Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree8Likes
  • 3 Post By dash213
  • 1 Post By Nomulus
  • 2 Post By gtadmin
  • 1 Post By gtadmin
  • 1 Post By Gresh11

Thread: Interesting info on Customs website

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    353

    Interesting info on Customs website

    This is taken directly from the Customs website.

    The last paragraph is interesting. I have no idea how the legal system works, but doesn't Federal law outrank State law?

    "E-Cigarettes are comprised of an atomiser, battery and cartridge that may or may not contain a mixture of liquid nicotine and propylene glycol or polyethylene glycol. These forms of glycol are commonly used in pharmaceutical formulations and are not controlled.

    Liquid nicotine, is scheduled as a 'Schedule 7 Poison' under the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP). As such, it is considered a substance with a potential for causing harm which requires special precautions in manufacture, handling or use. Other substances listed in Schedule 7 include chlorine and arsenic. The listing of a poison in Schedule 7 does not usually justify an import prohibition.

    The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) is responsible for the government policy on such issues and advised that all States and Territories have domestic controls on the sale of these products and they are prohibited for commercial purposes.

    E-cigarettes (and/or their components) are not prohibited imports under Customs law. However, they may be subject to control under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 if the packaging makes a claim about any form of therapeutic benefit.

    If E-Cigarettes are detected at the border appearing to make a therapeutic claim, the goods may be referred to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA will advise whether further action is warranted, whether any claims made are classed as therapeutic, and whether seizure is appropriate under their Act.

    If no therapeutic claim is made, or the TGA determines that no action is warranted, the goods are released, as they are not controlled on importation.

    The onus is on the purchaser of goods from offshore websites to ensure that any goods they purchase are legal to import and possess under Commonwealth and State and Territory laws.

    Goods of this nature are not tobacco or tobacco products, and therefore are not subject to duty or GST if the Customs value is at or below the low value goods threshold of A$1,000."

    Cheers
    Darren




    Remember when the only trolls you had to deal with were under a bridge, and trying to eat your goats?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    24
    Sounds like whoever put this together has considered vapers and is using logic and law to protect us unlike other organisations and departments. It would be very easy to omit lines that make it clear that certain substances are allowed.
    sc_rufctr likes this.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whyalla, SA
    Posts
    13,095
    Sounds to me they like having black and white regulations ... not grey Black and white (precise) regulations doesn't rely on one person's interpretation of that regulation ... on that particular day ... when the moon is blue ...
    Fatman and sc_rufctr like this.
    Ignore the Super-moderator tag in my profile, I have resigned from that position but admin have not updated my profile as yet

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by gtadmin View Post
    Sounds to me they like having black and white regulations ... not grey Black and white (precise) regulations doesn't rely on one person's interpretation of that regulation ... on that particular day ... when the moon is blue ...
    Exactly, pretty ordinary when a Federal Government Department states they are not tobacco or tobacco products, yet a WA court can make an order directly contradicting this.




    Remember when the only trolls you had to deal with were under a bridge, and trying to eat your goats?

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whyalla, SA
    Posts
    13,095
    Quote Originally Posted by dash213 View Post
    Exactly, pretty ordinary when a Federal Government Department states they are not tobacco or tobacco products, yet a WA court can make an order directly contradicting this.
    No, the WA court made it clear that they were not tobacco products ... if they were, s106 couldn't apply.
    Gresh11 likes this.
    Ignore the Super-moderator tag in my profile, I have resigned from that position but admin have not updated my profile as yet

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SW VIC near Hamilton
    Posts
    3,811
    Quote Originally Posted by gtadmin View Post
    No, the WA court made it clear that they were not tobacco products ... if they were, s106 couldn't apply.
    I still can't believe that the 'intention' of the law, has been completely and utterly, swept under the carpet(disregarded).
    sc_rufctr likes this.
    LIVE AND LET VAPE
    POWER TO THE P.V.
    OFF THE SMOKES FOREVER

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Adelaide SA
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by dash213 View Post
    This is taken directly from the Customs website.

    The last paragraph is interesting. I have no idea how the legal system works, but doesn't Federal law outrank State law?

    snip...

    Goods of this nature are not tobacco or tobacco products, and therefore are not subject to duty or GST if the Customs value is at or below the low value goods threshold of A$1,000."

    Cheers
    Darren
    This is interesting. As stated by customs they are "not tobacco or tobacco products" so legally they could never be brought under the current tobacco laws.
    I guess they could be but the definition of a "tobacco product" would have to be adjusted in law to include e-cig products before anything else.

    Regardless... My point is that just because it's on the Customs web page that doesn't mean there are federal laws covering e-cigs in Australia. It a policy statement. That's all. I wouldn't read to much into it.

    But what it does mean is that no one here is breaking any federal law by bringing in their own Nic (Disregarding state law)

    As far as I know, The situation in WA only sets a precedent in e-cig hardware sold locally. But does this precedence also prohibit people in WA from importing their own hardware from OS?
    Also, as far as I know, There has been no mention of banning personal imports to WA of Nic juice from OS suppliers... So at this stage one would assume it's business as usual.
    Peter

    My last cigarette... 3rd April 2014

  8. #8
    AVF Newbie | Be nice to me
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Gresh11 View Post
    I still can't believe that the 'intention' of the law, has been completely and utterly, swept under the carpet(disregarded).
    Actually if you read through the very lengthy determination made by the judge (over 20 or so major points discussed in length) it wasn't swept under the rug at all. The intention of the law, as interpreted by the judge, was pointed out along with how e-cigs (in the judges view) undermine it. The issue is that it is their view based on misinformation.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:30 AM.