find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Fed Court says duty all clear for John Deere

Fed Court says duty all clear for John Deere

BARTIER PERRY acted for John Deere Ltd in its successful defence of an appeal against a decision that may require Australian Customs to pay back duty it has collected from several importers.The…

BARTIER PERRY acted for John Deere Ltd in its successful defence of an appeal against a decision that may require Australian Customs to pay back duty it has collected from several importers.

The law firm said the case may also affect Customs’ collection of duty when other free trade agreements came into force.

The case, Chief Executive Officer of Customs v John Deere Ltd, involved a dispute between importers and the Australian Customs Service over whether full customs duty was payable on goods originating in the US, which had been warehoused in Australia before the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) came into force.

From 1 January 2005, the AUSFTA gave preferential duty rates for goods imported into Australia that had been manufactured in the US.

In the case of John Deere — a US-based manufacturer of agricultural and industrial machinery — the 5 per cent duty the company would have incurred was completely abolished under the agreement.

As a result, many importers, including John Deere, put goods that had arrived in Australian ports before 1 January last year in bonded warehouses, then “imported” them for “home consumption” after that date. The action was based on an interpretation of the AUSFTA and s 132 of the Customs Act.

Oliver Shtein, a Bartier Perry partner advising John Deere’s counsel in the Federal Court case, said there are several other importers affected by the case, primarily in the vehicle industry and possibly also the textile industries.

“With a high rate of duty item, particularly motor vehicles, and if you import a high volume of goods, that’s quite a lot of duty. So they put them in a warehouse, and you only have to pay duty on them when you bring them out of the warehouse,” he said.

Shtein said this was, and remains the case, according to s 132 of the Customs Act.

“The same implications apply under the Thai-Australia free trade agreement because Customs took the same misguided approach in relation to the introduction of that one,” he said.

“Unless they change the legislation, whenever they negotiate a free trade agreement, this issue will arise again.”

Customs itself took the view that the goods had already been imported, even though they hadn’t been distributed to the intended recipients, and charged duty based on the pre-January 2005 rate.

This was accepted “under protest” by the importers, but they took their claim to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the importers interpretation of the law.

Customs lost an appeal of this decision in the Federal Court late last month. Should the agency not pursue an appeal, it is likely they will have to repay the duty they have collected to the affected importers.

Although Justice Jessup ruled in John Deere’s favour, he said the goods had to have been warehoused “forthwith”.

Therefore, the judge said he was concerned that the AAT’s decision “is broader than would be justified” by his judgments, and he set aside the Tribunal’s decision and sent it back to the AAT for re-determination.

The Australian Government Solicitor advised counsel for Australian Customs in the case.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Fed Court says duty all clear for John Deere
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Jetski
Oct 23 2017
How to fail well
The legal profession is due for an attitude adjustment when it comes to perceived failures, accordin...
Consultation
Oct 23 2017
Lawyers slam rushed consultation for SA repeat offenders bill
The Law Society of South Australia has expressed concern for a proposal to roll out new laws amendin...
IBA
Oct 23 2017
The pursuit of happiness in the law
A panel of legal experts have explored how to define success in the legal profession, and how lawyer...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...