EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Tariff Concession Instrument No. 0704649
Customs Act 1901
Background
Part XVA of the Customs Act 1901 (the Act) sets out a scheme under which Tariff Concession Orders (TCOs) may be made by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs (the CEO). A lower rate of customs duty applies to goods that are the subject of a TCO.
Under section 269F of the Act, a person may apply to the CEO for a TCO in respect of goods. If the CEO is satisfied that the application is not in respect of goods specified in section 269SJ of the Act, which sets out those goods that cannot be subject to a TCO, the CEO must decide whether the application meets the core criteria.
Section 269C of the Act provides that a TCO application meets the core criteria if, on the day on which the application was lodged, no substitutable goods were produced in Australia in the ordinary course of business. Section 269B of the Act provides that ‘goods produced in Australia’ has the meaning given by section 269D, ‘ordinary course of business’ has the meaning given by section 269E and ‘substitutable goods’ in respect of goods the subject of a TCO application, means goods produced in Australia that are put, or are capable of being put, to a use that corresponds with a use (including a design use) to which the goods the subject of the application can be put.
Subsection 269P(3) of the Act provides that if the CEO is satisfied that a TCO application meets the core criteria, the CEO must make a written order (a TCO) declaring that the goods the subject of the TCO application are goods to which a prescribed item of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Tariff) specified in the order applies.
Sun Metals Corporation Pty Ltd applied for a TCO in respect of certain polypropylene cooling tower packings on 28 March 2007.
Instrument
TCO No 0704649 was made on 15 June 2007. It declares that those certain polypropylene cooling tower packings are goods to which item 50 of Schedule 4 to the Tariff applies since the CEO was satisfied that no substitutable goods were produced in Australia. The general rate of duty on these goods is 5%. The rate of duty for the goods subject to the TCO is free.
Consultation
Subsection 269K(1) of the Act provides in part that as soon as practicable after accepting a TCO application as a valid application, the CEO must publish a notice in the Gazette which includes an invitation to any person who considers that there are reasons why the TCO should not be made to lodge a submission with the CEO. The CEO did not receive any submissions in response to this invitation.
Commencement
Subsection 269S(1) relevantly provides that a TCO is to be taken to have come into force on the day on which the application for the TCO was lodged. TCO No. 0704649 is taken to have come into force on 28 March 2007.
The TCO does not affect the rights of a person (other than the Commonwealth) as at the date of registration so as to disadvantage that person or impose liabilities on a person (other than the Commonwealth) in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before the date of registration. The rights of importers will be beneficially affected. Under paragraph 126(1)(r) of the Regulations, importers of such goods will be able to apply for a refund of duty on goods imported since the day on which the TCO is taken to have come into force. The TCO does not impose any liabilities on any person.
Overview
The Customs Act 1901, as amended by Tariff Concession Instrument No. 0704649 enacted in 2007, addresses the need for tariff concessions for specific imported goods by establishing a scheme under which Tariff Concession Orders (TCOs) can be issued. The Act, enacted by the Australian Parliament, aims to facilitate the importation of goods that are not domestically produced or are produced in limited quantities, thereby supporting industries that rely on imported materials for their operations. The Tariff Concession Instrument No. 0704649, published on 15 June 2007, was made to provide a concession on customs duty for certain polypropylene cooling tower packings, reducing the duty from the general rate of 5% to free. The Chief Executive Officer of Customs determined that these goods were not produced in Australia and therefore met the core criteria for the tariff concession, allowing for a streamlined import process and potential duty refunds for affected importers.
Scope and Application
The Tariff Concession Instrument No. 0704649 under the Customs Act 1901 applies to entities or individuals seeking tariff concessions for specific goods, in this case polypropylene cooling tower packings, from the Commonwealth. The Act mandates that such applications are processed by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, who is required to assess whether the goods in question meet the specified core criteria for a Tariff Concession Order. These criteria include the absence of substitutable goods being produced in Australia and the general rate of customs duty applicable to the goods. The scope of this legislation extends to national jurisdiction, applying across the entirety of Australia as per the Customs Act 1901, with the instrument affecting the rights of importers to potentially claim duty refunds for goods imported from the date the TCO is deemed to have come into force. Notably, the Act ensures that the TCO does not disadvantage any person or impose liabilities on anyone for actions taken prior to the TCO's effective date.
Key Provisions
The main operative sections of Tariff Concession Instrument No. 0704649 (the Instrument) are sections 269C, 269B, and 269P of the Customs Act 1901 (the Act), which establish the criteria for making a Tariff Concession Order (TCO) and the process for applying for such an order. Under section 269C (1), a TCO application is deemed to meet the core criteria if, on the date the application is lodged, no substitutable goods are produced in Australia in the ordinary course of business. This is defined under section 269B, which clarifies that "goods produced in Australia" means goods produced in accordance with section 269D, and "ordinary course of business" is defined in section 269E. Further, "substitutable goods" for the purposes of the application means goods produced in Australia that are put, or are capable of being put, to a use that corresponds with a use (including a design use) to which the goods the subject of the application can be put. Section 269P(3) mandates that if the Chief Executive Officer of Customs (the CEO) is satisfied that the application meets the core criteria, the CEO must make a written order (a TCO) declaring that the goods in question are subject to a prescribed item of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.
The Instrument imposes obligations on the CEO to determine whether a TCO application meets the core criteria as outlined in the Act. This involves assessing whether any substitutable goods are being produced in Australia on the date the application is lodged. Additionally, under subsection 269K(1), the CEO is required to publish a notice in the Gazette as soon as practicable after accepting a TCO application as valid. This notice must include an invitation for any person who believes there are reasons why the TCO should not be made to lodge a submission with the CEO. The CEO must then consider these submissions if any are received. In the case of TCO No. 0704649, no submissions were received, allowing the CEO to proceed with making the order.
The Act and the Instrument also establish potential consequences for non-compliance. However, the specific offences, penalties, or civil/criminal consequences are not detailed in the provided text. Typically, breaches of customs regulations can result in significant penalties, including fines and imprisonment. For instance, section 242 of the Customs Act 1901 provides that a person who contravenes any provision of the Act may be liable to a penalty of up to $22,200 for individuals and $111,000 for bodies corporate. The CEO may also have the authority to impose administrative penalties, and in more severe cases, breaches can lead to criminal prosecution with potential imprisonment terms. The exact penalties would depend on the nature and severity of the breach, as well as any relevant case law or additional statutory provisions.