Sign in with your member login to read more.

Trusted Trader and Service Providers (NNF 2016/050)

DIBP has confirmed and notified in recent press statements that applications for expressions of interest to become a partner of the Australian Trusted Trader (ATT) programme for Importers and Exporters will be open as of 1st July 2016.

As previously communicated via NNF 2016/042  "As to the requirements for service providers to become actively involved in becoming an Australian Trusted Trader on the basis of their client working on that process, it should be noted that the DIBP has advised (and contrary to the position being espoused to service providers and traders by consultants and others trying to work within this space) that all service providers do not have to become a TT." 

Members should be aware that the ATT programme is aimed at the Importer and Exporter and not to the service provider. 
DIBP has confirmed that service providers will not have to do anything more than they already do in their commercial environment.
The self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) provided by the DIBP to the Importer/Exporter contains detailed requirements including the nomination of the service providers that they use in the supply chain.

Some of your clients may have many different organisations that they will have to advise DIBP and some may have just one. That will depend on the service you supply your client.
DIBP has advised that this will not be a disadvantage in application to be an ATT.
DIBP will require this data to enable them to track any issues that may arise during any audit process.
Service providers have not been advised by DIBP of any requirements they have to undertake to be an accredited Service Provider and this has been confirmed in recent communication by DIBP.

Members are reminded of previous advice that DIBP is currently designing “ streamline reporting” for an ATT and has not commented on what a combined monthly return would look like or how it would be lodged.
DIBP  has been unable to ascertain the cost of becoming an ATT and has not been able to identify any cost savings for Importers.
DIBP has also confirmed that the ATT programme will not be cross subsidised by the Entry Processing Fee currently used to cost recover the Import Program.

 

• Discussions in relation to Streamlined Reporting and review of options and models tested the knowledge level of those who are not service providers and it was clearly apparent at the meeting that few had little, if any, understanding of the methodology or process for cargo report, entry and release. It is only those industry associations who understand these aspects who have the capability to comment on the proposals. The CBFCA led that discussion. One of the key elements in relation to Streamline Reporting is the issue relating to cost recovery, in particular those costs which are recovered through the DIBP Import Processing Charge (IPC). With any change in numbers or outflow of import declarations into the TT, then there will be a differing level of import declaration numbers over which the IPC would be able to be spread thus resulting in changes to the IPC for those importers who are not in the TT. The DIBP has advised unequivocally that there will be no cross subsidisation between the TT program and the traditional import clearance process. However, regulation now provides the opportunity for a variation in charges for the TT process (appropriately based upon the level of direct and indirect costs which relate to that process) as against the IPC for import declarations. While the DIBP may make comment that there will be no cross subsidisation, it should be noted that through the IPC there is already cross subsidisation to processes related to low value consignments, so perhaps the DIBP position of no cross subsidisation or variation to the IPC should be viewed in that light. The Working Group on Streamlined Reporting will reconvene at the end of April 2016 to review further work from the DIBP on the outcomes of its discussions with industry on the referenced models

• As has been clearly articulated and understood by the CBFCA (with a whole government inclusion in the TT), it is not the DIBP customs and security requirement which has created issues; it is clearly the biosecurity requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) being integrated into the TT which has caused, and will continue to cause, significant difficulties in implementation.

So, in summary:

• be mindful as to the needs of your clients who may wish to participate in the TT,
• ensure that they are briefed that when approached by the DIBP TT team and that you, as the service provider, are in attendance to provide balance to the “business benefits and cost saving” put forward by the DIBP and,
• when your clients are approached by consultants and others advising that unless they are in the TT program they will suffer significant disadvantages, that you, as their true service provider, be part of that discussion process also.

Significant work still needs to be done on the TT so keep abreast of what is being put forward by the regulators and your Association.

National Committee on Trade Facilitation

The NCTF, of which the CBFCA is a member, had its third meeting on 13 April 2016 and were provided with a variety of reports, in particular, the TTIAG outcomes, as well as some of the determination of Terms of Reference (ToR) for NCTF Working Groups. ToR for the NCTF itself, which had been discussed over the previous two (2) meetings, were tabled for acceptance. At this meeting there remained differences in opinion as to the ToR and how the NCTF would meet the requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Facilitation (ATF) Article 23.2 National Facilitation Bodies. This aspect has yet to be finalised, and while there is no requirement at law under the ATF to have a NCTF in place until that Convention is ratified by the requisite number of WTO members (at the moment 83 out of the requisite 104), it would be hoped that Australia, for its own international trade facilitation and economic betterment, could have an NCTF in place before it became a legislative requirement.

So, the NCTF also remains a work in progress.

Addressed at the NCTF meeting were:

• Single window: As to determining or defining exactly what a single window is and when, where and why it was required. While it was acknowledged that the DIBP Integrated Cargo System (ICS) is used as the single interface for industry to connect with regulatory agencies as to the clearance of goods, a whole of government response in relation to a variety of requirements in terms of permits and clearance were still being analysed. A trial in relation to permit application through the ICS in relation to CITES was being trialled to determine feasibility of permit application.
• Industry portal: The DIBP acknowledged that the access by industry to information on the current DIBP Website was less than optimal and work had been undertaken to address ways and means to finesse and facilitate information on the DIBP on the website to make it user-friendly and more operative orientated.
• Regulatory and Legislative Reform Working Groups: In ToRs of the respective Working Groups, it had been noted that there was a crossover between the work undertaken in either or both of these groups which would be more appropriately addressed within the newly created CAG and steps then would be taken to integrate regulatory arrangements into the CAG’s work programme.
  
   

So in a manner similar to the TTIAG, the NCTF remains a little adrift as to its focus and direction. The CBFCA observed that several members of the NCTF, as regards representation, overlap other representatives and it is not clear as to whether those parties are present to deliver on behalf of industry or their interests. However, it is clear that those industry associations which represent their members being service providers in international trade logistics and supply chain management have a different focus as to facilitation and trade improvement options. This will be an issue that the DIBP will have to manage where certain parties have split personalities on representing themselves, their clients, or in the capacity of a lobbyist.

Some interesting and fractious days ahead for the NCTF.