Biosecurity (First Point of Entry—Port of Newcastle) Determination 2019

The determination introduces and interrelates several concepts from the Biosecurity Act and the determination itself.

First point of entry is a port or place where vessels or goods may first arrive in Australian territory from overseas (subsection 229(1) of the Act). By section 5, Port of Newcastle is a first point of entry for vessels generally - meaning any vessel (subject to biosecurity control) can arrive there as its first Australian port. By section 6, it is a first point of entry for goods other than live horses and passenger vessel baggage. Live horses and passenger vessel baggage are excluded, so they cannot lawfully be brought into Australia through Newcastle; they must go through another first point of entry that is designated for them. This is a significant limitation for any intended horse exports/imports or cruise ship operations at Newcastle.

Biosecurity entry point is a specific area within a first point of entry that has been designated for the arrival of particular vessels or the unloading of particular goods (sections 7 and 8). The determination creates three categories of vessels (non‑commercial vessels; vessels other than non‑commercial vessels; and a subset excluding both non‑commercial and passenger vessels) and maps them to particular berths. For goods, there are five categories: (1) non‑commercial vessel baggage and waste (only the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club); (2) freight containers (five berths); (3) inorganic bulk goods (nine berths); (4) general goods (seven berths); and (5) waste (a long list of 21 berths). The term “general goods” is defined as goods other than baggage, freight containers, live horses or waste - a residual category that captures most cargo not otherwise specified. “Inorganic bulk goods” is defined narrowly as chemicals, ores, minerals or gases brought in bulk that do not contain animals, plants, organic compounds or microbes. This definition matters because if a bulk cargo contains any organic material (e.g., ore with biological contamination), it would likely fall outside “inorganic bulk goods” and must be unloaded at a berth designated for “general goods” or waste, depending on its nature - which may not be the most efficient berth for that cargo.

Vessel is defined in section 4 of the determination by reference to section 9 of the Act and is limited to vessels “subject to biosecurity control”. That means the determination applies only to vessels that have not yet been cleared by biosecurity, or that are otherwise under biosecurity control. Once a vessel is cleared, the entry point restrictions may no longer apply, but the determination itself does not address that.

Waste is defined in section 4 as goods subject to biosecurity control and intended by the person in charge of the vessel to be disposed of. This captures ship‑generated waste (e.g., galley scraps, quarantine waste) that must be unloaded at designated waste entry points.

Condition in Part 4 imposes prospective notification duties on the commercial operators of the port. These are not conditions that attach to individual vessel movements but rather to the ongoing approval of the port as a first point of entry. The Director of Biosecurity could theoretically revoke or vary the determination if conditions are not complied with, although the determination itself does not spell out that consequence.

The distinction between “first point of entry” and “biosecurity entry point” is central to understanding the regulatory architecture. A port may be a first point of entry, meaning vessels and goods can lawfully arrive there, but that does not give an unfettered right to use any berth. The biosecurity entry point provisions constrain the actual physical location where arrival and unloading must occur. This two‑tier system allows the department to concentrate inspection facilities and manpower at certain berths while still approving the broader port for general arrivals.

The determination directly affects the entities that own, operate, use and regulate Port of Newcastle.

Port owner and lessees: The Port of Newcastle is owned by the Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd (a private consortium under a 98‑year lease from the NSW Government). Determination section 9 imposes notification duties on “the owner” and “the lessee” (if any) of the port. The owner must notify the Agriculture Department of changes to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point, and any person or body responsible for carrying out operations must give reasonable notice of proposed changes to biosecurity‑related procedures, facilities and amenities. This means the port owner and any terminal lessees (such as stevedores or bulk handlers) must maintain ongoing communication with the department about operational changes. The cost of that compliance is borne by the port and its lessees, ultimately flowing through to shippers and consumers.

Vessel operators and masters: Masters of vessels arriving at Newcastle must ensure that their vessel proceeds to the correct biosecurity entry point for their vessel type as soon as practicable. For a non‑commercial vessel (e.g., a yacht), that is the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club; for all other vessels, they must use one of the berths listed in items 2 or 3 of the table in section 7, depending on whether they are carrying passengers. A passenger vessel (e.g., a cruise ship) is excluded from the longer list of berths in item 3; it can only use the four berths in item 2 (Channel Berth, Dyke 1, West Basin 3, West Basin 4). That is a meaningful constraint on cruise operations in Newcastle: if those four berths are unavailable, a passenger vessel may not be able to lawfully berth at all at Newcastle unless the Director of Biosecurity provides an alternative direction. Vessel operators must also ensure that goods are unloaded only at the appropriate berth for that goods class. A vessel carrying mixed cargo (e.g., freight containers and waste) may need to unload in sequence at different berths, increasing port time.

Cargo owners and freight forwarders: They must be aware of which berths can receive which goods. For example, freight containers may only be unloaded at five specified berths. If a container ship plans to use a different berth, it cannot unload containers there unless the department has made a separate direction or the containers are not subject to biosecurity control (which is rare for international containers). This can restrict choice of terminal and potentially increase road or rail movements if the container terminal is not the berth where the vessel would otherwise prefer to berth.

Biosecurity officials and the Agriculture Department: The determination channels biosecurity inspection activities to defined locations, allowing the department to plan staffing and facilities. It also gives the department a powerful oversight tool via the notification conditions, enabling it to veto or impose conditions on procedural or facility changes that affect biosecurity risk. This gives the department influence over commercial decisions about port operations, such as changes to security barriers, drainage, lighting, waste handling or fumigation procedures.

Passengers and crew on non‑commercial vessels: They are affected because their baggage and waste must be processed only at the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club. That is a relatively small facility compared to the main commercial berths, and may lack infrastructure for large volumes or biosecurity screening technology. Yacht clubs typically have limited space for biosecurity inspections, which could create delays for arriving yachts.

Cruise ship passengers: Their baggage is excluded entirely from the first point of entry designation for goods (section 6(b)). That means passenger vessel baggage cannot lawfully be brought into Australia through Newcastle at all under this determination. If a cruise ship calls at Newcastle, passengers’ checked baggage presumably must be cleared at the ship’s first Australian port of entry (e.g., Sydney or Brisbane) before being brought to Newcastle, or the ship must not discharge baggage at Newcastle. This is a notable constraint that likely limits Newcastle’s attractiveness as a cruise destination compared to ports with a broader first point of entry designation for passenger vessel baggage.

The determination imposes a small number of specific duties and creates corresponding rights (or limitations) for the port operator and those using the port.

Duty to bring a vessel to the correct biosecurity entry point: The note to section 7 reminds the reader that section 246 of the Act requires a vessel that has arrived at a first point of entry to be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable. The determination supplies the list of which areas are biosecurity entry points for each vessel type. The master of the vessel has the duty to ensure this occurs. Failure to comply would breach the Act, not just the determination, and could attract civil or criminal penalties under Part 7 of the Act. There is no discretion in the determination to use an undesignated berth; any such use would require a separate approval or direction from the Director of Biosecurity under other provisions of the Act (e.g., section 247, which allows the Director to direct a vessel to go to a particular place).

Duty to bring goods to the correct biosecurity entry point: Section 147 of the Act (noted under section 8) requires goods that are to be unloaded from an arrived vessel to be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable. The determination specifies which areas are entry points for each class of goods. The duty falls on the person unloading the goods (likely the stevedore or the master). Again, non‑compliance is an offence under the Act. The determination does not create any right to unload goods at a non‑designated location; it is purely restrictive.

Notification duties on port owner and lessee: Section 9 imposes three separate duties. First, the owner must notify the department of any change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point (subsection 9(2)). Second, the lessee (if any) must give the same notice (subsection 9(3)). The duty arises “as soon as practicable” after the owner or lessee becomes aware that the change has occurred or will occur. This creates a continuing obligation to monitor changes in corporate structure or operational management. Third, any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the port must give reasonable notice of proposed changes to biosecurity procedures, facilities, amenities or any other factors affecting biosecurity risk (subsections 9(4) and 9(5)). The phrase “reasonable notice” is not defined, leaving the timing to be determined by context. The duty is triggered when the person or body “proposes” a change, meaning the notice must be given before the change is implemented. The department does not have an explicit power to approve or reject the change under this determination, but it receives the notice and can presumably take regulatory action or vary the determination if it considers the change unacceptable.

Rights of the port operator: The determination does not confer any positive rights. It does not guarantee that the department will maintain staff or facilities at the entry points. It does not entitle the port to charge fees for biosecurity services. The determination is essentially a constraint on how the port can be used, not a grant of authority to operate.

Rights of vessel masters and cargo interests: They have no right to choose which berth to use if multiple berths are designated for their vessel type or goods class; the determination leaves that choice to operational convenience, as long as they use a designated entry point. However, if a vessel type or goods class has only one designated entry point (e.g., non‑commercial vessels and their baggage/waste at the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club), the right to use that point is effectively a right of access, but only if the facility is available and willing to accept the vessel.

Right of the department to receive notice: The Agriculture Department has a right under section 9 to receive notifications of changes. This information right enables it to monitor biosecurity risk without needing to inspect the port constantly. The department may also rely on these notices to trigger other powers under the Act, such as imposing biosecurity measures or varying the determination.

The determination itself does not prescribe any penalties. It is a legislative instrument made under the Biosecurity Act 2015, and enforcement is through the provisions of that Act. The relevant offence provisions are in Part 7 of the Act. Without reproducing the Act (which is not provided in the source), the key points are that a breach of a duty under the Act - such as failing to bring a vessel or goods to a biosecurity entry point (sections 246 and 147) - can attract civil penalties (penalty units) or criminal penalties including imprisonment for serious breaches involving recklessness as to biosecurity risk. The determination defines the specific location obligations, so failing to use the correct berth is a breach of those Act provisions.

Similarly, failing to comply with the conditions in section 9 is likely a breach of condition attached to the determination itself. Section 229(4) of the Act (not quoted but referenced by the authority) provides that a determination under section 229 may be subject to conditions. If a condition is breached, the Director of Biosecurity may take action, including varying or revoking the determination. That would be a serious commercial consequence for the port: losing its first point of entry status would mean no international vessels could arrive there, effectively shutting down the port for international trade. The threat of revocation is the ultimate enforcement mechanism, though it would be a last resort.

Enforcement is primarily by the Agriculture Department and its biosecurity officers. They can board vessels, inspect goods, issue directions, and institute proceedings. The Australian Federal Police may also be involved for serious criminal matters. Private rights of action are unlikely; the determination does not confer a private cause of action for breach.

The costs of non‑compliance can be high. If a vessel uses the wrong berth, the department could refuse to clear the vessel or goods, causing delays and demurrage costs. It could also direct the vessel to move to the correct entry point, incurring additional towage and pilotage fees. In extreme cases, the vessel could be fined or the master prosecuted. For the port operator, failing to notify a change of business entity could lead to the department treating the port’s first point of entry approval as conditional or even revocable, which would be catastrophic for the port’s business.

The determination creates a regime where compliance is cheap compared to the cost of non‑compliance. But the compliance itself is not zero: the port operator must maintain systems to track changes in business entities and to give notice of proposed operational changes. The precise standard for “reasonable notice” is untested, creating legal uncertainty. A conservative operator will err on the side of giving very early notice, potentially slowing down business decisions.

The determination sits within the broader Biosecurity Act 2015 framework. Its parent provision is section 229(1), which empowers the Director of Biosecurity to determine that a place is a first point of entry. The determination must be read together with the Act’s core provisions: Part 3 (managing biosecurity risks: goods), Part 4 (managing biosecurity risks: vessels and aircraft), and Part 7 (enforcement). Sections 173 and 174 of the Act deal with prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods; the note to section 6 of the determination reminds readers that even if goods can enter at Newcastle, they may still be prohibited or require a permit under those sections. The determination does not override those controls.

The determination also interacts with the Biosecurity Regulation 2016. The definition of “non‑commercial vessel” in the determination adopts the meaning from that Regulation, so any amendment to that definition in the Regulation would automatically affect who is entitled to use the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club entry point.

Other Commonwealth laws may apply. The Customs Act 1901 requires vessels to report to a port and to use approved wharves for the discharge of goods. The Navigation Act 2012 and the Marine Order series also regulate vessel movements and port safety. There is potential overlap: a berth designated as a biosecurity entry point may not be approved as a wharf for customs purposes, or may lack infrastructure for other regulatory requirements. The determination does not resolve those conflicts; port users must comply with all applicable laws.

State and local laws also apply. The port is located in NSW, and environmental, planning and work health and safety laws apply to the berths and the operations there. The determination is silent on these, but the notification condition in section 9(5)(b) requires the port operator to notify the Agriculture Department of changes to “facilities or amenities available … for biosecurity officials … to perform functions or exercise powers”. That could include changes driven by state safety regulations, creating a need to coordinate between different regulators.

The determination does not interact directly with contract law, but it can affect private contracts. For example, a terminal lease that gives a stevedore the right to use a particular berth may be limited by the fact that the berth is not a designated entry point for the goods they handle. That may reduce the value of the lease or force renegotiation. Similarly, shipping line contracts for berthing priority may be frustrated if the only available berth is the wrong type for their cargo.

There is no grandfathering or savings provision in the determination for existing operations. It applies from commencement (16 June 2019) to all vessels and goods arriving thereafter. Any prior arrangements for the use of undesignated berths were nullified. The determination also does not provide for transitional periods or waivers, although the Director of Biosecurity could grant individual exemptions under other powers in the Act.

The source document is the original determination made on 7 June 2019 and commencing on 16 June 2019. The commencement table shows only one provision (the whole instrument) commencing on that date. There is no indication of any amendments to this determination. The note to the commencement table warns that it will not be amended to reflect later amendments; the source provided is the version “as originally made”. As of the date of this analysis, no amendments are recorded in the source. This does not necessarily mean no amendments have occurred; but based on the text given, there has been none.

The determination is a legislative instrument and is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. Any future amendments would be made by a new determination amending or revoking this one, and would be subject to parliamentary disallowance and scrutiny. Given the specialised nature of the instrument, amendments could arise if: (a) the port operator changes berth configurations or adds new berths; (b) the department decides to expand or contract the list of goods classes requiring designated entry points; (c) cruise operations become more significant and the exclusion of passenger vessel baggage is reconsidered; or (d) the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club changes its facilities or management.

The absence of amendment history to date suggests that the original zoning has proved workable, or that the commercial parties have accepted the constraints without seeking formal changes. However, the condition in section 9 requires notification of changes, which implies the department expects the port to evolve. If the port operator proposes significant changes, the department may choose to amend the determination rather than rely solely on the notification condition. But that has not happened yet.

The source document does not reference any litigation, and no cases are cited in the determination. There is no reason to assume that any court or tribunal has interpreted this particular instrument. The Biosecurity Act 2015 has generated some litigation in the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but these cases typically involve broader provisions (e.g., biosecurity import conditions, directions to destroy goods, or detention of vessels) rather than the validity of a first point of entry determination.

The determination could theoretically be challenged on administrative law grounds, such as jurisdictional error, failure to take into account relevant considerations, or unreasonableness. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 allows review of decisions under an enactment, but a legislative instrument like this determination is not a “decision” in the traditional sense; it is a rule of general application. Judicial review of the determination itself would likely require a challenge to the validity of the instrument, which could be brought in the Federal Court under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 or the Constitution. A commercial party aggrieved by the zoning might argue that the Director failed to consider the economic impact or that the conditions are unreasonable. But such a challenge would face an uphill battle given the broad discretionary power in section 229(1) of the Act.

The “reasonable notice” condition in section 9(4) could generate disputes if the department treats a notice as inadequate and takes adverse action. That could lead to merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (see Part 8 of the Act), but again, that would be about a specific decision, not the determination itself.

In summary, there is no known litigation history for this determination. It has operated without apparent judicial scrutiny, which may indicate that the parties have complied or that the stakes have not been high enough to trigger a challenge.

Several features of the determination could catch unwary port users and operators.

The exclusion of passenger vessel baggage. Section 6(b) excludes “passenger vessel baggage” from the goods for which Port of Newcastle is a first point of entry. This is a hard prohibition: cruise passengers cannot bring their checked baggage into Australia through Newcastle. This likely means that cruise ships calling at Newcastle must either not allow passengers to disembark with their baggage, or must clear all baggage at the ship’s first Australian port (e.g., Sydney or Brisbane) before proceeding to Newcastle. That may be administratively cumbersome and could deter cruise lines from scheduling Newcastle calls. If a passenger vessel arrives at Newcastle with untagged baggage, it may be in breach of the Act. Port operators and cruise lines should verify the baggage status before scheduling a call.

The narrow definition of “inorganic bulk goods”. This definition requires that the goods do not contain “animals, plants, organic compounds or microbes”. Many bulk ores and minerals may contain trace organic matter or microbes from their natural environment. If a cargo of iron ore, for example, has any biofilm or algae, it could fall outside the definition. That would mean it must be unloaded at a berth designated for “general goods” or waste, not the inorganic bulk goods berths. The list of berths for general goods is different and may be less suited to bulk handling, causing operational inefficiency. The cost of determining whether a cargo contains any organic material falls on the importer and stevedore, and the test may be unclear.

The condition requiring “reasonable notice” of proposed changes. Section 9(4) says the person responsible for operations must give “reasonable notice” of proposed changes to procedures, facilities, amenities or other factors. What is “reasonable” is not defined. It could depend on the nature and urgency of the change. For a minor procedural change (e.g., updating a pest monitoring protocol), the notice might be short. For a major facility upgrade (e.g., moving the biosecurity inspection shed), the department might expect months of notice. The uncertainty creates a risk that the department will deem the notice insufficient and demand postponement, leading to project delays and cost overruns.

Multiple duty holders for notification. Sections 9(2) and 9(3) impose notification duties on both the owner and the lessee (if any). If there are multiple owners or lessees, any one of them must give notice. This could lead to confusion: who is the “owner”? The Port of Newcastle is under a 98‑year lease to Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd; is that entity the owner or the lessee? The legal owner may be the NSW Government as lessor, but the determination likely intends the entity that controls the port. The definition is not clarified. If the lessee fails to give notice because it assumes the owner will, and the owner fails also, both may be in breach.

No biosecurity entry points for “other goods”. The note to section 8 states: “This determination does not designate biosecurity entry points for other goods for which Port of Newcastle is a first point of entry, so the requirement in section 147 of the Act does not apply to the unloading of those other goods.” This means that for goods not listed in the table (e.g., live animals other than horses, or goods not otherwise classified), they can be unloaded anywhere in the port? Actually, the determination only designates entry points for the listed classes. For unlisted goods, there is no designated entry point, so the section 147 duty does not apply. However, the goods may still be subject to biosecurity control and the Director may direct where they are unloaded under other powers. But a port user might assume that if no entry point is designated, the goods cannot be unloaded at all at Newcastle. That is wrong; they can be unloaded without a specific berth restriction, but they still need to meet all other Act requirements. The note is easy to miss.

The possibility of conflicting berth designations for a single vessel. A vessel may carry both freight containers and general goods. The vessel may berth at a berth designated for freight containers (e.g., East Basin 1) and unload containers there, but then need to move to a different berth designated for general goods (e.g., Kooragang 2) to unload general cargo. That can happen in practice. The vessel master must plan the sequence and ensure the vessel can move between berths without causing biosecurity risks. The determination does not provide for an “all‑cargo” berth; each goods class has its own list. The only berths that appear in multiple lists are East Basin 1, East Basin 2, Mayfield 4, West Basin 3, West Basin 4, Kooragang 2, Kooragang 3. Those berths can handle freight containers, inorganic bulk goods, general goods, and waste, but not all at the same time. So mixed cargo vessels may need to use a berth that appears on all the relevant lists. That is possible for some combinations but not all.

The Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club entry point is unique. For non‑commercial vessels and their baggage and waste, the only designated biosecurity entry point is the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club. If the yacht club is closed, full, or unwilling to accept a vessel, there is no alternative within Port of Newcastle under this determination. The vessel would need to find another first point of entry or seek a direction from the Director of Biosecurity. This is a significant constraint for recreational yachts arriving from overseas.

Compliance with the determination requires a layered approach by different actors.

For the port owner or lessee, compliance means establishing internal systems to monitor changes to the business entity operating the port or any biosecurity entry point. If a stevedoring company changes its name, structure or ownership, that must be reported to the Agriculture Department in writing “as soon as practicable” (section 9(2), 9(3)). The port should also have a process for reviewing any proposed changes to biosecurity‑related procedures, facilities or amenities, and for providing written notice to the department with sufficient lead time that it can be considered “reasonable”. The port operator should keep a log of all operational changes that might affect biosecurity risk, no matter how minor, and err on the side of giving notice. The department does not have to approve the change, but the act of notification is mandatory. Failure to notify is a breach of condition that could jeopardise the port’s first point of entry status.

For vessel masters and ship operators, compliance begins before arrival. They must check the determination (section 7) to confirm which berths are designated for their vessel type. For a non‑commercial vessel, only the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club can be used. That means the master must contact the club in advance to arrange berthing. For a passenger vessel, only Channel Berth, Dyke 1, West Basin 3 and West Basin 4 are permitted. The vessel operator should ensure that one of those berths will be available at the time of arrival. For commercial cargo vessels (not passenger vessels), the longer list in item 3 of section 7 applies, but note that item 2 also applies to all vessels other than non‑commercial vessels. The two overlapped lists: item 2 applies to vessels other than non‑commercial vessels (so includes passenger and cargo vessels), while item 3 applies to a subset excluding non‑commercial and passenger vessels. So a cargo vessel must comply with both? Technically, the determination designates different entry points for different classes in separate items. A cargo vessel is a “vessel other than non‑commercial vessels” (item 2) and also “vessels other than non‑commercial vessels and passenger vessels” (item 3). The determination does not say that the vessel may use any of the berths in either item; it says each area specified in column 2 is designated as a biosecurity entry point for the vessels in column 1. So a cargo vessel is included in both items 2 and 3, meaning all the berths listed in both items are available. But note that item 2 has only four berths, while item 3 has 16 berths. So the cargo vessel can use any of those 20 berths. However, the vessel should also consider the goods being carried when selecting a berth, as the goods entry point restrictions may constrain where goods can be unloaded.

For goods (section 8), the person unloading the goods (often the stevedore or the master) must bring the goods to a designated entry point for that goods class as soon as practicable. That means before unloading, the person should check the determination to see if the goods class is listed. If the goods are not listed (e.g., live animals other than horses? But horses are excluded from first point of entry; live horses cannot be brought into Newcastle at all), then the section 147 duty does not apply, so they can be unloaded at any berth. But if the goods are listed, they must go to one of the specified berths. The person should also ensure that the berth is actually available and able to handle the goods. For waste, there is a very long list of berths, but the stevedore must confirm that the specific berth they are using is on the list.

Practical steps for vessel and cargo interests:

1. Pre‑arrival: Obtain a copy of the determination and verify the vessel type and goods being carried.
2. Select a berth that appears in both the vessel entry point list and the relevant goods entry point list (if the goods require one). Overlap can be checked.
3. Book the berth with the port operator, confirming it is a designated entry point for both vessel and goods.
4. If the vessel is carrying multiple goods classes, plan the sequence of unloading to use berths that satisfy all classes, or move the vessel between berths as needed (which requires departmental approval or at least compliance with Act provisions).
5. Keep records of berth selection and department notifications.

For port terminal operators, compliance means ensuring that their berth is listed in the determination for the vessel and goods they intend to handle. If a terminal operator wants to handle a new goods class not currently listed for their berth, they need to seek an amendment to the determination from the department. That is a regulatory process that may take time. In the interim, they must refuse to accept goods that cannot be lawfully unloaded at their berth.

The determination does not require the port operator to provide biosecurity facilities, but the condition in section 9(5)(b) implies that existing facilities must be maintained; a change must be notified. So the port operator should keep facilities in good working order and not remove or alter them without notice.

Compliance costs are not trivial. The port operator must dedicate staff time to monitoring changes, preparing notices, and liaising with the department. Vessel operators may need to re‑route to a different berth if the preferred berth is unavailable, incurring additional tug and pilot costs and potential schedule delays. The total economic burden is diffuse but real, falling on port users and ultimately on consumers through higher freight costs.

The best practice for all affected parties is to maintain open communication with the Agriculture Department’s regional office and to seek written confirmation where there is doubt about the entry point requirements. The department may have issued practice notes or guidelines on compliance with first point of entry determinations; those should be consulted.