A tax dispute between Yogi Steels Limited and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) has raised broader questions about the impact of customs enforcement and tax incentives on industrial production, employment and the cost of steel products in Uganda.
The dispute, which has been before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, centres on the company’s eligibility for tax relief under a duty remission arrangement and URA’s subsequent decision to revoke the remission under Legal Notice No. EAC/61/2024.
Tribunal proceedings show that Yogi Steels challenged URA’s actions in several applications, including Application No. 163 of 2024, in which the revenue authority raised preliminary objections concerning the tribunal’s jurisdiction to handle customs-related disputes under the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004.
In another matter, Yogi Steels Ltd vs URA, Application No. 224 of 2024, the steel manufacturer challenged URA’s substantive decision to deny it tax relief following the revocation of the duty remission.
The dispute has also involved the detention of goods belonging to the company.
In Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2025, the tribunal granted Yogi Steels provisional release of the detained goods pending determination of the main application.
The development brings into focus the potential consequences of prolonged customs and tax disputes for manufacturers whose production depends on imported raw materials and other inputs.
For a steel manufacturer, delays in accessing essential materials can potentially affect production schedules, deliveries to customers and the wider supply chain involving transporters, suppliers, distributors and traders.
The dispute also raises questions about whether additional costs arising from customs delays or disputed tax liabilities could eventually be reflected in the prices paid by consumers.
However, there is no indication from the tribunal proceedings alone that Yogi Steels has increased its prices or laid off workers as a direct result of the dispute. The company had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The case also highlights the tension between Government’s efforts to promote manufacturing through tax incentives and URA’s mandate to ensure that companies benefiting from such incentives comply with the conditions attached to them.
Duty remission schemes are intended to reduce the cost of specified inputs for eligible businesses, particularly manufacturers, but companies are required to meet the applicable conditions before benefiting from the relief.
The central question in the Yogi Steels dispute is therefore whether the company complied with the requirements governing the remission and whether URA was justified in withdrawing the tax benefit.
Beyond the legal arguments, the case has a wider industrial-policy dimension.
If manufacturers face unexpected tax liabilities, detention of inputs or prolonged disputes over customs treatment, their production costs could rise and their ability to plan investments and prices could be affected.
On the other hand, weak enforcement of customs and tax rules could expose Government to revenue losses and create an uneven operating environment between compliant and non-compliant businesses.
The tribunal’s eventual determination of the substantive dispute is therefore expected to provide clarity on the legality of URA’s decision and could offer guidance to other manufacturers operating under duty remission arrangements.
For workers and businesses connected to the steel sector, the bigger concern is whether disputes of this nature can be resolved quickly enough to protect industrial production while allowing URA to enforce the country’s tax and customs laws.
The outcome could consequently have implications beyond Yogi Steels, particularly for manufacturers that rely on tax incentives to keep the cost of imported production inputs manageable.
English 