Compliance Update June 2014

Compliance Update
June 2014
Contents
Message from the National Manager Compliance Assurance
2
Changes to the Import Processing Charge
3
Trusted Trader Programme
4
New Infringement Notice Scheme
5
Post Transaction Verification (PTV) Audit Detection Types
7
Cargo Reporting – Update on compliance activities
8
Import documentation including evidence of price paid
12
Post-Delivery Amendments
14
Statistics14
Compliance terminology
21
Customs Watch22
This will be the
last edition of
Compliance Update.
1
June 2014
Compliance Update
Message from the National Manager Compliance
Assurance, Australian Customs and Border
Protection Service
This will be the last edition of Compliance
Update. The Chief Executive Officer of the
Australian Customs and Border Protection
Service (ACBPS) recently announced the
functional and organisational structure for the
Service, which will take effect on 1 July 2014.
investigating and addressing complex non-compliance across the
spectrum of risks for which it had responsibility. A number of the core
functions of the Branch will remain although they will have different
reporting lines.
Consistent with the themes of reform and a tougher stance on noncompliance, this final edition of ComplianceUpdate covers topics such
as the proposed Trusted Trader Scheme, the new Infringement Notice
Scheme and our work to combat assembly orders and other cargo
reporting deficiencies.
Anthony Seebach
National Manager Compliance Assurance
I will take on the role of Commander, Special
Investigations and Programmes, which will
focus on addressing serious financial crime,
national security threats and systemic or
significant vulnerabilities in the supply chain. The changes will also have implications for
the Compliance Assurance Branch (CAB),
which will cease to exist on 30 June 2014. This is not a negative – the creation of Strategic Border Command and
the various organisational units within that construct recognises the
excellent work that the Branch has done over the last couple of years
2
June 2014
Compliance Update
Changes to the Import Processing Charge
Schedule of Charges
Import Declaration
Changes to the Import Processing Charges (IPC) for air, sea and post
consignments with a value of $10,000 or more came into effect on
1 January 2014. Australian Customs and Border Protection Notices
2013/66 “Changes to the Import Processing Charge” and 2013/63
“Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 2013” provide further
information on these changes.
While there were no changes to the IPC for consignments valued
between $1000 and less than $10,000, the IPC has increased for
consignments valued over $10,000. These changes have resulted in a
two-tiered schedule of charges, which are summarised in the table to
the right.
The ACBPS will continue to monitor the implementation of the new
IPC arrangements to ensure compliance. Where we identify noncompliance, there are various treatment options available depending
on the circumstances. These actions range from education through to
the imposition of infringement notices and prosecution.
Import Consignment
Value
Import (N10) Warehouse (N20)
Electronic
Documentary
More than $1,000
but less than
$10,000
Sea $50.00
Sea $65.75
Air / Post $40.20
Air / Post $48.85
Sea $152.60
Sea $152.60
Air / Post $122.10
Air / Post $122.10
$10,000 or more
Paid By
The owner, when
the declaration is
communicated to
ACBPS.
The owner, when
the declaration is
communicated to
ACBPS.
If you have any enquires about the IPC you can contact
[email protected]
3
Compliance Update
Trusted Trader Programme
In July 2013, the CEO of ACBPS launched the Service’s Blueprint for
Reform (2013-2018). Among the areas targeted for transformation
was ‘Trade and Goods’. The establishment of a trusted trader
programme is the centrepiece of this reform track.
The Trusted Trader Programme will refine ACBPS’s approach to
managing risk in the supply chain. As part of this, we will be able to
provide enhanced border clearance privileges to recognised trusted
traders. ACBPS is confident that intelligent intervention in the trade
environment, coupled with customs-to-customs mutual recognition
of like programmes, will decrease the administrative and regulatory
burden on industry. This will ultimately increase the international
competitiveness of Australian businesses.
June 2014
Outcomes for trusted traders may include expedited clearance,
priority service and reduced intervention as well as increased certainty,
enabling better supply chain management and cost savings. Trusted
traders may be able to access international recognition of trusted
status and improved international market access. This may result in
a reduction in the need for multiple assessments by other Customs
administrations.
ACBPS has recently released a discussion paper to industry to initiate
broader dialogue on its key principles and concepts. For a copy of the
paper or for more information, please contact:
[email protected]
The Trusted Trader Programme will comprise of two schemes, which
will operate in the import and export environments respectively.
ACBPS will be looking to co-design the import programme with
industry over the coming months to ensure the greatest benefit for
industry, government and the Australian community. We will base
the export scheme on the World Customs Organization’s Authorized
Economic Operator concept to ensure it aligns with existing global
standards and international initiatives.
4
Compliance Update
New Infringement Notice Scheme
In the November 2013 edition of ComplianceUpdate, we informed
you about the legislative changes to the Customs Act 1901 (Customs
Act) designed to strengthen the cargo supply chain against criminal
infiltration and to deter and deal more effectively with non-compliance.
Most of these measures commenced on 28 November 2013;
however, the changes to the Infringement Notice Scheme (INS) took
effect on 1 February 2014.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW INS
Infringement notices are a valuable administrative enforcement tool as
they can provide a timely and cost-efficient outcome for both ACBPS
and the person that is the subject of an investigation. In issuing the
infringement notice, ACBPS puts the recipient on notice that it has
reasonable grounds to believe that they have contravened the law. The recipient has the option of resolving the matter immediately by
paying the penalty specified in the infringement notice or having the
matter determined by the relevant court. Infringement notice penalties
are significantly less than the penalties a court could impose. Payment
of an infringement notice is not an admission of guilt and does not
count in any way as a criminal record.
June 2014
The new scheme applies for all alleged offences that occurred on or
after 1 February 2014. An alleged offence committed before this date
is subject to the old INS. Significant differences in the new scheme
include:
—— the expansion to the number of offences subject to the INS –
there are now 82 offences (including four offences that can also
be applied in the traveller environment)
—— introduction of a corporate multiplier to differentiate the penalty
amounts given to a natural person and a corporate entity, and
—— streamlined administration of the scheme to ensure it operates
effectively and efficiently as a mechanism for swiftly dealing with
less serious breaches of the legislation.
In determining whether an infringement notice is an appropriate
enforcement response, the ACBPS will take into account a broad
range of factors.
5
June 2014
Compliance Update
Circumstances where ACBPS is more likely to give an infringement
notice rather than prosecute for an offence may include:
• where the alleged offence is isolated or non-systematic
• where remedial or risk mitigation action was taken following
ACBPS bringing the issues of concern to the person’s attention (for
example, through a formal warning)
• where the facts that led to the alleged offence are straight forward
and are not in dispute
• where the alleged offence does not pose a significant risk to the
border or the collection of revenue, or
• where ACBPS considers the infringement notice is necessary
to form part of a broader industry or sector compliance and
enforcement program.
Circumstances where prosecution is more likely to be an appropriate
enforcement response may include:
—— where ACBPS has previously taken action against the person
for similar breaches of the law
compliance and recidivism, for which an infringement notice
would not be an effective deterrent, or
—— where the person has, as a consequence of alleged offences,
obtained a financial or other advantage, to the detriment of
others.
While the new INS expands the scheme, infringement notices are only
one of a number of treatment options ACBPS can use to address
non-compliance. Other options range from education and warning
letters through to prosecution and, where applicable, the suspension
and revocation of customs licences.
WHERE CAN I GET FURTHER INFORMATION?
You can find further information about the new INS in the Customs
and Border Protection Infringement Notice Scheme Guide (January
2014). Links to the Guide, industry fact sheets, the legislation and
associated explanatory material is available on the ACBPS internet
website at:
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4271.asp
—— where the alleged offence is more serious in nature and the
consequences to the community could be severe
—— where the alleged offender has a substantial record of non-
6
June 2014
Compliance Update
Post Transaction Verification (PTV) Audit
Detection Types
The ACBPS has the responsibility for the security and integrity of
Australia’s borders. In order to achieve this outcome, the Service is
committed to working with Industry to maximise compliance with
the Customs Act. As part of this commitment, ACBPS engages with
members of the international cargo supply chain to increase the
understanding of their legislative requirements and address areas of
non-compliance.
We have compiled a list for your information of error types that we
have detected through audit activity. This document provides an
indication of the common errors made by those involved in trade and
may assist you to put in place appropriate mechanisms to reduce the
likelihood of such errors. We will update this list over time. You can find
the list at:
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/
DetectionTypesMarch2014.pdf
One way in which ACBPS monitors the level of compliance with
relevant legislation, and identifies non-compliance, is through Post
Transaction Verification (PTV) audits. We perform these audits after the
movement of cargo across the border has occurred. They involve the
systematic examination of the transaction records of an entity, whether
it be an importer, exporter, broker or other member of the supply
chain.
The audit will verify every field on relevant declarations and cargo
reports. Further, any piece of information that is provided to ACBPS as
part of the transaction can be reviewed and further verification can be
sought.
7
Compliance Update
Cargo Reporting – Update on compliance
activities
The information collected on the cargo report and clearance
documentation is central to the systems and processes employed by
the ACBPS to achieve cargo control and to undertake pre-arrival risk
assessment, as well as determining risk treatment responses such as
cargo interventions or examinations. It is also important for revenue
collection and statistical purposes.
ACBPS is undertaking a range of activities to address deficiencies in
the quality and timeliness of cargo reporting.
ACBPS has targeted its efforts in three areas:
a. To ensure that cargo reporting and clearance documentation
meets current legislative and policy settings, ACBPS has increased
its compliance activity to address the assembly order issue. The
focus has been on highlighting the requirement to have complete
and accurate reporting of the supplier and owner of the goods
(rather than supply chain facilitators, such as consolidators and
freight forwarders). The incomplete or inaccurate reporting of
suppliers and owners undermines ACBPS’s ability to conduct
effective risk assessment and prevent the importation of prohibited,
June 2014
restrictive and regulated goods. Another consequence of assembly
orders is that some importers have been able to avoid payment of
some import processing charges through not lodging a separate
import declaration for each consignment resulting in an unfair
commercial advantage and lost revenue to the Commonwealth.
b. To improve cargo reporting timeliness, in April 2013 ACBPS
ended its interim approach to cargo reports lodged outside the
legislated timeframes. This now allows the ACBPS to address noncompliance in the same way as all other breaches of the Customs
Act.
c. To reduce air cargo reporting deficiencies, ACBPS is continuing
to work with the top 20 air cargo reporters to improve compliance
with legislative requirements. The accurate, timely and complete
reporting of air cargo reports in the self-assessed clearance
environment is essential to ensure effective risk assessment of low
value air cargo consignments and to prevent the misuse of the low
value threshold.
8
June 2014
Compliance Update
ACBPS is continuing consultation with key industry stakeholders, as
we recognise the importance of collaboration and working with them
to identify and target non-compliance and improve cargo reporting
outcomes. We have also presented information sessions and recently
published notices and factsheets on the ACBPS website for the wider
trading community.
The Service’s Blueprint for Reform 2013-2018 flags the possibility
of establishing trusted trader arrangements in the longer term. This
may include abridged reporting requirements and expedited border
clearance for compliant traders with robust security and integrity
practices. Legislative reform would need to underpin any such
arrangements.
ASSEMBLY ORDERS
The cargo reporting of ‘assembly orders’ has been an issue for some
years. An assembly order usually refers to the consolidation of goods
from multiple suppliers for one importer, with a freight forwarder often
organising the goods to arrive on the same vessel or aircraft and within
the same container, group of containers or palletised together.
People consolidate consignments to minimise freight costs. In many
cases, a freight forwarder will arrange only one contract of carriage,
i.e. a single shipping bill of lading or air waybill, rather than a separate
contract of carriage for each consignment.
Cargo reporters are obliged to report a separate cargo report for
each consignor/consignee combination. However, the reporting of
cargo had evolved away from this legislative requirement with industry
often reporting cargo at the consolidated level. Some cargo reports
specify the consolidator (or similar entity) as the consignor, rather
than preparing a separate cargo report for each consignee/consignor
combination.
Information in a cargo report is central to the systems and processes
employed to achieve cargo control, to identify and to respond to risks
at the border, and to ensure the collection of appropriate revenue
before the release of cargo.
At a meeting of the Customs and Border Protection National
Consultative Committee (CBPNCC) in November 2012, members
agreed that the ACBPS should increase activity to ensure compliance
with the legislative settings for reporting requirements in relation to
assembly orders. Industry members actively supported this action
because businesses complying with the law were at a commercial
disadvantage to those who were not.
The first stage of that increased compliance activity was to write
warning letters to over 400 suspected non-compliant entities to
9
June 2014
Compliance Update
encourage them to review their activities to ensure that they met
Customs Act cargo reporting requirements.
The warning letters resulted in numerous enquiries from customs
brokers and cargo reporters seeking confirmation of their level
of compliance of their current practices and clarifying the correct
reporting requirements. ACBPS identified many non-compliant
business processes, which to some extent may have resulted from a
light-handed compliance approach to cargo reporting. However, over
the past two years the ACBPS compliance program has adopted a
much tougher stance on breaches of border requirements, including
those relating to cargo reporting.
ACBPS is monitoring compliance to determine whether the letters
have changed behaviour. During March 2014, there had been a
reduction in non-compliance of approximately 61.5 per cent in sea
cargo and 99.3 per cent in air cargo compared with the level of noncompliance in January 2013.
ACBPS has commenced direct engagement with some entities that
are still non-compliant with a view to changing their behaviour.
It is important to note the legislative and policy settings for the
reporting of assembly orders have not changed for many years, as
suggested in some industry publications. ACBPS clearly articulated
those settings in Australian Customs Notice No. 2009/47. ACBPS reaffirmed the current cargo reporting requirements for assembly orders
by meeting with key industry associations and by issuing a fact sheet
that provides guidance on how cargo reporting requirements apply to
a number of common businesses.
SELF-ASSESSED CLEARANCE
The ACBPS is undertaking work to reduce air cargo reporting
deficiencies by working with large cargo reporters to improve
compliance and border protection outcomes.
A large number of consignments enter Australia each year with
freight forwarders and others availing themselves of the combined
cargo report and self-assessed clearance communication method
(communicators). The requirements for communicating via Air Cargo
Report Self-Assessed Clearance Declarations (ACR-SACs) are
provided in Section 71 of the Customs Act. ACBPS uses ACR-SACs
to risk assess goods entering Australia and relies on accurate and
timely ACR-SACs to perform this function effectively. ACBPS compliance activities indicate that some abuse of ACR-SACs
is occurring including their use for alcohol, tobacco, permit goods and
goods with a value in excess of AUD $1000. 10
June 2014
Compliance Update
ACBPS activities also indicated that some communicators have been
responsible in a substantive way for some of the non-compliance and
poor data quality.
In August 2012, ACBPS sent letters to the top 20 air cargo reporters
outlining a proposed strategy to improve cargo reporting. The initiative
has delivered improved results with a significant reduction in deficient
reports from some large air cargo reporters. We are continuing
to provide educational materials to entities that are identified as
having deficient reporting to assist them with improving reporting
performance.
Each month, we also provide major reporters with data sets identifying
deficient cargo reports; these provide sufficient information for
reporters to investigate the cause and take steps to improve the
quality of their reporting.
ACBPS continues to press major reporters to implement appropriate
systems and controls to ensure cargo reporting accuracy.
Where there is no evidence of corrective action, the Service will
consider increased use of penalty action, such as infringement
notices.
CARGO REPORTING TIMELINESS
Customs and Border Protection Notice 2013/20 - Approach to
Managing Cargo Reporting Compliance was published on 17 April
2013. The notice was issued to raise awareness with industry that the
interim approach to cargo reporting introduced in 2007 would cease,
as it no longer met ACBPS expectations for accurate and timely cargo
reporting.
Unless otherwise prescribed in the Customs Act, air cargo reports
must be lodged at least two hours prior to the estimated time of arrival
at the first airport in Australia, and sea cargo reports must be lodged
at least 48 hours prior to estimated time of arrival at the first port.
Under the interim approach, the Service would not issue an
infringement notice if the reporter demonstrated a sustained improving
trend in relation the timeliness of their cargo reports. This approach
was appropriate at the time of publication, but the cargo environment
has evolved and matured since ACBPS adopted this approach.
The application of the Infringement Notice Scheme now applies to
breaches of cargo reporting period requirements in the same way it
does to other breaches of the Customs Act.
At the time of ending the interim approach, improvement in cargo
reporting timeliness had either plateaued or started to trend down.
11
June 2014
Compliance Update
Portion of cargo (total bills) reported in line with legislated timeframes:
20052006
Air Cargo
20062007
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
2011-2012
31 March
YTD
87.0% 94.0%
94.0% 94.3%
94.6%
94.6%
91.4%
91.9%
92.7%
Sea Cargo 69.0% 84.0%
86.3% 88.2%
90.3%
90.3%
88.7%
89.7%
91.1%
Since the publication of Customs and Border Protection Notice
2013/20 in April 2013, which ended the interim arrangement to
compliance approach on cargo reporting timeliness, overall there has
been a steady improvement in the number of cargo reports lodged
within the legislated timeframes. To the end of 31 March 2014,
air cargo reporting timeliness was at 92.7 per cent and sea cargo
reporting timeliness at 91.1 per cent.
Import documentation including evidence of
price paid
ACBPS has recently published two fact sheets to support Australian
Customs and Border Protection Notice 2013/46 and provide further
advice on acceptable standards of commercial documentation and
evidence of monies price paid (EMPP). We have provided further
details on what the fact sheets cover below:
1) Fact sheet – Cargo destined for Australia ‘Providing the Right Information’
ACBPS uses information reported in the Integrated Cargo System
(ICS) to ensure that prohibited goods are not imported, that restricted
goods only enter with appropriate approval and that the correct
amount of duty and taxes are collected. Importations that are
incorrect, incomplete or late information are more likely to be subject
to increased scrutiny at the Australian border. This may cause delays
to border clearance and increased supply chain costs.
This fact sheet outlines what information can be used to lodge
reporting data in ICS, when this data must be provided to the ACBPS
and what supporting documentation ACBPS may request to validate
data in ICS. It also provides information on the penalty action that may
apply if we detect non-compliance.
12
June 2014
Compliance Update
2) Fact sheet – Verification of import transactions using commercial documents
WHERE CAN I GET FURTHER INFORMATION?
ACBPS has found that in a considerable number of cases, pro forma
invoices (sometimes created by suppliers for purposes such as
quotation or estimation) and electronic invoices (documents created
outside of a sales transaction) do not reflect important details on sales
transactions.
Links to industry fact sheets are available on the ACBPS internet
website:
This fact sheet provides details for cargo reporters and brokers
about pro forma and electronic invoices and the risks associated
with their use to support statements made in declarations to ACBPS.
Documents found to be unreliable in the past that continue to be used
to support statements made to ACBPS without further verification
could expose the owner of the goods, the relevant reporting party or
customs broker to increased levels of intervention and sanctions.
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page5302.asp
Traditional Chinese versions of the fact sheets are also available:
Cargo destined for Australia ‘Providing the
Right Information’
若不能及時準確地提供完整的資訊，
則可能妨礙貨物的交收甚至遭受處罰。
Verification of import transactions using
commercial documents
使用商業文件作為進口交易證明
13
June 2014
Compliance Update
Post-Delivery Amendments
Statistics
ACBPS is concerned about the number of instances of import
declarations being amended post-delivery that are not paid at the time
of amendment. We remind Customs brokers and importers that there
is a requirement to pay import declarations amended after clearance
and delivery into home consumption at the time the amendment is
made.
Compliance Results 1 July 2013 – 31 March
2014
Customs brokers and importers can establish if they have any unpaid
declarations through ICS by running the ‘Broker/Importer Summary’
report and viewing the ‘Part 1 - Declarations Outstanding’ component
of this report. We recommend that brokers and importers review this
report on a monthly basis.
ACBPS has begun monitoring the instances of import declarations
that are amended post-delivery, which are not paid at the time the
amendment is made. Where compliance cannot be demonstrated or
maintained, you run the risk of increased pre-clearance intervention,
which may result in delays and additional costs.
1. Risk Program
Pre-clearance Intervention (PCI)
Due to systems upgrades within the PCI environment, figures for the
period 1 July 2013 – 31 March 2014 are currently unavailable.
Post Transaction Verification (PTV) imports
All PTV revenue results
Description
Overstated
Understated
Actual duty
$838,257
$12,856,563
GST
$7,299,742
$51,914,920
14
June 2014
Compliance Update
Cargo control and accounting
The Infringement Notice Scheme (1 July 2013 to 31 March 2014)
From 1 July 2013 to 31 March 2014, there were 46,285 lines of cargo
checked at licensed warehouses, licensed depots and CTOs. There
have been 8,242 cargo control breaches identified from these checks
(17.8%).
False and misleading statement related offences
Offence Description
IN
DWL
NDWL
IN – Infringement Notice, DWL - Delegate Warning Letter, NDWL Non-Delegate Warning Letter
243T(1)
False or misleading statements
resulting in a loss of duty
48
16
81
243U(1)
False or misleading statements not
resulting in a loss of duty
16
3
24
243V(1)
False or misleading statements in a
2
cargo report or outturn report
0
11
Movement of goods related offences
Offence
Description
IN
DWL NDWL
33(2), (3)
& (6)
Moving altering or interfering with
goods subject to Customs control
without authority
268
17
46
36(2), (6)
& (7)
Failure to keep goods safely or
failure to account for goods
16
1
6
15
June 2014
Compliance Update
2. Compliance Monitoring Program (CMP)
Cargo reporting and arrival related offences
Offence
Description
IN
DWL
NDWL
64(13)
Failure to meet reporting
requirements for the impending
arrival of a ship or aircraft
4
1
3
64AA(10)
Failure to meet reporting
requirements for the arrival of a
ship or aircraft
0
64AB(10)
Failure to meet reporting
requirements for the report of
cargo
0
Failure to meet reporting
requirements for outturn reports
0
Compliance Assurance Branch has a dedicated analyst reviewing the
CMP data with a view of informing our risk program.
Import Activity
0
0
1
0
2
29
No of Lines Checked (a)
No of Lines Detected to Have
Error/s (b)
1 July 2013 – 31 March 2014
4,693
863
Error Rate = (b) / (a)
18.4%
No of Detections
1,047
Cargo Report
No of Lines Selected
1 July 2013 – 31 March 2014
4,693
No of Cargo Reports
Detected to Have Error/s (a)
329
No of Cargo Reports
Checked (b)
n/a
Error Rate = a / b
n/a
Total No of Detections
397
16
June 2014
Compliance Update
Export Error Rates
1 July 2013 – 31 March
2014
No. of lines checked (a)
816
No. of lines with detection/s
(b)
315
Error rate = b/a
No. of detections
38.6%
530
2013-14 CMP import declarations data accuracy monitoring activities
outcome
CMP imports - error rate and number of detections made
Import Activity
1 July 2013 – 31 March
2014
No of Lines Checked (a)
4,693
No of Lines Detected to Have
Error/s (b)
863
No of Detections
1,047
Error Rate = (b) / (a)
18.4%
CMP imports - detection types
Detection Types
1 July 2013 –
%
31 March 2014
Air Way Bill / Bill of Lading
0
0.00%
Assists
0
0.00%
Currency
11
1.05%
Discounts
9
0.86%
Foreign Inland Freight
6
0.57%
FTA Concessions
0
0.00%
Goods Description
6
0.57%
17
June 2014
Compliance Update
Gross Weight
85
8.12%
Quantity
25
2.39%
GST Exemption Code
6
0.57%
Related Transaction
83
7.93%
Import Goods not Declared
when Required
0
0.00%
Relevant Transaction
3
0.29%
Royalties
0
0.00%
Stat Code
0
0.00%
Tariff Classification
129
12.32%
64
6.11%
Incorrect GST Deferral
Outcome
0
0.00%
Incorrect Owner Identified
13
1.24%
Incorrect Supplier Identified
34
3.25%
Tariff Concession or Other
Concession Other
Interest
0
0.00%
Transport and/or Insurance
Invoice Terms
101
9.65%
Valuation Date
Loading Port
73
6.97%
Valuation Basis Type
Non-declaration of Imported
Goods
1
0.10%
Number of Packages
21
2.01%
Origin
40
3.82%
Other Addition
14
1.34%
Other Deductions
2
0.19%
Outside Packaging
0
0.00%
Overseas Freight
18
1.72%
Overseas Insurance
3
0.29%
Packing Costs
0
0.00%
Port of Discharge
0
0.00%
Preference
29
2.77%
Price (Invoice Total)
48
4.58%
3
0.29%
165
15.76%
2
0.19%
VOTI - GST
1
0.10%
Other
51
4.87%
1,047
100.00%
Total Detections
18
June 2014
Compliance Update
2013-14 CMP – cargo reporting data accuracy monitoring activities
CMP cargo reporting - error rate by lines and number of detections
made
Cargo Report Errors
No of Lines Selected
No of Cargo Reports Detected
to Have Error/s (a)
1 July 2013 – 31
March 2014
4,693
329
2013-14 CMP cargo reporting – detection types
Cargo Reporting
Detection Types 1 July 2013 –
%
31 March 2014
Bill Number
1
0.25%
Cargo Report Data Inaccuracy
(Other)
17
4.28%
Consignee Incorrect
140
35.26%
Consignor Incorrect
165
41.56%
No of Cargo Reports Checked
(b)
n/a
Container Number
0
0.00%
Error Rate = a / b
n/a
Country of Origin
0
0.00%
Total No of Detections
397
Currency Code
0
0.00%
Declared Value
0
0.00%
Discharge Port
0
0.00%
Goods Description
14
3.53%
Gross Weight
46
11.59%
Origin Port of Loading
13
3.27%
Port of Destination
Total Detections
1
0.25%
397
100.00%
19
June 2014
Compliance Update
2013-14 CMP export data accuracy monitoring
CMP export – error rate and the number of detections made
Export Error Rates
1 July 2013 – 31 March 2014
No of lines checked (a)
816
No of lines with detection/s (b)
315
Error rate = b/a
38.6%
No of detections
530
CMP export – detection type
Export Activity Detection Types
FOB Terms
24
4.53%
FOB Value
114
21.51%
Gross Weight
79
14.91%
Incorrect Exporter Identified
1
0.19%
Net Quantity
78
14.72%
Number of Packages
2
0.38%
Origin
38
7.17%
Other Export Data Inaccuracy
27
5.09%
Other Permit
0
0.00%
Port of Loading
3
0.57%
530
100.00%
Total Detections
1 July 2013 –
%
31 March 2014
AHECC - Misclassification
57
10.75%
AHECC - Multi-Lines
8
1.51%
AHECC - Other
0
0.00%
Consignee City
25
4.72%
Consignee Name
16
3.02%
Country of Destination
3
0.57%
Declared Owner
4
0.75%
First Port of Discharge
1
0.19%
FOB Currency
38
7.17%
FOB Other
12
2.26%
20
June 2014
Compliance Update
Compliance terminology
AWB
Air Waybill
CLEAR status (depots)
A cargo status in the ICS that allows cargo to be delivered
into home consumption from a depot
CP
Continuing Permission – allows a permission owner to
move goods between nominated warehouses on a
continuing basis
CTO
Cargo Terminal Operator (can be Air or Sea)
DCL
Deconsolidation or “unpack” at a depot
DWA
Delivery Without Authority – when underbond goods are
delivered into home consumption without being authorised
by the Customs Act (s33 Customs Act 1901)
EDI
Electronic Data Interchange
FAK
Freight of all kinds
FCL
Full container load
FCX
Full container multiple suppliers
FOB
Free On Board
HAWB
House Air Waybill
HBOL
House Bill of Lading
LCL
Less than container load
Licensed depot
A depot licensed under s77G of the Customs Act 1901
Licensed warehouse
A warehouse licensed under s79 of the Customs Act 1901
MWA
Movement Without Authority - when underbond goods are
moved to another licensed place or CTO – the goods are
still under Customs control - without the movement being
authorised by the Customs Act (s33 Customs Act 1901)
OBOL
Ocean Bill of Lading
STP
Single Transaction Permission – application must be made
to Customs and Border Protection to move goods between
nominated warehouses on a one-off basis (one movement
per application)
UBM
Underbond movement
UBMR
Underbond movement request
Underbond movement
A movement of cargo subject to the control of Customs that
moves on a permission granted under s71E of the Customs
Act 1901
21
Compliance Update
Customs Watch
June 2014
If you are calling from overseas or using a satellite phone, please call
+61 2 6246 1325 (normal call costs will apply).
Customs Watch is ACBPS’s national information collection program
that draws on the knowledge of industry and the community to protect
Australia’s borders by reporting suspicious, potentially illegal or
non-compliant behaviour (including misreporting).
Customs Watch members know their local environments. Members
range from multi-national corporations to individuals, are based in
capital cities, regional centres and remote areas, and operate in
environments as different as cargo logistics and caravan parks.
By reporting suspicious or potential non-compliant activities, Customs
Watch members actively help ACBPS protect Australia’s border.
ACBPS encourages you to report suspicious or potential noncompliant behaviour to Customs Watch toll-free on 1800 06 1800, by
email [email protected], or by using the online form.
The 1800 06 1800 number is answered by experienced ACBPS
officers 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Your information could
be the key piece of the puzzle that leads to the seizure of narcotics or
other prohibited imports or the identification and treatment of unfair
trade practices. You may provide information to ACBPS anonymously.
22

Download Report