Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 381 to 400 of 824

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments Check all Uncheck all 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures Check all Uncheck all 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations Check all Uncheck all 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports Check all Uncheck all 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems Check all Uncheck all 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding Check all Uncheck all 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Check all Uncheck all Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Check all Uncheck all Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Check all Uncheck all Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Check all Uncheck all Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Check all Uncheck all Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Check all Uncheck all Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status	Actions
NTB-000-260	2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges	2009-09-08	South Africa: SARS	Namibia	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	Namibia's ASYCUDA system allows for direct inputs by both local and foreign traders and communicates well with customs clearance system used in the region (mostly ASYCUDA). South Africa has, years after Botswana and Namibia introduced it, introduced the SAD500(Single Administrative Document) for customs clearance system yet does not allow for direct input by traders/ freight forwarders not registered in South Africa into its system ( not ASYCUDA).
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that Single Administrative Document (SAD) has been introduced to make the clearance of goods easier and more convenient for importers, exporters and cross-border traders on 01 October 2006. The SAD complies with international best practices and Customs standards; with similar documents having been introduced throughout the world
NTB-000-281	5.12. Export restraint arrangements Policy/Regulatory	2009-09-08	South Africa: Ministry of Trade	Namibia	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	In 2004, the South African authorities introduced a commercial export permit requirement for Namibian grown oysters before these oysters could enter South Africa. In addition, an import permit is required from the South African authorities. The industry views this measure as a punitive trade measure, intended to protect the South African industry.
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that the importation and exportation of all products is subject to control measures. This is to ensure that there is compliance with specified environmental legislation and with terms and conditions of permits and other authorisations issued in terms of that legislation. For more information please contact: Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Tel: 021 402 3911 Fax: 021 402 3367
NTB-000-368	2.4. Import licensing Policy/Regulatory	2010-02-10	South Africa: Ministry of Trade	Zambia	Resolved 2010-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa denies Plant import permit for imports of chilies from Zambia
Resolution status note:	South Afric areported that Zambia was not able to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements. PQPS certificates can therefore not be issued if the above information is not known.
NTB-000-369	1.1. Export subsidies A84: Inspection requirement Policy/Regulatory	2010-02-10	South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture	Zambia	Resolved 2011-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	South Africa reported that Zambia needs to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements to the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries . PQPS certificates can not be issued if the above information is not known.
NTB-000-369	1.1. Export subsidies A84: Inspection requirement Policy/Regulatory	2010-02-10	South Africa: Ministry of Agriculture	Zambia	Resolved 2011-11-22	View
Complaint:	South Africa is not facilitating inspection of production areas for issuance of PQPS certificate for exports of fruits to Zambia as per requirement by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	On 1 June 2011 , South Afric areported that Zambia was not able to send information needed to evaluate their plant disease situation, legislation, standards and other requirements. PQPS certificates can therefore not be issued if the above information is not known
NTB-000-492	7.5. Lengthy procedures	2012-03-01	South Africa: transit in south Africa	Zambia	Resolved 2017-01-17	View
Complaint:	A private show company has made a complaint regarding the custom stoppages in South Africa. The Company imports products from Durban and transit through South Africa, the company has been informed that their trucks will be undergoing a tunnel for physical inspections of goods in transit. The company however, feel that this exercise is detrimental to their business as it is slow and will delay the arrival of goods and attract extra charges. The Company wonders why the good in transit should be stopped by customs/ police for inspections.
Resolution status note:	On 29th December, Zambia Focal Point advised that they had contacted the complainant who confirmed that the problem had been rectified.
NTB-000-400	1.1. Export subsidies A52: Irradiation	2011-02-22	South Africa: The Department of Trade and Industry	Zambia	Resolved 2015-08-10	View
Complaint:	The Zambian honey sector have come against repeated resistance from the South African authorities to allow organic honey to enter the South Africa market without the unnecessary requirement of irradiation. Therefore, our traders are requesting the South African government for an exemption from the irradiation requirements for the importation of honey from Zambia as set out by the National Department of Agriculture (RSA). An analysis undertaken by the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) of South Africa collected honey samples from across Zambia during a national disease survey funded by the World Bank in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture of Zambia. The findings of this analysis by the NDA reveal that there is no American Foulbrood Disease in Zambia.
Resolution status note:	South Africa advised that all honey exports from Zambia were now accepted into that market.
Products:	0409.00: Natural honey
NTB-000-411	1.1. Export subsidies A15: Authorization requirement for importers for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons	2011-03-23	South Africa: National Dept Agricultural Registrar : Act no 36 of 1947	South Africa	Resolved 2011-04-21	View
Complaint:	My company submitted renewal of existing Farm Feed Registrations at 12 Dec 2010 All the FF regestrations have expired on 28 Feb. 2011 We have enqeired numerous times on the renewal with no satisfaction. Th ecompany is stuck with 1000mt of cotton oilcake and 100mt of meat and bone meal that can not come in to South Africa from Zimbabwe and Namibia The local feed plants and feed lots are running out of stock with no local stocks to supply. We therefore seek help to have our applications processed by the relevant Ministry/Department
Resolution status note:	The Department of Agriculture & Fisheries renewd the licence on 28 March 2011
Products:	1207.2: - Cotton seeds :
NTB-000-483	1.1. Export subsidies B33: Packaging requirements	2012-01-03	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Malawi	Resolved 2012-01-25	View
Complaint:	I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days. The reasons for the being held are the following: 1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco. 2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco. 3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border. There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues. The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company. In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change.
Resolution status note:	The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth. The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions: i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit. ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals. iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco. It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012. South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows: ‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’
NTB-000-483	1.1. Export subsidies B33: Packaging requirements	2012-01-03	South Africa: Beit Bridge	Malawi	Resolved 2012-01-25	View
Complaint:	I wish to bring to your attention that Malawi tobacco exports/trucks carrying Malawi tobacco are being held at Beit Bridge, Mesina and have been stuck at the border for over 10 days. The reasons for the being held are the following: 1. The agent handling the consignment was informed that they should have an import permit, into South Africa, for the packaging that the tobacco was put in. The packaging used is hessian bags. But according to the exporting companies, the hessian bags have also been used to pack tobacco for export and these are internationally accepted packaging material for tobacco. 2. The company managed to get the import permit for the first time since years of exporting to South Africa from the Ministry of Agriculture. The permit is said to have had no mention of packaging material put only importation of tobacco. 3. The truck have still not been cleared even after obtaining the permit because the port officials are now querying why there is disparity in dates between the import permit and the date the tobacco arrived at the Border. There is need for more clarification as to why the trucks are being held at the border. It is possible to get confirmation that the reason the trucks have been held is that they did not have an import permit for the hessian sack. Secondly, our company has informed us that upon being informed that they didn’t have an import permit for the hessian they went to the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain the permit which was issued and when presented to the border agencies, they were told that they could not release the trucks due to the disparity in the dates of arrival of the trucks and the time the permit was issued. Please we need confirming on these issues. The company and their counterparts in Pretoria have tried to resolve the matter with Ministry of Agriculture and they have been told that the trucks can be released but the tobacco has now to be fumigated with a particular chemical before it can be allowed to enter in South Africa. The chemical has not been mentioned to the company. In addition to all this, we have further been informed by the company that they had sent two trucks carrying tobacco through the same route two months ago and all these requirements were not requested by the official and now we are wondering why the sudden change.
Resolution status note:	The Ministry of Agriculture, South Africa explained that the reason for refusing the consignment entry was that the exporter had not complied with South Africa plant health requirements. The consignment was carrying unmanufactured tobacco placed in second hand jute bags. As per the import requirements for entry into the Republic of South Africa, the client prior to export must apply for a Veterinary Import Permit and the relevant authority of the Republic of Malawi must issue a Veterinary Health Certificate. The consignment was therefore detained due to the fact that there was no veterinary import permit for the jute bags upon arrival and that the permit issued by Malawi did not comply with South African requirements. The consignment therefore posed a possible animal health risk with regards to foot and mouth. The two loads consignment in jute bags from Malawi detained since 4 January 2012 at Beit Bridge Border post were released on 17 January 2012 by the Directorate of Animal Health , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries , Republic of South Africa under strict conditions to ensure that consignment did not cause risk from foot and mouth disease. The directorate of Animal Health released the consignment on the following conditions: i. That the consignment are sealed and moved directly to the destined facility in Oudshoom under a Red Cross permit. ii. Upon arrival, at destination, the state veterinarian must be informed and he has to break the seals. iii. Offloading and unpacking must take place under the supervision of the responsible person at the facility iv. The jute bags must be destroyed under official veterinary supervision after offloading and removal of tobacco. It should be noted that the permit requirement by Animal Health is not a NTB but rather the long time it took to find alternative solution which was only granted on 17 January 2012. South Africa Requirements for second hand jute bags are as follows: ‘The consignment is to be accompanied by an original Veterinary Health Certificate completed and signed by a Veterinarian authorized thereto by a Veterinary Authority of the exporting country to the effect that the jute4 bags were subjected to the action of formalin fumes (formaldehyde gas) produced by its commercial solution at 35-40% in a chamber kept closed for at least 8 hours and at a minimum temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The jute bags must then be kept protected from contamination and containerised or loaded onto trucks, covered with tarpaulin and sealed under veterinary supervision’
NTB-000-477	7.4. Costly procedures Policy/Regulatory	2011-12-02	South Africa: Kopfontein	Botswana	Resolved 2012-08-28	View
Complaint:	With effect from the 1st of January 2012 SARS will no longer be accepting bank guaranteed cheques as a mode of payment for the 14% VAT on imports into South Africa. A note from SARS reports that the reason for this major is due to modernization that SARS customs is currently under going and has impact on various areas of business including revenue division whereby every process will be automated. With SARS having stopped allowing foreign clients to participate in the deferment in 2007 and with SARS having on its cards at some point in 2012 they will discontinue those foreign clients who registered fro a deferment account prior 2007. This means foreign companies importing into South Africa will effectively have to pay cash or make use of a South African clearing agent with a deferred account at the boarders. Other alternatives given would be 1. Establish a company in SA which will be invoiced for all products sent to SA and would be liable for the 14% VAT and then on - sell to our current customers. 2. Approach SARS clearing agent, who would then pay the VAT and charge for it as well as clearing our products, note that current monthly VAT payments can go up to a million rands. 3. Approach our SA customers to open VAT deferred accounts with SARS which as proven difficult. further more SARS no longer accepts export documents that are filled in by individual companies, the requirement is that companies use the services of the SA clearing agents, of which a charge of 150 per document in rands is required. An average truck carrying various products for various clients could easily run into thousands of rands per truck load. It is increasingly becoming difficult to export into South Africa.
Resolution status note:	In their letter dated 28 August 2012 to Focal Point South Africa, Sout Africa Revenue Services reported that the NTB had been resolved bilaterally.
NTB-000-493	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees Policy/Regulatory	2012-04-16	South Africa: Gauteng	South Africa	Resolved 2013-05-23	View
Complaint:	Note: This is not reported by South Africa, but by FESARTA; a sub-regional organization. The South African National Roads Agency, SANRAL, is planning to introduce new toll fees on its upgraded Gauteng freeways (E-tolls). The proposed fees are in excess of fees agreed at regional level, viz: In 2007, the SADC-recommended road user charge for South Africa, was US$2.92/100kms, for a heavy goods vehicle. In 2009, this was revised to US$3.46/100kms. These recommended figures were calculated from the road maintenance data submitted to SADC by South Africa in those years. On its busiest freeway, the N3 from Durban to Gauteng, the 2012 toll fees charged by SANRAL amount to approximately US$13/100kms. This is far in excess of the fees recommended by SADC. Now, SANRAL is proposing to charge around US$19/100kms for the use of the Gauteng freeways by a heavy goods vehicle. It is considered that these fees are excessively high and will unnecessarily add to the cost of goods to the consumer in the East and Southern African region.
Resolution status note:	At its 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, SCTF noted that the report was based on toll fees that were not yet implemented. As such traders are not affected. It was agreed that matter be filed until such time that the fees are effected
NTB-000-518	8.8. Issues related to transit	2012-07-09	South Africa: Durban sea Port	South Africa	Resolved 2016-10-07	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is wanting to fine trucks for not having road transport permits for the complete trip from Durban to the DRC. In terms of the bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and South Africa, Zimbabwe had issued a permit to a transporter for the Durban-Zimbabwe leg of the trip. Zimbabwe could not issue a bi-lateral permit all the way to DRC because there is no bi-lateral transport agreement between Zimbabwe and DRC. Both Zimbabwe and DRC are members of COMESA and therefore Zimbabwe was able to issue a COMESA PTA Carriers Licence to the transporter, to operate between Zimbabwe and the DRC. Thus, effectively, the transporter had permits to cover the complete trip from Durban to DRC. The fact that neither the CBRTA nor Zimbabwe could issue a single permit for the full trip, was not the fault of the transporter. The CBRTA should be facilitating trade between the three countries and not be trying to find any opportunity to fine transporters.
Resolution status note:	FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present.
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-000-541	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-000-595	2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections	2013-06-10	South Africa: Ficksburg Bridge	Lesotho	Resolved 2015-03-25	View
Complaint:	Exporter's containers (in transit to USA) are stopped by South African Revenue Services (SARS) at Ficksburg border post, South Africa and consignments are checked exclusively notwithstanding the fact that they are being checked by the Lesotho Revenue Authority (LRA) before they are dispatched. SARS requires certificate of origin before they can process Electronic Data Interchange and that goods be off-loaded from the containers and then re-loaded and this requires extra manpower thereby adding on the cost of manufacturing. Moreover, exporters have to pay standing charges for transporters as they have to stay overnight at the border as the process takes about 6-12 hours and this impacts negatively on many other shipping processes. The process also causes goods to reach their destinations after the agreed timeframe and as a result exporters fail to meet their customers' requirements. The incident has happened on more than one occassion.
Resolution status note:	On 25 March 2015, Lesotho Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved and therefore must be removed from the pending cases.
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-000-576	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-000-600	8.1. Government Policy and regulations	2013-07-17	South Africa: Durban sea Port	SADC	Resolved 2016-09-13	View
Complaint:	This complaint is registered by FESARTA. The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA) is fining transporters for transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban without a cross-border permit. The fine is R2000 (USD200) per truck. The goods are being transported from Botswana and offloaded in a warehouse in Gauteng, South Africa. The goods are then re-loaded on to different vehicles and transported to Durban. The vehicles transporting the goods from Botswana, have cross-border permits. There should be no reason for vehicles transporting goods from Gauteng to Durban to have cross-border permits, even though the goods come from Botswana. The transportation is wholly within South Africa and on South African vehicles. See NTB 535/6 for a similar complaint.
Resolution status note:	On 13th September 2016, FESARTA advised that the transporters were no longer facing this barrier so the NTB is resolved. The explanation from CBRTA was acceptable to FESRATA

<< Previous 1 2 3...18 19 20 21 22...40 41 42 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints