both parties should implement the 2018 bilateral agreement on harmonization of their domestic taxes and local content policies. Kenya, however, maintained that this is a trade restrictive matter and should be resolved at the Community level in accordance to Article 15(2) of the EAC Customs Union Protocol.Both Parties Kenya and Tanzania agreed to handle the matter under domestic tax harmonization. A similar case was filed at the EACJ between Uganda and BAT where a ruling was given that the excise duty charged on cigarettes was contradicting the Community Laws and was Directed to withdraw immediately.According to Article 39 of the Customs Union Protocol, The Customs Law of the Community shall consist of: … (c) Applicable decisions made by the Court.Also the EAC Treaty Article 38 (3) provides that: A Partner State or the Council shall take, without delay, the measures required to implement a judgment of the Court.
EAC Secretariat should communicate and circulate the court ruling Partner States.
URT will consult internally on the court ruling and report to the next SCTIFI meeting on how they will implement the ruling.
4. The Regional Monitoring Committee held on 14th October, 2019 agreed that Tanzania gives an update during SCTIFI in November, 2019.
5.During the NMC held on 13th - 14th March 2020 Tanzania reported that a meeting was held to consult on the Court Ruling by the EACJ.The meeting noted that:
i) The charges are not discriminatory as they apply as well to Tanzania manufacturers who do not meet the 75% local tobacco content.
ii) The issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and Tanzania will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the next SCTIFI.
6.During the RMC meeting held on 1 September 2020, the Republic of Kenya requested that Tanzania implements the Court (EACJ) Ruling on BAT Vs the Republic of Uganda in tobacco.
7.During SCTIFI held in September 2020, Tanzania informed that the Ruling of the Uganda Vs BAT Case by the EACJ is different from the issues in this NTB. Tanzania further informed that the Domestic Law Harmonisation Policy was finalized and urged the EAC Secretariat to fast track the implementation of the Recommendations therefrom.
The Republic of Kenya recommended that the NTB be referred to the Ministerial Level for consideration.
The SCTIFI directed the EAC Partner States to implement the EACJ Ruling between Uganda and BAT and refrain from imposing discriminatory measures against the other Partner States, where applicable.
8. The Kenya NMC meeting that sat in March 2021 recommended that the EAC Secretariat clarifies on the similarities of the two cases on tobacco and submit to the SCTIFI for further consideration.
9.During the Tanzania NMC of April 2021, Tanzania noted that the issues in the BAT case are different from the issues raised in this NTB and will submit an official position on the EACJ-BAT ruling during the SCTIFI in May 2021.
10.The SCTIFI of May 2021, directed the EAC Secretariat to convene a meeting including legal experts to analyze the similarities and differences between the Ruling and the NTB. The meeting was convened and the analysis was done and resolved as follows:
Similarities
i) both cases are on tobacco
ii) both cases are based on excise duty
Differences
i) In the BAT case, the Republic of Uganda didn’t have a local content requirement in the Excise Duty Act whereas there is a local content requirement of 75% in the tobacco NTB (URT Excise Duty Act).
ii) In the BAT case, the Uganda Excise Duty Act was discriminatory in nature violating the Article 75 (6) of the Treaty and Articles 15 (1) (a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol as well as Article 6 (1) of the Common Market Protocol. Whereas Excise Duty rate applied by the United Republic of Tanzania on tobacco transfers from other Partner States is also applicable to domestic produced tobacco.
Way Forward
The two Partner States are undertaking bilateral engagements where the EAC Secretariat will also be invited to participate to resolve the issue. The bilateral meeting will take place on 30th October 2021 and the Republic of Kenya will initiate an invitation to the meeting.
11. Status as at 30 march 2022:
During the 6th Bilateral Meeting between Kenya and Tanzania the two parties agreed Kenya to convene a meeting to the find possibility to grant BAT a preferential market. Further, in the same meeting URT recalled its position that the matter is not a discrimination issue as other companies that do not meet the excise duty act requirement are subject to the same rules and the domestic taxes are not governed by EAC rules. In the 7th Bilateral meeting held on 9-12th March in Zanzibar, the parties agreed that Kenya (State Department for Trade and Enterprise Development) to convene the meeting of relevant stakeholders from both countries by 15th May 2022 to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market access by URT.
12 . On 14 June 2022, the EAC secretariat reported that the bilateral meetings took place and agreed that a meeting of relevant stakeholders is convened in May 2022 by the Republic of Kenya to deliberate on the possibility of BAT being granted fair market treatment.
13.The Bilateral meeting is yet to be convened as Kenya Government was in a transitional period.
14. On 17th October 2023, EAC Secretariat reported that the Kenya NMC was informed that the Republic of Kenya sent a letter to the United Republic of Tanzania to request a bilateral meeting and was still waiting for Tanzania to respond.
15.At the Session of Senior Officials of the 43rd SCTIFI, the Republic of Kenya committed to convene a Bilateral meeting with the United Republic of Tanzania to finalize the issues related to NTB No.769 on Tobacco by April 2024.
16.The NTB was discussed at the bilateral meeting of March 2024 in Kisumu, Kenya, whereby both parties agreed to convene a stakeholder meeting to resolve the issue, which Kenya would host by 30th April 2024. 		 
NTB-000-751 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 2017-05-01 Zambia: Ministry of Trade Botswana In process View
Complaint: Transporters have noted the many benefits of using Botswana as a transit instead of Zimbabwe. It is a well known fact that Zimbabwe borders are slow and congested, there are many tolls we pay (for no service), numerous road blocks (harrassment of drivers and lack of adherence to SADC appreciation of the Soveriegnty of Foreign COF's), high fuel costs and failing road infrastructure. The completion of the Kazungulu Bridge is a much anticipated event that will give transporters access to an efficient and cost effective transit to Zambia.

On the 11th November 2016, Zambia issued SI 85 of 2016, The Tolls Act in which the Second Schedule Section A and B outlines Entry Tolls for COMESA/SADC and other Countries. Botswana was not included under SADC and awarded tolls higher than other SADC States. On the 1st May 2017, Botswana retaliated by issuing an Amendment of the Road Traffic and Road Transport (Permits) regulations, 2017. Under this Amendment, tolls were increased and in turn, Zambian Transporters handed a hefty penalty. The result is that as a Zambian Transporter our Transit Fees through Botswana increased by 70%.

This makes the Botswana route unattractive and given the congestion at Kazungulu, we have had to run through Zimbabwe again. We are delayed here by congestion, delays in ZIMRA electronic sealing processes and run the gauntlet as described above.

Surely the whole idea of building the Kazungula Bridge is to improve the flow of traffic through Botswana and create economic advantage? With the increase in the tolls in a tit for tat manner, building the bridge is a waste of time.

Could the member States please meet and look at treating each other in the spirit encouraged by SADC. 		 
Progress: 1. On 11 January 2019, Zambia Focal Point reported that the two parties (Zambia and Botswana) are undertaking consultations on the matter in order to resolve the issue.
2. On 02 June Secretariat was advised to organise virtual meeting between the Focal Points to recommend way forward 		 
NTB-001-059 7.10. Other 2017-03-07 South Africa: Botswana New View
Complaint: A Botswana based company, MOTOVAC reporting challenges is struggling to get payment of its Value Added Tax (VAT) import refunds from the South African Revenue Services (SARS) in time. It is reported, VAT refunds are not processed by SARS. The outstanding payments date back as far as 2017 with the company owed BWP 3,528,278.07 in VAT refunds by SARS.

  
NTB-000-742 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B1: Import authorization/licensing related to technical barriers to trade 		2017-02-20 Uganda: Port Bell Lake port South Africa In process View
Complaint: Verification Agencies (SGS) apply standards that are higher than International accepted standards requiring additional tests and certificates which is of high costs. Additional tests include tests for copper, iron, manganese, lead and coliforms which are expensive tests adding to the costs of doing business. The additional tests last for a week in addition to the export process. The Agency offers Route B or C product registration. Product meant for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are tested once a year Route C is a security factory audit for wine export to the abovementioned countries  
Progress: This matter was brought to the attention of the Uganda Focal Points along the margins of the 23rd EAC NTBs forum on 6 May 2017 . Uganda private sector Focal Point reported that consultations had been initiated with the Ministry of Trade , Industry and cooperatives to try and resolve the matter amicably. They will provide feedback in due course .  
NTB-000-745 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 2017-01-19 Zambia: Kazungula Ferry South Africa In process View
Complaint: “SARS received an escalation in January 2017 from Deloitte, regarding a complaint by fuel exporters from South Africa. The complaint is regarding Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) Circular No. 9 of December 2016, notifying its officers “that all fuel imported from South Africa under preferential arrangements should be subjected to payments of a monetary deposit equivalent to the full customs duty payable.

The modalities of collection of the said deposit will be temporarily suspending both SSA and SDC preferential rates against goods of HS 2710.12.10 and 2710.19.10 until the Origin verification process is finalised”.

SARs is of the view that the collection of the monetary deposits on fuel imported from South Africa is against the spirit of the SADC Protocol on Trade and the WTO, as this treatment applies only to oil imported from South Africa. It pre-supposes that the ZRA is nullifying the SADC Protocol on Trade relating to those specific products without following the proper procedures regarding derogation on infant industries.

SARs has tried several times to get answers from Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) to explain their reasoning behind the circular and so far, they have not provided any correspondence to this matter. 		 
Progress: 1. On 25th January 2018, Zambia Focal Point reported that the deposit was a temporal measure pending origin inquiry. The inquiry has reached advanced stage and will soon be concluded and stakeholders will be fully advised on the way forward. This is consistent with the provisions of the protocol on trade which allow for collection of such deposits where necessary, while origin verification is underway.

2. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, Zambia reported that consultations will be undertaken with relevant authorities and report back.
3. During the 2nd Meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia reported that the 33rd Meeting of Ministers of trade held in Malawi from 4th to 9th July 2022 resolved that Zambia submit correspondence to RSA on readiness to grant preferential treatment for petroleum products from NATREF (Sasol, Total, Puma). Zambia has complied with the directive, hence no deposits on imports of petroleum products from RSA under preferential treatment is being collected 		 
NTB-000-725 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2016-11-01 Angola: Port of Luanda South Africa In process View
Complaint: Angola has Cumbersome and costly documentation and export/import requirements. The following is list of documentation required for a single consignment : i) 2x1 Original Bill of Landing; (ii)Original stamped and signed Commercial invoice; (iii) Original stamped and signed packing list; (iv) Analysis certificates if so required by consignee; (v) Loading Certificate (known as ARC or CNCA) PIP number prior to loading (required to do the pre-inspection) - not compulsory ; (vi) Voluntary pre-shipping control of merchandise (to be done at place of origin by inspector that issued the PIP number) Certificate of Origin( if so required by consignee) transport documents, full load container have to be sealed; (vii) letter from consignee nominating Orey as his forwarder agent; (viii) letter of responsibility from consignee to the carrier accepting full responsibility for demurrages and eventual container damages; (ix) copy of tax payer card of consignee; (x) Ministry of Commerce to issue license upon presentation of the commercial invoice; (xi) Ministry of Commerce to provide DU number, each invoice has different DU number.
The expected time frame is 72 hours (3 days) to get a DU number. CNCA certificate can only be issued upon presentation of the DU number for each specific shipment. Cost to produce DU number is 10 USD per invoice + Process DU (MINCO) FOB value 0.2%.

Costs
There is Fixed delivery and clearance rates in Luanda. Transport costs of 25% as from 15/1/2016, plus other additional chargers. Lab analysis costs 3000 USD per invoice. Analysis are mandatory to any imported edible goods, from water to beverages.

Delivery costs to Luanda per 20" + - 800 USD + 250 USD per night time delivery within city limits. overtime applies all the time due to restriction on delivery during the day due to traffic. Exporters are forced to pay incentives costs to EHO by OREY for DDP shipments. 20" => 150 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey, 40" => 170 USD if customs clearance handled by Orey.

Other fees charged are:
Shipment tracking & dispatch, BL Validation 160 per unit, Container deposit 1000 per unit
Delivery order 25 USD per unit. Port Tax 93.00 per unit, Wharfage 280.00 USD per unit, Tracking fee 100 USD per unit, Clearance transport and petties 350 USD per unit, delivery between Luanda /Soyo 3500.00 USD, return empty 400 USD per unit, transport between Luanda and Cabinda 11000.00 USD per unit, co-ordination 2.5% minimum USD 50.00. Consumption Tax of 5% service costs rendered in Angola. Taxes in all alcohol beverages is high 30% Cocktail 50% Ciders 51%

We believe this costs makes it difficult for investors to do business in Angola, most of them amount to tariff and non-tariff barriers we would like Regulators to review them. 		 
Progress: During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in may 2017, the Secretariat requested Angola to submit names of its Focal points to enable processing of reported NTBs. Angola reported that : (i) based on their research, the documents are necessary and that these are part of universal documents required for import permit. (ii) South AFrica was also imposing more cumbersome procedures than Angola as evidenced by the fact that the documents she require are the same as those required by Angola therefore this does not constitute NTB.; (iii) the Ministry of Trade is the focal point and there is a national secretariat for SADC through which all SADC Affairs are channeled ; (iv) . Angola was working on establishing the Trade facilitation committee after which focal points will be appointed; (v) she was in the process of revising its commercial legislation that considers trimming the number of import/export documentation; (vi) The ministry would undertake consultations with Ministry of Transport to simply the procedures . 3. In response, South Africa reported that consultations will be made to find out the reasons for the complaint. South Reported that she does not require numerous documentation.  
NTB-001-069 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 2016-09-15 Egypt: Chamber of Commerce Egyptian Embassy Ministry of Foreign Trade Mauritius In process View
Complaint: A number of procedural requirements are currently impeding the exports of Mauritian products to Egypt. To that effect, the concerned authorities in Mauritius have made enquiries with a registered trader in Egypt and it has been brought to its attention that for an exporter to start trading with an Egyptian importer, the following documents, duly certified by the Chamber of Commerce and approved by the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt, have to be submitted as per Ministerial Decree 43/2016:

i. A registration form by the legal representative of the factory or authorised person;
ii. A certificate of legal status of the factory and the issued license of the factory;
iii. A list of products of the factory and their brand;
iv. The brand of the product and the Trademark produced according to a license from the owner;
v. A certificate that the factory has a Quality Control System from a recognised body of The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) or from an Egyptian or Foreign Government body approved by the Minister of Foreign Trade.

The authorities in Mauritius consider that these procedural requirements constitute a Non-Tariff Barrier and in that regard contravene Article 49 of the COMESA Treaty.

We would appreciate that the authorities concerned in Egypt review these procedures in order to facilitate trade in line with the spirit of the COMESA Treaty.
  
Progress: 1. On 25th October 2022, Egypt Focal Point submitted the comments below : Ministerial Decree
No. 43 of 2016
Concerning the rules governing the registration of qualified factories to export their products to the Arab Republic of Egypt.The decree was issued with the aim of regulating the Egyptian market and protecting public health, in view of the recent spread of imported, finished products intended for sale to consumers directly in the Egyptian markets. These products are of unknown origin and do not conform to the technical specifications and requirements, which affect the general health of the consumer, as well as negatively impact the national industry, which is unable to compete with these products.
Text of the Decree
a. Decree No. 43 for the year 2016 issued that the registry (register) of companies and factories that own trademarks eligible to export the mentioned products in the decree to Egypt must be established at the General Organization for Export and Import Control (GOEIC). According to the decree, products imported for commercial purposes shall not be released unless they are produced by registered factories or imported from companies owning the trademarks or their registered distribution centers.
b. Goods and products to which the decree applies:
Decree No. 43 for the year 2016 specified number of goods that require the registration of their factories that export to Egypt in the records of the General Organization for Export and Import Control. Among these products are: “imported fruits, dairy products, sugar products, oils, carpets and floor coverings, clothing and furnishings, Home lighting appliances, home and office furniture, children’s toys, household appliances, chocolate, paper, and iron and steel bars.”
c. The decree does not include suspending or preventing the import of these products, rather it sets procedures to regulate their import through the registration of producers and trademark owners who are qualified to export their products to Egypt in the established record for this purpose in the General Organization for Export and Import Control. Once registered, the imported cargo will be released, and there is no need to register each cargo. Hence, the decree is for regulatory purposes to ensure the quality of imported products.
d. This measure was taken with the aim of protecting the health and safety of Egyptian consumers from goods of unknown origin. In addition, the World Trade Organization has been notified of this decree, and it is in accordance with the provisions of the organization, in particular, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Article (20) of the provisions of the GATT 1994.
e. The decree is applied on all countries of the world on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in compliance with a basic principle in the GATT agreement, which is most favored nation treatment. The decree is also in compliance with the principle of national treatment, which requires non-discrimination between procedures for national or imported products.
f. In order to facilitate and simplify the procedures, any country can submit a certificate provided by any Egyptian or foreign governmental entity proving that factory and company owning the trademark implements a quality control system. This certificate is considered an alternative to the quality certificate approved by ILAC or IAF, in implementation of the requirements of Decree No. 43 for the year 2016, which regulates the registration of factories eligible to export their products to Egypt, after the approval of the Minister of Foreign Trade.
g. Amendments have been made to this decree to facilitate the procedures to the stakeholders and avoid the obstacles they face in terms of time duration for registration or the need to establish a mechanism for submitting grievances and complaints, as is specified below;
Ministerial Decree No. 195 for the year 2022 amending Decree No. 43
Ministerial Decree No. 195 for the year 2022 was issued in March 2022, regarding the amendment of some provisions of Decree No. 43 for the year 2016, with the aim of amending the rules governing the registration of factories eligible to export their products to Egypt.
h. The amendment contributes to speeding up and simplifying the procedures for registering companies and factories eligible to export their products to Egypt, facilitating the importation and exportation of products, and setting specific time periods for registration.The amendment issued the cancelation of the third paragraph of Article (1) in Decree No. 43, stating the cancelation of registration by the Minister of Trade. The registration occurs as soon as the necessary documents are submitted. The relevant applicant shall receive proof of registration within a period not exceeding 15 days. In case of suspicion in the validity of the submitted documents, registration in the registry will not take place until these documents have been verified.
i. It is worth noting that registration is only done once, and companies wishing to export to Egypt must renew, only the documents with an expiry date, within a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of expiry.
j. The decree also added new paragraph to Article (2) of Decree No. 43 stating that “it is permissible to submit documents for registration through the embassies and consulates of the governments of the relevant countries”. Additionally, the decree added two new articles numbered Article 2 (bis) and Article 2 (bis1). Article 2 (bis1) states that “a committee shall be established by a Decree of the Minister of Trade, to follow grievances against non-registration or cancellation of registration. The grievance request shall be submitted to the Trade Agreements and Foreign Trade Sector to be presented to the Grievances Committee. The grievance shall be decided upon within a period not exceeding 15 days from the date of its submission, and the grievant shall be informed of the reasons for non-registration or cancelling of registration and the corrective actions that must be taken to re-register”.
k. Article 2 (bis) states that “Striking off /cancelling of registration shall take place through a decision by the head of GOEIC in cases of missing any of the registration conditions, and the decision will state the reasons for cancellation of the registration. A grievance of the cancellation decision could be submitted within 60 days of informing the relevant factory /company.In this context, Egypt affirms commitment to the rules and legislation regulating international trade, within the framework of its membership in the World Trade Organization, as well as our commitment to our membership in all the regional agreements, especially the COMESA countries, as one of the most important trading partners of Egypt.
2. The Secretariat facilitated a bilateral meeting between Mauritius and Egypt on 17 Nov 2022 to discuss resolution of this NTB in which Egypt informed the meeting that the decree had been amended and the procedures were simplified and therefore it was agreed that Mauritius advise their private sector to try and register again and report back should they face any challenges .
3. This matter was again discussed during the Workshop on Capacity building for Focal Points and NMC on 3- 6 April 2023 at which it was recommended that Mauritius provides feedback in the online system on the experience of their private sector when trying to register under the improved electronic registration procedures.
3. During the 3rd meeting of the NTBs Forum: i. Egypt informed the meeting that the new decree simplifies the documentation and registration procedures and provided the website that could assist in that regard and therefore the NTB should be resolved;
i. Egypt informed the meeting that the new decree simplifies the documentation and registration procedures and provided the website that could assist in that regard and therefore the NTB should be resolved;
ii. Mauritius requested more time to complete internal consultations with their exporters and provide feedback in the online system;
iii. In case a bilateral meeting between the two countries is necessary , Mauritius will inform Egypt also indicating the agenda for the meeting.
4.On 21st February 2024 , Mauritius submitted the following feedback from their consultative process with stakeholders:
The main outcome of the consultations with the private sector is that the NTB has deterred exports to Egypt. The exporters also highlighted that:
a) The process for registration of each shipment is cumbersome and time-consuming, whereby different approvals are required from different agencies;
b) The lengthy process will increase the lead time, thereby negatively impacting the competitiveness of our exports;
c) The requirement to provide a Certificate of Inspection/Compliance (from 3rd Party) or ISO 9001 certificate (for manufacturer) to Customs appears to still be maintained by the Egyptian Authorities;
d) They are already exporting to international brands based in Southern African, European and North American markets without the need to provide a Certificate of Inspection/Compliance (from 3rd Party) or ISO 9001 certificate (for manufacturer) to Customs; and
e) In addition, several of the key customers of Mauritian companies trust the internal Quality Management System of the company and have classified these companies as a ‘Self-approve’ manufacturer
5. During the NTBs workshop 17th - 19th April 2024 in Nairobi, NFPs requested for a bilateral meeting as Mauritius exporters continue to be affected by the requirements and the Mauritius NFP has updated their concern on the system.
6. On 22 August 2024, Mauritius requested for a bilateral meeting with Egypt and the bilateral meeting was eventually held on 27 August 2024. The meeting agreed on the following:
a. Egypt to review some requirements to take into consideration Mauritius MSMEs exporting to her market particularly those in the apparel sector.
b. Egypt to share the revised decree which is said to have more simplified requirements
c. In the medium-long term, Egypt to review the decree and introduce a Risk Management System (monitoring and surveillance mechanism) that will replace the decree
d. Egypt to share a Technical File with all the reviewed requirements by Tuesday, 3 September 2024.
e. On 5 September 2024, Egypt had not shared the Technical File and the Secretariat sent a reminder as the deadline for sharing the Technical File had already passed. 		 
NTB-000-718 8.8. Issues related to transit 2016-08-02 Mozambique: Beira Port Zambia In process View
Complaint: With reference to Resolved NTB-000-606, the matter is anything but resolved. We continue to experience attacks on our vehicles when using the Munhava Port Access. We have contacted numerous Security Companies in Beira to provide security for the vehicles, all have refused quoting the security situation. We have also been advised by other transporters that placing guards on the vehicles will only draw further action against the vehicles in an act of defiance/retribution. The Police do seem to be prepared to escort the vehicles, but we have no contacts nor tariffs charged. In the past week we have recorded 3 violent incidents.  
Progress: 1. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation, Mozambique reported that they noted the misbehavior by certain truck drivers sometimes they divert the trucks to inappropriate cites and are reported . Zambia has never reported those wrong doers and perpetrators. Mozambique requested Zambia to clarify the specific experiences. Zambia to provide feedback.
2. On 21 October 2021, Mozambique Focal Point reported thatRegarding this complaint, the Police of the Republic of Mozambique (PRM) is aware of the problem of robberies on trucks that travel through the Munhava District to access or leave the Port of Beira. In this section, trucks move slowly, allowing this type of incident to happen, especially at traffic lights. Aware of its responsibility to ensure public order and security, the Provincial Command of the PRM in Sofala has already made the hotspots with the highest number of robberies a priority when deploying the Police Force to conduct permanent patrols.
In order to improve security at these points, the Provincial Command of the PRM in Sofala is available to receive road transport operators and coordinate with them, either by conducting vehicle escort services or other legally provided security mechanisms. To this end, interested operators can contact the Provincial Command of the PRM in Sofala in the person of the respective Commander. 		 
NTB-000-689 8.6. Vehicle standards 2016-03-23 Botswana: All Border posts or entry points into Botswana by road South Africa In process View
Complaint: We have a problem in Botswana regarding the determination of Road User Charges at the border posts into Botswana.

The trailer manufacturers states the GVM to be 36 000 kg per unit (see attached vehicle registration papers)

This is the combined weight of the front and back link. However that is not what is reflected on the disc.

What it should say on the disc, is that the carrying capacity:

a) on the front link is 13000 kg.
b) The rear link is 23000kg.
c) The combined weight is thus 36 000kg.

We all know that it is not possible to carry 36000kgs on the front link and 36000kgs on the rear link. The axle configurations do not permit this to say the very least.

The problem arises on entry into Botswana at the border posts. They charge their road user fees per disc weight on the front and rear trailer.

therefore we end up paying for 36000kgs for the front trailer and 36000kgs for the rear trailer, this is 72 000kgs per unit.

To change the SA disc the following procedure will have to be followed.

1) W/bridge
2) Road worthy
3) Registration certificate
4) Certificate of compliance
5) Certificate model
6) Builders certificate
7) Ten days to change details of GVM per trailer.

a) It is very costly
b) it is very time consuming
c) it is not practical
d) It defeats the object of standardization and harmonization in the SADC region.

In this day and age where we are all trying to tighten our belts in order to survive, we can ill afford such additional costs.

This matter requires the urgent intervention of the focal point group in Botswana to address this matter urgently with the Roads Department in Gaborone, all relevant documentation pertaining to this case has been attached. 		 
Progress: This issue was discussed during the Botswana / South Africa Bi-National Commission, which was held in Gaborone in November 2017. As per item 3.2.2.1 bullet point number one (1), the Republic of South Africa was to formerly request for a waiver from Botswana on the matter, while South Africa is still sorting out the system that causes the problem. Botswana is still awaiting correspondence from South Africa to that effect. We kindly advice the South African Focal Point to consult the Department of Transport in South Africa for further clarifications.  
NTB-000-781 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2015-11-19 Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Goba (Road) Eswatini In process View
Complaint: An import surcharge is applie to all imported sugar (i.e. SADC and non-SADC) ased on the difference between Dollar-based reference price (DBRP) and the world marker price quoted on the New York #11 and London no.5 commodity exchanges for brown and white sugars respectively. The current DBRP is US$806 per tonne for brown sugar and US$932 per tonne for white sugar.  
Progress: 1. On 4th February 2020, Eswatini Focal Point expressed concern that there is no progress made in addressing this matter and therefore proposed that a bilateral meeting between the two member States be held either in Eswatini or Maputo so as to discuss and resolve this longstanding NTB. Eswatini suggests that the Secretariat facilitates the bilateral meeting and is therefore awaiting response from SADC NTB Focal points on way forward.

2. On 5th November 2017, Mozambique Focal Point updated that Mozambique is still working on the matter and a multisectorial team, which involves Revenue Authority (Customs and International Cooperation Directorate) and Ministry of Industry and Trade has been established to analyse the matter and the answer will be sent as soon as possible..

3. On 1st September 2017, Mozambique and Swaziland Focal Points reported that they are urgently following up with relevant authorities to assist the complainant . All efforts are being made to resolve the matter expeditiously. 		 
NTB-000-676 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2015-07-31 SADC Mauritius In process View
Complaint: The 2 stage transformation needed on clothing is too stringent as it stifles investment in manufacture of clothing due to economic reason and prices. Our company would want to invest in Bio organic fabrics. We invest in stock form India for knitted fabric jersey 100% but with this fabric we have issues to get the SADC certificate of origin as in the rules of origin it does not have 2 value added process. But we are a brand, we produce the garment here in Mauritius we do also the printing at our factory. Therefore there is two process, the cloth is cut here, and then printing.Please can our case be studied as we are a SME factory and for our survival we need to export to Africa. Can this case be study for the rules of origin be modified if the printing process is big part on the value of this product  
Progress: 1. During the 15th meeting of the SADC Subcommittee on Trade facilitation, the Secretariat reported that work is underway to review the Rules of origin. This matter was on the agenda of the next meeting on rules of origin for consideration.
2. On 7 July 2023, Mauritius Focal Point reported that Mauritius proposal is that negotiations would have to be undertaken on the review of the SADC rules of origin in order to have more flexible rules of origin for Textiles and Apparel under the SADC FTA
3. On 19 March 2024, Mauritius Focal Point recommended that more flexible rules of origin for apparel need to be negotiated at the level of SADC. A meeting on the review of the SADC rules of origin should be considered 		 
NTB-000-670 8.6. Vehicle standards 2015-05-08 Tanzania: Tunduma South Africa In process View
Complaint: Despite the passing and acceptance of EAC Vehicle Overload Bill of 2012, whereby it states under the Fourth Schedule s.5 (1) (c) - VEHICLE DIMENSIONS, AXLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS AND VEHICLE COMBINATIONS, that the maximum vehicle combination length permissible is 22 m and which includes and covers the South African designed and developed Interlink combination of 22 m maximum. Tanzania are still insisting on abnormal vehicle permits to be issued to these vehicles on entry into Tanzania at Tunduma Border Post at a cost of US $20 per entry or face heavy penalties including the impounding of vehicles if they are not in posesion of an abnormal permit.

This is in breach of the Bill which has been accepted by all EAC Member Countries including Tanzania and this policy needs to be revoked ASAP. 		 
Progress: Awaiting feedback from Focal Points  
NTB-000-662 8.8. Issues related to transit 2015-02-19 Mozambique: Weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor Zimbabwe In process View
Complaint: Zimbabwean truck drivers are now facing police harassment near the weighbridge at Matola on the Maputo corridor. The police are taking Zimbabwe drivers licence and their passports, supposedly to check the authentication of the driver holding the documents. The driver is released in order to go and off load and is briefed that the police will have an answer for him on his return.

On his return driver is told that the licence is a fake and the driver is to pay a spot fine of ZAR5000.00. It appears that the police are rubbing the metal disc with something, so that certain information is now very faded, and not legible. When the driver produces his international drivers’ licence, to confirm the validity that is taken away by police, who only return it after some hours, with the expiry date is now illegible. The ZAR 5000.00 rand fine is enforced. The language is a convenient barrier, as the police claim not to be able to speak English. All fines in Mozambique seem to be ZAR 5000.00.

Drivers are detained for days until they come up with some sort of cash ranging from ZAR400.00 upwards if they are lucky. This problem is more prevalent during weekends.

Please can we have a stop put to this practice? Defacing a Government document I believe is an offence, and should not be tolerated. Business is challenging enough as it is, without trade barriers being further forced upon the transport industry. 		 
Progress: During the 15th meeting of the SADC Sub Committee held in May 2017, the Secretariat reported that the SCCC made general observations on similar issues where receipts are not issued. SCCC recommended that border authorities should put measures in place such as hidden cameras etc to identify culprits. Member States will report on progress regarding the recommendation.  
NTB-000-530 8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory 		2012-09-10 Zambia: Zambia Bureau of Standards South Africa In process View
Complaint: This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Zambia is requiring all foreign tankers either delivering product to Zambia, or transiting Zambia, to comply with its Standards 371:2008 and 429-4:2008.
Furthermore, it is charging transporters to obtain a permit to certify that the tankers comply with the Standards. This requirement is affecting the free flow of goods into Zambia.

Zambia is requested to recognise the foreign vehicles national certificates of roadworthiness as it is difficult for Transporters operating tankers into Zambia to alter the design of their tankers at short notice.This is against the objectives of trade facilitation, will create monopolies and increase the cost of transport. 		 
Progress: 1. On 25 January 2018, Zambia Focal Point advised that the Zambia Bureau of Standards had taken into account the concerns raised. The standard (ZS 371:2008) is currently under revision to address concerns among other matters.
The matter had also been tabled under SADC in an effort to harmonize the standard in the region

2. During the 15th SADC Sub Committee on Trade facilitation held in May 2017, Zambia reported that this NTB had been resolved. However, South Africa Focal Point undertook to verify with complainant and provide feed back on the status.
3. The Meeting of NTB-Market Access Task Force 18-20 March 2020 reported that through SADCSTAN and Tripartite Transit Transport Facilitation Programme had recently agreed on the standard on transportation of dangerous goods which covers fuel tanks that will resolve this matter. 		 
NTB-000-479 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2011-12-30 Tanzania: Mtwara Mozambique In process View
Complaint: Impose Import Tax from Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development in Tanzania on raw seafood coming from Mozambique accompanied by SADC Certificate and all other relevant documents from Mozambican Authorities.  
Progress: 1. On 20th July 2013, SADC secretariat requested Tanzania Focal Point to provide progress report on this issue. Response is being awaited.

2. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Tanzania reported that the matter would be taken to relevant authority. 		 
Products: 0306.21: Rock lobster and other sea crawfish "Palinurus spp., Panulirus spp. and Jasus spp.", even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0306.24: Crabs, even smoked, whether in shell or not, live, fresh, chilled, dried, salted or in brine, incl. crabs in shell, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 0307.41: Live, fresh or chilled, not smoked, cuttle fish "Sepia officinalis, Rossia macrosoma, Sepiola spp." and squid "Ommastrephes spp., Loligo spp., Nototodarus spp., Sepioteuthis spp.", with or without shell and 0307.51: Octopus "Octopus spp.", live, fresh or chilled  
NTB-000-420 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2011-05-01 Zambia: Nakonde Kenya In process View
Complaint: Since early May 2011, one of our Association member companies(Bidco Oil Refefineries) product's(palm based cooking oil) has been stopped from entering the Zambian market by Zambia Revenue Authority with the reason that the product do not meet 35% value addition criteria as required under COMESA product on the rules of origin. Zambia government Authorities including the officials of the Zambia revenue Authority have visited in the past Bidco oil refeneries and confirmed that palm based cooking oils meets 35% value addition criteria. Kenya Revenue Authority had also in May did a fresh verification mission on the affected product which we understand was sent to ZRA. To date ZRA has not responded to verification report of KRA on the company's product and meanwhile the company continue incurring losses due to lost market share Zambia. Our submission is that Zambia Revenue Authority respond to Kenya Revenue Authority verification report and follow the laid down procedures in the COMESA Protocol on the rules of origin if the Authority is still disputing the fulfillment of 35% value addition in regard to the product. This is happening at the border points. The importer has now stopped importing palm oil cooking oils consignments from Kenya after dealer paid the CET rate of 25% instead of 0% and incurred very heavy loss.  
Progress: 1. On 16 July 2020, Kenya focal point reported that this issue was raised again during the recent 8th COMESA NTBs Focal Points meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
2. The TTFSC recommended to 40th meeting of Council of Ministers that the Secretariat compiles a record of Council decisions and all the interventions that have been undertaken to facilitate way forward and fast tracking of resolution of the NTB. The Secretariat will circulate the record by 15 March 2020.
3. During the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, Zambia Focal points reported that, with regard to the audit report by KPMG, had requested for additional support documents which have not been availed by Kenya. Zambia and Kenya bilaterally engaged during the NTBs focal point meeting and Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. Kenya further requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for.
4. The 2nd meeting of the COMESA Heads of Customs Sub Committee which met from 19-20 June 2015, noted that KPMG report had confirmed that Palm Oil from Kenya met the COMESA RoO and that KRA had written to its counterpart ZRA on 28 February as per recommendations of the extra - ordinary meeting of the COMESA Trade and Customs committee held on 9-11 February 2015. Zambia confirmed receipt of the required information informed the meeting that the issue was under consideration .
5. On 16 January 2015, Kenya Focal point reported that according to KAM consultant on edible oils, the NTB was discussed and an audit was carried out independently on Bidco by KPMG and communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International and COMESA Secretariat in 2014. KAM was advised that the audit found that palm oil exported to Zambia by Kenya had 40% value addition.KAM was now waiting for their edible oils KAM consultant to advise whether the exports of these products were receiving preferential tariff treatment in Zambia.
6. As at 26 September 2013, the COMESA secretariat was yet to provide progress report.
7. On 16th July 2013, Kenya Focal point requested Zambia to indicated progress made since their report to the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring & Eliminating Mechanism meeting and SMS Reporting Tool Launch on 9th and 10th April 2013 in Lusaka Zambia. At this meeting, the Republic of Zambia indicated that the bilateral meeting would be held within a month’s time from the date of this meeting. Kenya proposes that, in view of the delays in bilateral consultations, the COMESA Secretariat facilitates a meeting where they will act as an arbitrator in helping the two partner states resolve the NTBs and enable industry to benefit from the inherent market access for their products.
8.At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia,Kenya and Zambia requested the COMESA Secretariat to organise a bilateral meeting between the two countries in order to arbitrate between them. COMESA Secretariat was also requested to provide guidance on the proper interpretation of the Rules of Origin for this product.
9.On 1 November 2019, Kenya focal point reported that : As a follow up to the meeting of NTBs Focal Points held in Nairobi on 19- 21 August 2019, where Kenya and Zambia bilaterally engaged, Kenya undertook to follow up on the request for additional documentation. However, to do this, Kenya had requested Zambia to provide the correspondence in which additional support documents were sought for, to finalize on this issue. We are therefore kindly requesting for the same.
10. On 16 July 2020, Kenya Focal Point reported that this issue was raised again during the EAC- COMESA NTB Meeting held from 8th - 10th July, 2020, where it was agreed that both Parties to resolve the NTB. Kenya is therefore requesting the Focal Point from Zambia to provide the necessary information on the support documents required to be provided, so that our exports of cooking oil can continue to enjoy market access into Zambia.
11. On 25 February 2021, Zambia Focal Point reported that the issue is work in progress and the required information documents would be shared soon.
12. During the 1st meeting of the COMESA Regional Forum on NTBs which was held on 16- 17 March 2021, it was agreed that Zambia will send a request to Kenya within 30 days to submit cost structure of the inputs used to produce the final product (cooking oil) for determination of origin status under the value addition origin criterion after which a verification mission to Kenya will be organized.
13. On 30 July 2021, Zambia reported that, as previously submitted following the KPMG Malawi Audit report, not all components of value addition could be verified from the report due to the following:
i) Absence of raw material/blend mix to accurately determine actual quantities of raw materials used in the processing of a specific volume of crude oil.
ii) No documentary evidence to verify other operating costs such as water, electricity, spares and consumables and their source.
iii) No documentary evidence to verify labour costs.
In this regard, the value addition criterion as provided for under Rule 2 (1) (b) (ii) of the COMESA Rules of Origin could not be independently determined due to the absence of vital information.The outstanding information should therefore be availed in order to accurately determine the value addition of the oil produced by BIDCO.
14. During the 2nd meeting of the COMESA NTBs Forum, Zambia F reported that the 9th session of Kenya – Zambia Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation (JPCC) resolved that Zambia should write to Kenya to request for an appropriate date for another verification visit to resolve the outstanding matter. A letter was done to make the request for another verification visit.
15. During the Kenya National Workshop on development of a National Strategy on Elimination of NTBs held from 5-7 July 2023 it was agreed that the Secretariat to share with Kenya the request from Zambia for additional information which will be relevant as proof for satisfying the value addition origin criterion under the COMESA Rules of Origin. Please find attached the communication from Zambia. Further, the National Focal Point from Zambia, also requested for the additional information using this online system on 30 July 2021.
16. The Kenya and Zambia Focal Points submitted progress reports to the 3rd meeting of the NTB Forum held on 20- 22 September 2023 which it was agreed that both countries undertake verification missions between 27th and 30th November 2023. The Secretariat would provide support to Member States to undertake the activity.
17. During an NTBs Workshop 17th – 19th April, 2024 both countries agreed to a market access bilateral meeting as the verification mission has been overtaken by events and the palm oil manufacturer is no long operating. 		 
Products: 1511.10: Crude palm oil  
1 2 3 4 5 6
Contact us |  Related terms

Maintained by: Octoplus Information Solutions
African Development Bank
COMESA-EAC-SADC
COMESA-EAC-SADC