A change in Kenya’s import valuation rules has put small traders at the center of a dispute over the rising cost of bringing goods into the country.
The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) raised the minimum customs benchmark for a consolidated 40-foot container from about $19,300 to $24,700, an increase of roughly 28%. The new benchmark took effect on August 20 and is aimed at tackling the under-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods.
For small and medium-sized traders, however, the issue is less about how the benchmark is defined and more about what they ultimately have to pay to get their goods through customs.
Many smaller importers use consolidated containers, sharing space with other traders rather than paying for an entire container on their own. The model helps spread shipping and logistics costs across several businesses, making imports more affordable for traders operating on relatively small margins.
The change sparked protests on August 28, with traders shutting businesses across central Nairobi and taking to the streets. Demonstrations were reported in commercial areas including Kamukunji, Gikomba and Nyamakima, with protesters marching toward KRA headquarters at Times Tower. Police used tear gas to disperse the crowds.
Traders argued that the higher benchmark would increase the cost of imported goods and put additional pressure on businesses already operating with tight margins.
KRA has defended the measure, saying that $24,700 is a minimum reference value rather than an automatic customs value for every container. Officials say the new benchmark is needed to close gaps in the existing system and prevent importers from declaring artificially low values.
The authority has also pointed to another problem: larger importers have increasingly used consolidation arrangements to minimise their tax obligations, according to KRA. Officials argue that this can create an uneven playing field for businesses that comply fully with customs requirements.
The dispute highlights a difficult balance for African trading markets. Governments want to improve customs collection and limit under-declaration, while smaller businesses need predictable import costs to remain competitive.
That balance may also be relevant for Central African markets, where small and medium-sized traders rely heavily on imported goods and, in some cases, consolidated shipments. Kenya’s experience does not necessarily point to similar policy changes elsewhere, but it offers a useful benchmark for understanding how changes in customs valuation can affect smaller businesses.
For a large importer, a higher customs assessment may be easier to absorb. For a small trader working with limited margins, the same increase can quickly feed into the final price of goods.
Kenya’s case therefore raises a question that may be relevant beyond its borders: how can governments strengthen customs collection and address tax avoidance without making formal trade significantly more expensive for smaller businesses?
For now, the dispute remains a Kenyan policy issue. But the experience offers a useful reference for other African markets facing the same tension between stronger revenue collection and keeping trade accessible to small and medium-sized businesses.
