| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-592 |
6.2. Administrative fees |
2013-05-27 |
Mozambique: Posto Fiscal de Calomue |
Malawi |
Resolved
2013-09-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
administrative charges - transporter was requested to pay 10US$ memorandum of understanding fees |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
However, on 05 June 2013, Mozambique focal point advised that all the vehicles transporting merchandise to Calómue frontier, and others are subject to following payments:
1. On transit, revenue authorities shall cover for one Transit Memo the value of 550, 00 MT. Therefore, Custom Affairs would not collect additional funds.
2. On imports, competent memo is emitted with the stamp that guides the clerk driver to a Tete Customs Affairs, to follow-up the process of customs clearance.
The value of 10 000 meticais being paid by the complainant could possibly refer to fees paid to a customs broker. Therefore, Mozambique requested complainant to provide statements specifying who was responsible for this charge, and present the actual payment receipt, or other document that to enable further action on this issue.
As at 26 September 2013, complainant had not submitted proof of payment as per request from focal point Mozambique, so that Mozambique could introduce some measures to resolve the particular complaint. This complaint is therefore considered resolved on grounds that the response by Focal Point could have adequately answered the query. |
|
|
NTB-000-590 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-05-16 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-03-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURE FOR ESCORTING VEHICLES, BY MOZAMBIQUE CUSTOMS
Mozambique customs at Beira should only require the escorting of vehicles between Beira and Machipanda, and return, under special circumstances, eg abnormal or high value loads. The decision to call for escorts is made by the head of customs in Beira.
However, the escorting process is not efficient and reasonable, viz:
• Escorting is called for randomly and often for trucks carrying normal cargo such as tobacco and sugar
• The escorting fee is high at USD100 per truck
• Delays are caused whilst customs waits for 3 or more trucks to be escorted together. Or they may wait until the next day to suit their convenience
• Often, a customs officer does not even travel with the vehicles, but goes in a separate vehicle to take the documents to the next check point. On occasion, the trucks have to wait at the next check point because the officer is not there with the documents
• It is suggested that the escorting fees are merely split up between the various officers.
Escorting should not be necessary since transit bond guarantees are in place and the route between Beira and Machipanda is simple, direct and short. Furthermore, there are several check points along the route. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Mozambique Revenue Authority clarified that the referred escort fee of USD 100 was illegal. Mozambique Revenue Authority issued the Circular nº09/GD/DRC/2013, of 1st July, that has been published in all customs branches, and also uploaded onto the online system which states in summary that:
• The Fiscal Escort happens only and uniquely in the case of customs transit of high risk merchandise in terms of loss of revenue.
• In this case, Mozambique Revenue Authority will have to support the Escort expenses.
• It is prohibited to collect any values and deductions when this Escort is determined by customs. |
|
|
NTB-000-587 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-04-01 |
Mozambique: Beira Port |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Various exporter/importers in Zambia , Zimbabwe , Malawi are facing current challenges with Mozambique customs Authorities , whom I believe are part of the SADC grouping . We request SADC secretariat intervention as SADC to salvage the situation which has seriously affected clearance of goods at the following border posts/ports Machipanda , Nyamapanda , Mwanza and Beira Port
The Complaint :
Zimbabwe German Graphite , Samrec Vermiculite ,Zimbabwe Alloys , William Over , Carnaud Metal Box, Zam Beeef , Unicef Containers have stayed in Beira port for a full month , Cornelder the port authorities are charging huge storage bills which in some cases would out weight the value of the cargo . We have had stakeholders meetings with both customs & Cornelder in Beira but Customs have not accepted any responsibility whilst Cornelder insists on collection of storage.
Shipping lines have also placed Freight Forwarders and transit agents on notice for line demurrage as the empties have exceeded their free period but still full inside the port
Some cargo has expiry dates / short life span like photographic material – will get damaged still in port as the documents are still a mission to be processed by customs
Ships / Vessels are going back empty as the cargo ( exports ) can not be loaded before clearance is done – most minerals from Zambia , Zimbabwe and tobacco from Malawi has been affected as the sailing dates are now one month behind and risk order cancellations
Zimbabwe , Zambia and Malawi are now at the verge of losing millions of dollars on these shipments currently stuck in Mozambique some of which are seasonal goods Mozambique
This problem arose because Mozambique customs introduced an electronic clearing system the single window electronic concept – to migrate from manual processing of entries from 01.04.2013 Coupled to it they also introduced the transit bonds registration and the bonds were to be managed electronically like the Zimbabwe/ Zambia situation
The bonds were requested for all of a sudden and the processes are quite long takes at least ….. (number of )weeks during which cargo was coming into Beira and got stuck and at Machipanda , Nyamapanda & Mwanza land borders to Mozambique
? The Single window concept itself has serious setbacks like it relies on network for connectivity which failed daily and could be own for days at outside ports like Machipanda , Nyamapanda , Mwanza , trucks pile at for weeks before any solution has been in sight
? Customs staff at Machipanda , Nyamapanda & Mwanza border post appear inadequately trained to use the new system as a result smaller queries take one to two days to be resolved , Machipanda & Nyamapanda seems to have have inadequate equipment
All the Despachantes were only given one access code per organization which affected the entry processing badly with documents piling as vessels arrived inland and that even for imports from other regional countries , are initiated from Customs in Beira to give reference numbers called Contra Marcas in order to proceed with the clearances
Alfandega had no fall back method in place as they refused to use the manual method to clear the backlog
Request to Mozambique,
1. Mozambique Ministry of Finance is requested to get customs to consider a parallel system to run with the electronic single window programme to clear the backlog in Beira port now and also consider providing release against Report orders to reduce further downtime in port . This will be a stop gap measure until the customs staff are well versed , fully trained and that the new system can work well
2. Mozambique authorities to facilitate arrangements with Cornelder to consider waiving storage for this special situation or at least offer 75% credit on the bills due which I must say are now astronomical based on the days the cargo has stayed in port both imports and exports
3. Mozambique authorities to facilitate arrangements with shipping lines to consider waiving completely the demurrage due on the empty containers or at least give say 15-21 more days grace period before demurrage starts accruing
4. Mozambique authorities to facilitate arrangements that Mozambique customs get technical assistance to assist roll this new programme out without causing huge catastrophies like this
We trust that our request make sense and look forward to getting your valuable assistance |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 11th September 2013, Mozambique Focal Point reported that the alleged NTB´s related to the transit procedures in Mozambique, were removed, through the approval of Ministerial Diploma nº 116/2013 of 8th of August, which approves the Norms and Specific Principles to be taken into account in the implementation of Customs Transit of Goods. This Ministerial Diploma repeals the Ministerial Diploma nº 307/2012, of 15 of November.
Pursuance to reaching a common understanding on this matter, FCFASA members in Malawi reported that CAFAAM Executive Committee Members together with Malawi Revenue Authority, Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Transport and Executives from Malawi, travelled to Cuchamano and Nyamapanda to appreciate the various challenges (delays, costs, etc.) which came about as a result of the new transit procedures introduced in Mozambique in April 2013. The delegation met with Mozambique customs , Beira , Port authorities and had an opportunity to interact with Mozambican Clearing and Forwarding Agents and some Malawian drivers during the launch of the Diploma nº 116/2013 of 8th of August.
The delegation reported:-
1. It was agreed that the new Transit Bond Procedures in Mozambique are in line with international practice and appreciated the fact that in the absence of these procedures, a lot of traders were smuggling goods into Mozambique under the guise of “transit cargo”.
2. Mozambican Clearing agents had been given adequate notice to put in place the required bond guarantees although they were not ready by implementation date.
3. The general consensus was that the conditions (e.g. the required collateral) set up by banks, insurance companies and the authorities themselves for setting up the transit bond guarantees were too tough to be met by transporters and forwarding agents.
4. To this end, the Mozambican Government’s had exempted some products (tobacco, tea, sugar, cotton, etc.) from monetary bonding and reduced bond values from 100% on containerized cargo to 20% or 35% on break-bulk cargo. This measure would reduce pressure on the available bond levels for other cargo not exempted.
5. That there was need to license more “Despachantes” to speed up clearance procedures or alternatively, allow forwarding agents to be doing own customs clearing of cargo which they are moving.
6. There was need for Station Managers at the various borders to be taking stock of trucks available at the borders every day and talk to drivers who have stayed at the border for more than a day to encourage them to proceed with their journey so as to minimise the prevalent corrupt practices by some customs officers, guards, clearing agent.
7. A proposal to set up a “Help Desk” at the borders to achieve transparency and quarterly meetings between the various players at senior level.
8. Joint border training sessions between customs and other authorities and clearing & forwarding agents to be enhanced.
9.That various customs authorities establish a deliberate policy for Accrediting Clearing agents based on an exhaustive Risk assessment of each one of the agents and track record in order to “smoke out” fraudulent clearing and forwarding agents who cheat importers or assist them with smuggling practices,.
10. That Mozambican authorities should endeavor to translate and display the various rules and regulations into English to enable none Portuguese speaking people to understand the applicable regulations.
11.Mozambique customs advised that:
a. Clearing Agent need to quickly do a Supplementary Entry if there are any changes to a declaration (e.g. amending border of exit, amending values or quantity of goods, etc.) to avoid truck delays at the border or bond acquittals being blocked.
b. Once CORRECT documents are lodged and payment effected, their processing time is up to 3 hours only.
c. They would as far as possible, be rotating their staff to avoid corruption if they familiarize themselves too much to one border station. |
|
|
NTB-000-585 |
8.8. Issues related to transit
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-04-29 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Zobwe |
Malawi |
Resolved
2013-09-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
New transit procedures are causing a lot of delays in the clearance of transit cargo through Mozambique Ports. According to the new transit procedures, Malawian transporters /clearing agents are requested to make cash deposits bond requirements to the Mozambican customs at the borders or prior to transit clearance at the Port of discharge to Malawi and other neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe, Zambia, among others. According to Mozambique, the requirement is made because transit goods end up disappearing within Mozambique and their Government lose a lot of revenue. In addition to that, customs clearing and Forwarding Agents need to undergo re-registration formalities.
The major problem about these issues is that most Malawian businesses were not aware and there is a crisis at the borders with a lot of Malawian trucks that cannot clear. Even on the part of Mozambican customs they are also learning the new system. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 11th September 2013, Mozambique Focal Point reported that the alleged NTB´s related to the transit procedures in Mozambique, were removed, through the approval of Ministerial Diploma nº 116/2013 of 8th of August, which approves the Norms and Specific Principles to be taken into account in the implementation of Customs Transit of Goods. This Ministerial Diploma repeals the Ministerial Diploma nº 307/2012, of 15 of November.
Pursuance to reaching a common understanding on this matter, FCFASA members in Malawi reported that CAFAAM Executive Committee Members together with Malawi Revenue Authority, Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Transport and Executives from Malawi, travelled to Cuchamano and Nyamapanda to appreciate the various challenges (delays, costs, etc.) which came about as a result of the new transit procedures introduced in Mozambique in April 2013. The delegation met with Mozambique customs , Beira , Port authorities and had an opportunity to interact with Mozambican Clearing and Forwarding Agents and some Malawian drivers during the launch of the Diploma nº 116/2013 of 8th of August.
The delegation reported:-
1. It was agreed that the new Transit Bond Procedures in Mozambique are in line with international practice and appreciated the fact that in the absence of these procedures, a lot of traders were smuggling goods into Mozambique under the guise of “transit cargo”.
2. Mozambican Clearing agents had been given adequate notice to put in place the required bond guarantees although they were not ready by implementation date.
3. The general consensus was that the conditions (e.g. the required collateral) set up by banks, insurance companies and the authorities themselves for setting up the transit bond guarantees were too tough to be met by transporters and forwarding agents.
4. To this end, the Mozambican Government’s had exempted some products (tobacco, tea, sugar, cotton, etc.) from monetary bonding and reduced bond values from 100% on containerized cargo to 20% or 35% on break-bulk cargo. This measure would reduce pressure on the available bond levels for other cargo not exempted.
5. That there was need to license more “Despachantes” to speed up clearance procedures or alternatively, allow forwarding agents to be doing own customs clearing of cargo which they are moving.
6. There was need for Station Managers at the various borders to be taking stock of trucks available at the borders every day and talk to drivers who have stayed at the border for more than a day to encourage them to proceed with their journey so as to minimise the prevalent corrupt practices by some customs officers, guards, clearing agent.
7. A proposal to set up a “Help Desk” at the borders to achieve transparency and quarterly meetings between the various players at senior level.
8. Joint border training sessions between customs and other authorities and clearing & forwarding agents to be enhanced.
9.That various customs authorities establish a deliberate policy for Accrediting Clearing agents based on an exhaustive Risk assessment of each one of the agents and track record in order to “smoke out” fraudulent clearing and forwarding agents who cheat importers or assist them with smuggling practices,.
10. That Mozambican authorities should endeavor to translate and display the various rules and regulations into English to enable none Portuguese speaking people to understand the applicable regulations.
11.Mozambique customs advised that:
a. Clearing Agent need to quickly do a Supplementary Entry if there are any changes to a declaration (e.g. amending border of exit, amending values or quantity of goods, etc.) to avoid truck delays at the border or bond acquittals being blocked.
b. Once CORRECT documents are lodged and payment effected, their processing time is up to 3 hours only.
c. They would as far as possible, be rotating their staff to avoid corruption if they familiarize themselves too much to one border station. |
|
|
NTB-000-583 |
6.7. Other |
2013-03-26 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kariba border post, Zimbabwe. Imports from Zambia; one truck carrying two imports from Zamleather for two different Zimbabwean companies. VAT paid in Harare and transferred to Kariba by ZIMRA. ZIMRA system has IT problem and duty of 5% was to be charged. Protest was lodged and ZIMRA advised that there is no duty because of the Comesa certificates. A day went by and we were then advised that our one shipment had been cleared: with 2% duty. We were informed that there were new acts passed and duty was now applicable. I could find no record of this and refused to pay extra duty in order to clear the VAT and duty now short on the second shipment. ZIMRA Harare advised that this was an IT issue and they were working on it. Third day begins and Kariba say no way to clear shipment without duty being paid. Harare advise Kariba to raise manual IM4 entry, Kariba say the duty is still payable. We are now going into the weekend and I cannot see my truck being cleared until Monday. I have had this issue before in a slightly different context where ZIMRA took duty paid for a shipment on its way to correct an IM4 done the prior month. No notification was given and it took 6 months for my claim to be accepted and the US$ 5703 to be refunded. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30th July 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the consignments were eventually cleared manually (i.e. outside the Asycuda System) and allowed under the COMESA Free Trade Area (FTA) at Rates of duty 0% as Zambia is party to the COMESA (FTA). ZIMRA would continue to clear such similar consignments manually until such time Kariba customs migrates from Asycuda ++ to Asycuda World and the clearance will be done in the system. The client will not be inconvenienced by the use of either of the two clearing systems. |
|
|
Products:
|
3403.11: Textile lubricant preparations and preparations of a kind used for the oil or grease treatment of leather, furskins or other material containing petroleum oil or bituminous mineral oil (excl. preparations containing, as basic constituents, >= 70% petroleu and 6403.40: Footwear, incorporating a protective metal toecap, with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather (excl. sports footwear and orthopaedic footwear) |
|
|
NTB-000-582 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-03-18 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs charging duty on STR goods which are exempted from paying duty under the Comesa Simplified Trade Regime |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30 July 2013, Zimbabwe Focal point confirmed ZIMRA report that Zimbabwe does not charge customs duty on goods that qualify under STR if the goods have been properly declared as per the requirement. It should however be taken into cognizance that Import Value Added Tax (VAT) at a rate of 15% is payable. Also where the importer does not have a Tax Clearance Certificate (ITF 263) Presumptive Tax at a rate of 10% of the Value of the goods being imported is payable. Clearance under STR is limited to a consignment of us$1000. If the consignment exceeds the US$1000 duty is paid on the excess
List of goods which qualify under STR are displayed at the respective Border Posts. Furthermore TIDOs are placed at the respective Border Posts to assist persons importing such goods understand the clearance procedures. |
|
|
Products:
|
5402.11: High-tenacity filament yarn of aramids (excl. sewing thread and yarn put up for retail sale) |
|
|
NTB-000-580 |
8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) |
2013-04-17 |
Rwanda: Rusumo |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2014-07-02 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of parking facilities at Rusumo Border Post is creating congestion and clearance delays. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA reported that there were initiatives to improve this border post and so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-578 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2013-04-13 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs at kariba Border Post seized my goods: 12 off klorpoder 25 kg and 28 off micromatic plus all cleaning powders claiming that the prices on the invoice are not true. Invoice price for Micromatic was at $3 & $3.50 for klorpowder which are manufactured by Nemchem Zimbabwe .These prices can be verified with manufacturer, Contact Nemchem at + 263 774017418 |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 12 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that, the goods were seized in accordance with the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which provides that an officer may seize any goods which he has reasonable grounds for believing are liable to seizure. The Act empowers the Commissioner to either unconditionally or subject to such conditions, whether as to the payment of a fine, order the release of any such goods from seizure or declare them forfeited. The client is therefore advised to make the required representations for possible release of the seized goods and submit them to the office though which the goods were seized stating all the facts relating to the seizure. Any decisions made can be appealed against up to until they reach the Commissioner-Generals office or even the courts to ensure transparency |
|
|
NTB-000-578 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2013-04-13 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs at kariba Border Post seized my goods: 12 off klorpoder 25 kg and 28 off micromatic plus all cleaning powders claiming that the prices on the invoice are not true. Invoice price for Micromatic was at $3 & $3.50 for klorpowder which are manufactured by Nemchem Zimbabwe .These prices can be verified with manufacturer, Contact Nemchem at + 263 774017418 |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
he Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) provides that an officer may seize any goods which he has reasonable grounds for believing are liable to seizure. On the other hand the same Act empowers the Commissioner to either unconditionally or subject to such, conditions whether as to the payment of a fine, order the release of any such goods from seizure or declare them forfeited. The client is therefore advised to make the required representations for possible release of the seized goods and submit them to the office though which the goods were seized stating all the facts relating to the seizure. Any decisions made can be appealed against up to until they reach the Commissioner-Generals office or even the courts to ensure transparency. |
|
|
NTB-000-577 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-04-12 |
Zimbabwe: Zimra Head Office |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-07-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs and Excise (Surtax Tariff) Notice ,2012, Statutory Instrument 112 of 2012,
Customs has introduced surtax on almost most of the agricultural products on the STR list of Eligible products, instead of paying 10% as presumptive tax there are now required to additional tax 25% as surtax that will amount to 35% and those which are not agriculture products instead of paying 25% as vat and presumptave tax there is additional 25% that means they will pay 50%, this a barrier, this will disturb the spirit of STR and all efforts to formalise transactions, and inrease cases of smuggling and corruption ,can there be clarity from Customs/Zimra for this surtax |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 01 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority ( ZIMRA) reported that the introduction of surtax was not targeted at STR products as the surtax is also levied on importations of the same goods from other countries taking into consideration the terms of any trade arrangements or protocols that may exist between Zimbabwe and that trading partner or block. The On 30 July 2013, Zimbabwe Focal Point advised that the NTB be conisdered resolved by the confirmation from ZIMRA that the surtax was not discriminatory. |
|
|
NTB-000-576 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-04-16 |
South Africa: Pretoria |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
In 2011 the Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, raised its cross-border road transport permits by up to 600%.
Not only was this increase unjustified, but it was done without negotiation with the road transport industry.
The resultant costs are also out of line with the costs for road transport permits in other countries.
FESARTA sent a letter (attached) to the Minister of Transport in South Africa, copied to SADC, but no response was received.
The South African Road Freight Association (RFA) has taken legal action against the increases.
The resultant permit fees put unecessarily high increases on the costs to transport goods to landlocked countries.
This is against trade facilitation. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-575 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-03-14 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2017-06-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The old bridge at Beitbridge cannot be opened to traffic because of an existing agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a private sector company.
It is accepted that it is an old bridge and that it may not be safe for many heavy trucks using it at one time. However, there is a railway line over it and there does not seem to be any refusal to allow trains to use it.
It could be used by private motorists, so freeing the new bridge for heavy goods.
There seems to be no justification to renew the existing agreement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that the two Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa had agreed that the old Bridge remain closed following commissioning of the new bridge that is functioning properly without congestion. |
|
|
NTB-000-570 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2013-02-26 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Namaacha |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
I'm doing the carton business in Mozambique but factory is in Swaziland. Every time I'm going to pass the border my company always pay 100 USD for every truck of goods I only deliver in Maputo they say it is a road fund every week I use at least 8-10 trucks I'm doing this business since 2009 and until now i need to pay that road fund I want to know why I'm paying this Money. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April in Lusaka Zambia, Mozambique reported that this is a levy on use of national roads and that this amount ranges from US$75-US$100 per trip. Almost all countries in the region have road tax specially for foreign trucks crossing the border.
With this explanation, meeting agreed to resolve the matter. |
|
|
NTB-000-568 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification |
2013-02-13 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Revaluation of products by customs ,a trader came with catapillar or madora and the value was k 2000000.00=$400.00 and was revalued to K 4180000.00, customs is refusing value for these goods ofwhich it only pays pre sumptive tax this is not the first time Zimra raises value to goods which pays only p tax. Some of these goods are not bought at Lusaka markert were thay have pegged there prices this is one of the reasons why why people would resort to smuggling |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 17 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that valuation of consignments is provided for in the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02). This particular valuation of Madora at Kariba Border Post was based on previous importations, investigations and information gathered from the neighboring country Zambia because no commercial invoices were tendered. ZIMRA advised that, where the values declared are within the given range, they are accepted. However where the values differ drastically the assessed values are resorted to. The complainant is advised to liaise with the Station Manager Kariba or the Supervisors to understand how the valuation is conducted. |
|
|
NTB-000-567 |
1.1. Export subsidies |
2013-02-01 |
Kenya: Namanga |
Zambia |
Resolved
2013-02-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
A consignment of sugar exported from Zambia to Kenya by Zambia Sugar has been delayed at the border for more than 20 days, and still has not been released. The COMESA secretariat has assisted in verifying the Certificate of origin that was apparently the initial reason for the delay. However the sugar has still not been processed for release |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 27 February 2013, the Coordinator Border Coordination Management, Kenya Revenue Authority advised that, upon
verification of the certificate of origin, all consignments of sugar exports from Zambia into Kenya were released by 23 February 2013. KRA submitted a status report to the Focal Point, Kenya, indicating specific release dates for individual consignmenet as evidence. |
|
|
NTB-000-566 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-02-12 |
Botswana: Pioneer Gate |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Botswana traffic authorities at Pioneer Gate, are applying outdated overall vehicle width and overall vehicle height limits. The are applying maximum 2.5m width and 4.1m height.
For many years, SADC has recommended 2.6m width and 4.3m height.
Most of the countries in the Southern African region, have 2.6m and 4.3m, and so the vehicles are built to suit these dimensions. They cannot be reduced to 2.5m and 4.3m without major structural alterations.
Furthermore, the 2.6m width was set so that an ISO shipping container, which is 2.4m wide, can be loaded onto a trailer that has sideboards. This cannot be done on a trailer that is 2.5m wide, since the sideboards take up at least 100mm width. The 2.6m also allows two standard pallets to be loaded side-by-side inside a pantechnicon body.
On occasions, when this problem has arisen in the past, the traffic officials have agreed that, to facilitate trade, the vehicles can operate in Botswana. But, there are also occasions, such as the present case, when traffic officials have insisted that the smaller dimensions must be enforced. This is a serious inconvenience and extra cost to transporters.
For trade facilitation, Botswana must change its act to the larger dimensions, and, in the meantime, allow vehicles with those dimensions to operate freely. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. Botswana is in the process of ammending the regulations to conform wit the requirements. |
|
|
NTB-000-565 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-02-05 |
Zambia: Copperbelt |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-03-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
When a vehicle foreign to Zambia, enters that country and wishes to operate to the copperbelt, the driver has to identify the destination town and pay the relevant road user charge.
During the trip, after offloading, the transporter may wish to load at a different town on the copperbelt.
The driver then has to purchase additional road user charges to that town, from Ndola, which is the only town issuing rucs. The vehicle may not be going to Ndola.
This is very inconvenient and costly to the transporter. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point advised that it is mandatory for transporters to pay Road User Chargers in all cities in Zambia. This applies to the cited area (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo) in the complaint posted. The charges apply during working days and over the weekend, transporters can only pay at the border post (Kasumbalesa and Mufulira Mokambo). Given this clarification, Zambia therefore recommended that this complaint be resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-563 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2013-01-11 |
Zimbabwe: Chitungwiza |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A transporter's vehicle has once again been held up by the road traffic authorities in Zimbabwe, for the vehicle not complying strictly to the Zimbabwe vehicle regulations.
In this instance, the rear lights of the truck were not in precisely the right position, according to the Zimbabwe regulations.
The official, in this instance, was constable Munaki, official number 060189F.
After intervention by the road transport industry and much delay, the vehicle was released with a warning.
This complaint is similar to that in NTB 524, where the information plate on the vehicle did not comply with the Zimbabwe regulations.
The practice of Zimbabwe road traffic authorities harassing transporters over trivial vehicle equipment regulations is not acceptable.
Vehicles foreign to Zimbabwe, comply with the regulations in their own countries and receive a certificate of fitness to show that they are compliant.
This certificate of fitness should be acceptable to the Zimbabwe authorities, unless, of course, the vehicle is clearly not roadworthy. The rear lights being in a different position, or the information plate giving different information, does not make the vehicle unroadworthy.
Two of the clauses in one of the bi-lateral road transport agreements that Zimbabwe holds with another country, state that each country should "promote fair and equitable treatment for carriers from both countries" and "strengthen their economic and commercial relations in the spirit of co-operation and friendship".
The actions of the Zimbabwe road traffic authorities do not subscribe to the above requirements and the authorities are requested to adhere to the objectives of the bi-lateral agreements. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-562 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-12-10 |
Kenya: Throughout Kenya |
Kenya |
Resolved
2014-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Kenya National Highways Authority (KENHA) is enforcing the axle load limits, rather than the GCM limit for the vehicle combination.
This is seriously compromising the ability of the transporters in Kenya to operated effectively and the Kenya Transporters Association (KTA) has taken the matter to court.
Some comments by the KTA:
1. KENHA is implementing this axle load rule on an axle by axle case rather than group axles. We realize the official position is group axle because when our enraged members stormed the Mariakani weighbridge yesterday, they promptly switched to weighing on group axles and giving a 5% tolerance, a matter that had hitherto not happened.
2. Their axle weights are 8-16-24 rather than 8-18-24 as the case is said to be in Tanzania. To comply here means one can’t optimize on his load.
3. The Traffic Act in Kenya requires an offender in this case is taken to court, fined and then made to redistribute cargo so that each axle is in conformity before the truck can proceed. The complication arises when the cargo is containerized transit goods which cant be opened sice continer is sealed and opening is criminal!
4. Similar complications arise in the case of liquid cargo which moves rapidly even when truck is being weighed or “sandy” like cargo such as clinker and the like which shifts depending on road terrain/condition or upon braking.
5. Our members are now forced to load 22 to 24 tons of the above cargo instead of the normal 27 tons. Unfortunately the overheads do not come down at all and they are now left with no option but to raise their rates by a similar margin. The question is whether our corridor and hinterland can afford such excessive costs.
FESARTA has drawn up a proposal to solve the problem and it is attached to this complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA Kenya was about to sign a Load Charter with its transporters, which covered this issue therefore the NTB should be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-561 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-10-24 |
South Africa: On the main transport routes in Gauteng, South Africa |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The managing director of Cross Country Containers in Zimbabwe, has reported that there had been four incidences of hijacking his vehicles in the Gauteng area.
The first was in October 2011, the second in June 2012, the third in September 2012 and the fourth in October 2012.
All the vehicles hijacked, were carrying copper, from the copper mines in Zambia.
A meeting was held between the road transport industry and the SAPS Hawks, in Pretoria, on the 24th October 2012.
A report of the meeting is attached.
These hijackings have had such a negative impact on Cross Country Containers, that it has stopped operating into South Africa.
The road transport industry, under the guidance of FESARTA, is to send a proposal on the way forward, to the Hawks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April in Lusaka Zambia, South Africa requeted that this NTB be removed from the online system on grounds that it was security issue. The meeting agreed that this be categorised as ' Non Actionable'. |
|
English
Français
