ROYAL assent has been given to the Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and other Measures) ACT 2013. While this is a key step, most of the measures in the new law don’t come into effect until proclamation, which could be several months away.
The government has explained that a delay of up to six months is necessary to develop subordinate legislation, change Customs and Border Protection (CBP) IT systems and ensure that both industry and CBP staff are fully aware of the new requirements.
This also allows time to modify business processes to comply with the amendments.
However, new offences - for using and/or disclosing information held on a Customs computer to another person to commit an offence against the Commonwealth, State or Territory - came into effect the day after proclamation, there being no reason to delay these.
CBP points out that these provisions stand alone, having no complicated inter-relationships with other measures, and should have an immediate impact on the misuse of CBP systems and data.
The need for changes to the Customs Act 1901 arose from a parliamentary report on aviation and maritime security along with a subsequent task force report on the Sydney maritime environment.
As explained by Andrew Hudson of Hunt & Hunt in an earlier issue of AirCargo Asia-Pacific, the amendments include placing statutory obligations on cargo terminal operators and those that load and unload cargo, similar to obligations the existing law imposes on holders of depot and warehouse licences. These include mandatory reporting of unlawful activity, ensuring the physical security of premises and cargo, and fit and proper person checks at CBP’s request.
Non-compliance could lead to criminal or administrative sanctions.
Other provisions are giving CBP power (at chief executive level) to suspend, refuse or cancel security ID cards when determining the fit and proper status.
The amendments also align aspects of the Customs broker licensing scheme with that of depots and warehouses, as well as adjusting other controls and sanctions.
CBP says it will provide additional information on its web site to support implementation of the changes. On the web: www.customs.gov.au
Qantas Freight will introduce a weekly freight service between Australia and Papua New Guinea commencing 6 July 2013.
The flight between Cairns, Brisbane and Port Moresby will be operated by a B737-300F aircraft, offering 15 tonnes of cargo capacity each way.
Lisa Brock , executive manager Qantas Freight said the export market between Australia and Papua New Guinea was strong and the new dedicated freighter service would provide much needed capacity on the route.
“This is a popular freight route with increasing volumes of freight in both directions, particularly for seafood, general cargo, mining equipment and machinery,” said Brock.
“Our new service provides greater flexibility for our customers and the B737-300 aircraft allows us to carry oversize freight on the main deck.”
The B737-300F will come from the carrier’s existing fleet with additional flying time made possible through schedule enhancements. It adds to a network of dedicated freighter operations between Australia, mainland China, Hong Kong, the USA and New Zealand.
Qantas currently offers cargo services on Air Niugini’s daily service between Brisbane and Port Moresby.
... and clarifies shark fin position Qantas Freight has clarified its position on the transport of shark fins.
As of May this year, Qantas Freight no longer accepts shark fins as freight.
The carrier does however accept processed shark product.
Lisa Brock, executive manager Qantas Freight said the restriction was put in place to avoid participation in the supply chain of shark fins sourced through the unacceptable process of finning.
“Qantas Freight still carries processed shark products, including chilled or frozen meats and oils, which have appropriate export permits in place,” said Brock.
DHL Supply Chain plans to invest another EUR140 million in South East Asia by 2015.
Most will go toward new facilities, IT, transportation needs, staff numbers and training.
“We plan to double our size in the next two to three years. We’re already off to a strong start - by the end of 2013, we will have opened seven best-in-class multi-user facilities across strategic locations in South East Asia,” said Oscar de Bok, chief executive DHL Supply Chain for South and Southeast Asia.
The seven new facilities target growth in specific industries. Earlier this year, DHL launched a 17,000 square metre built-to-suit warehouse in Cimanggis, Indonesia, tailored for customers in fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industries.
The company will also launch a new facility at Bangna, Thailand this year, to support the retail, fashion and consumer sectors, and a new built-to-suit facility in Bac Ninh, Vietnam for the retail, consumer and technology sectors. Developments are also under way for new facilities in Singapore and parts of Malaysia.
By 2015, the company will substantially increase its transport fleet, both owned and managed. The company also plans to grow its staff strength by some 65 per cent to approximately 25,000 people and add more than 50 per cent warehouse capacity till it operates around 1,400,000 sqm across the region.
Southeast Asia, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of US$1.9 trillion has seen a rising expansion of the middle class. By 2015, it is estimated some 145 million people in South East Asia will be considered middle class, up from 95 million in 2010. The region’s consistent economic growth has seen many businesses look to the region not only as a source of manufacturing and production, but increasingly as a key market for domestic consumption.
For DHL these trends have resulted in an increased need for broader solutions such as integrated warehousing, distribution, and transportation.
“As businesses grow and enlarge their distribution footprint, their supply chain operations become more complex. This is where DHL can lend its global expertise and local experience - by fully managing our customers’ logistics, we enable them to focus on their core business,” said de Bok.
“We have an established track record across key industries - consumer, technology, retail and automotive sectors. With an established business in the life sciences and healthcare industry in Singapore and around the world, we’re also looking to grow this sector in tandem with the growth in the region.”
The NZ Commerce Commission’s ‘cartel blitz’ on international air cargo carriers has come to an end, with Air NZ throwing in the towel less than a month after calling for “common sense to prevail” in the long-running investigation and subsequent court cases.
While the ‘blitz’ is largely at an end, at least four freight class actions involving carriers still are to be decided. For Air NZ, the ending of the ComCom case was bitter-sweet. The carrier was forced to back down on its hitherto unwavering stance that it had not been involved in cartel arrangements. and it took a hit of NZ$7.5 million plus costs, a hefty amount that reflected the carrier’s substantial share of the inbound air freight market.
But it retreated with honour. ComCom stressed the carrier was not as culpable as some of the other airlines it had pursued and Air NZ had not been a cartel participant on a global basis.
While no-one in Air NZ is saying so on the record, sources claim the company’s new boss, Christopher Luxon, just wanted the case resolved and off the books; and while many issues already had been resolved, there was a long way to go in court.
This magazine has chronicled the seven years or so of the blitz including key issues such as Air NZ’s concern that it couldn’t talk to staff being questioned by ComCom, whether cargo sales overseas constituted markets in NZ targeting Air NZ executives and allegations made by other carriers, largely as part of their plea-bargaining.
Air NZ had lost the ‘markets in NZ’ case but an appeal of the definition was under way.
The ban on talking to staff was lifted but later reasserted as ComCom’s powers were reconfirmed. However, in the interim Air NZ got the chance to share notes.
Action against individual executives was dropped, and ComCom had narrowed its focus.
Call for common sense In May, Air NZ called for ComCom to end its multi-million pursuit, after key evidence – still secret today- was retracted in the US.
General counsel John Blair said the quest should end.
“Air New Zealand remains adamant it has not breached New Zealand competition law. This matter has run for more than seven years and involves allegations relating to business conducted as long as 13 years ago. We have satisfied regulators in Europe and the USA concerning our conduct and are close to the end of our defence of allegations in Australia. In the NZ market, it is time for common sense to prevail.”
In early June, a joint statement from ComCom and Air NZ said “Air NZ has withdrawn its proceeding challenging the settlement agreement in the air cargo proceeding”.
Air NZ told investors that a penalty around NZ$7.5 million was on the cards. and “the amount was already factored into the normalised evidence before tax guidance communicated in April”. As a result, the share price barely blipped. The NZ$7.5 million took total NZ air cargo cartel penalty payments to NZ$42.50 million. In Australia, anti-cartel payments are currently running at A$98.5 million, the largest combined penalty to date in this country.
ComCom applied a 20 per cent discount for Air NZ’s admissions. It also recognised surcharges in Japan and Malaysia were agreed local regulators.
For its part, Air NZ acknowledged that, in the context of the definition of air cargo markets in New Zealand it should have obtained regulatory approval from the Ministry of Transport in NZ.
Air NZ did not enter a plea to allegations of an understanding in Australia between February and September 2000. None of the understandings concerned cargo shipped from NZ to any other country, Air NZ stressed.
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?”
CRITICAL mass on e-freight is ‘closer’ but there still is a way to go, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which held an e-cargo conference attended by 194 industry delegates June 19-20 in Geneva, writes Jack Handley.
On the plus side, said IATA global head of Cargo Des Vertannes, is the growing understanding among airlines and governments as well as private industry that e-freight is not simply about removing paper, it’s about making the freight administration process more efficient, more cost-effective and faster.
Also, he said, there are some ‘major hitters’ in the aviation world that are adding their weight to adoption of e-AWB and e-freight generally. These include Germany’s Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Hong Kong’s authorities and (among the most important of all, given the region’s growing dominance as a world trade hub), leaders in Dubai who are driving the adoption of electronic practices ‘from the top down’ not just by Emirates airline, but also dnata, Customs and airports.
Many of e-freight’s gains to date have been achieved despite a turbulent world economy. Even traditional east-west one-way cargo flows no longer are a ‘given’ for world trade and airline yields are under continuing pressure not just from fluctuating customer demand, but also from growing aircraft belly hold capacity as airlines buy more economical and bigger aircraft.
“2011 and 2012 were tough, but we’re now seeing and predicting a better adoption of (e-cargo) technologies for 2013 and beyond,” said Vertannes.
Also, many of the former barriers to adoption are less of a problem now: “The industry is benefiting from wider adoption of the multi-lateral e-AWB, with forwarders investing in technology to meet demands by other stakeholders including Customs,” he said.
Terms such as harmonisation and convergence peppered e-cargo conversations at the conference.
It was as though – despite having quite some way to go and with significant barriers to 100 per cent adoption still ahead – the industry has accepted that e-freight in all its forms and guises is both a good thing and achievable. E-AWB alone was described by Vertannes as “steaming ahead” since April, particularly compared to levels one month earlier.
IATA also believes the future will bring changes to air cargo demand.
It won’t be all east-west traffic, with freighters flying empty on their way to pick up cargo. Neither will the current glut of services-based economies continue everywhere. IATA sees more migration to urban areas driving demand for airfreight and manufacturers returning to the market as an economic force.
“There will be more balanced demand,” IATA believes.
In the meantime, before the improved world economy can ‘do its bit’ to assist e-freight, IATA will use its own membership and partnerships with FIATA, GACAG and other bodies to help tear down the remaining barriers within airlines, governments and industry.
ROYAL assent has been given to the Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and other Measures) ACT 2013. While this is a key step, most of the measures in the new law don’t come into effect until proclamation, which could be several months away.
The government has explained that a delay of up to six months is necessary to develop subordinate legislation, change Customs and Border Protection (CBP) IT systems and ensure that both industry and CBP staff are fully aware of the new requirements.
This also allows time to modify business processes to comply with the amendments.
However, new offences - for using and/or disclosing information held on a Customs computer to another person to commit an offence against the Commonwealth, State or Territory - came into effect the day after proclamation, there being no reason to delay these.
CBP points out that these provisions stand alone, having no complicated inter-relationships with other measures, and should have an immediate impact on the misuse of CBP systems and data.
The need for changes to the Customs Act 1901 arose from a parliamentary report on aviation and maritime security along with a subsequent task force report on the Sydney maritime environment.
As explained by Andrew Hudson of Hunt & Hunt in an earlier issue of AirCargo Asia-Pacific, the amendments include placing statutory obligations on cargo terminal operators and those that load and unload cargo, similar to obligations the existing law imposes on holders of depot and warehouse licences. These include mandatory reporting of unlawful activity, ensuring the physical security of premises and cargo, and fit and proper person checks at CBP’s request.
Non-compliance could lead to criminal or administrative sanctions.
Other provisions are giving CBP power (at chief executive level) to suspend, refuse or cancel security ID cards when determining the fit and proper status.
The amendments also align aspects of the Customs broker licensing scheme with that of depots and warehouses, as well as adjusting other controls and sanctions.
CBP says it will provide additional information on its web site to support implementation of the changes. On the web: www.customs.gov.au
Qantas Freight will introduce a weekly freight service between Australia and Papua New Guinea commencing 6 July 2013.
The flight between Cairns, Brisbane and Port Moresby will be operated by a B737-300F aircraft, offering 15 tonnes of cargo capacity each way.
Lisa Brock , executive manager Qantas Freight said the export market between Australia and Papua New Guinea was strong and the new dedicated freighter service would provide much needed capacity on the route.
“This is a popular freight route with increasing volumes of freight in both directions, particularly for seafood, general cargo, mining equipment and machinery,” said Brock.
“Our new service provides greater flexibility for our customers and the B737-300 aircraft allows us to carry oversize freight on the main deck.”
The B737-300F will come from the carrier’s existing fleet with additional flying time made possible through schedule enhancements. It adds to a network of dedicated freighter operations between Australia, mainland China, Hong Kong, the USA and New Zealand.
Qantas currently offers cargo services on Air Niugini’s daily service between Brisbane and Port Moresby.
... and clarifies shark fin position Qantas Freight has clarified its position on the transport of shark fins.
As of May this year, Qantas Freight no longer accepts shark fins as freight.
The carrier does however accept processed shark product.
Lisa Brock, executive manager Qantas Freight said the restriction was put in place to avoid participation in the supply chain of shark fins sourced through the unacceptable process of finning.
“Qantas Freight still carries processed shark products, including chilled or frozen meats and oils, which have appropriate export permits in place,” said Brock.
DHL Supply Chain plans to invest another EUR140 million in South East Asia by 2015.
Most will go toward new facilities, IT, transportation needs, staff numbers and training.
“We plan to double our size in the next two to three years. We’re already off to a strong start - by the end of 2013, we will have opened seven best-in-class multi-user facilities across strategic locations in South East Asia,” said Oscar de Bok, chief executive DHL Supply Chain for South and Southeast Asia.
The seven new facilities target growth in specific industries. Earlier this year, DHL launched a 17,000 square metre built-to-suit warehouse in Cimanggis, Indonesia, tailored for customers in fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industries.
The company will also launch a new facility at Bangna, Thailand this year, to support the retail, fashion and consumer sectors, and a new built-to-suit facility in Bac Ninh, Vietnam for the retail, consumer and technology sectors. Developments are also under way for new facilities in Singapore and parts of Malaysia.
By 2015, the company will substantially increase its transport fleet, both owned and managed. The company also plans to grow its staff strength by some 65 per cent to approximately 25,000 people and add more than 50 per cent warehouse capacity till it operates around 1,400,000 sqm across the region.
Southeast Asia, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of US$1.9 trillion has seen a rising expansion of the middle class. By 2015, it is estimated some 145 million people in South East Asia will be considered middle class, up from 95 million in 2010. The region’s consistent economic growth has seen many businesses look to the region not only as a source of manufacturing and production, but increasingly as a key market for domestic consumption.
For DHL these trends have resulted in an increased need for broader solutions such as integrated warehousing, distribution, and transportation.
“As businesses grow and enlarge their distribution footprint, their supply chain operations become more complex. This is where DHL can lend its global expertise and local experience - by fully managing our customers’ logistics, we enable them to focus on their core business,” said de Bok.
“We have an established track record across key industries - consumer, technology, retail and automotive sectors. With an established business in the life sciences and healthcare industry in Singapore and around the world, we’re also looking to grow this sector in tandem with the growth in the region.”
The NZ Commerce Commission’s ‘cartel blitz’ on international air cargo carriers has come to an end, with Air NZ throwing in the towel less than a month after calling for “common sense to prevail” in the long-running investigation and subsequent court cases.
While the ‘blitz’ is largely at an end, at least four freight class actions involving carriers still are to be decided. For Air NZ, the ending of the ComCom case was bitter-sweet. The carrier was forced to back down on its hitherto unwavering stance that it had not been involved in cartel arrangements. and it took a hit of NZ$7.5 million plus costs, a hefty amount that reflected the carrier’s substantial share of the inbound air freight market.
But it retreated with honour. ComCom stressed the carrier was not as culpable as some of the other airlines it had pursued and Air NZ had not been a cartel participant on a global basis.
While no-one in Air NZ is saying so on the record, sources claim the company’s new boss, Christopher Luxon, just wanted the case resolved and off the books; and while many issues already had been resolved, there was a long way to go in court.
This magazine has chronicled the seven years or so of the blitz including key issues such as Air NZ’s concern that it couldn’t talk to staff being questioned by ComCom, whether cargo sales overseas constituted markets in NZ targeting Air NZ executives and allegations made by other carriers, largely as part of their plea-bargaining.
Air NZ had lost the ‘markets in NZ’ case but an appeal of the definition was under way.
The ban on talking to staff was lifted but later reasserted as ComCom’s powers were reconfirmed. However, in the interim Air NZ got the chance to share notes.
Action against individual executives was dropped, and ComCom had narrowed its focus.
Call for common sense In May, Air NZ called for ComCom to end its multi-million pursuit, after key evidence – still secret today- was retracted in the US.
General counsel John Blair said the quest should end.
“Air New Zealand remains adamant it has not breached New Zealand competition law. This matter has run for more than seven years and involves allegations relating to business conducted as long as 13 years ago. We have satisfied regulators in Europe and the USA concerning our conduct and are close to the end of our defence of allegations in Australia. In the NZ market, it is time for common sense to prevail.”
In early June, a joint statement from ComCom and Air NZ said “Air NZ has withdrawn its proceeding challenging the settlement agreement in the air cargo proceeding”.
Air NZ told investors that a penalty around NZ$7.5 million was on the cards. and “the amount was already factored into the normalised evidence before tax guidance communicated in April”. As a result, the share price barely blipped. The NZ$7.5 million took total NZ air cargo cartel penalty payments to NZ$42.50 million. In Australia, anti-cartel payments are currently running at A$98.5 million, the largest combined penalty to date in this country.
ComCom applied a 20 per cent discount for Air NZ’s admissions. It also recognised surcharges in Japan and Malaysia were agreed local regulators.
For its part, Air NZ acknowledged that, in the context of the definition of air cargo markets in New Zealand it should have obtained regulatory approval from the Ministry of Transport in NZ.
Air NZ did not enter a plea to allegations of an understanding in Australia between February and September 2000. None of the understandings concerned cargo shipped from NZ to any other country, Air NZ stressed.
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?”
CRITICAL mass on e-freight is ‘closer’ but there still is a way to go, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which held an e-cargo conference attended by 194 industry delegates June 19-20 in Geneva, writes Jack Handley.
On the plus side, said IATA global head of Cargo Des Vertannes, is the growing understanding among airlines and governments as well as private industry that e-freight is not simply about removing paper, it’s about making the freight administration process more efficient, more cost-effective and faster.
Also, he said, there are some ‘major hitters’ in the aviation world that are adding their weight to adoption of e-AWB and e-freight generally. These include Germany’s Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Hong Kong’s authorities and (among the most important of all, given the region’s growing dominance as a world trade hub), leaders in Dubai who are driving the adoption of electronic practices ‘from the top down’ not just by Emirates airline, but also dnata, Customs and airports.
Many of e-freight’s gains to date have been achieved despite a turbulent world economy. Even traditional east-west one-way cargo flows no longer are a ‘given’ for world trade and airline yields are under continuing pressure not just from fluctuating customer demand, but also from growing aircraft belly hold capacity as airlines buy more economical and bigger aircraft.
“2011 and 2012 were tough, but we’re now seeing and predicting a better adoption of (e-cargo) technologies for 2013 and beyond,” said Vertannes.
Also, many of the former barriers to adoption are less of a problem now: “The industry is benefiting from wider adoption of the multi-lateral e-AWB, with forwarders investing in technology to meet demands by other stakeholders including Customs,” he said.
Terms such as harmonisation and convergence peppered e-cargo conversations at the conference.
It was as though – despite having quite some way to go and with significant barriers to 100 per cent adoption still ahead – the industry has accepted that e-freight in all its forms and guises is both a good thing and achievable. E-AWB alone was described by Vertannes as “steaming ahead” since April, particularly compared to levels one month earlier.
IATA also believes the future will bring changes to air cargo demand.
It won’t be all east-west traffic, with freighters flying empty on their way to pick up cargo. Neither will the current glut of services-based economies continue everywhere. IATA sees more migration to urban areas driving demand for airfreight and manufacturers returning to the market as an economic force.
“There will be more balanced demand,” IATA believes.
In the meantime, before the improved world economy can ‘do its bit’ to assist e-freight, IATA will use its own membership and partnerships with FIATA, GACAG and other bodies to help tear down the remaining barriers within airlines, governments and industry.
