| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
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-000-484 |
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-000-483 |
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-000-480 |
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-000-478 |
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. |
|
English
Français
