Tariff Concession Revocation Order 150/2007

Administered by Attorney-General's Department

Legislation au F2007L03936 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Select Document

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No.150/2007

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.

Gray-Nicholls Sports Pty Ltd applied for a TCO in respect of sport bags in May 2005. In June 2007, after consideration of an request for revocation from Adventure One Pty Ltd, the delegate of the CEO refused to revoke TCO 0505972.

Section 269SH of the Act allows a person affected by a decision in relation to a TCO application, who objects to the making of the decision, to apply to the CEO for its reconsideration.

Subsection 269SH(5) provides that where application is made for reconsideration of a decision made on a request for revocation, the CEO, having regard to:

(a) The request for revocation; and

(b) The information, documents and materials which the CEO was entitled to take into account in considering the request; and

(c) Any new matter produced to the CEO by the applicant for reconsideration which, under subsection (7), the CEO is not prevented from taking into account for that purpose;

must decide, not later than 60 days after the last day for lodgement of the application for reconsideration, whether to affirm the original decision or to substitute any other decision that the CEO might have made.

Under subsections 269SH(8) and (9) of the Act, where the CEO, on reconsideration, decides to substitute another decision, the substituted decision is taken to have been made when the original decision was made and if the substituted decision involves making a TCO, the TCO comes into force on the day on which, if the original decision had involved making the TCO, that TCO would have come into force.

In August 2007, Adventure One Pty Ltd requested that the CEO reconsider the decision to refuse to revoke TCO 0505972.

In September 2007, a delegate of the CEO decided to overturn the original decision to refuse to revoke TCO 0505972. The substituted decision was to revoke TCO 0505972.

Instrument

TCO No 0505972 was revoked on 17 September 2007. It declares that sport bags are goods to which item 50 of Schedule 4 to the Tariff applies since the CEO was satisfied that 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

At the time the original TCO was made, the CEO published a notice in the Gazette, under section 269K of the Act, which included 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. .

At the time the request for revocation was lodged, the CEO published a notice in the Gazette in accordance with section 269SC of the Act regarding the fact that a request for revocation had been received. There is no provision for affected parties to lodge a submission with the CEO regarding why the TCO should not be revoked.

Under subsection 269SH(3A), the CEO must publish a Gazette notice (as soon as practicable after receiving a request) stating:

(a) that the request has been lodged; and

(b) the date that the request was lodged; and

Such a notice was published in the Gazette on 13 June 2007.

Commencement

Subsection 269SH(9) provides relevantly, if the substituted decision involves the making of an order revoking a TCO, that revocation comes into force on the day on which, if the original decision had involved making an order revoking a TCO, that order would have come into force. Accordingly, the revocation date has effect from the 6 June 2007.

Overview

The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 150/2007 was enacted under the Customs Act 1901 to address the need to revoke a specific Tariff Concession Order (TCO) that was found to no longer meet the criteria for continued application. This instrument was developed in response to an application from Adventure One Pty Ltd, which requested the reconsideration and subsequent revocation of TCO 0505972 concerning sport bags. The Customs Act 1901 provides the framework for the CEO of Customs to make TCOs, which grant tariff concessions on certain goods, but also allows for their revocation if it is determined that substitutable goods are produced in Australia. The revocation of TCO 0505972 was enacted to ensure that the tariff concessions applied fairly and in accordance with the legislative criteria. The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 150/2007 was introduced by the CEO of Customs, acting under the authority conferred by the Customs Act 1901. The primary policy objective in revoking TCO 0505972 was to maintain the integrity of the tariff concession scheme by ensuring that tariff reductions are only applied to goods for which no substitutable Australian-made alternatives exist. By revoking this TCO, the legislation aims to align with the legislative intent of providing tariff relief only where it is justified and to protect Australian industries from undue competitive pressure.

Scope and Application

The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No.150/2007 applies to the revocation of Tariff Concession Orders (TCOs) made under the Customs Act 1901. Specifically, it addresses the revocation of TCO 0505972, which pertains to sport bags, by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs (CEO). This instrument is relevant to entities that have been granted tariff concessions for specific goods, in this case, Gray-Nicholls Sports Pty Ltd for sport bags. The geographic reach of this Act is national, as it applies to goods entering Australia and involves decisions made by the CEO under the Commonwealth's legislative authority. The Act does not specify any exclusions or exemptions, but it does reference the criteria set out in the Customs Act 1901 regarding the conditions under which a TCO can be revoked. This revocation is effective from the date specified in the instrument, 17 September 2007, which aligns with the statutory provisions regarding the timing of such decisions.

Key Provisions

The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No.150/2007 operates under the Customs Act 1901, specifically addressing the revocation of Tariff Concession Orders (TCOs) (section 269SH). The key operative sections of this Instrument include section 269F, which allows for applications to the Chief Executive Officer of Customs (CEO) for a TCO, and section 269P, which mandates the CEO to issue a TCO if certain core criteria are met, such as the absence of substitutable goods produced in Australia (section 269C). The Instrument further details the process of reconsideration and potential revocation of a TCO, as outlined in section 269SH, which stipulates the conditions under which the CEO must reconsider a decision and the timeframes involved. The Act imposes several obligations on the CEO, including the requirement to publish notices in the Gazette when a request for a TCO is made (section 269K) and when a request for revocation is lodged (section 269SC). The CEO must also consider specific information and materials when making a decision, including any new matters presented by the applicant for reconsideration (subsection 269SH(5)). Moreover, the CEO is required to make a substituted decision within 60 days of the reconsideration application, ensuring that the substituted decision takes effect as if it had been made at the time of the original decision (subsections 269SH(8) and (9)). The Instrument outlines potential consequences for breaches of the provisions under the Customs Act 1901. While the specific offences and penalties are not detailed in the Instrument, breaches of the Customs Act generally may result in both civil and criminal penalties. Civil penalties can include fines up to the statutory maximum, depending on the severity and nature of the breach. Criminal penalties may involve imprisonment, with the maximum penalties varying based on the specific offence committed. The exact penalties would be determined by the courts based on the circumstances of the breach and the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.

Area of Law: Customs Law
Instrument: Legislative Instrument
Concepts: Definitions & Interpretation; Offence Provisions; Reporting & Disclosure Obligations

Interactions

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at 26 August 2026. For the latest information on Australian Government law please go to https://www.legislation.gov.au.

Legislation content