Non-Tariff Barriers :: Complaints

Resolved complaints

Showing items 421 to 440 of 818

Complaint number	NTB Type Category 1. Government participation in trade & restrictive practices tolerated by governments 1.1. Export subsidies 1.2. Government monopoly in export/import 1.3. State subsidies, procurement, trading, state ownership 1.4. Preference given to domestic bidders/suppliers 1.5. Requirement for counter trade 1.6. Domestic assistance programmes for companies 1.7. Discriminatory or flawed government procurement policies 1.8. Import bans 1.9. Determination of eligibility of an exporting country by the importing country 1.10. Determination of eligibility of an exporting establishment (firm, company) by the importing country 1.11. Occupational safety and health regulation 1.12. Multiplicity and Controls of Foreign exchange market 1.13. "Buy national" policy 1.14. Lack of coordination between government institutions 1.15. Other Category 2. Customs and administrative entry procedures 2.1. Government imposing antidumping duties 2.2. Arbitrary customs classification 2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin 2.4. Import licensing 2.5. Decreed customs surcharges 2.6. Additional taxes and other charges 2.7. International taxes and charges levied on imports and other tariff measures 2.8. Lengthy and costly customs clearance procedures 2.9. Issues related to transit fees 2.10. Inadequate or unreasonable customs procedures and charges 2.11. Lack of control in Customs infrastructure 2.12. Lack of capacity of Customs officers 2.13. Issues related to Pre-Shipment Inspections 2.14. Other Category 3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) Category 4. Sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures Category 5. Specific limitations 5.1. Quantitative restrictions 5.2. Exchange controls 5.3. Export taxes 5.4. Quotas 5.5. Import licensing requirements 5.6. Proportion restrictions of foreign to domestic goods (local content requirement) 5.7. Minimum import price limits 5.8. Embargoes 5.9. Non-automatic licensing 5.10. Prohibitions 5.11. Quantitative safeguard measures 5.12. Export restraint arrangements 5.13. Other quantity control measures 5.14. Restrictive licenses 5.15. Other Category 6. Charges on imports 6.1. Prior import deposits and subsidies 6.2. Administrative fees 6.3. Special supplementary duties 6.4. Import credit discriminations 6.5. Variable levies 6.6. Border taxes 6.7. Other Category 7. Other procedural problems 7.1. Arbitrariness 7.2. Discrimination 7.3. Corruption 7.4. Costly procedures 7.5. Lengthy procedures 7.6. Lack of information on procedures (or changes thereof) 7.7. Complex variety of documentation required 7.8. Consular and Immigration Issues 7.9. Inadequate trade related infrastructure 7.10. Other Category 8. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding 8.1. Government Policy and regulations 8.2. Administrative (Border Operating Hours, delays at border posts, etc.) 8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) 8.4. Transport related corruption 8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,) 8.6. Vehicle standards 8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees 8.8. Issues related to transit Other Policy or Regulatory NTB Not a policy or regulatory NTB Check allUncheck all	Date of incident	Location COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Reporting country or region (additional) COMESA Burundi Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Eswatini Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Somalia Sudan Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe EAC Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Rwanda South Sudan Tanzania Uganda SADC Angola Botswana Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Eswatini Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Seychelles South Africa Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA EAC SADC	Status	Actions
NTB-000-500	8.8. Issues related to transit	2012-03-14	Tanzania: Along MAjor highways	Rwanda	Resolved 2015-11-30	View
Complaint:	Weighing of empty trucks in Tanzania
Resolution status note:	Tanzania introduced weighing in motion
NTB-000-499	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees	2012-03-14		Tanzania	Resolved 2022-06-14	View
Complaint:	Non-harmonized road user charges / road tolls in EAC Partner States.
Resolution status note:	On 14 June 2022 the EAC Secretariat reported that the SCTIFI meeting agreed that this is not an NTB since RUC is not harmonized in all EAC Partner States. The complaint is removed from the TBP
NTB-000-498	8.5. Infrastructure (Air, Port, Rail, Road, Border Posts,)	2012-03-14	Kenya: Mombasa sea port	Rwanda	Resolved 2014-12-11	View
Complaint:	Congestion in the Dar-es- Salaam and Mombasa Ports
Resolution status note:	At the 16th EAC regional forum on non tariff barriers held in Kigali in December 2014, EAC Secretariat reported that the ports of Mombasa and Dar Es Salaam are implementing National single window system to redress delays at the ports. This NTB is therefore resolved
NTB-000-497	5.1. Quantitative restrictions Policy/Regulatory	2012-05-08	Eswatini: Bordergate	South Africa	Resolved 2015-12-03	View
Complaint:	Swaziland is to impose Quantitive import restrictions on imported edible cooking oil from within the SADC region as well as 15% import duties over and above the quantitive restriction. Such has happen already on Wheat Flour and after 8 years of 'Infancy Protection', NO IMPORT permits are issued to date. Court Case is currently being heard by the High Court of Swaziland. (Various Stakeholders versus Government of Swaziland)
Resolution status note:	At their meeting held on 23 May 2013, the SCTF recalled Articles 3 and 7 of the Trade Protocol, on elimination of trade barriers and quantitative restrictions. Swaziland reported that measure was implemented in the context of the SACU, which provides for quantitative restrictions and protection of infant industry protection. SCTF requested Swaziland to provide its relevant national legal instrument and information on how the measure is applied including whether or not it is applicable to trade with non-SACU SADC FTA Member States. Swaziland undertook to provide the information as requested. Swaziland submitted the legislation as per requirement . This NTB is therefore resolved .
Products:	1205.10: Low erucic acid rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of < 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of < 30 micromoles/g", 1205.90: High erucic rape or colza seeds "yielding a fixed oil which has an erucic acid content of >= 2% and yielding a solid component of glucosinolates of >= 30 micromoles/g", whether or not broken and 1206.00: Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken
NTB-000-494	2.3. Issues related to the rules of origin	2012-04-17	Tanzania: Namanga	Kenya	Resolved 2013-04-10	View
Complaint:	Furniture International Ltd had reported in 5th April that locally manufactured furniture in Kenya with an EAC certificate of origin have been stuck in Namanga borders for more than two weeks that means in mid March. The company ended up paying full duties and incurred a loss of more than US$ 3,000. Three is need for mutual recognition between TRA and KRA in regard to certificates of origin since for example the case cited goods were clearly marked made in Kenya.
Resolution status note:	At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Tanzania reported that this was a once off incident which has been corrected.
NTB-000-493	8.7. Costly Road user charges /fees Policy/Regulatory	2012-04-16	South Africa: Gauteng	South Africa	Resolved 2013-05-23	View
Complaint:	Note: This is not reported by South Africa, but by FESARTA; a sub-regional organization. The South African National Roads Agency, SANRAL, is planning to introduce new toll fees on its upgraded Gauteng freeways (E-tolls). The proposed fees are in excess of fees agreed at regional level, viz: In 2007, the SADC-recommended road user charge for South Africa, was US$2.92/100kms, for a heavy goods vehicle. In 2009, this was revised to US$3.46/100kms. These recommended figures were calculated from the road maintenance data submitted to SADC by South Africa in those years. On its busiest freeway, the N3 from Durban to Gauteng, the 2012 toll fees charged by SANRAL amount to approximately US$13/100kms. This is far in excess of the fees recommended by SADC. Now, SANRAL is proposing to charge around US$19/100kms for the use of the Gauteng freeways by a heavy goods vehicle. It is considered that these fees are excessively high and will unnecessarily add to the cost of goods to the consumer in the East and Southern African region.
Resolution status note:	At its 11th meeting of the SADC Sub -Committee on Trade Facilitation held on 23 May 2013 in Gaborone, SCTF noted that the report was based on toll fees that were not yet implemented. As such traders are not affected. It was agreed that matter be filed until such time that the fees are effected
NTB-000-492	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-000-490	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-000-486	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.

<< Previous 1 2 3...20 21 22 23 24...39 40 41 Next >>

Display:

Non-Tariff Barriers

Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism

Resolved complaints