Hi gang, found this on another forum. To do with Asbestos when importing cars. Don't know how much weight it carries but thought it worth a mention.
"Well guys, by this none of you will be bring in cars.I dont think its going to go away like some people think.
Renewed enforcement of Australia’s total ban on asbestos-containing imports has led to enhanced scrutiny of collector cars entering the country and reportedly caused collector car enthusiasts there to stop importing older cars altogether.
Issued last month, the Australian Border Force’s notice No. 2017/21 warns importers that the agency takes a hardline stance on enforcement of the country’s ban on manufacture, use, and importation of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, enacted December 31, 2003. Specifically, the agency notes that it conducts risk assessment of everything imported into the country, regardless of whether the importer declares to customs that what they’re importing doesn’t contain asbestos, and that importers must know – “back to the point of manufacture” – whether their goods contain asbestos.
“Importers need to obtain sufficient information, prior to shipment, when unsure of any asbestos content, parts or components accompanying the primary item of import that are a risk (such as gaskets), or whether asbestos was present at any point in the supply chain process,” the notice reads. “If the information presented does not provide sufficient assurance, the ABF will require importers to arrange testing and certification in Australia… For testing in Australia, the ABF will only accept certification from a laboratory, that is accredited by NATA to undertake asbestos testing, that confirms asbestos was not detected.”
And that testing certainly comes at a price. According to an account by Australian collector car importer Terry Healy that received widespread attention across Australia – and that may have prompted the ABF to issue its notice – extensive testing on the 1965 Ford Mustang and 1966 Shelby G.T. 350 he had shipped to Australia earlier this year cost roughly $15,000, caused $12,000 in damages due to destructive testing of samples from the two cars, and led to the seizure of a number of parts found to contain asbestos, among them the brake pads, brake shoes, exhaust manifold gaskets, and exhaust pipe gaskets.
“For those thinking of importing cars particularly restored cars let alone highly original cars like my Shelby GT 350 there is much to be fearful of,” Healy wrote. “The asbestos content of these cars is very high and in places most enthusiasts would not guess.”
Similarly, according to an account that Michael Sheehan related last month, a DKW importer whose car’s brakes, gaskets, and undercoating tested positive for asbestos faced storage costs, inspection fees, and replacement parts costs that nearly totaled the AUS $7,000 purchase cost of the car.
“The extra red tape, inspection costs and uncertainty have slowed imports to a crawl,” Sheehan wrote. According to Sheehan, the Australian Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association, largely concerned with getting the Australian government to liberalize the country’s import laws for new cars, has lobbied the ABF for a standardized asbestos inspection regime for imported collector cars that would cut down on the costs and uncertainty.
The renewed scrutiny of imported goods that may contain asbestos – the ABF specifically cites automotive parts in its list of such goods – likely comes on the heels of a report published in The Australian in August of last year and of Australian senate hearings in January of this year that detailed how materials containing asbestos had slipped past ABF inspectors. Specifically, the report cited in The Australian noted the presence of asbestos in “motor vehicle gaskets and spare parts.”
In June, the ABF stated that its “activities are not designed to cause inconvenience to importers, but are part of the Australian Government’s arrangements to protect the public from the significant dangers of asbestos.” Along with that statement, ABF officials provided figures showing that its own asbestos enforcement actions had dramatically increased – from 10 tests in 2013-2014 to 742 tests in 2016-2017 and from zero infringement notices in 2013-2014 to 13 in 2016-2017.
Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, at one point was highly prized for its fire resistance but is also known to cause mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. Asbestos was commonly found in clutches, brakes, transmissions, and gaskets up until the 1970s.
Fines for individuals who import asbestos can run up to AUS $180,000. Importers can obtain exceptions to the ban on asbestos-containing goods, though only if the goods are naturally-occuring materials with trace amounts of asbestos or for a narrow set of circumstances, mostly involving research and analysis.
........................................................................
Also this.
Finally here is an extract of a circular sent to all customs agents and brokers warning them that the latest directive places a new responsibility on them to ensure that an owner's declaration that a vehicle is free of asbestos is accurate. It suggests that agents and brokers could face heavy penalties if a vehicle is revealed to contain asbestos.
"Members will be aware as to the ongoing DIBP intervention on the importation of asbestos and/or goods perceived as containing asbestos. In DIBP Notice No. 2017/21 a restatement of the DIBP policy as it relates to the requirements of importers and licensed customs brokers should be noted.
NOTE: The above mentioned DIBPN replaces and repeals DIBP Notice No. 2016/30.
This DIBPN should be communicated immediately to all clients noting the difficulty in determining what goods may contain asbestos. In addition reference should also be made to the DIBP website Managing the risk of asbestos at the border.
The CBFCA is aware that strict liability offences have been imposed on importers as either the import declaration or declarations by importers that the goods in question did not contain asbestos, have been found to be incorrect with regard to the community protection question (CPQ) on goods containing asbestos.
Particular note must be had to the commentary by the DIBP/ABF as to licensed customs brokers (LCB), individuals and corporate entities. The CBFCA sees that the DIBP/ABF is clearly signalling that unless the service provider exercises due diligence to ensure that the information provided by the importer, which they report to the DIBP/ABF, is correct then there is the opportunity for the DIBP/ABF to impose strict liability offences on licensed customs brokers.
This position is reinforced by the additional comment that : ” licensed Customs brokers have an obligation to declare accurate information to the ABF” . This aspect combined with the due diligence (an aspect which the service provider would have to prove to the regulator that it acted with due care and diligence) needs to be clearly understood in terms of any information provided by the client in relation to the goods not containing asbestos.
Unfortunately in relation to DIBPN No. 2017/21 and in a manner similar to NNF 2017/059, when a CPQ was introduced in relation to vehicles, the issue as to stakeholder engagement has again not materialised in relation to how industry can work with the regulator through shared responsibility on this particular community health and safety issue.
In addition the CBFCA as a member of the Trade and Goods Compliance Advisory Group (CAG), which only met last month, would have seen that this forum would have been the ideal place for the discussion on this restatement of policy however can confirm that there was no discussion as to policy and/or outcomes of the DIBP/ABF intervention over the last 12 months (so as to support a workable framework for industry), other than acknowledging the increased focus on asbestos.
It should be noted that this issue was an agenda item for the CBFCA/DIBP Bi-Lateral meeting which was scheduled for 26 July, which was unfortunately cancelled due to the inability of the DIBP/ABF Chair to attend. This meeting has been rescheduled and this aspect in particular the CBFCA’s position paper Asbestos Importation and a Workable Framework, will be addressed.
The CBFCA is also seeking early discussion with Mr Stephen Hldedik A/g Commissioner Customs Compliance Branch (who has replaced Erin Dale) and Mr Josh Hutton A/g Assistant Secretary Trade and Customs Branch (both, as will be noted are acting in their roles and are new to these capacities) to address this and other compliance issues. "
Right now importing a vehicle into Australia runs the serious risk of very expensive inspections and fines. If the situation changes in any way I will attempt to keep members informed. I would welcome input from anyone with first hand reliable information to report."
