The revenue authorities of Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda are required to have complete integration of their Customs systems before the end of June, to enable them fully to roll out the Single Customs Territory.

A fully functional Customs territory would make it easier to clear goods and reduce protectionist tendencies.

Doris Akol, Uganda Revenue Authority administrator general, says that the problems raised by players in the logistics sector can be solved through merging of the three countries’ revenue systems.

Although both the Uganda and Rwanda revenue authorities use Asycuda World, while Kenya uses Simba to keep track of Customs transactions, the three countries’ officials are yet to begin talking to each other.

Merging of Customs systems will make it possible for the three countries to have a regional bond for goods in transit, instead of just having to choose between the Comesa one, which is considered expensive by players in the logistics sector, and the national ones, which are considered inefficient.

Merging of systems would also improve the performance of the SCT, which players in the region now say is performing at just 5 per cent.

Launched in October 2013, the Single Customs Territory was supposed to create a seamless flow of goods, lower costs of clearing, digitise clearance systems and improve co-ordination between the three agencies.

READ: Single Customs regime: It now costs less to clear cargo

Having an SCT has reduced the transport time for goods from Mombasa to Kigali eight days from 21, and to Kampala from 18 to five. Information from TradeMark East Africa also shows that tax collection improved as a result of the SCT.  

But Jennifer Mwijukye, managing director of Unifrieght Cargo Handling Ltd, said that the benefits of the SCT have been limited by gross underperformance.

She estimated the performance at just about 5 per cent, attributed to the limitation on warehousing options and the fact that only a few goods are cleared under this arrangement.

“When the SCT was launched, we were promised that new goods would be introduced on the list every two months but this hasn’t happened,” she said.  

Goods cleared by the revenue authorities of Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda under the SCT include clinker, edible oils, wheat grain, rice, cigarettes, neutral spirits and petroleum.

Merian Sebunya, president of the Federation of East African Freight Forwarders, also lamented the lack of a regional bond, unfavourable competition practices by Kenya’s Revenue Authority and the fact that clearing is done at two borders.

Ms Mwijukye said that revenue agencies of landlocked partner states want to clear goods from the port of entry. After this, clearing and forwarding agents are required to move goods to a warehouse in the destination country.

“The ideal situation should be that any warehouse within the SCT area can be used. One should be able to pay tax or warehouse the commodities in a country of their choice,” she said.

Goods heading to the hinterland also require clearing more than once. Goods heading to Uganda are for example required to be cleared at both Mombasa port and Malaba border.

Sam Watasa a former non-tariff barriers consultant with Uganda’s Ministry of Trade and Co-operatives says that the ideal situation should be that goods are cleared once, since arrival at Mombasa under a SCT is the same as reaching the destination country.

Ms Sebunya added that the process of clearing goods has not become as seamless as had been expected.

She accused KRA officials denying Ugandan clearing and forwarding agents access to their system when clearing goods under SCT. Yet at least 600 Kenyan clearing and forwarding agents have access to the URA Asycuda World system.

Importers from Rwanda are allowed into the Kenyan system, but this group mostly uses the Central Corridor and therefore the impact of this is minimal on progress of the SCT.

KRA is also accused of refusing to use an electronic cargo tracking system that was purchased by TradeMark East Africa to help reduce opportunities of dumping goods into the Kenya market. 

Mr Watasa said refusal to use a system that would create transparency either means officials at KRA are benefiting from the opaqueness or that the institution itself benefits.

Attempts to get KRA officials to comment on these accusations proved futile.