| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-000-477 |
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-000-475 |
1.13. "Buy national" policy |
2011-10-06 |
Uganda: Uganda National Police |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2012-12-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Removal of plate numbers on vehicles that have had accidents.The argument given is to force the driver to report to the police. The consequence is loss of goods and vehicle parts because with no plate number the truck/vehicle seems to belong to nobody. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 21st December 2015, Uganda Focal Point reported that the NTB was resolved in 2012 by Uganda |
|
|
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. |
|
|
NTB-000-469 |
5.12. Export restraint arrangements |
2011-07-12 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Trade and Industry |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania has officially banned export of scrap metal to Rwanda |
|
|
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 which are :
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.
During the Bilateral meeting Rwanda was availed with that specific legal instrument.
With above explanation Rwanda withdrew complaint and it was agreed to consider it resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-468 |
3.3. Standards disparities
B6: Product identity requirement |
2011-10-24 |
Rwanda: Akanyaru-Haut |
Burundi |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Burundian mineral water was denied entry into Rwanda on grounds that the water did not comply with Rwanda quality standards. |
|
|
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, Rwanda reported that this NTB had been resolved by Burundi. |
|
|
Products:
|
2201.10: Mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or flavoured |
|
|
NTB-000-467 |
2.14. Other |
2011-08-08 |
Zimbabwe: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2011-10-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On the 8/8/2011 a trader came with 45 pairs of slippers that is plastic footwear which qualifies the product to be traded using Comesa certificate of Origin under code 6404 since the onset of the project, the trader was charged duty of $72.00 calculated from total value of $31.10 yet she was only to pay vat & p-tax of $7.76, after discussions with Customs Manager she then paid $14.00 for vat, p-tax,and storage charge of $6.00 for 3days. from this day custom then banned importation of plastic footwear under this code 6404 and this ban is only at Kariba border Post, Zimbabwe, yet on Zambian side they give Comesa Certificate of Origin for the same product ,this is now promoting smuggling of this product along Zambezi River if that person dont want to Chirundu route |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority reported that the product Plastic Slippers is classified in tariff 6402.2000 which is not on the COMESA STR Common List of products therefore customs officers could not clear under that instrument. However, following consultations between officials from Zimbabwe and Zambia, products in HS code 6402 will be put up for consideration to be included on the COMESA STR list of products at the next reveiw meeting. |
|
|
Products:
|
6404.19: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials (excl. sports footwear, incl. tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, and toy footwear) |
|
|
NTB-000-465 |
8.6. Vehicle standards |
2006-07-01 |
Zimbabwe: Makuti turn-off to Kariba, from Chirundu-Harare highway. |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-08-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TONNAGE LIMIT ROAD SIGN is still indicating retrictive tonnages. The sign should be removed to allow busses and small commercial trucks for traders to pass on Kariba Bridge. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Focal point reported that the Ministry of Transport removed the sign post in August 2012. |
|
|
NTB-000-464 |
6.2. Administrative fees
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-09-12 |
Zambia: Zambia Revenue Authority |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
With effect from 12 September 2011, Zambia Revenue Authority has introduced exorbitant examination fees of K360, 000.00 for 2000 units @ ZMK 180 plus the CED fee of K50, 040.00. The inspection fee and CED are put together and charged as customs clearance fee (asycuda fee) - K410, 040.00 meaning the CED fees have gone up. The total customs clearance fee is now $100 per entry increasing by USD85.00 from USD15.00. The inspection fee does not change relative to the number of units exported/imported. It is a standard fee regardless of the units imported. The units referred to in the Statutory Instrument do not refer to units imported or exported but rather is just a unit of measurement determined by government. The charges, applicable to Imported into the country and those destined for Export out of Zambia, negatively impact on the landed cost of goods and defeat the whole concept of poverty alleviation in Africa. Zambia justifies the objective of the fee as to maintain the inspection equipment e.g. X – rays. |
|
|
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,Zambia reported that the examination fee was removed through a statutory instrument therefore the NTB is resolved. Zambia will forward the SI for posting onto the system. |
|
|
NTB-000-463 |
2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges |
2011-09-21 |
Botswana: Sir Seretse Khama International Airport |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-11-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imported whey permeate from the U.S. was charged an import duty amounting to P10 755.90 for goods valued at USD $4 875.00 (approximately P4100). In addition, they refused to recognize the product as being a whey product, which carries a lower rate of duty than the category for which we were charged. The product we were importing, known as Versilac, is a type of whey permeate, being the material passing through the filter used for extracting whey protein from whey. The only dairies producing whey permeate are those producing whey protein concentrate. No dairy in Southern Africa produces either whey protein concentrate or whey permeate. Our only option is to buy imported permeate and concentrate from South African importers, or to import it ourselves. Why should anyone pay a duty amounting to 262% of the value of the goods when similar goods are not produced anywhere in the region? The officers at BURS in Gaborone insisted they were making correct charges and calculations but we were not provided with an analysis, only the receipt we received once we paid the full amount. Our goods had already been at the airport a week trying to sort the issue out. Finally, we were forced to pay as we needed to begin production. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 November 2012, the comlainant reported that the issue was partially resolved a few months later, when the company received a refund for some of the duty charged. BURS acknowledged that they had the wrong duty amount for that classification in their system. It is therefore assumed that the correct duty will now be charged from that time onwards. The company will continue to engage BURS to consider possibility of waiving duty 0n grounds that the product is for use in treatment of acute malnutrion, in other words it is a life-saving product. This NTB is therefore considered resolved. |
|
|
Products:
|
0404.10: Whey and modified whey, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter |
|
|
NTB-000-460 |
6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies
Policy/Regulatory |
2011-06-06 |
Botswana: BURS |
Botswana |
Resolved
2013-05-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Botswana BURS requires a deposit to be lodged with them prior to allowing any goods, being imported into Botswana, to cross the border. They will not accept a small deposit - enough to cover the VAT charges on the goods in question - they require a standard amount of P25 000. The only way to avoid paying this deposit is to meet the goods at the border and pay the amount which has been determined as owing that very day. It can be very difficult to meet trucks coming from Johannesburg at the border, particularly if you don't stay in Gaborone where most of the trucks cross. This results in many additional costs being incurred by the importer and can result in goods being returned to South Africa at the importers expense. For small consignments, where the VAT owed is only a few hundred Pula, more money can be spent on trying to get to Gaborone, at the right time (which often changes) in order to meet the truck and make the VAT payment, than the VAT amount itself. Perishable food products, if they need to be returned, are often lost completely resulting in major losses. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, Botswana Unified Revenue Services (BURS) confirmed the following 3 available alternatives which enabled traders to pay for VAT/Duties without being at the point of entry so as to grant entry of goods:
i) Apply for gross payment account; through this account, the applicant is able to deposit funds into the account in which payable VAT/duties will be debited upon any importation of goods
ii) Apply for deferred account; this account enables importers to import goods and pay the accrued VAT/duties at the end of the each month (as explained on the NTB status notes initially afforded to you).
iii) Cash payment can be made at any BURS office countrywide after which that particular office will immediately liaise with the office at the point of entry of the imported |
|
|
Products:
|
2008.11: Groundnuts, prepared or preserved (excl. preserved with sugar) |
|
|
NTB-000-458 |
2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures |
2011-09-08 |
Botswana: Martins Drift |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Time taken to clear both side, high cost of paid to clearing agents both sides and attitude of Botswana customs officials is a seriuos concern and a mojr NTB. What you encounter at boarders is inconsistant and contradicts what the government preaches in relation to SMME development. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Botswana reported that BURS is committed to ensuring that all procedures are standard, transparent and consistent at all times to all traders and are working hard to ensure that this is maintained. BURS are working hard on those issues to ensure efficient service delivery to all traders including SMMEs as they recognize the fact that they also contribute hugely to the growth of the country’s economy.
With regards to clearance, Botswana reported that, under normal circumstances, when one has all requirements in place, electronically processed customs declaration will be processed within 4 hours and manual declarations within 24 hours.
Clearing agents’ fees vary from agent to agent, however the average clearing fee for Imports is P650.00 and P450.00 for exports, this depends on mostly the weight, volume and type of commodity. These fees are set by the market. In order for the trader to be able to bypass the clearing agents they need to have registered for the ASYCUDA system with BURS, traders who trade at least every week and meet other mandatory requirements are given rights to use the ASYCUDA system. |
|
|
NTB-000-457 |
8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees |
2011-09-14 |
Zimbabwe: Plumtree |
Botswana |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
charges for carbon tax and insurance affecting our traveling costs that needs to be removed for easer movement |
|
|
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, Zimbabwe explained that charging carbon tax and insurance are standard procedures in the SADC region. There is no violation of SADC or COMESA regulations. A carbon tax is for the protection of the environment therefore this NTB should be considered resolved.
1. Botswana requested that Zimbabwe provides the available information on the specific fees and or charges specifying whether the charges are per trip or for the whole year.
2. It was agreed that this NTB should be considered resolved once Zimbabwe has provided the requested information. |
|
|
NTB-000-456 |
1.1. Export subsidies
A83: Certification requirement |
2011-09-03 |
EAC |
Kenya |
Resolved
2014-12-11 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
EAC Standards Bureaus have varying procedures for issuance of certification marks, inspection and testing. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the 16th NTBs forum held in Kigali in December 2014, EAC Secretariat reported that Partner States Regulatory Agencies are collaborating in clearance of goods and that there is now mutual recognition of certificates issued by Partner States Testing bodies. This NTB was therefore resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-455 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2011-09-03 |
Kenya: Central Corridor |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2011-09-19 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya. Kenya demands that trucks should noit weigh more than 48Tonnes axle load whereas other partner states allow 56tons. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 6th EAC Regional Forum on Non tariff barriers held from 12-13 March 2012, adopted recoomendation from the meetin of EAC permanent secretaries of the sectoral Council of transport , communications and metrology held in Nairobi on 16-19 August 2011 that a meeting of experts be convined by EAC secretariat to develop supportive legal, institutional and operative framework for approval by the council in 2012. This NTB is therefore considered resolved by the regional forum. |
|
|
NTB-000-455 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2011-09-03 |
Kenya: Central Corridor |
Rwanda |
Resolved
2011-09-19 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya. Kenya demands that trucks should noit weigh more than 48Tonnes axle load whereas other partner states allow 56tons. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The axle load was agreed at 56 tons in the recent past and could possibly be a case where a hiccup arises due to lack of information by the implementing agency. When we have such cases of varying application of axle load specifications by Kenya along the Northern Corridor (Weighbridge), then it is useful to specify the weighbridge and give necessary details for us to follow and address the complain . However, the issue of varying application of axle load specifications should no longer occur because the region has adopted a uniform applicable axle load of 56 Tonnes |
|
|
NTB-000-454 |
8.8. Issues related to transit |
2011-09-03 |
Tanzania: Central Corridoor,Tanzania |
Uganda |
Resolved
2012-04-26 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
TRA has introduced check points in the Central Corridor with timeframes and imposed charges for the delays to reach the destinations |
|
|
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 the time frame of clearance of Transit goods from the point of entry to the point of exit had been used as control measure to ensure that there was no divergence of transit goods into local markets. In the Central corridor there are 3 check points that is Missugusugu, Dumila and Isaka.
From all these check points it takes 5 days to across border. In the southern corridor there are also 3 check points and it takes about 3 days to cross borders. Tanzania launched Electronic cargo Tracking System (ECTS) on 12th March, 2012 which was expected to commence operations in June, 2012. With ECTS there will be no need for Time frame as the goods would be monitored electronically. The legal document was given to Rwanda |
|
English
Français
