Traders are calling on the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) and the National Treasury to delay the mandatory requirement for a Certificate of Origin (CoO) for all imports into Kenya by at least one year.
They argue that more time is needed for consultations and to avoid possible adverse effects on trade and customs revenue.
This request comes even as KRA has already announced that from July 1, 2025, all imported goods must be accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by a competent authority in the exporting country.
Importers, customs agents, and the public were notified, and a transition period runs until September 30, 2025. After that date, compliance will be strictly enforced.
This is a major shift. Previously, CoOs were only required for goods under preferential trade agreements to determine origin and access tariff benefits.
A valid Certificate of Origin must include the exporter’s and importer’s names and addresses, the port of origin, an accurate description and quantity of the goods, as well as the countries of origin and destination.
Failure to comply could lead to seizure or forfeiture of the goods, as spelt out in the amended Tax Procedures Act under the Finance Act, 2025.
“Importers are therefore advised to engage their suppliers early to ensure compliance with this requirement, ensure all future shipments are accompanied by a valid COO issued by a competent authority in the exporting country,” Commissioner for Customs and Border Control, Lilian Nyawanda, advised.
The Shippers Council of Eastern Africa (SCEA) has challenged the roll-out of this rule, arguing it lacked proper public participation and risks disrupting trade.
“While the intent on which this new requirement remains unknown partly because there was no notice and public participation, especially on this particular item, contrary to Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act of 2015, the potential impact of this remains huge and could alter how Kenya engages in international trade, lead to delays in securing raw materials and high imports costs, lead to delays in cargo clearance and possible revenue loss,” CEO Agayo Ogambi stated.
SCEA points out that without amending this requirement, Kenya’s impressive Ksh 879 billion in customs revenue from last year could be at risk.
Ogambi also raised concerns about ambiguity around who qualifies as a ‘competent authority’ issuing ordinary CoOs and what validation arrangements exist with KRA.
“It may be too early, but to date it is not clear who the designated competent authorities to issue the Ordinary Certificate of Origin are, and what arrangements have been made between them and KRA to ensure legitimacy in the issuance and validation of the issued certificates,” he said.
Shippers warn that introducing this requirement could mean Kenyans end up paying foreign firms billions for CoO services.
Small traders, in particular, would be hard hit, especially those who buy from freight consolidators sourcing goods from multiple countries. For example, a Singapore-based shipper might consolidate goods from China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the UAE, and Malaysia into a single shipment to Kenya.
“This begs the question, from which country shall the certificate of origin be sourced? It is important to note that most countries act as supply hubs rather than actual production centres, creating complexity in meeting such strict origin requirements,” Ogambi said.
From a legal standpoint, the requirement also conflicts with the East African Community Customs Management Act (EACCMA), 2004.
Section 210 of EACCMA requires a CoO only for preferential treatment, and the Act does not allow forfeiture of goods solely over missing CoOs, yet the new Finance Act introduces such penalties.
“If the CoO intends to address misdeclaration, it is important to note that requiring a certificate or origin may address the misdeclarations, and since we are part of the East Africa Common Market with a Common External Tariff, the best possible intervention would be through an administrative mechanism, risk profiling and identification of suspected products,” Ogambi said.
Alternative measures suggested include using the Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVOC) programme, destination inspections, Import Declaration Forms (IDF), or KRA’s enhanced automation systems.
Vehicle importers have sought exemptions, arguing that existing documentation for used vehicles, such as logbooks, export and inspection certificates, already provides sufficient details for country of origin identification.
Leave a comment