Tariff Concession Revocation Order 151/2007

Administered by Attorney-General's Department

Legislation au F2007L03935 Not in force Legislative Instrument

Select Document

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 151/2007

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.

Import Manteau Pty Ltd applied for a TCO in respect of carry bags in September 2001. In June 2007, after consideration of an request for revocation from Adventure One Pty Ltd, the delegate of the CEO refused to revoke TCO 0108711.

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 0108711.

In September 2007, a delegate of the CEO decided to overturn the original decision to refuse to revoke TCO 0108711. The substituted decision was to revoke TCO 0108711.

Instrument

TCO No 0108711 was revoked on 17 September 2007. It declares that carry 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 Customs Act 1901 was enacted by the Parliament of Australia and establishes the framework for the administration of customs and excise duties in Australia. The Act was introduced to address the need for a structured and regulated system of customs duties, to ensure the smooth operation of trade and to generate revenue for the government. The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 151/2007 is a legislative instrument made under the Customs Act 1901, aimed at revoking a Tariff Concession Order (TCO) that had been granted to Import Manteau Pty Ltd for carry bags. The revocation was in response to a request from Adventure One Pty Ltd, which argued that substitutable goods were being produced in Australia. The policy objective of this instrument is to ensure that tariff concessions are granted only when appropriate, taking into account the production of substitutable goods in Australia.

Scope and Application

The Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 151/2007 under the Customs Act 1901 applies to the revocation of a Tariff Concession Order (TCO) for carry bags, which was originally granted to Import Manteau Pty Ltd in September 2001. The revocation was made following a reconsideration by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Customs, acting on a request from Adventure One Pty Ltd. The decision to revoke TCO 0108711 was based on the determination that substitutable goods were produced in Australia, thus meeting the criteria for revocation as outlined in section 269P(3) of the Customs Act. This revocation applies nationally and alters the customs duty rate for carry bags from free to the general rate of 5%. The CEO's decision to revoke the TCO was made in accordance with the provisions under section 269SH of the Customs Act, which allows for reconsideration and subsequent substitution of decisions regarding TCOs. The revocation took effect from 6 June 2007, aligning with the commencement date stipulated under subsection 269SH(9) of the Act.

Key Provisions

The primary sections of the Tariff Concessions Revocation Instrument No. 151/2007 involve the revocation of Tariff Concession Order (TCO) 0108711, which was originally made under section 269F of the Customs Act 1901. Section 269C outlines the core criteria that must be met for a TCO to be considered, including the absence of substitutable goods produced in Australia at the time of the application. The revocation of TCO 0108711, as detailed in section 269SH, was based on the CEO's reconsideration of the application, following a request from Adventure One Pty Ltd, and the determination that substitutable goods were indeed being produced in Australia, thus satisfying the criteria set out in section 269P(3). This revocation was effective from 17 September 2007, as stipulated by subsection 269SH(9). The Act imposes specific obligations on the CEO of Customs, including the requirement to consider applications for TCOs and to make a decision based on the core criteria outlined in the Act. The CEO must also ensure that any reconsideration of a decision is conducted within 60 days of the application for reconsideration, as specified in subsection 269SH(5). Additionally, the CEO is mandated to publish notices in the Gazette both when a TCO is proposed (section 269K) and when a request for revocation is received (section 269SC). These notices must include details of the TCO and the date the request for revocation was lodged, as outlined in subsection 269SH(3A). Failure to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act 1901 can result in various penalties and consequences. While the specific penalties for breach are not detailed in the explanatory statement, breaches of customs regulations generally can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. Civil penalties may include fines and the seizure of goods, while criminal penalties could involve imprisonment, depending on the severity of the breach. The exact penalties would be determined by the relevant courts based on the specific circumstances of each case.

Area of Law: Customs Law
Instrument: Regulation
Concepts: Definitions & Interpretation; Offence Provisions; Repeal & Amendment

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