Tariff Concession Orders


The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) through its subscription service has released the Exposure Draft for the interest of industry.

The CBFCA has previously commented to the DIBP on this vexatious issue (details in relation to that commentary are set out in e-Bulletin Issue 17, 2 September 2015).

Sign in to read more...

The CBFCA also presented the attached Paper to the DIBP on the issue and continues to work towards a resolution of a policy position which is a change to that which has existed and has enabled Tariff Concession Order (TCO) arrangements to be interpreted in a manner which provided concessional duty opportunities for importers, maintained the level of protection for local manufacture and met regulatory intent.
 
The CBFCA, as late as 7 October 2015 in a meeting with the DIBP, again raised the change in interpretation by the DIBP Border Management Division in relation to TCO compliance activity from the CBFCA’s perspective is that there appears to be a significant disconnect between policy and compliance monitoring. Whether this is a result of the lack of understanding of the TCO arrangements by compliance operatives or a determination (incorrectly) that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in Toro (Toro Australia Group Sales Pty Ltd and Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2014] AATA 187 (4 April 2014) is precedent is unknown. Suffice to say that this disconnect generates significant liability for service providers, not only relation to TCOs but also as to the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act 1995. In fact so as not to give rise to difficulties in relation to any claims that may be made under professional indemnity insurance (as to not taking due care and diligence or taking all steps to mitigate risks/loss in tariff classification of goods or use of a TCO) it can only be suggested that the saving option on these issues is the option (requirement) to lodge a Tariff Advice/Ruling to achieve an appropriate level of protection for clients and service providers alike (noting the provisions of the Infringement Notice Scheme and strict liability offences). However it is difficult to perceive how the DIBP would meet this Ruling challenge, particularly where key performance indicators on Tariff Advices sees them running at over 65 days!

These and other policy issues have been part of the agenda of the CBFCA in its ongoing discussions with the DIBP. Further advice will be provided as outcomes are delivered.

Member only content

If you are a current member of the CBFCA signing in will give you access to the member only information on this page.  If you are not sure of your details please click on the forgot my password or username link. 

If you are already logged in, please CONTACT US to discuss upgrading your access.  

Sign In