4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd (Migration)

4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd (Migration) [2022] AATA 2696 (21 June 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr John Matthew Egan (MARN 0005601)
CASE NUMBER:  1916078
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/1089415
MEMBER:De-Anne Kelly
DATE:21 June 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 21 June 2022 at 11:23am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – nomination – Direct Entry nomination stream – position cannot be filled locally – genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee – position located in regional Australia – actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia –no less favourable terms and conditions of employment – no adverse information known to Immigration – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 140, 245AR
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.13, 2.72, 2.73
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 5 June 2019 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 7 March 2018. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in reg 5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (reg 5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (reg 5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with reg 5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: reg 5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry nomination stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy reg 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C) of the Regulations because the applicant failed to demonstrate that they had made adequate attempts to recruit suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to the position that live in the same local area as that place.
The delegate gave the following explanation.
For the purposes of assessing the above subregulation, I have considered the Labour Market Testing Report provided. The nominator claims in the Labour Market Testing Report that they initially tried to recruit locally through their own means. The report states “They spread the word amongst the contacts that they had in the industry, and they posted an advertisement for the position at the restaurant displaying the name of the position and contact details for further information about the position.”
In support of this statement, they have provided a photo of a notice in the business’s window. The notice states “Urgently needed “Q.fied” or Ex’D [sic] Cook Apply Within – 41681065 [email protected] Café & Restaurant 01.01.2018”.
The nominator further stated that as they were unsuccessful in their attempts using their own methods and they engaged McKkr’s Pty Ltd, an external recruitment company, to recruit for the nominated position on their behalf.
The report states “Operating at the request of the client, McKkr’s has performed relevant recruitment process and strategies, including posting the position to the popular job site Jora and assessing the eligibility of applicants (of which there was only 1).” A copy of the job advertisement placed on Jora Australia has been provided. The advertisement is not dated and is of little value in establishing when this advertisement was posted. I give this document little weight.
The report also states “Cafe Murgon and Restaurant had immense success operating independently of a recruitment agency, being able to identify a suitable candidate for the nominated position via its recruitment efforts. As noted previously, Cafe Murgon and Restaurant posted an advertisement on-premises and conducted a subsequent assessment of the one applicant who applied for the role by reading his resume, conducting an interview, and hiring him on a probation basis”. The candidate was the nominee, Sandeep Kumar. An evaluation of the suitability of the claimed applicants versus the nominee has been included in the Labour Market Testing report. The nominator has provided a receipt issued by McKkr Training to 4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd T/A Café Murgon and Restaurant C/O NRI Migration Services. The receipt is for "Labour Market Testing - Recruitment Service Fee". It is noted this receipt also does not have a date and it is not possible to determine whether the recruitment activitiy was undertaken as claimed for the nominated position.
I acknowledge that the nominator has provided a positive assessment from a Regional Certifying Body (RCB), however I do not find the nominator has demonstrated that it has made a genuine attempt to fill the position from the local labour market.
As stated above, the receipt provided indicates that the agency engaged to run the
recruitment exercise was corresponding with the nominator’s migration agent (NRI Migration Services). I therefore find there is a strong linkage between the migration services and recruitment efforts which is not indicative of genuine attempts to fill the position from the local labour market. Accordingly, I have placed little weight on the nominator’s Labour Market Testing Report and the claims contained within this report.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 May 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Gujarati and English languages.
The applicant was initially represented in relation to the review by Mr Sourabh Aggarwal and later by Mr John Matthew Egan MARN 0005601.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in reg 5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.
On 7 March 2018 the applicant lodged a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme employer nomination subclass 187 in the Direct Entry Stream for the position of Cook to be employed at Murgon QLD 4605 on $55,000 per annum in favour of Mr Sandeep Kumar.
The applicant was represented by Mr Nirlep Parmar – a signed authority from the director was provided to allow Mr Parmar to represent the applicant.
Mr Nilesh Parmar represented the applicant and gave an overview of the business. The director is overseas at present and left for India in 2019 for surgery and his mother is suffering from cancer and he decided to stay with his mother, but she has passed away and then COVID-19 and unable to return to Australia. The supermarket is at a separate address.
Mr Parmar advised that he is a part time barista. The pastry chef Mrs Parmar is his wife and they both started out working for the company. He and his wife are the oldest employees and started July 2017. When the director found out that his wife was a pastry chef, they were offered jobs, and this was better than moving to Brisbane. He only works part time as he has some medical conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes.
Photos of the business show two glass fronted refrigeration Display Cabinets along one wall with food items displayed at the far end of the shopfront while the kitchen and servery are behind a glass fronted ice cream cabinet, some tall glass fronted drinks cabinets are along one wall. In front of this are a number of tables and chairs for customers. It appears to be a small coffee shop/café serving food such as breakfast dishes, sandwiches, wraps, and other café foods for breakfast and lunch trade.
The application is compliant: reg 5.19(4)(a)
Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s 245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ an identified person as a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.
Applications must be in the approved form and must be accompanied by the prescribed fee to be valid and acknowledged by the Department of Home Affairs. An acknowledgement dated 7 March 2018 was sent by the Department to the nominator as evidence of a valid application. The Department accepted a declaration made on the online form that the nominator had responded yes in the online form to the following: ‘the applicant certifies that they have not engaged in conduct in relation to this nomination that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR (1) of the Migration Act 1958’.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the application was made on the approved form 1395 (Internet) for post 23 March 2013 applications, accompanied by the prescribed fee and the nominator has included a written certification stating the nominator has not engaged in conduct in relation to the nomination that contravenes s.245AR(1) of the Act.
Regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii) requires the nominator to identify a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s control. The assessment of the need for a paid employee comprises two parts: establishing the need for an employee (i.e. there exists a vacancy for the nominated position) and ascertaining that the relationship between the nominator and nominee is that of employer and employee.
The nomination does not have to specify the nominee but needs to identify a nominee before, or at the time, the associated visa application is made. Mr Sandeep Kumar was identified in the nomination application and this indicates there is a need for the position.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(a) is met.
Nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia: reg 5.19(4)(b)
Regulation 5.19(4)(b) requires that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia.
ASIC and ABN registration evidence was provided and also financial information from FY 2020 to FY 2021.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(4)(b) is met.
Position is not labour-hire: reg 5.19(4)(c)
Regulation 5.19(4)(c) applies to nominators whose business activities include those relating to labour hire to an unrelated business. In these cases, the nominated position must be within the business activities of the nominator.
There is no evidence that the business labour hires, and the applicant confirmed this in the hearing.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(4)(c) is met.
Term of employment of the visa holder: reg 5.19(4)(d)
Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires the nominee to be employed in the nominated position for at least 2 years full time, and the terms and conditions of that employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of an extension.
The financial statements and tax returns show the profit figures for FY 2020 and 2021. BAS statements show the business increasing revenue into FY 2022.
Table 1 – Tax returns FY 2020 – FY 2021

Tax Return 2021 2020

Income    319,835      232,998

Wages    156,814      107,571

Expenses    290,916      223,916

Profit      28,919        9,082

An employment contract dated 7 March 2018 does not expressly preclude the possibility of extending the period of employment beyond two years.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(4)(d) is met.
No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: reg 5.19(4)(e)
Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
A market salary analysis is included and shows $55,000 per annum is reasonable for the nominated position in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the requirements of reg 5.19(4)(e) are met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: reg 5.19(4)(f)
Regulation 5.19(4)(f) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in regs 1.13A and 1.13B.
The Tribunal has no information before it from the Department that would constitute adverse information and a search of the ASIC website finds no adverse information about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator. This was confirmed by the applicant at the hearing.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(f) are met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: reg 5.19(4)(g)
Regulation 5.19(4)(g) requires that the applicant has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.
The Tribunal can find no unsatisfactory record of compliance for the applicant with the laws of the Commonwealth relating to workplace relations. This was confirmed by the President at the hearing.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(g) are met.
Tasks of the position, genuine need for the position and training requirements reg 5.19(4)(h)
Regulation 5.19(4)(h) contains a number of alternative requirements. These are set out in detail in the attachment to the decision but can be briefly summarised as requiring either that:
·the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to those of an occupation specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with any specifications made in that instrument, there is a genuine need for the nominee to be employed as a paid employee in the position, and certain specified training requirements are met; or
·the position and nominator’s business is located in regional Australia, there is a genuine need for the nominee to be employed as a paid employee in the position under the nominator’s direct control, the position cannot be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident, the tasks of the position correspond to those of an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with the specification of the occupation, and that a regional certifying body has advised the Minister about certain matters relating to the position.
Position in regional area – r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A)
The Tribunal needs to determine if the position is in regional Australia. The business is located in Murgon QLD 4605. The definition of ‘Regional Australia’ is found in IMMI 16/045. This postcode is included in the list of postcodes for designated regional areas (IMMI 16/045) therefore the position and business are located in regional Australia. The applicant can choose therefore to meet either r.5.19(4)(h)(i) or r.5.19(4)(h)(ii). The applicant has chosen to meet r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) which provides for the second dot point above.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) is met.
Genuine need for the position r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B).
The Tribunal needs to consider if there is a genuine need for the applicant to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s control.
The nominee has been working in the position from at least 2018 to the present day and this was evidenced by payslips and PAYG payment summaries for the nominee. From the evidence given by the applicant there is a genuine need to employ the nominated position.
The Tribunal finds for the reasons above that there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a person, identified under r.5.19(4)(a)(ii) as a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) is met.
Cannot be filled. r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C)
The Tribunal needs to consider if the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is living in the same local area. This was the reason the delegate refused the application. The following chronology if events occurred for this application.
Employment contract - 7 March 2018
Employer nomination lodged 7 March 2018.
Undated receipt No: 14077 “Labour Market Testing – Recruitment Services Fee - $825.00
Invoice No: RDS115 13 April 2018 “Response to DIBP Submission” - $550
Receipt No: 14292 13 April 2018 - “
Following the hearing the applicant submitted a dashboard of their Jora ad which indicated the advertisement was placed 29 days ago from the date 9 March 2018 or about the 10 or 11 of February 2018 so well before the action to sign the employment contract and lodge the nomination. There is a current email 20 May 2022 from a recruitment agency advising that they are unable to fill the vacancy and another agency 1 June 2022 stating it is extremely difficult to fill hospitality positions. In view of the difficulty of filling these Cook positions in regional areas such as Murgon, the Tribunal finds that the position could not have been filled by an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as Murgon.
It is noted that the delegate was rightly concerned that the original recruitment agency was directing their correspondence to the migration agent. The original agent has sought to counter this by providing information from ASIC on the respective directors of the recruitment agency and the migration agency and criticising the reasoning of the delegate by stating “the Decision Maker made severely biases (sic) decision without any solid evidence for this matter”.
The argument put forward by the original agent misses the point made by the delegate which is that regardless of who the directors of the respective companies may be, it appears that the recruitment agent was corresponding with the migration agent who logically must have been engaged at that time to represent the applicant in anticipation of lodging a nomination and visa application. All this before the apparent recruitment process was completed and it was determined that there was no suitable local person to fill the role. The Tribunal could take issue with this same information however has found that Cooks are very difficult to recruit to regional areas and is mindful that many hospitality businesses are struggling following COVID-19 and with inflationary pressures as well as an anticipated rise in wages.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C) is met.
Tasks of the position correspond to ANZSCO. r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D)
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence and the Position Description provided and finally determined that the tasks of the position generally correspond to the tasks of a position specified by the Minister in an instrument being the position of Cook.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) is met.
Occupation applicable to nominee. r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(DA)
The nominee has a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and several years’ experience as a Cook. The Tribunal finds that the occupation is applicable to the person, identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(DA) is met.
Business operated at that place. r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(E)

The business of the nominator is located at Murgon QLD 4605 and is in ‘that place’ that was specified in the employer nomination.
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(E) is met.
Regional certifying body r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F)
Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland CCIQ as the regional certifying body RCB specified in the Ministerial instrument on 10 May 2018 certified the application as meeting r.5.19(4)(e) and r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) & (C) and has therefore advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraph (B) and (C).
Accordingly, r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) is met.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h) and r.5.19(4) are met
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of reg 5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
De-Anne Kelly
Member

ATTACHMENT - EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
…
Direct Entry nomination
(4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ an identified person, as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and
(b)     the nominator:
(i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(ii)      directly operates the business; and
(c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and
(d)both of the following apply:
(i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;
(ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i)       are provided; or
(ii)      would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and
(h)either:
(i)       all of the following apply:
(A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(AA)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(AAA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(B)either:
(I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or
(II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or
(ii)      all of the following apply:
(A)the position is located in regional Australia;
(B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;
(D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(DA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;
(F)a body that is:
(I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;
has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).
List of documents – 4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd - 1916078
Department file:
Documents including the following were provided.
1)Application for Employer Nomination of Permanent Appointment.
2)Organisation chart – Cafe Murgon and Restaurant.
3)Restaurant menu – Café Murgon and Restaurant.
4)Queensland Government Land Registry Form 7 – Lease / Sublease agreement.
5)Business Activity Statements for:
a.Fourth Quarter for the 2016 – 2017 Fiscal Year;
b.All Quarters of the 2017 – 2018 Fiscal Year; and
c.The First Quarter of the 2018 – 2019 Fiscal Year.
6)ASIC Record of Registration for Business Name.
7)Organisation chart – Café Murgon and Restaurant and 4 Square Bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd.
8)Advertisement of position – JORA.
9)Employment contract between Applicant and nominated visa applicant, dated 7 March 2018.
10)Tax Invoice from CCIQ – Regional Migration Certification of Applicant.
11)Letter from Accountant dated 13 March 2018.
12)Labour Market Testing Report.
13)Financial Forecast to the Fiscal Year ending 30 June 2021.
14)Report on Genuineness of the Position and Need of the Nominee – Cafe Murgon and Restaurant.
15)Form 956 – Advice by a migration agent/exempt person of providing immigration assistance.
16)Report on Market Salary for a Cook – Café Murgon and Restaurant.
17)Regional Certifying Body Certification, including Form 1404, and covering email.
18)Applicant’s Payroll from 1 July 2018 to 30 September 2018.
19)PAYG Summaries for the Applicant’s employees.
20)Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending 30 June 2018.
21)Detailed Payroll from the Applicant to employees.
22)Decision Record from the Department of Home Affairs and covering Notification letter.
Tribunal file:
Documents including the following were provided with the review application.
23)ASIC Current Company extract (dated 11 June 2019).
24)Decision Record from the Department of Home Affairs and covering Notification letter.
25)Representative’s pre-hearing submission (dated 5 May 2022).
26)ABN extract of 4 Square bakery & Supermarkets Pty Ltd.
27)ASIC Current and Historical Company Extract – 4 Square Bakery & Supermarket Pty Ltd.
28)Authority for a person to appear on behalf of the Applicant at the hearing.
29)ASIC Current and Historical Company Extract – McKkr’s Pty Ltd.
30)ASIC Current and Historical Company Extract – NRI Migration Services / Ambika Aust Pty Ltd.
31)ASIC Name Extract – NRO Migration Services.
32)Applicant’s Company Tax Returns for the Fiscal Years ending 30 June 2020 and 30 June 2021.
33)Business Activity Statements for:
a.All Quarters for the 2019 – 2020 Fiscal Year;
b.All Quarts for the 2020 – 2021 Fiscal Year; and
c.The First and Second Quarters of the 2021 – 2022 Fiscal Year.
34)Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending 30 June 2021 (and comparison with the Fiscal year ending 30 June 2020).
35)Organisation Chart.
36)Job Description.
37)Genuine Position Statement.
38)Working photos.
39)Restaurant photos.
40)Payslips – Café Murgon.
41)Payslip – Yellow Chilli.
42)Nominated Visa Applicant’s Notices of Assessment for the Fiscal Years ending 30 June 2019, 2020 and 2021.
43)Employment Reference Letter – Café Murgon.
44)Nominated Visa Applicant’s Resume.
45)Skill Assessment.
46)Market Salary Rates for a Cook – Café Murgon and Restaurant.
47)Employment Contract between the Applicant and the Nominated Visa Applicant dated 7 March 2018.
48)Recruitment Activity Statement.
49)Invoice and Receipt from McKkr’s Training – dated 13 April 2018
50)Regional Certifying Body Approval Letter.
51) Skill shortage article.

[2022] AATA 2696

21 June 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Appeal

Tax Return	2021	2020
Income	319,835	232,998
Wages	156,814	107,571
Expenses	290,916	223,916
Profit	28,919	9,082