find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (1-3 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Join a dynamic Firm · Excellent career growth opportunity
View details
In-house lawyer 1-4 PAE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Leading Brand · Report to a Dynamic Legal Counsel
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
Unite
Aug 22 2017
Professionals unite in support of marriage equality
The presidents of representative bodies for solicitors, barristers and doctors in NSW have come toge...
Aug 21 2017
Is your firm on the right track for gig economy gains?
Promoted by Crowd & Co. The way we do business, where we work, how we engage with workers, ev...
Scales of Justice, Victorian County Court, retiring judges
Aug 21 2017
Replacements named for retired Vic judges
Two new judicial officers have been appointed in the Victorian County Court, following the retire...
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 & ...