Bills Digest no. 12 2006–07
Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import
Controls and Other Measures) Bill
2006
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Financial Implications
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006
Date
introduced: 21 June
2006
House: Senate
Portfolio: Justice and Customs
Commencement:
The operative provisions
in sections 1 to 3 will commence on Royal Assent. Other items will
commence at various times as outlined in the Main Provisions part
of this Digest.
To amend the Customs Act 1901 for two unrelated
purposes, namely:
-
to provide Customs officers with additional powers to deal with
prescribed prohibited imports that are of low value and low risk;
and
-
to reflect the new Certificate of Origin requirements for the
Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Background
The Commonwealth Government controls the import of certain goods
into Australia. Control is exercised through the Customs
(Prohibited Import) Regulations 1956 (regulations)
made under
section 50 of the Customs Act. The regulations provide that the
importation of certain goods is prohibited absolutely, while other
goods may only be imported when specified conditions or
restrictions are complied with. The Customs
website provides an outline of what goods are prohibited or
restricted imports. There is a wide range of items controlled under
the regulations, from high risk goods such as narcotic drugs, child
abuse material and military style weapons, to lower risk community
and consumer protection related items such as flick knives, blow
pipes and toys with a painted coating that exceeds legislated
standards for heavy metals content.(1)
A restricted good that is imported contrary to the relevant
restrictions or conditions becomes a prohibited import for the
purposes of the Customs Act. Prohibited imports are defined as
special forfeited goods under the Customs Act and become
subject to seizure without warrant. There are also offences in the
Customs Act that apply to the importation of prohibited goods. At
present, section 203B of the Customs Act requires Customs officers
to seize all prohibited imports to prevent the entry of these goods
into the community. When Customs seizes prohibited imports without
warrant, the Customs Act contains provisions that oblige the
Customs officer to issue a seizure notice to the owner of the
goods, hold the goods for thirty days(2) to provide the
owner with an opportunity to make a claim for return of the goods,
and, except in specified circumstances,(3) return the
goods to the owner who has made such a claim. According to the
Australian Customs Service, [d]ue to the low value of many of the
goods, applications for their return are rarely made and the goods
are destroyed .(4) The Minister has described the
present arrangements, as they apply to items of low risk and little
value, as a time-consuming and resource intensive process
.(5)
The amendments proposed by this Bill will provide Customs
officers with three alternatives to automatic seizure, but only for
certain prohibited goods which are considered to be of low value
and low risk. New regulations will be made to specify the goods to
which the new approach will apply. The three alternatives are:
-
allowing a person to surrender certain prohibited imports that
have not been concealed
-
allowing the granting of post-importation permission for certain
prohibited imports, and
-
allowing infringement notices to be served for certain offences,
including importing certain prohibited imports and restricted area
offences.
Customs officers will be given discretion to choose when to
apply the first two alternatives to seizure, but only for goods
that have not been concealed. In the Bill, the definition of
concealment extends beyond physically concealing the goods, and
includes failing to declare them to Customs. The Explanatory
Memorandum says that, if, for example, a person indicated on the
Incoming Passenger Card that they were bringing a prohibited import
into Australia, then they would not be considered to have concealed
the goods from Customs.(6) However, if the passenger
failed to declare the goods on the Incoming Passenger Card, then
they would be considered to have concealed the goods from Customs,
and would not be permitted to surrender them. In those
circumstances, the goods would either be seized by Customs, or be
subject to an infringement notice under the proposed new regime to
be introduced by this Bill. In contrast to the new surrender and
post-importation permissions regime, the new infringement notice
scheme will only apply to prescribed prohibited imports that have
been concealed from Customs.
The Law Council of Australia has sought clarification of the
type of prohibited imports to be prescribed by regulation as being
subject to surrender or post-importation permission under the
proposed new regime.(7) The Law Council says that it is
unclear why certain prohibited imports requiring a permission or
licence to be imported may be prescribed for the purposes of the
proposed amendments while other prohibited imports requiring a
permission or licence to be imported are not also so
prescribed.(8) Customs has responded to these enquiries
by saying that it will be undertaking consultation through the
Passenger Facilitation Taskforce to assess the operational impact
of the surrender and infringement notice schemes, and that:
As part of the policy implementation, Customs will
determine which prohibited imports controlled under the Customs
(Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 it considers to be lower
risk community and consumer protection related items. These
prohibited imports will then be prescribed by regulation as subject
to the surrender bin regime and/or the infringement notice
scheme.(9)
The Law Council has suggested in its submission that the Bill
implements another, entirely separate regime for the issue of
infringement notices and that [t]his will create huge additional
confusion .(10) In response, the Australian Customs
Service has stated that the new regime will apply only in the
aviation and postal environments, and that it is an entirely new
regime unrelated to the current regime in place in the cargo
environment.(11) Customs has said that the infringement
notice scheme proposed by this Bill will operate differently to the
existing approach because of the scope and quantity of goods
involved .(12)
Section 234AA of the Customs Act allows a Collector of Customs
to display a sign at or near a place that is to be used by officers
of Customs for questioning ship or aircraft passengers, for
examining the personal baggage of passengers, and as a holding area
for such passengers. In addition, a Collector of Customs may also
display signs at or near that place indicating that the use of
cameras, sound recorders and mobile phone or other electronic forms
of communication at the place by unauthorised persons is
prohibited. In the Customs Act, such a place is defined as a
section 234AA place. It is an offence under subsection
234A(1) of the Customs Act to enter into, or be in, a section
234AA place, or in a ship, aircraft or wharf at which a ship is
berthed, when the personal baggage of a disembarking or embarking
passenger is being examined. Similarly, it is an offence under
subsection 234AB(3) of the Customs Act to fail to comply with a
direction by an officer of Customs not to use a camera, sound
recorder or mobile phone or other forms of electronic communication
in such a place. Both subsections are strict liability
offences.
This Bill proposes to allow an infringement notice to be issued
to people who use electronic devices in the Customs controlled area
and fail to comply with a direction from Customs not to use the
device. The person issued with the infringement notice will have 28
days to pay the notice. Payment of the infringement notice will
remove liability for the offence. However, if the person fails to
pay the notice within 28 days, Customs may prosecute the person for
the offence.(13)
Australia signed a free-trade agreement with Singapore in 2003.
Singapore is Australia s sixth largest trading partner with
Australian exports valued at $6.38 billion in 2005,(14)
principally in services (legal, education and telecommunications)
and merchandise (fuel, agricultural and mineral
products).(15) According to press reports, the main
outcome of the Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) has
been to cement what was already a productive and friendly economic
relationship.(16)
The SAFTA agreement provided for Ministerial review one year
after entry into force and every two years thereafter. The first
Ministerial review in July 2004 led to amendments that related to
the recognition of law degrees, government procurement, rule of
origin certificates, and agreement on food standards and
horticultural goods.(17) Three of the four amendments
did not require legislative amendment and have entered into force
with an exchange of notes between the Government of Singapore and
the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia confirming
completion of the Parties respective domestic procedures. Schedule
2 of this Bill implements the SAFTA amendments on rule of origin
certificates.
The Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Legislation Committee for inquiry on 22 June 2006.(18)
The Committee
report has recently been tabled. The Law Society of Australia
and the Australian Customs Service made submissions to the
Committee s inquiry. In addition, the Committee submitted a number
of questions to Customs about the operation of the proposed new
regime. The text of the submissions and Customs written answers to
the Committee s questions have been considered in preparing this
Digest.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this Bill will have no
impact on Government expenditure.(19) There may be cost
savings to Customs through reducing the time spent by Customs
officers on administrative tasks related to the seizure of
prohibited goods and the prosecution of
offenders.(20)
The main provisions used to set up the new regime of
alternatives to automatic seizure of certain prohibited imports are
included in item 14 and item 36.
Item 14 sets up a surrender of goods mechanism
under proposed section 209N and a detention of
goods arrangement pending the granting of post-importation
permissions under proposed section 209U. The third
alternative, an infringement notice scheme to deal with concealed
goods, is set up under proposed section 243ZH
(item 36).
Proposed Subdivision GB of Division
1 of Part XII of the Customs Act inserts
a new regime that will allow for the surrender of certain
prohibited imports to Customs in specified circumstances.
Proposed section 209N sets out the circumstances
when the prescribed prohibited imports would be able to be
surrendered to a Customs officer. Proposed subsection
209N(1) provides that an officer of Customs may, instead
of seizing the goods under section 203B of the Customs Act, permit
the person to surrender the goods to the officer in a section 234AA
place if:
(a)
the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the goods:
(i)
have been imported by the person
(ii)
have not been concealed from Customs by the person
(iii)
are accompanied personal or household effects of the person,
and
(b)
the person has been informed, by the officer in writing, of the
available options for dealing with the goods and the consequences
of exercising each of these options, and
(c)
the person has indicated to Customs, in writing, that he or she
intends to surrender the goods, and
(d)
the officer has indicated to the person that the goods may be
surrendered to the officer.
The surrender of goods may only take place at airports or ports
in a place that is set aside for the questioning of passengers and
the examination of their baggage. It therefore does not apply to
goods which arrive by post or in containers. According to the
Explanatory Memorandum, it is proposed that the permission to
surrender prescribed imported goods will be granted entirely at the
discretion of the officer of Customs. If the officer decides that
the circumstances of the importation require different action to be
taken in respect of the person and the goods, he or she may refuse
to permit the goods to be surrendered .(21) It is also
at the discretion of the officer of Customs to give the person the
option of seeking a post-importation permission in respect of the
goods. The Australian Customs Service has said that it will be
developing guidelines for the exercise of discretion by Customs
officers in order to provide for consistent application of the new
regime.(22)
Proposed section 209P sets out the effects of
the surrender on the goods - a person will not be able to be
prosecuted for the offence of importing a prohibited import but
they will also lose all title to the surrendered goods. The person
will not be able to make a claim for the return of the goods.
However, if in fact the surrendered goods were not prohibited
goods but have been disposed of or destroyed by the Commonwealth,
proposed subsections 209Q(1)-(2) allows the owner
of the goods to seek compensation from a court. Proposed
subsection 209Q(3) provides that if a right to
compensation exists, the court must order the payment by the
Commonwealth to the person of an amount equal to the market value
of the goods at the time of their disposal or destruction.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, these provisions are
similar to other compensation arrangements in the Customs Act in
relation to seized goods that have been disposed of or
destroyed.(23)
Proposed Subdivision GC of Division
1 of Part XII of the Customs Act will
insert a new regime that will allow for the granting or giving of
post-importation permissions, licences or other documents in
respect of certain goods whose importation is prohibited under the
regulations in specified circumstances. Under the new arrangements,
the owner of certain prohibited imports (yet to be defined in
regulations) may apply for the required permission to import the
goods after the goods have been imported. Proposed section
209U sets out the circumstances in which an officer of
Customs may allow a person to apply for a required permission in
lieu of seizing the goods. This decision will be entirely at the
discretion of the officer of Customs. The goods will remain in the
custody of Customs at all times until the required permission is
granted or given (proposed section 209V). A
detention notice is required to be served for all goods detained
under section 209U (proposed section 209W). If the
required permission is not subsequently granted or given within the
specified period,(24) then the goods are taken to be
seized and the normal seizure process will follow. Presumably this
means a person could be prosecuted for the importation or subject
to the infringement notice scheme.(25)
The post-importation permission arrangements are intended to
apply in all environments, that is, passenger, postal and
cargo.(26)
Item 36 inserts proposed
Subdivision B of Division 5 of Part XIII. (Part
XIII includes the penal provisions of the Customs Act and Division
5 deals with penalties in lieu of prosecution for certain
offences.) Subdivision B provides a new scheme to
enable the issue of infringement notices in lieu of prosecution for
offences relating to prohibited imports and restricted Customs
areas.
Proposed paragraph 243ZF(a) provides that
Subdivision B will apply to the offence of importing goods that are
prohibited imports of a kind proscribed for the purposes of section
243ZF. This is similar to the application of the new surrender and
post-importation permissions regimes established by item
14 above. Paragraph 233(1)(b) of the Customs Act prohibits
the importation of any prohibited imports. A contravention of
paragraph 233(1)(b) is an offence of strict liability. The changes
proposed by Subdivision B will allow the issue of an infringement
notice in lieu of prosecution for the offence of contravening
paragraph 233(1)(b), if the offence relates to goods that are
prohibited imports prescribed for the purposes of section
243ZF.
Proposed section 243ZH sets out the
circumstances under which an infringement notice can be served. If
an offence of importing prohibited goods is detected during the
examination of the personal baggage of a passenger in an airport or
a port, the infringement notice must be served before the passenger
leaves the examination area. According to the Explanatory
Memorandum, this is to ensure that the offence is dealt with
quickly and while the passenger is in contact with
Customs.(27) The Australian Customs Service advised the
Senate Committee that they had not yet decided upon the process and
appropriate authorisations for delegations to issue infringement
notices. They explained that [a]s the provision does not determine
who the delegate is, the decision regarding the appropriate
delegation will take into account the environment in which this
scheme will operate and the operational practicalities of the
situation. (28)
The penalty payable under the infringement notice is 2 penalty
units ($220)(29) (proposed paragraph
243ZI(d)) and must be paid before the person leaves the
examination area for the first time after the notice is served
(proposed paragraph 243ZI(e)(i)). In answer to a
question from the Senate Committee about the practical operation of
this regime, especially if the person did not have sufficient money
on them to pay the infringement notice, the Australian Customs
Service has explained that a Customs officer will accompany the
person to the Customs Duty Collector s Office where the
infrastructure is already available for electronic payment of
infringement notices.(30) In circumstances where a
passenger does not have immediate access to funds, Customs has said
that it will allow for the person to arrange for a third party to
be brought to the duty collection area, and that Customs would keep
an officer with the person until a friend or relative arrives with
the payment.(31) Customs further explained that the
passenger must pay the infringement notice before leaving the
Customs controlled area to remove liability for the offence, and to
transfer title of the item(s) to the Commonwealth .(32)
Should the passenger refuse to pay the infringement notice before
leaving the Customs controlled area, the goods will automatically
be seized and Customs may prosecute the person for the offence.
Customs told the Senate committee that [t]his approach has been
adopted due to the nature of the airport environment. Thousands of
people pass through an airport daily, many staying for very short
periods. To allow for a 28 day payment period would require
extensive, time-consuming and expensive administration controls,
with little or no result for the work .(33)
Infringement notices may also be issued for goods imported as
unaccompanied baggage or through the post (proposed
paragraph 243ZH(2)(b). In this situation, Customs would
seize the goods and issue an infringement notice at the same time
as the seizure notice and the person would have 28 days in which to
pay the infringement notice (proposed paragraph
243ZI(e)(ii)). The new infringement notice regime will not
operate in the commercial air cargo or sea cargo
environments.(34)
Proposed Subdivision B will also allow an
infringement notice to be issued to people who use electronic
devices in the Customs controlled area and fail to comply with a
direction from Customs not to use the device (proposed
paragraphs 243ZF(b) and (c)). The person
issued with the infringement notice will have 28 days to pay the
notice (proposed subparagraph 243ZI(e)(ii)).
Payment of the infringement notice will remove liability for the
offence. However, if the person fails to pay the notice within 28
days, Customs may prosecute the person for the offence.
When a person pays the penalty as required by the infringement
notice within the required time (proposed section
243ZK), then
(a)
any liability of the person for the offence specified in the notice
is discharged (subsection (2))
(b)
further proceedings cannot be taken against the person for the
offence (subsection (3))
(c)
the person is not regarded as having been convicted of the offence
(subsection (4)), and
(d)
if the notice is for the offence of importing prescribed prohibited
imports, the goods are taken to be condemned as forfeited to the
Crown, title to the goods immediately vests in the Commonwealth to
the exclusion of all other interests in the goods, and the title
cannot be called into question (subsection (5)).
Proposed subsection 243ZO provides that all
goods condemned as forfeited to the Crown under Subdivision B must
be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the directions of
the Chief Executive Officer of Customs. According to the
Explanatory Memorandum, this provision is similar to other
provisions dealing with the disposal of goods that have been seized
by Customs, for example, section 208D.(35)
Commencement: The provisions relating to
surrender of prescribed prohibited imports and to post-importation
permissions only apply in relation to goods imported into Australia
on or after the commencement of item 37 that is,
on a day to be fixed by Proclamation, or failing that six months
after Royal Assent. The provisions relating to the
infringement notice scheme also only apply to offences alleged to
have been committed on or after item 37 commences.
Item 1 of Schedule 2 repeals
existing subsection 153VE(1) of the Customs Act 1901 and
substitutes a new subsection. Proposed subsection
153VE(1) implements agreed amendments to Articles 11 and
12 of Chapter 3 of SAFTA that deal with the new documentary
requirements to apply when an Australian importer claims the
preferential rate of duty for goods imported from Singapore. In
practice, a claim for a preferential rate of duty is made as part
of the import declaration when entering the relevant goods for home
consumption.(36)
At present an Australian importer needs a Declaration, issued by
the Singapore exporter, and a Certificate of Origin, issued by the
Government of Singapore, to claim a preferential rate of customs
duty under SAFTA. A Certificate of Origin can be used for multiple
shipments within two years of its issue, provided that the first
shipment occurs within the first year of issue. A Declaration is
required for each shipment. Both documents must be issued before
the goods are exported from Singapore to Australia. According to
the Australian Customs Service:
Approaches to Australian Customs by both
Australian importers and Singaporean exporters raised
administrative difficulties with regard to preparation of the
Certificate of Origin. For example, before exportation of bulk
goods from Singapore, the Certificate of Origin could not be
properly prepared to cover all of the goods in a given shipment as
the exact volumes were not known until after loading. The problem
was exacerbated in circumstances where goods were loaded
after-hours or on weekends.(37)
Following the amendments to SAFTA that are to be implemented by
this Bill, an Australian importer will be required to have either a
Certificate of Origin for each shipment (provided that the
Certificate was used within one year of issue) or a Certificate of
Origin for multiple shipments (provided that the Certificate was
used within two years of the date of issue and the first shipment
occurred within the first year) and a Declaration. Where a
Certificate of Origin is to be used for multiple shipments, a
Declaration would not be required for all subsequent shipments.
The Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which
considered the proposed amendments to SAFTA stated that:
At a practical level, the changes mean that a
Declaration and a Certificate of origin will not both be required
for the initial shipment of goods. Instead, a Certificate of Origin
is required for the initial shipment of goods, and for each
subsequent shipment, a Declaration is required that states the
goods are identical to the first shipment.
Following the changes, importers of goods need
only possess a Declaration before the goods enter the territory of
the importing country for goods to be afforded preferential
treatment. This will give exporters roughly a week of extra time
and will reduce delays in situations where it is difficult to
determine the quantity of bulk cargo a requirement for the
Declaration until after the cargo has been loaded onto a
vessel.
The revised arrangements relating to Certificates
of Origin will facilitate the movement of goods from Singapore to
Australia and help to reduce administrative costs for Australian
manufacturers.(38)
Commencement: The proposed amendments to SAFTA
will enter into force with an exchange of notes between the
Government of Singapore and the Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia confirming completion of the Parties respective domestic
procedures. It is anticipated that this exchange of notes will
occur after the Act has received Royal Assent. However, should the
SAFTA amendments not come into force for Australia, then Schedule 2
will not commence. The Minister for Justice and Customs is required
to announce by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette the day on which
the proposed SAFTA amendments come into force for Australia.
Concluding comments
The Government argues that the great variety of goods controlled
under the Customs (Prohibited Import) Regulations 1956 means that
the threat posed to the community by these goods also varies
greatly. They say that the present procedures of automatic seizure
of prohibited imports, appeal and release of the goods in certain
circumstances places a heavy administrative burden on Customs and
is not an efficient or effective use of resources.(39)
According to the Australian Customs Service:
Customs is proposing the introduction of a regime
that will provide sanctions appropriate to the level of threat to
the community and which will reduce the time spent by Customs
officers on administration and the level of post-seizure claims
made on seized items.(40)
The changes proposed by this Bill will enable Customs officers
to apply a range of responses, allowing for the voluntary surrender
of goods (proposed Subdivision GB), the seeking of a
post-importation permission (proposed Subdivision GC), or payment
of a penalty under the new infringement notice scheme (proposed
Subdivision B), rather than automatic seizure of the goods.
Discretion will lie with the Customs officers that encounter the
prohibited imports when they arrive in the country.
Questions have been asked about how Customs officers will
exercise the discretion given to them under the proposed
regime.(41) In response, the Australian Customs Service
has said that, in order to provide consistent application of the
new regime, Customs officers at airports will attend training
session on the proposed scheme before it is
implemented.(42) In addition, administrative guidelines,
standing operating procedures and forms will be developed for the
scheme.(43) If dissatisfied, passengers may ask to speak
to a duty manager, or they may make use of Customs complaints
processes.(44) Standard administrative appeals processes
are also available to all persons subject to an administrative
regime that imposes a penalty.(45) However, Customs
stresses that, regardless of the measure imposed (surrender,
infringement notice, seizure or prosecution):
the person has committed an offence by importing a
prohibited item. Customs is providing the person with an
alternative to seizure and prosecution which removes any liability
for the offence.(46)
The Law Council of Australia has complained of the unrelenting
piecemeal changes made to Customs legislation in recent times. They
say that they are:
concerned that these regular amendments do not aid
easy comprehension of the legislation by interested parties. [The
Law Council] shares the view of other affected parties (such as the
Customs Brokers & Forwarders Council of Australia, the
Australian Law Reform Commission and the House of Representatives
Standing Committee of Legal and Constitutional Affairs), that the
Act requires extensive review to remedy areas of
uncertainty.(47)
Further, the Law Council suggests that the apparently limited
resources of Customs and the Parliament could best be addressed to
focus on other fundamental amendments to the Act. They refer in
particular to changes to the prosecution provisions recommended by
the Australian Law Reform Commission(48) and to the
completion of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills inquiry into Entry,
Search and Seizure provisions in Commonwealth legislation that
commenced in March 2004.(49)
With regard to the present Bill, Customs has responded to the
Senate Committee that it has yet to determine which prohibited
imports are to be prescribed by regulation as subject to the
proposed voluntary surrender regime, post-importation permissions
and the infringement notice scheme.(50) To date no
training has been undertaken in respect of the proposed
scheme,(51) the directions of the CEO relating to the
disposal of surrendered goods are yet to be
specified,(52) and the CEO s guidelines for servicing
infringement notices are not yet drafted.(53) Customs
says that it will have up to six months after Royal Assent to
develop all of the necessary procedures and guidelines for the new
regime.(54)
-
Australian Customs Service, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Some goods may be disposed of immediately (Sections 206 and 207
of the Customs Act)
-
See subsection 205D(2) of the Customs Act.
-
Australian Customs Service, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz, Second reading speech, Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006 , Senate, Hansard, 21 June 2006, p.
1.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, paras.
39 and 42.
-
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, 10 July 2006.
-
ibid., p. 5.
-
Australian Customs Service, Supplementary submission to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into
the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and
Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, 10 July 2006, p. 2 and p. 6.
-
Australian Customs Service, Supplementary submission to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into
the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and
Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006. (The other infringement
notice scheme was implemented through the Customs Legislation
Amendment and Repeal (International Trade Modernisation) Act
2001 and the Customs Legislation Amendment (Application of
International Trade Modernisation and Other Measures) Act
2004.)
-
ibid.
-
Australian Customs Service, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
[1]. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Review of amendments
to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement , Media
Alert, 24 March 2006.
-
Tracy Sutherland, A trading impasse where the sky s not the only
limit , Australian Financial Review, 6 July 2006, p.
14.
-
Andrew Burrell, Singapore pact turns out to be small beer ,
Australian Financial Review, 25 March 2004, p.
17.
-
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Report 66:
Review of treaties tabled 7 December 2004
(4), 15 March and 11 May 2005. Chapter 4
Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendments , pp.
[29]-34.
-
Senate Selection of Bills Committee, Sixth report of 2006 ,
Senate, Hansard, 22 June 2006, p. 13.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, p.
2.
-
Australian Customs Service, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006. Also, Australian Customs Service,
Answer to Question No. 7 provided to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, para.
39.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 8 provided to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry
into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls
and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
xplanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, para.
48.
-
The application and grant periods for post-import permissions
are 30 days unless another period is prescribed by regulation.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 47 provided
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee
inquiry into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import
Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 4 provided to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry
into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls
and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006,
para.122.
-
Australian Customs Service, Supplementary submission to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into
the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and
Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
This compares to a fine for a prosecuted offence of $1,000.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 28 provided
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee
inquiry into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import
Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
ibid., Question No. 28.
-
ibid., Question No. 36.
-
ibid., Question No. 36.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 3 provided to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry
into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls
and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, para.
141.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, para.
163.
-
Australian Customs Service, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Report 66:
Review of treaties tabled 7 December 2004
(4), 15 March and 11 May 2005. Chapter 4
Singapore Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendments , p. 32.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Customs Legislation Amendment
(Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006, para.
31.
-
Australian Customs Service, Supplementary submission to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into
the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and
Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, 10 July 2006. Also Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, Questions on notice submitted to the
Australian Customs Service .
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 8 provided to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry
into the Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls
and Other Measures) Bill 2006, July 2006.
-
ibid., Question No. 13.
-
ibid., Question No. 16.
-
ibid., Question No. 15.
-
ibid., Question No. 15.
-
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, 10 July 2006.
-
Recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its
report number 60 (1992) entitled Customs and Excise, and
in its report number 95 (2002) entitled Principled
Regulation.
-
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Customs
Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other
Measures) Bill 2006, 10 July 2006.
-
Australian Customs Service, Answer to Question No. 1.
-
ibid., Question No. 8.
-
ibid., Questions No. 9 and 10.
-
ibid., Question No. 11.
-
ibid., Question No. 11.
Rosemary Bell
14 August 2006
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
This paper has been prepared to support the work of the
Australian Parliament using information available at the time of
production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position
of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional
legal opinion.
Staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2006
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 Parliamentary Library, 2006.
Back to top