| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-000-575 |
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-000-566 |
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-000-567 |
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-000-563 |
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-000-664 |
3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
B3: Labelling, Marking and Packaging requirements
Policy/Regulatory |
2013-01-01 |
Tanzania: Tunduma |
Burundi |
Resolved
2015-11-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TFDA is imposing new requirements on export of BRARUDI beers into Tanzania. TFDA is requesting new labels to include additional information and storage condition for the product that was not required when they submitted the application for export. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Burundi reported that TFDA had finally registered Burundi beers and that the company had received its certificate of registration. |
|
|
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-000-548 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-30 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-03-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Botswana Department of Veterinary Services is requiring a permit for agricultural products to be purchased in Gaborone and for the original to be carried on the truck.
This procedure is time-consuming and inefficient.
The process should be done electronically and the truck carry an electronic copy. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 March 2015, Botswana Focal Point reported that transit permits are now issued in various Veterinary Offices countrywide. Issuance of such permits has now been decentralized. Botswana still requires that permits original (hard) copies MUST always accompany consignment. It must be noted that 1 consignment requires 1 permit which is neither time consuming nor inefficient. Introduction of electronic copies (for convenience) is still being considered. With this explanation, and that transporters can obtain permits easily, the NTB should be considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-20 |
Zambia: Mbala town |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters.
Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day.
This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high. |
|
|
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 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-555 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-11-06 |
Zambia: Siavonga Turn off, Lusaka-Chirundu Highway,
Police Manning that Place |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-12-19 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zupco bus permit taken by Zambian Police citing that the bus has one tyre which is finished and the window screen has a crack , this is causing them to be fined every time when they are at the road block for failing to produce the bus permit, practical on daily basis when they are stopped they have to pay k50000/$10.00 so as to catch up with time just avoiding passengers to run away from them, almost 3 months they cant produce the permit |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that The ZUPCO bus permit was returned on 16 December 2012 by Zambia police. This NTB is therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-551 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-02 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwean Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is levying a toll of US$30 per trip, for the crossing of the Victoria Falls bridge. Ref: SI 171 of 2012.
This toll is not justified because it was never discussed with those who are having to pay the toll and there is no reconciliation for the amount of the toll.
Furthermore, transporters pay road user charges, which are to cover the wear and tear caused to the roads and bridges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-549 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area.
The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip.
It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area.
Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads.
Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-552 |
2.2. Arbitrary customs classification
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Zimbabwe: Head Office Zimra |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-08-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
form 47 which is customs declaration form on Rebate states, who enjoys travellers rebate and marked(excluding) reads excluding Any person employed as the pilot or master or any member of the crew of an aircraft, ship or vehicle arriving from outside Zimbabwe ,bus crew members,drivers are also included,why are they not given rebate allowance as other nationalities, this is a national benefit why excluding them , what benefits do they have as bus crew members? even the remission they dont understand about it even to be given that remmission they are not, this is the other reason why bus crew members are involved in smuggling with border officials, give them an allowance on daily basis |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7th August 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue authority reported that , travelers rebate excludes "any person employed as the pilot or master or any member of the crew, of an aircraft, ship or vehicle arriving from outside Zimbabwe" This is in terms of Section 114 of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise General Regulation Statutory Instrument 154 of 2001. This is therefore a legal requirement and it is mandatory that this be implemented. The same regulations also provide for a remission of duty for a consignment of a maximum value of US$20.00 every time one travels. Once the consignment exceeds the US$20.00 duty is paid on the full value of the consignment. Please note that smuggling of goods is an offence which may lead to seizure of the goods and at times prosecution and is therefore discouraged.
Based on this explanation, SADC secretariat advised that the NTB be marked resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-541 |
2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures |
2012-10-29 |
South Africa: Lebombo |
Lesotho |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On Monday 29 October I was crossing into South Africa from Mozambique. I was importing used shoes from Mozambique destined to Lesotho, however the customs officials from Lebombo border post on South African could not let my goods pass through and my goods were confiscated.
I was holding the reciept from the seller from Mozambique, the value of the goods was M2,857 (R2,857 or equivalent of 10, 000 Meticais). I was then told by the custom official at the border that I will have to pay R 9000 plus VAT which is not refundable according to the official. This value is way more than the value of the goods.
The other option was that I should hire currier service s very expensive, I was forced to use currier even though I had my own transport and to use an urgent. I was holding an import permit from my country Lesotho at the time however I was told to pay the R 9000 which is not refundable. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 November 2012, South Africa Focal Point reported that each of the SACU member state has its own import/export control regime. For South Africa, importation of used clothing and footwear for resale purposes is not allowed, except in specifically defined conditions. The conditions for used clothing are that, imports should be for the purpose of cutting up to manufacture industrial wiping rags in a customs rebate store. For used footwear, imports are only allowed if the shoes are donated to a registered charity for free distribution in terms of a customs rebate provision.
Given the above background, second hand clothing and footwear imports in transit through SA have to transit SA territory under special procedures: these goods need to be cleared in bond first, and then the goods need to be transported by an in-bond carrier to the country of destination (Lesotho in this case). For this reason the importer was told to use courier services. Such courier service would constitute an in-bond carrier. Such an in-bond remover must have sufficient security in place to cover the duty and VAT on these goods in bond; and this surety would be acquitted with the final clearance upon arrival in Lesotho. If the importer therefore did not comply with the in-bond transit measures, it would explain the duties charged.
During the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Lesotho noted the response by South Africa and undertook to provide clarification upon consultation with the importer. |
|
|
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'. |
|
|
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 NTB SMS Launch meeting held on 9-10 April 2013, in Lusaka, Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe reported that this was a security issue that was being attended to by the relevant authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-535 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-10-12 |
South Africa: Vioolsdrift |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by the Road Freight Association.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is requiring cross-border permits for two vehicles to take one load from South Africa to Namibia.
One permit is required to take the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington, and another permit to take the load from Upington to Namibia.
The Truck taking the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington should not require a cross-border permit, since the transport is being done wholly in South Africa.
The CBRTA quotes the following excerpt from the Act: "“cross-border road transport” means the transport of passengers for reward or the transport of freight to or from the Republic crossing or intending to cross its borders into the territory of another state or in transit across the Republic or the territory of another state with a vehicle on a public road; (xv)"
If this clause means that two permits are required, then the clause must be changed.
In the meantime, a moratorium to remove the requirement for two permits, must be put in place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 April 2014, Namibia Focal Point reported that the explanation provided by South Africa Focal Point confirming that CBRTA was acting within the legal framework was adequate evidence to have this NTB resolved. This NTB is therefore resolved on the grounds that the CBRTA action was legal. |
|
English
Français
