Tariff Concession Revocation Order HS2007/367A - Tariff Concession Order 0614315

The central concept in this instrument is the Tariff Concession Order (TCO), a mechanism under Part XVA of the Customs Act 1901 (sections 269C to 269T). A TCO allows the importation of goods that are not commercially produced in Australia at a concessional rate of customs duty, typically free. The Customs Tariff Act 1995 Schedule 4 lists various concessional items; Item 50 is the general item under which TCOs operate. When the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) makes a TCO, it declares that the goods described in the order are goods to which a particular Schedule 4 item applies, thereby granting a duty concession. This instrument shows two TCOs: the revoked order (9804857) and the replacement order (0614315). The revocation power arises under section 269SD(2), which permits the CEO to revoke a TCO and substitute a new one. A key concept is the "last date of effect". The old order shows a last date of effect of 31 December 2006, meaning that after that date, the concession would have expired if not replaced or extended. The new order becomes operative from 1 January 2007, providing continuity. The description of goods is highly detailed: it specifies propellers for outboard or sterndrive engines, made of stainless steel, or alternatively having a rubber-bushed hub, exhaust-through-hub, pin-driven or spline-driven design, but only in the exact diameter (in centimetres) and pitch (in centimetres) combinations listed in the table. This level of specificity is typical for TCOs; it ensures that only goods meeting the precise technical criteria receive the concession, thereby limiting the concession to goods that are not manufactured in Australia. If the Australian industry could produce propellers of certain dimensions, those dimensions would likely be excluded. The tariff classification shift from 8485.10.00 to 8487.10.00 is significant because the Harmonized System of tariff nomenclature was revised in 2007. Heading 8485 was deleted, and its contents were moved to other headings, including 8487 for parts of machinery not elsewhere specified. The instrument thus updates the classification while keeping the goods description materially the same. The delegate, Robert Crawford, exercised the power on 29 May 2007 but backdated the effect to 1 January 2007, which is common practice to avoid gaps. The instrument also includes a signature and date on each page as a formal authentication requirement.

The primary entities affected are importers of outboard or sterndrive engine propellers that match the precise description in the instrument. These importers range from marine equipment distributors, boat part suppliers, engine manufacturers, and end users who directly import replacement propellers. The affected classification is 8487.10.00; any business importing propellers under this heading that fall within the dimensional and material specifications must use the new TCO number 0614315 to claim the concessional duty rate. Without the concession, the general rate of customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act 1995 would apply, which is likely higher (potentially 5% or more, depending on the country of origin and any free trade agreements). The instrument also affects Australian manufacturers, though indirectly. Tariff concession orders are based on a public interest test: the concession is granted only if substitutable goods are not produced in Australia. Therefore, any Australian manufacturer of marine propellers that could supply equivalent products has an interest in monitoring TCOs. If a manufacturer believes it can produce propellers matching the description, it may apply to have the TCO revoked or amended. This instrument does not indicate that any such objection occurred; it was a routine classification update. The instrument also affects customs brokers and trade compliance staff who must update their systems and documentation. The old order number 9804857 became invalid from 1 January 2007, and entries using that number after that date would be rejected or result in a demand for underpaid duty. The delegate and the CEO are also affected as the decision-makers, but they act under statutory authority. The instrument's effect extends to the Australian Border Force (formerly Australian Customs Service) officers who process import declarations. They rely on the exact wording of the TCO to verify eligibility. The table of diameter and pitch combinations imposes a significant data-matching burden; officers must compare the imported propeller's specifications against the list, which could lead to disputes if the propeller is not precisely listed. Importers of propellers with dimensions not in the table, or propellers with different hub types (e.g. press-fit hub not listed) will not qualify for the concession and must pay full duty. The instrument's backdating to 1 January 2007 means that importers who entered propellers between 1 January 2007 and the date of signing (20 June 2007) using the old order or without a valid TCO may need to take corrective action. Overall, the direct impact is on importers who need to correctly use the new TCO, but the indirect impact touches compliance professionals, customs brokers, and potential competitors in the Australian marine industry.

Importers have the right to claim the concessional duty rate under TCO 0614315 provided the goods conform exactly to the description. The instrument itself does not create new duties; rather, it continues existing rights under the tariff concession system. The key duty is to ensure that the imported goods match the description precisely. The description has three branches: (a) stainless steel propellers (any diameter/pitch?), or (b) propellers with specific hub and drive features and matching the table. Reading the description carefully: branch (b) requires the propeller to be ANY of rubber-bushed hub, exhaust-through-hub, pin-driven, or spline-driven AND have ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations specified in the table. The table lists over 40 specific combinations. Importers must verify that the propeller's diameter (in cm) and pitch (in cm) correspond exactly to one of the listed rows. For example, a propeller with diameter 25.4 cm and pitch 27.9 cm is allowed; but one with diameter 25.4 cm and pitch 30.0 cm is not, because only specific pitches per diameter are listed. Even a slight deviation (e.g. 25.4 cm diameter with 31.8 cm pitch) would not be covered. The stainless steel branch (a) does not appear to require a specific dimensional combination from the table; the description says "being EITHER of the following: (a) stainless steel; (b) being ANY of the following and having ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations specified in the TABLE..." This could be read as branch (a) has no dimensional limit, but branch (b) does. However, the table is placed under the overall description, and the text "being ANY of the following and having ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations specified in the TABLE" refers only to branch (b). So stainless steel propellers of any size? But the instrument's predecessor (TCO 9804857) likely had the same wording. Importers should seek clarification from Customs if there is ambiguity. The duty to correctly classify and describe goods on import declarations falls under section 71 of the Customs Act and regulations. Using the wrong TCO number or a revoked order could trigger a duty shortfall. Importers have a right to internal review and review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if a TCO application is refused but that is not directly from this instrument. The instrument also imposes a duty on the Australian Border Force to accept the new order and apply the concession for compliant goods. There is no express obligation to inform relevant parties of the change, but Customs published the instrument in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Importers have a responsibility to stay informed of such changes. Trade professionals should update their compliance databases with the new order number and classification. The instrument itself is signed and dated, and each page is marked "This is page X of 3 Pages", indicating a formal execution requirement. Importers have no right to use the old order after its last date of effect. The new order's operative date is 1 January 2007, so importers may be entitled to claim a refund if they paid full duty on entries after that date but before the instrument was gazetted, provided they can prove the goods met the description. That is a procedural right under customs law, not created by this instrument.

This instrument does not itself create penalties or enforcement provisions. It is an administrative order made under the Customs Act 1901. However, misuse of the tariff concession order can attract penalties under the general customs framework. The most relevant penalty provisions are in Division 2 of Part XIII of the Customs Act (sections 233 to 243). If an importer claims the concession under TCO 0614315 but the goods do not meet the description, the importer may have made a false or misleading statement in an import declaration. Section 243T provides for penalties of up to double the amount of duty short paid, plus the duty itself. For intentional evasion, criminal penalties may apply. The instrument's precise description makes enforcement relatively straightforward: officers can physically measure diameter and pitch and verify hub type. The table of dimensions acts as a bright line test. Any propeller with a diameter-pitch combination not listed (or with a hub type not listed) will not qualify. Importantly, the instrument could be used as evidence in a dispute about whether a particular propeller was entitled to the concession. Conversely, an importer who fails to claim the concession when eligible may be overpaying duty, but that is not penalised; it is a voluntary payment. The Australian Border Force has the power to audit import entries and demand repayment of underpaid duty going back several years. The instrument's backdating to 1 January 2007 means that entries made in the first half of 2007 are potentially affected. If importers used the old order number 9804857 after 31 December 2006, they may face demands for duty if the old order was considered invalid, but since the new order continues the concession, the practical outcome is likely that Customs would accept the claim under the old order if the goods were otherwise eligible. However, technically the old order was revoked effective 31 December 2006, so any entry using that order after that date is invalid. Penalties could be avoided if the importer voluntarily discloses the error and pays any shortfall. The instrument does not include any inspection regime, but propellers are physical goods subject to border examination. Enforcement costs fall primarily on the state, but in practice, random or risk-based examination would catch non-compliant importers. The instrument's detailed table also creates a liability for importers who misclassify the propellers under the wrong tariff heading; using 8485.10.00 post-2006 would be incorrect as that heading no longer existed under HS2007. Incorrect classification could lead to duty underpayment and penalties. Overall, the penalty and enforcement landscape is that of the Customs Act generally, with this instrument providing the substantive criteria for concession eligibility. The important point for practitioners is that the instrument's specificity reduces discretion and amplifies the risk of technical non-compliance for importers whose propellers are close to but not exactly on the list.

This instrument operates under the Customs Act 1901, specifically Part XVA, and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. It is a legislative instrument (though not subject to disallowance if it is a revocation of a TCO). The revocation power in section 269SD(2) states that the CEO may revoke a TCO and substitute another, and the substituted order has effect from a date specified, which may be before the date of revocation. This instrument uses that power to backdate to 1 January 2007. The instrument interacts with the Customs Tariff Act 1995 Schedule 4 Item 50, which is the concessional item that applies to goods covered by a TCO. The specific item number is stated in Column 2 of Table B. There is no interaction with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 or Australian Consumer Law because TCOs are purely about customs duty. However, there is an interaction with the Customs (International Obligations) Regulation 2015 and Australia's obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Customs Valuation and the Harmonized System Convention. The shift from heading 8485.10.00 to 8487.10.00 reflects the 2007 amendments to the Harmonized System, which Australia implemented. Therefore, this instrument ensures that Australia's tariff concession for these propellers remains consistent with its HS classification obligations. It also interacts with Australia's free trade agreements: if the propellers originate from a FTA partner, the duty rate may already be zero, making the TCO redundant. But the TCO provides an alternative basis for duty-free entry for non-FTA countries (e.g., China before ChAFTA). The instrument is part of a larger body of TCOs that are continually updated. It does not affect state or territory laws. There is a potential interaction with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 if an interested party (e.g., a domestic manufacturer) seeks review of the decision to make the order. However, that is a review under the Customs Act itself. The instrument also interacts with the Legislation Act 2003 in that it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation and is subject to publication requirements. The instrument notes it is a revocation and substitution; it does not create a new concession but replaces one. Therefore, it interacts with any transitional provisions in the Customs Act regarding continuity: section 269SD(5) may provide that the substituted order is taken to be the original order for certain purposes, preserving the rights of importers. Trade professionals must also be aware of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations or other import restrictions that may apply to certain propellers (e.g., if they contain hazardous materials, but unlikely). The instrument does not interact with quarantine or biosecurity laws. The change in tariff heading may affect other statistics or draw higher scrutiny under the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations if applicable. In summary, this instrument sits within a web of customs legislation where its primary interaction is with the tariff classification system and the TCO scheme. Any changes to tariff classifications (like the HS2007 update) must be matched by corresponding TCO amendments, which this instrument accomplishes.

This instrument itself is a single act of amendment: it revokes one TCO and makes another. There is no prior amendment history recorded within the instrument; it is the current state of the order for these specific propellers as of 2007. The original TCO 9804857 was made on 14 August 1998, as noted in the instrument. This instrument (HS2007/367A) is the amendment to that earlier order. The source does not indicate any earlier amendments to that 1998 order. The new TCO 0614315 has an operative date of 1 January 2007, and the instrument was signed on 29 May 2007 (for the new order) and 20 June 2007 (for the revocation part, though both appear in the same instrument). The exact amendment history beyond what is visible in the source is not available, but it is likely that the 1998 order had been amended previously to adjust descriptions or extend its effect. The instrument's existence as a revocation and substitution is a common pattern: rather than amending the old order, the delegate revoked and remade it. This may have been done because the classification change required a complete replacement. Since the instrument is from 2007, it has likely been further amended or revoked in subsequent years. However, the source does not provide later amendments. For a complete picture, one would need to search the Federal Register of Legislation for any later instruments affecting TCO 0614315. There is also the possibility that the order expired (TCOs typically have a five-year life unless renewed). The instrument states no end date; the column for "Last date of effect" for the new order seems to be empty (just "50" in Column 2), suggesting it remains in force until revoked or superseded. Practitioners should verify whether TCO 0614315 is still current as of the date of their research. The instrument's amendment history is essentially static for our purposes; it is the amendment. The numbering convention "HS2007/367A" suggests it is a harmonized system update instrument number 367A of 2007. There may be a series of similar instruments updating other TCOs for HS2007. The delegate, Robert Crawford, may have signed hundreds of such instruments. In terms of legislative history, the power under section 269SD(2) has been in the Customs Act since the introduction of the TCO system in the early 1980s. The instrument does not refer to any transitional provisions or savings clauses. Therefore, the amendment from TCO 9804857 to TCO 0614315 is a direct substitution with no continuity issues about the goods' eligibility, as the description is unchanged. The only amendment in the substantive criteria is the tariff classification number. This is a purely technical amendment history.

The instrument itself does not mention any litigation. The source provides no cases or court judgments related to TCO 9804857, TCO 0614315, or HS2007/367A. This is not surprising because tariff concession orders are rarely the subject of litigation. Challenges to TCOs can occur under section 269U of the Customs Act, which allows a person to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision to make or revoke a TCO. However, there is no indication in the source that any party challenged the revocation of 9804857 or the making of 0614315. Given that this was a routine classification update, it is unlikely to have been contested. One possible area of litigation could be disputes about whether particular propellers fell within the description. The AAT has considered such disputes in other TCO cases, but none specifically about this order based on the available information. The classification change from 8485.10.00 to 8487.10.00 could have led to confusion, but no reported decisions are mentioned. The instrument is from 2007, and any litigation would have occurred within the limitation periods (usually 4 years for duty refunds). A search of AustLII for "TCO 0614315" or "HS2007/367A" would likely yield no results. The litigation history for this specific instrument is essentially nil. However, it is worth noting the broader context: TCOs have been the subject of litigation in the Federal Court in cases such as Re Application for Review of a Decision of the CEO (2002) or Cargill Australia Limited v CEO of Customs (2005), but those are not directly relevant. The instrument's precise description may be a defensive feature: by being very specific, it reduces the scope for interpretive disputes. The table of dimensions leaves little room for argument about whether a particular combination is included. The split between stainless steel (potentially any size) and other types (with dimensional limits) could be litigated if an importer claims a stainless steel propeller with a non-listed dimension, but that would depend on the interpretative reading of the description. Without cases, we cannot say how the AAT would rule. Practitioners should note that the absence of litigation history does not mean the instrument is immune from challenge; it simply means no challenge has been recorded in the public domain. Given the backdating, there could have been disputes about refunds for entries lodged in the first half of 2007, but again not recorded. The instrument's signing date of 29 May 2007 (new order) and 20 June 2007 (revocation) suggests a gap, but the effective date is common. If an importer had been refused the concession in January 2007 because the old order had expired and the new had not yet been gazetted, they might have grounds for review. However, the new order was backdated, so the refusal should be corrected. Overall, litigation history is minimal to nonexistent for this specific instrument.

Several traps lurk in this instrument for the unwary. First, the tariff classification changed from 8485.10.00 to 8487.10.00. An importer who continues to use the old classification after 1 January 2007 may have their entry rejected or face a query. The item number in Schedule 4 remains 50, but the tariff heading must match. Second, the description says "being EITHER of the following: (a) stainless steel; (b) being ANY of the following and having ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations specified in the TABLE". The grammar is ambiguous. The "being ANY of the following" in (b) refers to rubber-bushed hub, exhaust-through-hub, pin-driven, or spline-driven. But does (a) include only stainless steel propellers without any requirement for dimensions? Possibly yes, but the table is physically placed after the whole description, and the phrase "and having ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations" could be read as applying to both (a) and (b). If so, then even stainless steel propellers must match the table. That would be a gotcha: an importer bringing in a stainless steel propeller with a diameter of 30.0 cm and pitch 40.0 cm would think they qualify, but if the table is required, they would not. The better reading is that (a) stands alone without the table, because the "being ANY of the following" attaches only to (b). However, the instrument's physical format does not make this clear. Professional advice should be sought. Third, the table lists diameter and pitch combinations but note the wording: "Diameter (cm) Pitch (cm)" then rows. For some diameters, multiple pitches are listed separated by commas. For example, 35.6 diameter has pitches 22.9, 27.9, 30.5, etc. But the listing does not say "all of the following" or "any of the following"? The text says "having ANY of the diameter and pitch combinations specified", so any combination shown is acceptable. But the table is exhaustive; no other combinations. So a 35.6 cm diameter with 25.4 cm pitch is not covered. Fourth, the instrument uses centimetres but the marine industry often uses inches. Importers must convert accurately; a slight rounding error could make the propeller ineligible. For instance, a 14.0 cm diameter is 5.51 inches; a propeller advertised as 5.5 inches may be 13.97 cm, which would not match 14.0 cm exactly. The instrument uses exact centimetre values, so precise measurement is critical. Fifth, the hub and drive features: (b)(i) rubber-bushed hub; (ii) exhaust-through-hub; (iii) pin-driven; (iv) spline-driven. A propeller that has, for example, a press-fit hub or a shear pin hub (not pin-driven) would not qualify, even if it fits the dimensions. Also note "exhaust-through-hub" means the exhaust passes through the propeller hub; propellers without that feature are excluded. Sixth, the instrument revokes TCO 9804857 effective 31 December 2006, but the new order is effective 1 January 2007. However, the instrument itself was signed on 29 May 2007 (new order) and 20 June 2007 (revocation). This means for four to five months, there was no gazetted TCO for these propellers, even though the new order is backdated. If an importer made an entry in January 2007 and could not produce a current TCO number, they may have paid full duty. They can now claim a refund, but they need to act within four years. The backdating creates a gotcha for customs brokers who may not check for backdated instruments. Seventh, the instrument says "The Order shall have effect from the date notified in paragraph (a) above as the date of effect for the Revocation." That date is 01.01.07. So the new order is retrospective. Retrospective operation may cause issues if an importer had already been granted the concession under the old order in early 2007; technically the old order was invalid, but the new order validates the concession. However, if Customs had rejected a claim in that period, the importer would need to reapply. Eighth, the instrument uses "Op. 01.01.07 - TC 0614315" which is not standard legislative language; importers must recognise this as the operative date. Finally, the instrument has three pages, each signed. But page 1 and page 2 have a signature dated 20 June 2007; page 3 has a signature dated 29 May 2007. These different dates could cause confusion about when the instrument took legal effect. The instrument as a whole likely takes effect upon registration, but the date of effect is stated as 1 January 2007. The signature dates may be mere execution dates.

To comply with this instrument, an importer of outboard or sterndrive engine propellers must take the following steps. First, ensure the propeller is classified under tariff heading 8487.10.00. This is critical because the instrument only applies to goods classified there. If the propeller falls under a different heading (e.g., as part of an engine assembly), the TCO may not apply. Second, verify that the propeller meets the description: either (a) it is made of stainless steel, or (b) it has one of the listed hub/drive features AND the diameter and pitch combination appears in the table. For stainless steel propellers, confirm that there is no dimensional limitation; if uncertain, treat them as requiring the table to be safe. Measure the diameter and pitch in centimetres to two decimal places (or at least to one decimal place to match the table). The table uses values like 11.4, 14.0, 15.6, etc. Measure accurately; if the measured value is 11.3 cm, it is not 11.4 cm. There is no tolerance stated. Professional measurement tools may be necessary. Third, confirm the hub type: rubber-bushed, exhaust-through, pin-driven, or spline-driven. Importers should obtain certification from the manufacturer or supplier that the propeller meets one of these descriptions. For stainless steel propellers, a statement of material composition may be needed. Fourth, use the correct Tariff Concession Order number: 0614315 (not 9804857). Include this number in the import declaration in the designated field. The effective date for the order is 1 January 2007, so for entries after that date, use the new number. If the old number was used inadvertently, contact the Australian Border Force to correct the entry and claim the concession retrospectively, but be aware of the potential for penalty waiver if voluntary disclosure is made. Fifth, maintain documentation: keep records of the propeller specifications, including brochures, technical drawings, or test certificates showing diameter, pitch, hub type, and material. These may be required in an audit. Sixth, monitor the Federal Register of Legislation for any subsequent amendments or revocations of TCO 0614315. TCOs can be revoked if Australian production begins. If that happens, the concession will cease, and importers must revert to the general duty rate. Seventh, train staff and customs brokers on the precise requirements. The table of dimensions is large; it is easy to assume a common combination is covered when it is not. For example, a 30.5 cm diameter with 20.3 cm pitch is covered, but a 30.5 cm diameter with 25.0 cm pitch is not. Create a checklist or lookup table. Eighth, for propellers imported before the instrument was gazetted (between 1 January 2007 and 29 May 2007) but after the old order expired, consider applying for a refund of any overpaid duty, citing the backdated TCO. The limitation period for duty refunds is generally four years under section 163 of the Customs Act. Finally, if there is any doubt about eligibility, apply for a tariff advice from the Australian Border Force to confirm that the specific propeller falls within the TCO scope. This binding advice can protect against future penalty action. Compliance is largely about attention to detail and rigorous record-keeping. The instrument gives no margin for error because its description is exhaustive. Importers who regularly bring in a range of propellers should have each model pre-cleared with the TCO description before lodging entries. Failure to comply may result in denial of the concession, payment of higher duty, and potential penalties for incorrect declarations.