| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-527 |
2.6. Additional taxes and other charges |
2012-08-20 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2013-04-12 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The 16th Zimbabwe/Zambia Joint Commission held in Masvingo from 23-25 August 2012 learnt that Zambia had introduced a law which compels informal traders from outside that country to pay 1 Million Kwacha for a trading permit. The permit is valid for six months. Zimbabwe viewed the Zambia action as against the principles of the COMESA Simplified Trade Regime (STR) and also constituting an NTB. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 September 2012, Zambia Focal point reported that the complaint from Zimbabwe with regard to the introduction of the Cross Border Permit valued at ZMK,000,000 as provided for under the new Immigration laws is valid. In a follow up with Zambia Immigration at Kariba Border post on 12 April 2013, it was reported that the ZMK 1 million was reasonable because the permit is a multi-entry and does not restrict traders to number of days per visit during in the six months validity of the permit. Further, the Focal point reported that Zambia was in the process of reviewing the fee downwards. The signing of the statutory instrument by the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs so as to operationalise the same is still being awaited. |
|
|
NTB-000-526 |
1.1. Export subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-08-26 |
Zambia: Chirundu |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-10-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zambian Ministry of Agriculture has cancelled all export permits and required exporters to apply for an individual permit for each truck. No notice was given.
This has resulted in significant delays in that trucks en route have to wait at the border whilst new permits are applied for.
In addition, permits are only being issued for up to 30 tons.
56-ton gross combination mass vehicle combinations can load 33 tons and over, meaning a reduction of at least 10% of the load.
There is no legal justification for restricting the load to 30 tons, since the road traffic regulations control loads through axle loads, gvm and gcm. Never the load on the vehicle.
This will result in an increase in cost to transport the goods. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
FESARTA reported that the NTB does not exist at present. |
|
|
NTB-000-524 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-08-06 |
Zimbabwe: At road blocks |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries.
An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues. |
|
|
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-000-523 |
7.1. Arbitrariness |
2012-08-06 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: On all roads |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
the traffic police and other authorities in DRC, are enforcing a 40km/hr speed limit on all roads.
If the speed is exceeded, a spot fine of US$500 is imposed.
If the truck is impounded, a further US$100 per day is charged for parking.
This is an unacceptable acitivity, since the normal speed limits are clearly marked with road signs.
40km/hr throughout the country is not a realistic speed limit. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 02 December 2012, the Department of Transport in the DRC advised that an agreement between the drivers and the DRC government was reached that , until 30 January 2013, there will be no speed limits imposed. The DRC government will look at the drivers behaviour and will come back with a final solution to this issue after 30 January 2013. |
|
|
NTB-000-522 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Non recognition of EAC certificate of origin by Tanzania Revenue Athority for furniture products manufactured in Kenya |
|
|
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, Tanzania reported that this was a one off incidence which had been resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-521 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TRA rejects EAC certificates of origin . Tanzania Revenue Authority imposes a duty of 25% of EABL products exported to its subsidiary Serengeti breweries limited in Tanzania |
|
|
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, Tanzania reported that certificates of origin are now issued for all EAC products both ion the STR and normal exports. |
|
|
NTB-000-520 |
6.5. Variable levies
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2018-11-16 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Beef and Pork from Kenya Farmers Choice are being charged 25% by Tanzania because the company is in the duty remission scheme despite the products not benefiting from the duty remission scheme. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During SCTIFI meeting held on 16 November2018, Kenya reported that the NTB was resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-519 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2012-06-20 |
Tanzania: Dar-es-Salaam Port |
Burundi |
Resolved
2013-10-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Payment of double handling charges at the ICDs and at the Dar es Salaam port. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 12th Regional Forum on NTBs held from 14th – 17th, October 2013, at EAC Headquarters, Arusha, Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania (URT) reported that the ICD charges are part of port charges and are therefore not additional charges. The only additional charges are on demurrage. However, Burundi requested to re-submit documentation supporting their submission through the EAC Secretariat. In the meantime, URT to investigate further and revert at the next EAC Regional Forum on NTBs in September, 2013. The meeting agreed to resolve this NTB on the basis of URT submission. |
|
|
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-000-517 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-07-16 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo: KIPUS Mine |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2012-07-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania Truck Owners Association (TATOA) reported that Tanzania Trucks, after delivering a consignment they carried from Tanzania to Congo, are charged $100,000/= per truck if they want to carry another consignment on their way back to Dar es Salaam. The attached receipt is just evidence for one transaction but there are other transporters who have paid such charges while there are also other transporters whose vehicles have been detained until now. This fee is charged at KIPUS mine in the name of LOCAL INCOME TAX WHILE LOADING CARGO. Tanzania regards this as an NTB and she needs to know the reason for charging such a huge amount of money from transporters. DRC focal point is requested to treat this matter as urgent since a number of tracks are still detained at Kipus Mine in the D. R. Congo. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 08 October, Tanzania focal point reported that the DRC released the trucks held at the KIPUS Mine . This NTB is therefore considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-516 |
2.9. Issues related to transit fees |
2012-07-01 |
Eswatini: Ngwenya |
Mozambique |
Resolved
2013-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
My family and I were requested to pay an "alledged" import duty for groceries valued at around 800 Rands even though we clearly stated that we were in transit travelling from South Africa to Mozambique. The customs official kept insisting that we would be given a receipt and to our amazement the receipt had my husband's name but instead of his addressing being Maputo it was registered Manzini.
Would the Swazi focal point(s) please clarify if this is the usual procedure for goods transiting Swazilang, whether commercial or for personal consumption |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 June 2013, Swaziland Focal Point reported that the matter had been settled with the complainant after all information supplied was verified with Swaziland Revenue authority requirements for th eimportation of personal goods. |
|
|
NTB-000-515 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2012-06-27 |
Zambia: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Siavonga Municipal Council. There is no justification for such a fee since the transporters do not receive any services from the Council. The transporters are travelling on national roads, which are maintained by the government and not the Council. The transporters pay road user charges to the government to maintain the roads.
Please refer to NTB 480 |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zambia advised that all Levies collected by the Council are guided by Section 69 and 70 of the Local Government Act CAP 281 of the Laws of Zambia which specifies the Levies to be collected. Under this Act (CAP 281), no Council is mandated to collect motor vehicle fees. The measure shall be uploaded onto the online NTMs database . |
|
English
Français
