Zimbabwe: Trade implications of the mid-term fiscal policy review

Measure #2690 | Published 23 Aug 2011 ▲

Description

On 26 July 2011, the government presented its mid-term fiscal policy review. The following components of the review have implications for the national trade policy.

  • Re-instatement of import duties for maize-meal and cooking oil effective 1 August 2011 (p.114 of source document).
  • Prolongation of import duty suspension for salt, flour and rice until 31 December 2011 (p.114).
  • Reintroduction of import duty waiver for capital goods used in the tourism sector from 1 September 2011 (p.115).
  • Temporary suspension of import duties on Safari vehicles for six months starting 1 September 2011 (p.116).
  • Suspension of traveler's rebate on imports of blankets, clothing new or used, footwear, travel bags and stoves from 1 August 2011 (p.122).
  • Raise of the import tariff on potato chips, baked beans, corn snacks, canned peas, mixed fruit jam, and tomato sauce to 25 percent from 1 September 2011 (p.123-4).
  • Raised import duty on school uniforms from 25 to 40 percent plus US$1.50/kg effective 1 September 2011 (p.124).
  • Reintroduction of customs duty on disc ploughs and harrows, mould board ploughs, scarifiers and rippers, cultivators and weeders, mechanical rotary hoes, dam scoops, seeders, planters and transplanters from 1 September 2011 (p.125).
  • Reduction of import duty for mild and carbon steel, toolsteel, wire, fasteners, helical springs, hydraulic hollow tubes, and bolts from 1 September 2011 (p.125-6).
  • Duty reduction for pre-paid electricity meters from 1 September 2011 (p.126).
  • Removal of import duty on computer software from 1 September 2011 (p.127).
  • Extentsion of the import duty suspension for motor vehicles imported by physically challenged persons (p.132).

Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:

Question Result
Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?
Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?
Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?
Was such evidence identified?
Is such evidence publicly available?
Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?
Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?
Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?
Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?

Implementing Jurisdiction:

Affected Trading Partners:


[view 6 more jurisdictions]

Measure type:

Affected Sectors:

Affected Tariff Lines:


[view 24 more tariff lines]

(mouse over for more info)

Date Discovered:

Implemented: Yes

Date of inception: 1 Aug 2011

GTA Evaluation: Amber

Source:

Ministry of Finance (2011). The 2011 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review. Available at http://www.zimtreasury.org/downloads/Mid-Year-Fiscal-Policy-Review.pdf

Government Response:

Glossary of trade terms