Overview

The Customs Act 1901, enacted by the Parliament of Australia, was amended to address issues related to the verification of import declarations and the associated documentary requirements. One particular gap identified was the need for a standardised form to communicate documentary requirements to importers. This was addressed by CEO Instrument of Approval No. 86 of 2005, which approved a specific form for the purpose of making documentary requirements for import declarations. This instrument was enacted to streamline the process and ensure consistency in communication between Customs officers and importers, thereby facilitating the verification process and adherence to import regulations. The instrument was issued under the authority granted by the Customs Act 1901 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, and it became effective upon registration.

Scope and Application

The CEO Instrument of Approval No. 86 of 2005, under the Customs Act 1901, applies to individuals and entities involved in the importation of goods into Australia. Specifically, it governs the procedure for requesting commercial documents or information related to an import declaration as part of the verification process under section 71DA of the Act. The instrument sets out the form and particulars required for such requests, ensuring that any documentary requirement is communicated in an approved format. This requirement applies nationally, affecting all importers and relevant customs officers across Australia. The instrument does not specify any exclusions or exemptions, meaning it broadly applies to all cases where an import declaration is made and verification is necessary. The CEO Instrument of Approval No. 86 of 2005 is a legislative instrument that extends the application of the Customs Act 1901 by defining the specific form to be used for making documentary requirements under section 71DA.

Key Provisions

The primary operative sections of the legislation in question are sections 4A(1) and 4A(2) of the Customs Act 1901. Section 4A(1) defines an approved form as one that is approved, by written instrument, by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs (the CEO). Section 4A(2) states that the instrument by which a form is approved is a disallowable instrument under section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Section 71DA of the Customs Act 1901 further outlines that if an import declaration has been made, authority to deal with the goods in accordance with the entry may be refused until the relevant officer is satisfied with particulars of the goods or any other relevant matter. To facilitate this, the officer may require the owner of the goods to deliver commercial documents or information in relation to the goods. The Act imposes several obligations on parties and entities it governs. For example, under section 71DA, the owner of goods subject to an import declaration must comply with documentary requirements, such as delivering commercial documents or information in an approved form, as stipulated by the officer. This ensures that the officer can verify the particulars of the goods and any other relevant matters before granting authority to deal with the goods. Additionally, the CEO’s approval of a form, as stated in section 4A(1), ensures that such forms are recognised and used correctly in the customs process. Breaches of the Act may result in various consequences. While the explanatory statement does not detail specific offences under this instrument, it is known that non-compliance with documentary requirements or failure to produce requested documents or information could lead to delays in the clearance of goods. More broadly, under the Customs Act 1901, breaches can result in civil and criminal penalties. For instance, knowingly making a false statement in a customs document could result in a penalty of up to five times the amount of duty and goods and services tax (GST) that would have been payable on the goods if they had been lawfully imported. Criminal penalties can include fines of up to $22,200 or imprisonment for up to two years, or both, for individuals, and higher penalties for corporations. The specific penalties depend on the nature and severity of the breach.