Import Industry Advice Notice 57/2015 – Dept of Agriculture – 29th July 2015
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Season 2015-2016 Who does this notice affect? This notice is of interest to clients in the import and shipping industry, including importers and customs brokers. It concerns those involved with the importation of targeted break bulk and containerised vehicles (including boats) and machinery shipped from the United States from 1 September 2015 to 30 April 2016 inclusive.
What has changed? The Department of Agriculture has finalised its measures for the 2015-2016 seasonal risk of brown marmorated stink bug infestations in sea cargo shipped from the United States.
The main changes from the proposal outlined in Industry Advice Notice 48-2015 are:
- The target tariffs have been further revised as follows
1. tariff 8436.80.10, tree fellers and tree harvesters, has been included
2. various tariffs have been exempted (see target tariffs table below).
- The table of measures has been redrafted and corrected to state that new machinery manufactured after 1 December 2015 does not need offshore treatment if the correct documentation is provided prior to arrival.
See below for the finalised measures.
Season dates for all United States ports
The measures apply to target goods shipped from all ports in the United States from 1 September 2015 to 30 April 2016 inclusive. The measures will remain in place for the entire season unless pest infestations are detected. Should this occur, the department may impose emergency requirements similar to those applied in the 2014-2015 season.
Target goods (see attached table)
As per last season, new and used vehicles, vessels and machinery are the target goods. However, the department has scaled back applicable tariffs (see below).
Summary of requirements (see tables below)
- From 1 September 2015 all used goods in the target tariffs need to be cleaned and treated for potential stink bug infestations immediately prior to shipping on or before 30 April 2016. This applies to break bulk and FCL containerised goods.
- All new goods in the target tariffs manufactured and/or stored between 1 September and 1 December 2015 and then shipped on or before 30 April 2016 as break bulk or FCL must undergo offshore treatment unless subject to alternative safeguarding arrangements approved by the department (see Alternative arrangements—safeguarding below).
- All new goods in the target tariffs manufactured after 1 December 2015 and shipped as break bulk or FCLs on or before 30 April 2016 require a consignment specific manufacturer’s new, unused and not field tested (NUFT) declaration which includes the date and place of manufacture.
Treatments
The treatment conditions are:
- Sulfuryl fluoride – at least 48g/m3 for 6 hours or longer or at least 16g/m3 for 12 hours or longer both with an end point reading of 50% or more of the initial concentration and conducted at a temperature of 10 °C or higher. Please note this temperature is 5 °C lower than the MB conditions below.
- Methyl bromide – at least 16g/m3 for 12 hours or longer with an end point reading of 50% or more of the initial concentration and conducted at a temperature of 15 °C or higher. Please note this temperature is 5 °C higher than the SF conditions above.
- Heat – 50 °C or greater for at least 20 minutes in the coldest location in the vehicle.
Treatment time before loading
- Break bulk goods treated before 1 December have a 96 hour treatment window.
- Break bulk goods treated after 1 December are unlikely to become re-infested, so are not subject to a treatment window.
- Containerised goods sealed after treatment and arriving seals intact are not subject to a treatment window.
Alternative arrangements—safeguarding
Safeguarding is a detailed pest risk management plan/system that can be implemented by manufacturers offshore in consultation with the department as an alternative to the mandatory pre-shipment treatment requirements. Safeguarding applications must be submitted to the department prior to September 2015. For information on safeguarding requirements, contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Charging
All charges for the department’s services in documentary processing, risk assessments and inspections will be directed to the owner/importer of the goods automatically, using existing entry management processes for all imported goods. This will be revised only if a new infestation of viable stink bugs is detected on board a vessel prior to goods discharge to the wharf.
Six months until new food standard on nutrition and health claims implemented.
Food manufacturers and importers: now is the time to make a final review of your labels and marketing materials to ensure you're ready for the new standard on nutrition and health claims.
From 18 January 2016 it will be mandatory to comply with Food Standard 1.2.7 on "Nutrition, Health and Related Claims".
We are nearing the end of a 3 year transitional period during which the Food Standards Code has permitted food suppliers to choose to comply with either Standard 1.2.7 or the transitional standard on health claims (Standard 1.1A.2). If you haven't yet come to grips with Standard 1.2.7, now is the time to do so. You need to update your labels leaving enough time for all non-compliant stock in the marketplace to sell through to consumers before 18 January 2016.
Below we outline some of the key changes.
Nutrition content claims
Standard 1.2.7 tightens up the regulation of nutrition content claims.
These are claims about the presence or absence of nutrients or biologically active substances in a food, e.g. "Lactose free" or "Good source of protein". These claims can be made if they comply with the table of permitted claims in schedule 1 to Standard 1.2.7. Schedule 1 outlines a range of claims and the conditions that must be met before each claim can be made. For example, a "Low energy" claim can only be made if the average energy content of the food is no more than 170kJ per 100g, for solid food.
Claims not listed in schedule 1 generally can't be made – except simple claims about the amount of a nutrient in the food, e.g. "Contains 200kJ per 100g". Previously, many nutrition content claims were covered by the voluntary (and outdated) Code of Practice on Nutrient Claims on Food Labels and in Advertisements, the regulatory status of which was unclear. Some nutrition content claims were also regulated by Standard 1.2.8.
Health claims
A health claim includes any claim that states or implies that a food has or may have an effect on the human body, e.g. an effect on a physiological process or outcome or an effect on a disease, disorder or condition. Currently many types of health claim can be made without breaching the Food Standards Code. Of course, health claims must not be misleading and should be based on solid scientific evidence. The new regime under Standard 1.2.7 is, generally speaking, more restrictive although it does provide pre-approval for the use of certain health claims in specific circumstances.
A health claim that refers to a serious disease (or a biological indicator that may predict a serious disease, e.g. high blood pressure) is known as a "high level health claim". An example would be, a claim that consuming a food may reduce your risk of getting breast cancer. There are 13 high level health claims set out in Standard 1.2.7 that can be used in limited circumstances, e.g. "a diet high in fruit and vegetables reduces the risk of coronary heart disease".
Any other health claim is known as a "general level health claim". Certain pre-approved general level health claims (e.g. "Contains magnesium, which contributes to a reduction of tiredness and fatigue") can be used, but only subject to strict conditions. Other general level health claims can also be made, if they are "self substantiated" by the food supplier. Self substantiation is subject to strict conditions including providing a systematic review of the scientific evidence supporting the claim to the regulator, Food Standards ANZ.
Health claims can only be made for foods that satisfy the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion, which essentially means that health claims can't be made for foods that are high in sugar, salt or saturated fat and low in fruit and vegetable content, protein and fibre.
A health claim must include, together with the health claim, a dietary context statement. This means that the permitted health claim wording can become quite complex and can lack marketing "punch", e.g. "In the context of a healthy diet involving the consumption of a variety of foods, a diet high in calcium and adequate vitamin D reduces the risk of osteoporosis in persons aged 65 years and over".
Six months to go – now is the time to review labels and marketing materials
We're already most of the way through the transition period and there will not be any "stock in trade" period after 18 January 2016. You have 6 months left to ensure all labels and marketing material meet the new requirements.
When conducting your compliance review, don't forget to include all types of marketing material including:
· Product packaging
· Product names
· Text and images on your website
· Posts by your company on social media
· Posts by consumers on your company’s Facebook page (these are likely to be considered “advertising” by your company
· Infomercials and other editorial content for which your company is responsible, that promotes your products
If you need to update your labels, consider adopting the new "5 star" health rating system at the same time. The 5 star system is voluntary but is starting to gain some traction amongst food suppliers.
If you haven't yet come to grips with the new requirements for nutrition and health claims, you need to act now so that all of your products in the marketplace are compliant by 18 January 2016.
Cargo insurance
The objective of cargo insurance is to put the owner of the goods in the same financial position as if the loss never occurred. With the myriad of charges applying to the movement of freight, there have been numerous errors that cost owners of the goods that have been damaged or lost in transit.
Cargo Insurance will only ever pay to the insurance value noted on the certificate of insurance. Calculating the insured amount has always confused the import / export industry and the following is a simple way to ensure that you have a successful claim payout in the unhappy event of a lost or damaged item.
The usual practice is to add the ‘invoice cost’ to the ‘freight cost’ and then add in the ‘insurance premium’ plus 10% extra. Cost + Insurance + Freight is our CIF value and the 10% additional is intended to cover the many ‘additional’ costs that are applied by the transport chain. Examples would be landing charges, bank charges, road transport and customs brokers fees to name few. Sometimes the 10% can still be inadequate depending on the additional expenses that it cost you to transport your goods – another simply example would be high duty on certain goods. You can insure for this higher duty to ensure you do not have an uninsured exposure. I often use the term ‘landed cost’ or the total of all of these charges to get the goods to the final destination.
Example – exporting a Machine worth $250,000
Cost $250,000
Freight $12,000
Insurance $1,500
Plus 10% = $289,850
Perth Freight Link to Fremantle Port is uneconomic, says former IA board member
Curtin University Professor of Sustainability Peter Newman says the planned toll road into the Inner Harbour at Fremantle Port undermines the bipartisan push to get more freight on rail at the port.
Mr Newman spoke last week at Fremantle’s Victoria Hall, about the state government’s planned extension to the Roe Highway, and upgrade of a number of other roads, to create a toll road for trucks to bring containers to and from the port. The former Infrastructure Australia board member criticised the plan, which he said was not economically sound. He compared it WestConnex in NSW and the East-West Link in Victoria.
“All of these were dropped from the sky,” he said, “in the sense that at Infrastructure Australia we never assessed them. They were not viable projects. They had to be delivered politically, if they were delivered at all. And [now] they’re not doing politically well, either.” Mr Newman said, from Infrastructure Australia’s perspective, road projects often didn’t hold up too well on a cost-benefit analysis when they relied on freight traffic for the bulk of their revenue.
“They need cars, too,” he said. “[The Abbott Government’s] Roads of the 21st Century therefore have often got a rationale for freight, but are mostly justified on the basis of moving cars, despite the fact that in Australia, car use per capita is going down.”
Mr Newman suggested the WA government was only going after a road project for Fremantle because of the guarantee of funding from the Commonwealth, noting in particular the $499 million commitment made in this year’s Federal Budget, all of which was reserved for roads.
Mr Newman supports a plan where containers are railed in and out of the port via one of several planned intermodal terminals. He said the bipartisan approach to Fremantle’s growth, for the last decade, has been improving truck management, preparing a shift to the outer harbour, and to shift more containers onto rail.
Currently at 14% share, the goal is to increase the share of railed containers at Fremantle to 30%. But progress has been slow, with railed container growth barely keeping up with overall growth, and the share of rail therefore sitting relatively stagnant for some time.
Perth Freight Link wouldn’t make that situation any better, he said.
“If you’re going to build a toll road which is faster for trucks, why would you keep subsidising rail?" Mr Newman pondered. “You want to pay off the road. I don’t think the case has been looked at, at all, to see how this really undermines the whole process of the rail option.”
June imports from Japan and the US hit record high
Australia’s total merchandise import values from Japan in June 2015 were a record $1.9bn, up 15% since May, and 35% year-on-year, making Japan the country’s third strongest import-trade partner.
Australia’s strongest import-trade partner in June was China whose imports were also on the rise, up 3.4% from May, and 30% year-on-year, and worth $4.9bn in June. This was 21% of Australia’s total.
June was also a record month for Australia’s second strongest import-trade partner, the United States. US imports were worth $2.6bn in June up very slightly from May, and 21% year-on-year.
Australia’s total merchandise imports for June were $22.59bn, up 8%, or $1.68bn on May’s imports.
Most of Australia’s merchandise imports in June, or $8.64bn, were unloaded in New South Wales.
This was followed by $5.90bn in Victoria, $3.07bn in Queensland, $3.05bn in Western Australia, $698m in South Australia, $612m in the Northern Territory and $55m in Tasmania.
Nationwide, imported intermediate and other merchandise goods rose by 10%, or $957m in June compared with May, driven by fuels and lubricants, up 24% or $599m, and processed industrial supplies, up 14% or $357m.
Imports of consumption goods were also on the rise in June, but only by 1% or $80m compared with May.
These figures are based on the latest data available by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
PoMC fee still stings Tas shippers
Tasmania’s Department of Treasury estimated that licence fees at the Port of Melbourne are costing Tasmanian shippers $20m a year, according to Steve Henty of the Tasmanian Logistics Committee.
Mr Henty said, although the cost is a rough estimate, domestic freight is definitely being stung by the Port Licence Fee, which the Tasmanian Government likes to call the “Tasmania tax” despite the Port of Melbourne waving its infrastructure fee for Tasmanian shippers and not imposing empty container charges.
Under the Port Management Amendment (Port of Melbourne Corporation Licence Fee) Act 2012, the Port of Melbourne is liable to pay a Port Licence Fee each financial year. For the year commencing July 1, 2012, that figures was $75m and it has since increased in line with the consumer price index each year.
OOCL stated in 2013 that the Port Licence Fee was levied to shipping lines with effect from July 1, 2012, and the PoMC had adjusted its tariffs by 5.2% to recover the annual Port Licence Fee. Shipping lines then passed on the increases to import discharge containers and export loading containers in Melbourne.
Mr Henty told Lloyd’s List Australia that the Tasmanian Department of Treasury estimated Tasmanian freight through the Port of Melbourne to equal 25% of the Port’s overall freight task, and from this, deduced that roughly $20m of the Port Licence Fee was being recovered from Tasmanian shippers.
“Tasmania is heavily reliant on the Port of Melbourne. We’ve had significant federal government assistance to improve our economic outlook. But our problem will be the 420km between us and the Port of Melbourne,” said Mr Henty.
Mr Henty said 97% of Tasmania’s container and trailer freight passes through the Port of Melbourne, with 85% of the freight destined for the greater Melbourne area.
For this reason, rental hikes imposed on stevedores at the port will have a direct impact on Tasmania’s shippers, as will the ramifications of the port’s privatisation.
Although Tasmania is in talks with Victoria to introduce legislative protection for Tasmanian shippers in the event of price hikes at the port, Mr Henty believes it is unlikely to go ahead because it would affect the value of the port.
Mr Henty said transhipping through Port Botany or Adelaide is not a real option as freight would require extra days on water and 15% of Tasmania’s freight task is next day freight. Although he welcomes the Federal Government’s extension of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to include exports, Mr Henty believes the extension will have, and already has had, a negative impact on the potential for direct international shipping lines from the state.
