| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-508 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2013-10-17 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenyan Trucks entering into Tanzania are charged a levy of US$ 200 each |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 12th Regional Forum on NTBs held from 14th – 17th, October 2013, at EAC Headquarters, Arusha, Tanzania, and United Republic of Tanzania reported that the USD 200 levy on Kenya trucks was abolished in June, 2012. |
|
|
NTB-000-509 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-05-21 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Lack of availability of EAC simplified certificate of origin issued by Tanzania |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 21 may 2012, Tanzania reporterd that, the Simplified Certificates of Origin had been posted to all TRA regional managers, district managers and officer in charge of all border stations as at Friday 18th May, 2012. |
|
|
NTB-000-510 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Revenue Authority |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-05-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Cigarettes manufactured in Kenya exported to Tanzania required to have a local 75% tobacco content. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the EAC Dedicated meeting on Non tariff Barriers held in Mombasa on 14th March 2012, Tanzania reported that the requirement for 75% local content for BAT cigarrets had been abolished and therefore the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-511 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Transport |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-06-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya tourist vans are not allowed to enter Tanzania. They are required to off load tourists to Tanzania registered vans. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1 June 2012, Tanzania reported that, Tourist vans from Kenya are allowed to enter into Tanzania as foreign vans provided they have C32 formerly known as C36. A van carrying below 9 passengers are allowed free for 7 days. Van with 10 and above passengers are categorized as commercial vans and required as per Transit Act, 1995 to pay US$ 16 per axles in every 100 kms.
Tanzania advises Partner states to adhere to requirements for entry into another Partner State to avoid delays and inconveniences. Tourist vans should make sure they check all requirements and have fulfilled them before they set off for Tanzania. |
|
|
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-000-557 |
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-000-486 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-02-15 |
SADC |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
We are a South African Transport Company transporting goods into DRC. We are paying on weekly basis exorbitant road duties in Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe & DRC if we offload loads from Johannesburg RSA to Mutanda DRC. Our cost on a tri-axle on road fee is 1060 Pula on return trip (Martinsdrif to Kazangula and back), insurance 50P for 3 months and then about 100 Pula on a yearly level also. Zambia insurance 300 000KW for year, then toll fee for 285USD on return trip Kazangula to DRC border and back, 200 000KW carbon tax, 70 000KW for extra toll fees on road. Zimbabwe insurance 170USD for year, the 100USD on toll fees, then coupons another 10USD and environmental cost depends on the load and weight up to 160USD & 90USD carbon 3 months. Going into the DRC, border customs parking 133USD, entry fee and costing 350USD, 300USD PEAGE, 4x 150USD for toll fees going to Mutanda and coming back.
None of the foreign trucks from DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana or Namibia pay this cost when entering South Africa. We drive on the roads to supply clients with goods, we provide a service, the same as for the foreign transporters, but they don't pay similarly high costs when entering South Africa. We need an explanation from the countries listed above as to why is this done. At the moment, we give to a driver for one load going to DRC from JHB, 2400USD, 2500 PULA & R5000 to cover these expenses and we cannot increase our rates easily, without risking losing our clients. What can be done about this situation? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal Points from Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe reported the current standard official charges and argued that these are in accordance established regional protocols. At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013, South Africa focal point requested that the NTB be considered non actionable as they could not trace the complainant.
However, the NTB is considered resolved as it does not fall under the ' non actionable' category of complaints. |
|
|
NTB-000-514 |
8.4. Transport related corruption |
2012-02-06 |
Zambia: Nakonde |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
A company by the name of ZAMESCO, is charging transporters to park at the Nakonde border post.
The charge is 24 US dollars per day.
There is no official parking area and so the trucks would normally park along the road.
However, they are forced to park in ZAMESCO's parking area, without being given any alternative.
The Zambian authorities have not regulated these parking charges, nor have they condoned them. These are arbitrary charges imposed by a company that has no authority to do so.
They are uneccessarily increasing the cost of transport on the Dar es Salaam corridor.
Attached are scanned copies of parking receipts.
|
|
|
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 ZAMESCO is a private dry port. Vehicles have the option to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-490 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2012-01-12 |
Tanzania: It happened at Rusumo border post |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The simplified trade regime to enhance cross border trade is not implemented since the simplified certificate of origin is not used. For the certificate of origin to be accepted, each country has to provide a list of products that regularly cross the border. Rwanda Revenue Authority on 16th September 2011, send a request to Tanzania asking for the list of common traded goods at our borders but did not receive a response. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012,Tanzania reported that it launched the simplified trade regime at Rusumo border in March 2012. Tanzania has inaugurated and exchanged the list with Rwanda and the rate is no longer US$500 but US$2000 as from 16 March, 2012 |
|
|
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-000-484 |
7.10. Other |
2012-01-03 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls Weighbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2012-10-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Old and inaccurate weighbridge. The Vic Falls weighj bridge is a manual weighbridge and transporters have endless trouble there with trucks which pass all Zambian electronic weighbridges and are then declared overweight in Vic Falls. The fines also are astronomical. They will not allow a reweigh and when the fine is paid the truck is allowed to proceed without any adjustment or offloading and it then passes all other Zimbabwe weighbridges and RSA weighbridges without any overweight. The weighbridge is old and inaccurate and should not be used for enforcement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 October 2012, FESARTA reported that they had recieved input from the Zimbabwe VID, to the fact that the Victoria Falls weighbridge is reasonably new and calibrated regularly. FESARTA reported that there had been no reports of problems at this weighbridge and therefore FESARTA recommended that this NTB can be removed from the system. |
|
|
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-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 31st May 2012, Mozambique reported that , consultations were held with authorities responsible for transport regulations which submitted the following update:
Decree 14/2008 of 25 June 2008, “approves the Regulations for weights and dimensions, Combinations and spreading of Cargo in Motor vehicles and Trailers and revokes Articles 18, 19, 24, and 27 of the Road Code”
Article 5 “ Maximum dimensions”
Nº. 1. The contour of vehicles involving all accessories, except rear view mirrors and direction indicators may not exceed the following values regarding the types of vehicles:
A. Length:
a) Vehicle with one or more axles -13m
b) Articulated vehicles with 3 or more axles -18m
c) Sets Vehicle-trailer -22m
d) Trailers with one or more axles -13m
e) Trailers for agricultural traction of:
i. One axle -7m
ii. Two or more axles -10m
B. Width - 2,60 m
C. Height - (measured from the ground) – 4,3m~
Nº. 2. Articulated vehicles specially adapted and approved by the National Traffic Institute for the transport of containers. The maximum length for this type of vehicles is 16,50m.
N° 8. The National Traffic Institute may authorize:
a) The transit of vehicles that transport indivisible objects that exceed the limits;
b) The registration or transit of special vehicles with dimensions exceeding the limits.
This Article must be read with Article 58 (1) of the new Road Traffic Code - Decree Nº 1/2011.
Art. 58 “Special Authorization”
N.º 1. According to the conditions specified in the Rules, INAV may allow the transit of vehicles exceeding the weight or dimensions legally allowed or transporting indivisible objects that exceed the size of the vehicles.
N.º 2 The referred authorizations require a favourable opinion from ANE and the Municipal Councils, depending on the cases, regarding the nature of the road paving, the resistance of art works along the routes or the technical specifications of the public roads. Thus limiting the access of such vehicles to roads whose specifications allow such transit.
From the above mentioned articles it is understood that, although the law specifies the limit of 16.5 m, the transporter or operator may request from INAV a “Transit Permit” which will involve police escort. This permit costs 398, 00MTn which is equivalent to approximately R 110.00.
Vehicles are expected to conform to the decree. |
|
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 February 2015, Mozambique Focal Point requested that this NTB be resolved on grounds that FESARTA was not forthcoming with additional information on proof of payment and the place where the accident occurred to assist with the investigation on the incident. Further, according to the existing Regulation (Decree 14/2008 of 25 June), it should be noted that Mozambique does not have infrastructure prepared to adopt the specifications of South Africa, so that the movement of carriers in Mozambique is made on specific routes. The Portuguese version is uploaded onto the system for reference. However, Mozambique was working towards adapting their laws in line with SADC recommendations about size and weights of vehicles. |
|
|
NTB-000-478 |
8.6. Vehicle standards
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-20 |
Mozambique: Delegação Aduaneira de Cuchamano |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-02-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Mozambique restricts an articulated vehicle carrying general cargo, to 18 metres length. It restricts an artic carrying ISO shipping containers to 16.5 metres length. This does not conform to the recommendations given by both COMESA and SADC. Generally, artics in Southern Africa are up to 18.5 metres in length, in accordance with the SADC recommendations. Transporters cannot practically shorten their artics and comply with the Mozambique regulations. Fines are received by transporters when they try to travel through Mozambique with artics longer than 16.5 or 18 metres. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 February 2015, Mozambique Focal Point advised that the NTB be resolved in according to the existing Regulation (Decree 14/2008 of 25 June) and that it should be noted that Mozambique did not have infrastructure prepared to adopt the specifications of South Africa, so that the movement of carriers in Mozambique is made on specific routes. However, Mozambique was working towards conforming to SADC specifications on vehicle length and weights.
FESARTA confirmed that there had been no reports of recent problems with NTB 478 and therefore the NTB should be resolved. FESARTA made an observation that the regulation was probably introduced many years ago, when there could have been a particular issue that resulted in the regulation and that the regulation may not have any relevance now. |
|
|
NTB-000-480 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-12-07 |
Zambia: Chililabombwe Municipal Council, Zambia |
South Africa |
Resolved
2016-09-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Transporters are being charged a motor vehicle fee by Chililabombwe 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. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7 September 2016, Zambia Focal point reported 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 supporting Local Government Act was uploaded for reference |
|
|
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-000-474 |
1.8. Import bans |
2011-11-22 |
Tanzania: Mwanza |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
SteelRwa was denied to import scrap metals from Tanzania due to the ban resulting from its scarcity in the region. Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda have banned exports of scrap metals not only to non EAC members but also the ban is applicable to other EAC member states |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 3rd meeting the Tripartite NTBs Focal Points and NMC Chairs held in Dar -es-Salaam on 19-20 April 2012,Tanzania reported that it had ratified the Bamako convention that governs the movement of hazardous wastes with in Africa. Tanzania has neither banned importation nor exportation of scrap metals, but there are procedures to follow when engaging in such business:
i) A team of experts has to inspect the scrap metals to ensure that the consignment is safe to and allowed
to be exported.
ii) The exporter has to obtain an export permit from the MIT.
There are scrap metals that are not allowed to be exported from Tanzania. The list is supported by a Legal instrument. (The Exports Control Act Cap. 381, Prohibition of Exports, Amendment of the Schedule) Government Notice No. 204 published on 22/7/2005, Section 16). This applies to all countries not Rwanda specifically.
Rwanda is withdrawing this NTB from the matrix due to lack of evidence from complainant. |
|
|
NTB-000-473 |
2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin |
2011-11-05 |
Uganda: Malaba |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certificates of origin are not provided at the borders between Rwanda and Uganda and cross border traders are obliged to collect them from Kampala for goods exceeding 500 US$. The long distance to Kampala is time consuming and additional cost to doing business. |
|
|
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, Uganda reported that Certificates are issued at the border so this NTB has been resolved. Rwanda intervened that it is only simplified certificate of origin for small scale traders that are available at the border but that for large scale traders has to be obtained from Kampala. Uganda undertook to confirm on whether Certificates of origin for large scale traders are available at the border. |
|
English
Français
