| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-000-558 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-10-06 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-08-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My company was importing a pallet of various alcoholic beverages. The consignment was accompanied by the required SADC origin papers from the manufacturer in South Africa. When the pallet was searched officers found, on the label of one of the products, bottled in south, produce of mexico. Upon seeing this the officers immediately seized the tequila, along with some South African made whiskey. Firstly this is in contravention to the SADC protocols of trade, whereby- Rule 9 of the protocols of trade, sections 3 and 4-
3. The competent authority designated by an importing Member State may in exceptional circumstances and notwithstanding the presentation of a certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, require, in case of doubt, further verification of the statement contained in the certificate. Member States, through their competent authorities, shall assist each other in this process. Such further verification should be made within three months of the request being made by a competent authority designated by the importing Member State. The form used for this purpose shall be that contained in Appendix IV to this Annex.
4.The importing Member State shall not prevent the importer from taking delivery of goods solely on the grounds that it requires further evidence, but may require security for any duty or other charge which may be payable: provided that where goods are subject to any prohibitions, the conditions for delivery under security shall not apply.
This section clearly states the rules and procedures to be followed when there is a query on the legitimacy of the origin of a product. The Zimbabwean border officials ignored these and seized the goods.
Upon seizure we were given the opportunity to appeal the seizure and prove the origin of the goods.
We did this and the Station Manager at Beitbridge completely ignored all of the evidence we sent him. We have documentation from the manufacturer, proving the origin of the goods, further we gave them the contacts of various people in the South African Tax Department to verify their claims. All of this was summarily ignored and we were issued a notice to pay the duties due for a non-sadc product, and a fine. Together this figure amounts to almost double the value of the products. We have since appealed to the ZIMRA Commissioner General to have the fines and duties repealed and the products released, and are awaiting reply. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
SADC Secretariat, in consultation with Zimbabwe Revenue Authority recommended that the NTB be considered resolved and that the importer be educated about issues of origin within the context of a Free Trade Area. ZIMRA reported that seizure of the consignment was done in terms of Section 193 (1) of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which reads "Subject to subsection (3), an officer may seize any goods, ship, aircraft or vehicle (hereinafter in this section referred to as articles) which he has reasonable grounds for believing are liable to seizure". In this case the origin of the goods was incorrect. |
|
|
Products:
|
2208.30: Whiskies and 2208.70: Liqueurs and cordials |
|
|
NTB-000-557 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2012-03-01 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-05-27 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We would appreciate of Zimra can starndize their operations for duty purposes from the onset of STR project CIF (cost insurence freight) was not charged on on all STR goods, but as of now CIF is being charged, 6% is charged on the total value of a consingment, example plastic spoons costing K1400000.00=$280.00 plus 6% comes to $296.80 if cif was not charged the trader was going to pay $70.00 as vat & p-tax but including cif the trader pays $74.20 we know Zimra is government agent for revenue collection but this must be clear, because some officers, they do not charge this 6% cif and all the borders namely Kariba,Chirundu, Victoria Falls and Nyamapanda they charge differently why not uniformity, |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 27 May 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority advised that the correct method to value commercial consignments imported into Zimbabwe is on a Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) basis. Simplified Trade Regime (STR) importations are commercial importations and therefore this method is applicable. The current practice to value STR goods on a CIF basis is therefore the correct approach. Where the insurance and transport has not been proved the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) of Zimbabwe provides for 1% and 5% of the value the consignment to make it 6% to be considered as the charges respectively. Guidelines on valuation would be recirculated to all stations. |
|
|
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-000-553 |
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-000-552 |
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-000-551 |
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-000-548 |
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-000-546 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2010-09-01 |
Zimbabwe: Harare offices |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has too many agencies issuing agricultural Permits, thereby giving problems to those who would want to obtain them, for example you have to go to gugunyana offices then you go to Mazowe Plant and Quarantine offices then also you have to go to AMA (agricultural marketing authority) this process we feel its too long why cant it be done under one roof, or one just live your application then the move around into different offices is done within the office bearers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that most of the issues are of policy nature therefore awareness programmes with relevant stakeholders and government agencies will be undertaken . |
|
|
NTB-000-544 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-01 |
Zimbabwe: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Customs Manager Churundu, Zimbabwe, he is not giving Value to STR Simplified Trade Regime under Comesa, all congnments with a $1000 value, though it is the value threshold he is revaluing the goods in order to exceed $1000 so that the trader will will not have the benefit of not paying duty, thereby confusing traders and prejudicing them of their priviledges and rights given to then by the gorvnment of not paying duty if they buy products on the List of Eligible products |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1st June 2013, ZImbabwe Revenue Authority explained that the price paid or payable which is the transaction value is normally used to arrive at the value for duty purposes. For STR consignments where the transport and insurance has not been proved the value will be uplifted by 6% as the value for duty purposes in Zimbabwe is on a Cost, Insurance and Freight Basis.There is never an intention by Chirundu or any ZIMRA Office to deny importers their right to clear goods under STR where the goods are properly declared. Where the goods are not properly declared the offices may be forced to resort to revaluation. It should borne in mind that value of goods under STR are generally predictable as the suppliers are few, known and their range of prices can be common.
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority further observed that, this complaint is too general and is not pointing to a particular incident. Should they have a specific query, the complainant is encouraged to make a write up to the Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority so that investigations are carried out and the query responded to. In the spirit of transparency the complainant is also advised to raise any issues with the Regional Manager responsible for Chirundu who is based at Kurima House in Harare.
In the absence of specific reference to affected product or incidence, this complaint will be considered resolved on the basis of the explanations above. |
|
|
NTB-000-543 |
6.7. Other |
2012-01-01 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-03-31 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Traders are being forced to pay $20 each by the Immigration side of Chirundu if they bear same address of where they are going in Zambia yet they will just going for a day to buy whatever goods for trade, this kind of behaviour of immigration officers is disturbing out traders different from Zimbabwe side what they do to Zambians trading in Zimbabwe |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st March 2016, Zambia Focal Point reported that there is no law in Zambia that compels a trader to pay $20. In the event that a trader is asked to pay, they should request for an official government receipt which can be verified with Focal Points. |
|
|
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-000-535 |
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-534 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-09-30 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Machipanda (Road) |
Zambia |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On the aforemention date, one of my fuel tankers, was stopped by Mozambique Environmental Officials at the Machipanda border post. The officials advised that they wanted to inspect the fire extinguishers and the driver cooperated by placing the 4 extinguishers at their disposal.
The Officials then pulled the pin on all four extinguishers and discharged the powder. They then told the driver that they were satisfied that the extinguishers worked, and he could proceed.
You cannot do this to a fire extinguisher. It is not like an aerosol can that keeps its pressure. Once you depress the handle and discharge even a small amount of powder, the fire extinguisher is exhausted and of no further use.
Officials can check if the extinguisher is valid on the certificate on the side of the extinguisher and if the site glass indicates pressure in the green.
If we need an extinguisher and the officials have discharged it, we are at the mercy of the fire. |
|
|
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, ZambiaMozambique reported that this was a mistake by officer on duty and this matter has since been corrected and therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-533 |
7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) |
2012-09-24 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are importing fuel tankers from South Africa to Zambia. The trailers are SA Registered (Valid licence and Registration Plates - deregistered once in Zambia). The Truck Tractors are from our Zambian Fleet. On arrival at Beit Bridge, the documents are accepted by ZIMRA as trailers being exported to Zambia, drawn on their own wheels, in transit across Zimbabwe to Victoria Falls. The act of exporting the trailers on their own wheels is thus condoned by ZIMRA at Beit Bridge.
When we get to Victoria Falls, we are then told by ZIMRA that exported motorised vehicles must be carried on the back of a flat deck trailer. A statutory instrument is eluded to, but we have yet to see this.
Our arguement is as follows. The trailers have valid registrations and licences (not to mention all the Police Clearances for export), they are not motorised (self propelled), ZIMRA Beit Bridge has condoned the export on wheels and we are actually presenting ourselves at Vic Falls and have not disappeared with the units illegally into Zimbabwe.
Placing these units on flat decks is prohibitively expensive. We are not transporting imported cars from overseas that are deregistered and for which we understand the need to be transported whilst in transit across Zimbabwe on a flat deck etc.
There is no clear statutory instrument that we have seen on exports of this nature eg licenced trailers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 30 June 2013, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the treatment by Beitbridge to allow the trailers on their wheels when transiting through Zimbabwe for re-exports to Zambia was the correct treatment. The legislation on movement of goods in transit through Zimbabwe is in terms of Section 234(3) of the Zimbabwe Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02) which reads "Where the goods in transit concerned are motor vehicles, no such motor vehicle shall be driven on any road in Zimbabwe but shall be transported on a long-haul motor vehicle carrier". This requirement was inserted by Act 3 of 2010 and was with effect from 1 November 2010. The requirement only affects motor vehicles and does not affect trailers as they cannot be driven but are rather pulled by mechanical horses. This interpretation had been discussed with the Station Manager Victoria Falls who shared the same view and assured that there would be no issues raised in this regard on trailers being re-exported to Zambia. |
|
|
NTB-000-532 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-09-10 |
Mozambique: Along the Tete to Calomue/Dedza route, on the North-South Corridor |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2012-12-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Drivers of trucks that transport fertilizer from Beira to Malawi, are being attacked and killed along the Tete to Calomue route. Then the loads are being taken through the Calomue/Dedza border into Malawi, and sold there. The trucks are then abandoned. Drivers bodies are found by the side of the road days later. The Mozambique transporters are demanding urgent talks with the Sofala Governor, and commander chief of police, to enforce the patrol on the Beira corridor and find the killers.
It has happened three times:
• A Malawian fuel truck was hijacked and the driver and passenger killed a month ago
• Two weeks later, a truck loaded with fertilizer to Malawi, driver killed and load taken to the Malawi border, sold there and truck taken back to Tete bridge and abandoned
• Last week another truck with fertilizer was hijacked, driver killed and load taken to uncertain place
Satellite tracking has shown that the trucks are hijacked at Angonia village, not far from the Malawi border.
This most serious situation has to be dealt with urgently. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 17 Decemebr 2012, Mozambique Focal point reported that the Tax Authority of Mozambique did their due diligence in the central part, which resulted in the arrest of two culprits by the Police Authorities in Tete-Calomué-Dedza region. A detailed report from Mozambique Police authorities is given below :
1. The two arrested culprits (Names provided) have been brought before the courts and are responding criminally for their offences in the Courts of the city of Chimoio and Bárue respectively.
2. Investigations carried out by Mozambique Police found that the drivers themselves have created favorable environment for the Commission of such acts, by collaborating with culprits who generally were selling fuel siphoned from vehicles or tanks, and because these businesses cannot be performed often in villages, drivers ended up giving a ride to these people some of whom are criminals to places that they felt safer and then committed the crimes such crimes as charged.
3. Mozambique is therefore urging member states to adhere to regional transit agreements under the COMESA-EAC-SADC, and also urge the institutions or companies that exploit Mozambique highways to instruct their drivers not to collaborate with the criminals on the roads and not get involved in swindling their employers through selling fuel to street vendors on highways where they end up risking their own lives. |
|
|
NTB-000-531 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-28 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-08-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Chobe municipality is charging foreign transporters a fee to pass through its area of jurisdiction.
There is no justification for any municipality to charge transporters for travelling on the national roads through their areas.
The municipalities do not provide services to the transporters and the national roads are maintained by the national roads authorities.
This practice was started by Zambian municipalities and was halted by the Zambian government.
However, some Zambian municipalities continue to charge.
The practice also does not align with the RECs requirement that the transporters should pay road user charges and not other charges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point advised that the Chobe Municipality no longer charges foreign transporters the fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-529 |
1.8. Import bans |
2012-08-08 |
Burundi: National Police |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2013-10-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Ban on import of fresh fruits from Burundi to Rwanda |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 16 October 2013, Burundi Focal Point reported that, at the 12th EAC Regional Forum on NTBs held on 14th– 17th October, 2013 in Arusha, Tanzania, Rwanda reported that Burundi had lifted the ban. Therefore the NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-528 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-10 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2015-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Port Health at Nyamapanda, Zimbabwe, has issued a notice to the effect that all goods transiting the border are to be inspected, from 10th September.
The inspection in itself is not a problem.
However, a charge is to be levied for this inspection. This is unacceptable.
Port Health is a government department, which has a duty to perform, in the course of its daily work.
This duty is part of Port Health's daily workload and it budgeted for from Central Government.
Health inspections are done in the interests of the country and are not asked for by the transporter.
There should be no extra charge for this.
What would happen if every government department charged citizens for carrying out their daily duties? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of COMESA Heads of Customs Sub- Committee held in Nairobi on 19-20 June 2015, Zimbabwe reported that the NTB was an internal control measure and what was required was sensitization of stakeholders on various import and export requirements. This was resolved at the 31st COMESA Trade and Customs Committee meeting held on 7-10 September 2015. |
|
English
Français
