Following our most recent member notice pertaining to Delivery Address, Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA) today met with representatives from industry, the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) - main outcomes are listed below:
RURAL DESTINATION
FTA noted the scenario of rural destination consignments and the common industry practice to report the Delivery Address on the Full Import Declaration (FID) as the place of FCL unpack (which may not be the ultimate consignee's delivery address).
In response to the FTA request, continuation of this practice will be acceptable for a moratorium period until further notice while the ABF and DAFF consider further options available via the Integrated Cargo System (ICS) and enhanced Community Protection questions to meet the respective organisation's policy intent.
FTA sees this as a pragmatic short term outcome avoiding a significant burden on industry and DAFF resources.
MULTIPLE DELIVERY ADDRESSES
The ABF reiterated that the detail in the amended Goods Compliance Update that the entry of an intermediary address, such as a depot or logistics service provider address, is not appropriate, except in limited cases where, post importation, a single consignment is to be delivered to multiple customers or addresses of the importer. In this case, the customer/importer location or a logistics service provider warehouse can be reported as the delivery address in FIDs.
The ABF gave a commitment to follow up examples provided by FTA based on member feedback to earlier notices.
CARGO REPORT
The ABF addressed concerns that compliance activity had identified variations in consignee / delivery address in the cargo report as against that reported on the FID.
FTA explained that this is likely to be a common occurrence as the cargo report data is primarily generated from commercial documentation (being the Air waybill or Bill of Lading) which may vary to the more detailed and reliable information provided in the FID by a licensed customs broker.
The ABF also expressed concern that compliance activity revealed that Self Assessment Clearance (SAC) goods descriptions did not in all cases match the description on commercial documentation.
The ABF also requested industry feedback on the existing twelve models as listed HERE noting that additional models may be developed to address e-commerce scenarios.
We will keep members up to date on these important developments.
Sal Milici - Licensed Customs Broker
General Manager Trade Policy & Operations - FTA / APSA
Chair – Container Cleanliness Working Group | Global Shippers Forum (GSF)
Copyright © 2023 Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA) Pty Ltd, All rights reserved.