THE CUSTOMS Brokers and Forwarders Council of Australia (CBFCA) wants the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBP) to better explain to the industry some of the decisions it is taking under its change in practice to cargo reporting requirements
It suggests a series of forums in the States and Territories where customs brokers and international freight forwarders can discuss the changes with senior ACBP officials.
Tony Nikro, CBFCA manager New South Wales said: “The ACBP notice to industry in April on ‘accurate and timely reporting of cargo information to facilitate ACBP risk assessment’ is quite different to the ACBP’s previous position.
“The need for compliance with legislative intent from Customs Modernisation Legislation 2001 and long-standing business practice is still subject to discussion - and their needs to be better understanding by all parties.
“While the ACBP suggests the legislative issues should have been noted and acted upon by cargo reporters, the lack of oversight and regulatory compliance has led industry to believe that in many cases existing business processes meet ACBP policy on cargo reporting,” said Nikro.
“As an industry, we are aware the ACBP’s requirements on cargo reporting have been the subject of many public announcements through Australian Customs Notices, ACBP website commentary and in public forums.
“However, some of these commentaries have been less than helpful to industry and in some cases even contradictory. “In its commentaries, the ACBP has provided policy positions on the defined aspects of cargo report, consignor and consignee but not necessarily consignment, which goes to the core of cargo reporting requirements particularly in relation to air freight. This consignment issue led industry to interpret a position different from that of the regulator as to what was a consignment between a consignor and consignee.”
Nikro added: “In the development work on the ACBP Cargo Management Re-engineering project and the Integrated Cargo System (ICS), there was significant discussion between industry and the ACBP as to the manner and form of cargo reporting for sea and air freight. While there was an easy matching requirement for sea freight through container number matching, air freight required cascaded reporting from the Master airway bill down through House airway bill(s) to provide the lowest level of cargo report - both accurately and timely - for ACBP risk assessment. The cascade reporting requirement was agreed on the basis that it protected the privacy and confidentiality of international freight forwarder data from the air or sea freight carrier.
“It was always therefore an agreed position that cargo would be reported to the lowest level of consignment and it is consignment issues that are now causing concern in the industry.
“In addressing what is a consignment, a need clearly exists to take into consideration the requirements of the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995, being the key pieces of legislation to impact on the importation of goods - not necessarily a consignment.
“As a general proposition, all goods imported into Australia are required to be reported and entered for home consumption. However, for commercial goods,consideration must be given to the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Contract for the International Sale of Goods and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which have been, for Australian purposes, referenced in the provisions of Part VIII, Division 2 of the Customs Act.
“Again in general terms, the Customs value of the goods notes the contract of sale that led to the importation of the goods - again not necessarily the consignment. It is the goods that are required to be referenced, not only for entry purposes but also in respect of the cargo report as the legislation requires ‘goods’ to be reported and not ‘the consignment’.”
“What is clear, said Nikro, “is that there is significant variation as to business practices which have either been in place or have been adopted since the introduction of the ICS. Can industry claim that business practice and precedent overrides legislative intent? Highly doubtful. From the CBFCA perspective, the need exists to work with the ACBP to achieve an outcome which meets regulatory intent and also business imperatives. This of course may require a variation in public policy and probably more so an ICS system change to provide an appropriate level of cargo report without significant on cost to industry.”
Looking ahead Nikro said: “With the cost of an import declaration rising to A$150 effective 01 January 2014, industry expects that from the A$450 million generated in cost recovery, the ACBP will be able to provide for any information technology change.
“The question may be more along the lines of: Does the ACBP have the technical competence, staff and process improvement strategy to meet the challenge?”
CBFCA seeks reasons for ACBP rule changes
AirCargo Archive Stories #224
Monday, 01 July 2013
THE CUSTOMS Brokers and Forwarders Council of Australia (CBFCA) wants the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBP) to better explain to the industry some of the decisions it is taking under its change in practice to cargo reporting requirements
It suggests a series of forums in the States and Territories where customs brokers and international freight forwarders can discuss the changes with senior ACBP officials.
Tony Nikro, CBFCA manager New South Wales said: “The ACBP notice to industry in April on ‘accurate and timely reporting of cargo information to facilitate ACBP risk assessment’ is quite different to the ACBP’s previous position.
“The need for compliance with legislative intent from Customs Modernisation Legislation 2001 and long-standing business practice is still subject to discussion - and their needs to be better understanding by all parties.
“While the ACBP suggests the legislative issues should have been noted and acted upon by cargo reporters, the lack of oversight and regulatory compliance has led industry to believe that in many cases existing business processes meet ACBP policy on cargo reporting,” said Nikro.
“As an industry, we are aware the ACBP’s requirements on cargo reporting have been the subject of many public announcements through Australian Customs Notices, ACBP website commentary and in public forums.
“However, some of these commentaries have been less than helpful to industry and in some cases even contradictory. “In its commentaries, the ACBP has provided policy positions on the defined aspects of cargo report, consignor and consignee but not necessarily consignment, which goes to the core of cargo reporting requirements particularly in relation to air freight. This consignment issue led industry to interpret a position different from that of the regulator as to what was a consignment between a consignor and consignee.”
Nikro added: “In the development work on the ACBP Cargo Management Re-engineering project and the Integrated Cargo System (ICS), there was significant discussion between industry and the ACBP as to the manner and form of cargo reporting for sea and air freight. While there was an easy matching requirement for sea freight through container number matching, air freight required cascaded reporting from the Master airway bill down through House airway bill(s) to provide the lowest level of cargo report - both accurately and timely - for ACBP risk assessment. The cascade reporting requirement was agreed on the basis that it protected the privacy and confidentiality of international freight forwarder data from the air or sea freight carrier.
“It was always therefore an agreed position that cargo would be reported to the lowest level of consignment and it is consignment issues that are now causing concern in the industry.
“In addressing what is a consignment, a need clearly exists to take into consideration the requirements of the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995, being the key pieces of legislation to impact on the importation of goods - not necessarily a consignment.
“As a general proposition, all goods imported into Australia are required to be reported and entered for home consumption. However, for commercial goods,consideration must be given to the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Contract for the International Sale of Goods and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which have been, for Australian purposes, referenced in the provisions of Part VIII, Division 2 of the Customs Act.
“Again in general terms, the Customs value of the goods notes the contract of sale that led to the importation of the goods - again not necessarily the consignment. It is the goods that are required to be referenced, not only for entry purposes but also in respect of the cargo report as the legislation requires ‘goods’ to be reported and not ‘the consignment’.”
“What is clear, said Nikro, “is that there is significant variation as to business practices which have either been in place or have been adopted since the introduction of the ICS. Can industry claim that business practice and precedent overrides legislative intent? Highly doubtful. From the CBFCA perspective, the need exists to work with the ACBP to achieve an outcome which meets regulatory intent and also business imperatives. This of course may require a variation in public policy and probably more so an ICS system change to provide an appropriate level of cargo report without significant on cost to industry.”
Looking ahead Nikro said: “With the cost of an import declaration rising to A$150 effective 01 January 2014, industry expects that from the A$450 million generated in cost recovery, the ACBP will be able to provide for any information technology change.
“The question may be more along the lines of: Does the ACBP have the technical competence, staff and process improvement strategy to meet the challenge?”
