Australia: AAT reinstates customs broker’s licence cancelled by Customs: the detailed "test match" version and more of the facts behind the case

Customs Trade and Transport Update
Last Updated: 14 March 2013
Article by Andrew Hudson


There has been considerable interest in the recent AAT case which led to the reinstatement of a customs brokers' licence which had been cancelled by Customs.

Following my earlier commentary which appeared through Hunt & Hunt and CBFCA channels, there have been requests for a more detailed analysis of facts and the decision itself to pick up issues which may have not appeared in earlier, shorter summaries. The customer is always right and so my more detailed commentary is set out below.


Of recent times, there has been significant Government focus on those in the "private supply chain" given heightened concern as to criminal involvement in the smuggling of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and firearms, and other security concerns. Those concerns can be added to prevailing concerns as to the accuracy and timing of reports of cargo, proper reporting of movement of cargo under bond, proper valuation and classification of goods and ensuring that all relevant permits are secured.

The increase and focus on those in the private supply chain has spawned a number of developments including significant increase in conditions imposed on licensed custom brokers and those operating licensed premises. There have also been public prouncements that the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service ("Customs") will adopt more active policies against those licensed entities who are perceived to not have observed their conditions.

Against this background, a very recent decision of the AAT in BR Williams Customs and Freight Forwarding Pty Ltd v. The Chief Executive Officer of Customs will doubtlessly create some controversy regarding actions taken by Customs against licensed brokers as the AAT ultimately reinstated a licence of a customs broker which had been cancelled by Customs following a report and recommendations by the National Customs Brokers Licensing Authority Committee ("NCBLAC").

There have been very few reported decisions in relation to Part XI of the Customs Act 1901 ("Act") which governs the licensing of customs brokers and other operators of licensed premises.


Following consideration of report of NCBLAC dated 25 September 2012, a delegate of Customs decided to cancel the licence of a customs broker. The customs broker sought a stay of that revocation pending a review by the AAT to which Customs ultimately consented and the proceeding took place at short notice.

The issue for determination before the AAT was whether in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the report of NCBLAC, the licence of the customs broker should be cancelled or whether some other action should be taken.


During several audits by Customs, it had identified a number of errors of different types. These included errors in import declarations, movement of goods under Customs control without authority or, delay in payments of duty to Customs.

There had been some earlier steps by Customs to deal with identified errors. This included the issue of 23 infringement notices for unauthorised movement of goods under Customs control contrary to section 33 of the Act and revocation of the right of the customs broker to use electronic funds transfer ("EFT") for payment of duties to Customs.

These events led to the issue of a notice under section 183CQ of the Act to the customs broker that Customs was referring the matter to NCBLAC for investigation and report ahead of potential action by Customs pursuant to section 183CS(1) of the Act.

There were essentially 3 matters referred to NCBLAC for investigation namely whether the broker had ceased to perform the duties of a broker in a satisfactory and responsible manner, whether documents prepared by the customs broker contained errors that were unreasonable and having regard to the nature and frequency of the errors whether it was necessary for the protection of the revenue and in the public interest for action to be taken against the licence of the customs broker.


NCBLAC considered 5 matters in its investigation as follows:

  1. The movement without authority and delivery without authority of 24 containers in New South Wales between 4 November 2010 and 18 January 2011 and one container in Queensland on 20 May 2011.
  2. Errors in various tariff classifications and related issues detected in the Custom's audit.
  3. Dishonouring payments attempted to be made by EFT leading to revocation of the company's EFT privileges with Customs.
  4. Failure to remit to client funds to Customs for the payment of duty within a reasonable period after their receipt.
  5. Failure to finalise various declarations within required periods.

Of these issues, NCBLAC formed the view that issues 3 to 5 could have been due to financial problems of the customs broker but accepted evidence that the customs broker was not insolvent.

The matter of most concern to NCBLAC was the unauthorised movements of goods which, in its view, itself supported the revocation of the licence of the customs broker.

Despite the customs broker being under examination by NCBLAC between March and September 2012, Customs still renewed the licence of the customs broker from 1 July 2012.

Ultimately the NCBLAC report recommended the cancellation of the licence of the customs broker which recommendation was accepted by Customs and the licence was cancelled with effect from 23 October 2012.


  1. All parties agreed the cancellation of the licence was a serious measure so that pursuant to section 183CS(1)(b) of the Act, the AAT needed to be satisfied that cancellation (or some other action) was necessary for protection of the revenue or for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the Act.
  2. Customs referred to a number of previous authorities regarding who was "fit and proper" to hold licences under the Act and other decisions in relation to excise matters as to whether licences should be revoked on grounds that were necessary to protect the revenue. However, it was clear that in no jurisdiction or tribunal had there been previous consideration of the provisions of section 183CS(1) of the Act.

    There was some preliminary debate about the correct standard of proof to be applied to determination of the matter and while the AAT resolved that proof was not required beyond reasonable doubt, the AAT did find that where an adverse finding carried serious consequences (as in this case) there was authority that the decision-maker should not be lightly persuaded. Given the consequences of cancellation were significant the AAT accepted that it must be satisfied that there was cogent evidence to support a finding and the cancellation was "necessary".

  1. The customs broker provided evidence of mitigating factors which contributed to errors and also pointed to the absence of proof of subsequent errors. While the AAT observed past errors having been caused by a serious lack of leadership and poor internal management and control, the AAT held that there was no significant risk that the customs broker would breach the Act in the future by unauthorised transactions or movement of goods. Although the AAT agreed that the errors were not isolated or inadvertent, the AAT did point to a number of other mitigating factors and the fact that the breaches had occurred in the past, had been previously penalised by the issue and payment of Infringement Notices and that there was no evidence of other breaches subsequent to the breaches. The AAT observed that the customs broker had been subject to regular Customs scrutiny since June 2011 and accordingly it was not unreasonable to infer that if there was evidence of there having been further breaches or unauthorised movements of goods then Customs would have led evidence to the AAT of such breaches in support of its decision to revoke the licence.
  2. The errors in tariff classification were, according to the customs broker, to have been caused in part by the client's lack of instructions. Further, the failure of the customs broker to obtain an authority to act before it acted did not justify or warrant the cancellation of the licence on their own account. In deciding this, the AAT agreed with NCBLAC which had reached a similar conclusion regarding the severity of the breaches. The AAT also observed that it was not persuaded that the matters gave rise to concerns of insufficient management. For these purposes the AAT observed that the audit which had identified the problems had taken place 2 years earlier, related to import transactions in 2009 and had no revenue implications. Further those transactions represented a small number of imports compared to all those handled by the customs broker and that no action had been taken in respect of these errors at the end of the audit.
  3. As to the failure to remit payments to Customs, the AAT observed that there was some mitigating circumstances to explain many of those problems which it suggested were caused by poor systems and cash flow problems by the clients rather than the customs broker. There was also no loss to revenue and all payments had been made within days of being due for payment. The AAT was not satisfied that the breaches would occur with frequency to support the cancellation of the licence. The AAT noted that Customs held a bond guarantee for compliance with payment obligations and there had been no apparent breaches since September 2011. Again, the AAT held that it was not unreasonable to infer that any other evidence of failing to pay would have been produced by Customs.
  4. The AAT also addressed the issue as to whether the matters cumulatively warranted the cancellation of the customs broker licence. NCBLAC had come to such a conclusion. However, the AAT observed that while it did need to consider and give weight to the report having been produced and delivered by NCBLAC, such a finding by NCBLAC was not evidence and the AAT was not bound by the material provided by NCBLAC. While AAT gave the NCBLAC report respect it came to a different view on the facts. Ultimately, while a number of problems had been identified, the AAT was not satisfied that cancellation was necessary for protection of the revenue or to ensure compliance.

When examined in detail, the AAT came to the conclusion that the breaches were in the distant past and that changes had seemed to work to remedy those problems and protect against future problems.

The AAT observed no evidence of wilful dishonesty or that officers of the customs brokers were ill-motivated or incompetent. The AAT also found it relevant that there had been no loss of revenue or evidence of other risks (such as the importation of dangerous goods) or of continuing and persistent breaches or later failure to make payments when due.

Accordingly, the AAT found that the licence should not have been cancelled and ordered the Customs to reinstate the licence.


The AAT also made a series of other observations.

  1. Suspension of the custom's broker licence for a period pending remedial action may have been appropriate if there had been evidence of ongoing breach and remedial action identified to rectify the breach. There was no evidence to support this and the AAT was not satisfied based on the evidence a suspension was necessary for the protection of revenue or to ensure compliance.
  2. Section 183CS(1) of the Act does not provide for Customs to impose conditions on customs brokers which may have been a more flexible remedy.
  3. Customs had already informally imposed administrative limitations on the custom's broker by removing its EFT privileges and requiring payment of a bond.
  4. Customs may have considered imposing conditions on the customs broker as part of the licence renewal process but given the licence renewal arose during the investigation by NCBLAC that option was not examined.


In the circumstances, the AAT resolved that an appropriate remedy was to order a reprimand against the customs broker but for the licence to be reinstated. However, a reprimand should not be seen as a minimal response. It carries weight and leaves open stronger action in the future.


We have yet to hear whether Customs is likely to appeal the decision, a number of issues to arise from this important decision.

  1. This is clearly not the result intended by Customs or NCBLAC and runs contrary to the intention of their actions and Customs stated desire to enforce proper compliance .
  2. Although the AAT gave respect to the findings by NCBLAC it ultimately came to a different decision to that of NCBLAC and formed a different view regarding the seriousness of the activities of the customs broker.
  3. While every case is decided on its different facts, the AAT has given some indication as to what will and will not warrant cancellation of a licence. However, in the current compliance environment, it is hard to see that significant breaches by a licensed broker (or other licensee) would not support more immediate action. For example, regular movement of goods under Customs control without authority may now attract more action than Infringement Notices
  4. It was important to the AAT that it believed there was no threat to the revenue, there was a lack of likelihood of future breaches and also that there were mitigating factors as to the cause of past breaches.
  5. The AAT noted that many of the alleged breaches had taken place some time in the past and on many of them penalties had already been imposed on the customs broker by way of Infringement Notices and other administrative remedies following which there did not appear to have been any evidence of further breaches. The absence of wilful dishonesty and incompetence also mitigated against loss of the licence.
  6. It appeared that if Customs had acted at the time of the relevant breaches there could have been different results but that the choice by Customs, to impose other penalties and the subsequent improved behaviour by the customs broker mitigated against the proposed cancellation.
  7. It needs to be kept in mind that licensing does not just apply to customs brokers but also to the operators of licenced premises and accordingly the decision does have consequences for the conduct of those licencees and any potential action by Customs in relation to the licences.
  8. It is important to recall that the relevant facts and action by Customs occurred prior to new conditions being imposed on licensed customs brokers and the new Government focus on the activities of licensed customs brokers may lead to different actions.
  9. On the facts, it appeared that the relevant breaches had occurred some time in the past, did not threaten the revenue and did not appear to have been of a recurring nature. Accordingly, it did not appear that they would have supported the cancellation of a licence.
  10. It raises the possibility that Customs may require client payments on account of duty, GST and other charges to be placed in a trust account which is audited (as with other professionals) so as not to be easily available for other purposes.
  11. The decision does raise the interesting issue of the use by Customs of Infringement Notices which are subsequently paid. The relevant provisions of the Act state that if an Infringement Notice penalty is paid, the liability of the person to the offence specified in the notice taken to be discharged, further proceedings cannot be taken against the person for the offence and the person is not regarded as having been convicted of the offence (see section 243ZK of the Act). However, in these proceedings it appears that both NCBLAC and Customs had identified the movement of goods under Customs control without authority (for which Infringement Notices had been issued and paid) as some of the grounds for action against the customs broker. Although this matter was not specifically raised by the decision of the AAT it may not appear to be within the spirit and intent of the Act for such Infringement Notices to then be used as evidence against a licensee in these types of proceedings. This may certainly give licensees cause to think carefully about merely paying Infringement Notices if the relevant alleged offences could be used against them in future. In those circumstances, we would seek clarification both from Customs and from NCBLAC as to their intended treatment of events which have led to the issue of Infringement Notices which have been paid and whether, in fact, both Customs and NCBLAC believe that such events can, in fact, be the subject of further action under Part XI of the Act.


It appears fair to assume (and expect) that Customs and NCBLAC may well move more quickly in the future given the nature of the changes to conditions applying to customs brokers and also the change in attitude of Government towards those holding licences and their concerns regarding security in the private supply chain.

As always, it is important to note that any errors identified by Customs in any audit of the operations of a licensed customs broker (or licensee of a licensed premises) could form the basis for action by Customs other than by way of penalty which could lead to suspension, revocation or cancellation of a licence if considered serious enough.

As always I am happy to advise and assist anybody facing such action by Customs. I have previously presented in many forums on the issue of Customs new approach to licensees and the operation of these provisions and this case will be a topic of my presentations at CBFCA State Conventions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.