While deliveries without authority remain a serious concern for the ABF, the report also provides the following case studies addressing non-compliance by depots (NOTE: content reproduced verbatim from the Goods Compliance Report – January 2018) Case study 1: Unauthorised changes to licenced premises ABF Officers conducted an onsite licence check of a depot. They identified that unauthorised modifications had been made, including the relocation of the deadhouse cage and changes to the car park.
Under section 77N of the Customs Act, the holder of a licence must not cause or permit a substantial change to be made in a matter affecting the physical security of the depot.
Licensees who seek to make substantial changes to the existing licensed site must be granted approval to 'vary' their licence before any changes are made. Modifications without permission are in breach of the Customs Act.
In this case, the ABF issued the depot with a warning letter for two breaches.
Case study 2: Unauthorised export
ABF Officers assessed the status of held cargo at a depot. Depot staff were unable to locate the particular item. The depot subsequently located the item and re-exported it on the next flight, despite the consignment having a status of 'held' in the ICS.
Under section 77Q of the Customs Act, the holder of the licence must not facilitate transhipment or export of goods where there is a 'held' status on the import declaration or cargo report to which the goods are subject. As a result, the depot was issued with an infringement notice for $8,100*. Case study 3: Temporary fencing
ABF Officers visited a Cargo Terminal Operator (CTO) to assess the status of permanent fencing surrounding the CTO. They identified that permanent fencing had not been installed and there were holes in the temporary fencing.
This is an offence under section 102CK of the Customs Act and a warning was issued to the CTO. During later visits, ABF Officers found minimal progress on the installation of permanent fencing to address this and an infringement of $8,100 was issued*. *note - as of 1 July 2017, there was an increase in penalty units - the same breach now would result in an infringement of $9,450).
|
|