Under current subsection 28(1) of the
Principal Act the regulations may prescribe the days on which, and
the hours between which, Customs officers are available to perform
specified functions. Under subsections 28(2) and (3), where a
person requests a Customs Officer to perform a outside prescribed
times, or in a place that is not one where the function is normally
carried out, a fee is payable. The amount of the fee is determined
by the Chief Executive Officer having regard to the cost of making
the Customs Officer available. </ ul>
Similarly, a person will be liable to pay the screening charge
(which is formally imposed by the Import Processing Charges Bill
1996), in addition to any cargo report processing charge, where
they communicate the ACS a report that:
Paragraph 68(1)(e) of the Principal
Act currently requires an import entry for goods imported into
Australia through the Post Office costing more than
$1 000.
No rationale is provided in the Explanatory Memorandum
to the Bill for the amendment proposed by item 12. The rationale
could be either revenue raising or statistics gathering, or
both.
Whatever the rationale for the amendment it will add to the cost
of goods imported into Australia through the Post Office. For
example, a person places an order on the Internet for an
educational text, compact disks or some computer software with a
company in London. The good costs more than $250. The order is duly
imported through the Post Office. That person will be required to
lodge an import entry with the ACS and pay the proposed entry
processing charge. </ ul>
ACS not to Authorise Delivery Unless Screening Charge
Paid
A new subsection 71(3) is inserted in the
Principal Act by item 14 of Schedule 1 which
provides that the ACS must not allow the delivery of goods of a
kind referred to in paragraph 68(1)(f) (ie. requirement for an
import entry for goods imported into Australia through the Post
Office costing more than $1 000 [$250 proposed]) unless:
- the person liable to pay screening charge (which is formally
imposed by the Import Processing Charges Bill 1996) pays that
charge; or
- the person liable to pay the charge is entitled to pay that
charge in accordance with subsection 64ABD(1) - (3) (these
subsection provides for the making of arrangements for payment of
cargo report processing charge or screening charge).
Liability for Entry Processing Charge
A new section 71AA, dealing with liability to
pay entry processing charge, is inserted in the Principal Act by
item 18 of Schedule 1. A person will be liable to
pay the entry processing charge, which is formally imposed by the
Import Processing Charges Bill 1996), where an import entry is, or
is taken to have been, communicated to the ACS under section 71A of
the Principal Act.
Where one person who is the owner of goods has paid entry
processing charge in respect of an import entry, any other person
who is also an owner will cease to be liable to pay entry
processing charge. There will also be no liability for entry
processing charge whee an import entry is withdrawn.
Liability To Pay Warehoused Goods Entry Fee
A new section 71AB is inserted in the Principal
Act by item 19 of Schedule 1 which makes the owner
of warehoused goods who enters the goods for home consumption
liable to pay the warehoused goods entry fee. Warehoused goods are
defined in subsection 4(1) of the Principal Act to be goods
received into a warehouse in pursuance of an import entry, or goods
blended or packaged in a warehouse. The proposed section contains a
formula for working out the amount of warehoused goods entry fee.
This is the FR (the flat rate) plus the LR (line rate) multiplied
by the number of relevant lines. The flat rate for:
- a computer import entry will be $5.00, or a prescribed amount;
or
- a documentary import entry will be $26.75, or a prescribed
amount.
The line rate for:
- a computer import entry will be $0.20, or a prescribed amount,
for each line after the tenth line of the entry; or
- a documentary import entry will be $0.80, or a prescribed
amount, for each line after the first line of the entry.
The term 'line' is defined to mean the description of goods
covered by the import entry that come within a single tariff
classification to which a duty attaches.
Depots
A new Part IV (proposed sections
77F-77ZA), dealing with depot licences, is inserted in the
Principal Act by item 25 of Schedule 1. Power to
grant a depot licence is vested in the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The CEO may grant a depot licence to use a place for certain
purposes, including: the holding of imported goods; the holding of
goods for export; the examination of goods by ACS officers; or for
a specified purpose/s (proposed section 77G).
Under proposed section 77H, applications for a
depot licence must be made by the person or partnership who would
occupy and control the depot. Applications must be accompanied by
the proposed depot licence application charge. Australia Post will
not be liable to pay the proposed depot licence application charge
where it applies for the whole or a part of an International Mail
Centre to be covered by a depot licence.
The CEO must not grant a depot licence in certain circumstances,
including:
- if the applicant, is a natural person, and is not a fit and
proper person to hold a depot licence (In making a determination
whether a person is a fit and proper person, the CEO is to have
regard to certain matters including whether he/she has any prior
convictions committed within the previous 10 years and whether
he/she is an insolvent under administration.);
- the applicant, if it is a company, is not a fit and proper
company to hold a depot licence (In making a determination whether
a company is a fit and proper company, the CEO is to have regard to
certain matter including whether the company has any prior
convictions committed within the previous 10 years and at a time
when any person who is currently a director, officer or shareholder
was a director, officer or shareholder of the company.); and
- the physical security of the proposed depot is not adequate
having regard to the nature of the place, the procedures and
methods for ensuring the security of goods and the records that
would be kept would not be suitable to all the ACS to adequately
audit those goods (proposed section 77K).
Proposed section 77K also provides that the
CEO:
- may refuse to grant a depot licence if he/she believes that the
proposed depot would be too remote from the nearest place where ACS
officers regularly perform their functions for them to conveniently
check compliance with Customs Acts;
- must not grant a depot licence where the depot is to be used
for imported goods arriving by sea and the applicant is not a
registered user of the Sea Cargo Automation System;
- must not grant a depot licence where the depot is to be used
for imported goods arriving by air and the applicant is not a
registered user of the Air Cargo Automation System; and
- must not grant a depot licence where the depot is to be used
for imported goods arriving by sea and air and the applicant is not
a registered user of the Sea Cargo Automation System and Air Cargo
Automation System.
Proposed section 77L deals with the granting of
a depot licence. The CEO must make a determination as to the grant
of a depot licence within 60 days of the receipt of an application
or, where the CEO requires the applicant to provide additional
information in relation to the application, within 60 days of the
receipt of that additional information. Where the CEO does not make
a decision within 60 days this will be taken to be a refusal.
Proposed sections 77N-77Q deal with depot
licence conditions. All depot licences will be subject to certain
general conditions. Provision is also made for specified conditions
to attach to a depot licence. General conditions include:
- payment to the ACS any prescribed travelling expenses payable
in relation to travelling to and from the depot by a
Collector;
- stacking and arranging goods in the depot so that ACS officers
have reasonable access to, and can examine, the goods;
- when requested to do so by the ACS, allow ACS officers to enter
and remain in the depot to examine goods which are subject to
control of the ACS, or which an ACS officer has reasonable grounds
for believing are subject to ACS control; and
- retaining for five years from the day goods are received into
the depot, of related commercial records and records created as
required by Customs Acts.
The CEO is accorded power under proposed section
77Q, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with Customs
Acts, or protecting revenue, to specify conditions in a depot
licence in addition to the general conditions specified in
proposed sections 77N and 77P and to vary
specified conditions.
Proposed section 77R makes it an offence,
punishable by a maximum fine of 50 penalty units ($5 000), for the
holder of a depot licence to breach a proposed section
77N-77Q licence condition.
Proposed section 77U requires a depot licensing
charge to be payed for the grant of a depot licence by the person
or partnership seeking it. As with the proposed depot licence
application charge (see proposed section 77H), Australia Post is
not liable to pay the depot licence charge for each grant or
renewal of a depot licence that covers the an International Mail
Centre.
Remark
The Explanatory Memorandum to the
Bill does not contain an interpretation of proposed section 77U.
</ ul>
Proposed section 77V accords the CEO the power
to revoke a depot licence in certain circumstances. The
circumstances, for the most part, are identical to the conditions
which apply to an application for a depot licence under proposed
77K.
Refund Application Fee
Section 163 of the Principal Act deals with refunds, rebates and
remissions of duty. A fee of $200 is payable for an application for
a refund of duty paid. Subsection 163(1D) sets out the
circumstances in which the $200 fee is not payable, these
circumstances include:
- where a ACS officer assisted in making up the entry in respect
of which the application for a refund of duty is made;
- where the duty was paid under protest;
- where the duty was paid as a consequence of advice given, or a
ruling made, by a ACS officer; and
- where all duty amounts were paid in good faith.
The current $200 fee and exceptions are being repealed by
item 26 of Schedule 1 and new subsections
163(1C) and (1D) substituted.
Under proposed subsection 163(1C), where a
person makes an application for a refund of duty paid they will be
liable to pay the refund application fee. Proposed subsection
163(1D) specifies what amount of the refund application fee is
payable. The refund application fee is:
- where the application is transmitted to the ACS via a
prescribed computer system, $45.00, or a prescribed amount; or
- where the application is made in an approved form, $65.00, or a
prescribed amount.
Remark
As noted, subsection 163(1D) sets out
circumstances where the fee for a refund of duty paid is not
payable. This subsection, and as a consequence the exemptions from
the fee, is being repealed. This raises the question of whether any
exemptions will apply under the newly constituted section 163. The
Note to item 26 states that 'Regulations made under
paragraph 163(1)(b) may provide that under certain circumstances a
person is entitled to a refund of duty without the need to make an
application. In those cases an application fee is therefore not
payable under subsection 163(1C).' It might be inferred from the
Note that paragraph 163(1)(b) will be used to provide
exemptions to the proposed refund application fee. </ ul>
Review of Decisions by Administrative Appeals
Tribunal
Section 273GA of the Principal Act lists those decisions for
which an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal for a review. Item 30 of Schedule 1
includes in the list:
- a decision by the CEO under proposed section 77G not to grant a
depot licence;
- a decision by the CEO under proposed section 77J not to extend
the period within which further information concerning a depot
licence application is to be supplied;
- a decision by the CEO under proposed section 77P not to grant
an extension of time for goods to be warehoused;
- a decision by the CEO under proposed section 77Q to vary the
conditions of a depot licence; and
- a decision by the CEO under proposed section 77V to revoke a
depot licence.
- Budget Statements 1996-97, Budget Paper No. 1, p.
4-24.
- ibid.
- The Canberra Times, 13 August 1996, p. 2.
Ian Ireland Ph. 06 277 2438
2 December 1996
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Research Service
This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other
sources should be consulted to determine whether the Bill has been
enacted and, if so, whether the subsequent Act reflects further
amendments.
PRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents
with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of
the public.
ISSN 1323-9031
© Commonwealth of Australia 1996
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1996.
This page was prepared by the Parliamentary Library,
Commonwealth of Australia
Last updated: 2 December 1996
Back to top