Australia — Customs Valuation

Australia's customs valuation regime in Division 2 of Part VIII of the Customs Act 1901 implements the WTO Valuation Agreement (formerly the GATT Valuation Agreement, signed at Marrakesh in 1994). The transaction value method is the primary and preferred basis for determining customs value—the foundation on which ad valorem duty is calculated.

## Legislative framework and hierarchy

Section 159 of the Customs Act 1901 establishes a strict hierarchical cascade for valuation. Unless the contrary intention appears, the value of imported goods for duty purposes is their customs value, which the Collector (an officer of the Australian Border Force) must determine in accordance with the statutory sequence:

1. Transaction value (section 161) — if determinable.
2. Identical goods value (section 161A) — if transaction value cannot be determined, but the Collector can determine the value of identical goods sold to Australia about the same time (within ±45 days).
3. Similar goods value (section 161B) — if identical goods value cannot be determined.
4. Deductive (contemporary sales) value (section 161C).
5. Deductive (later sales) value (section 161D).
6. Deductive (derived goods sales) value (section 161E).
7. Computed value (section 161F).
8. Fall-back value (section 161G) — a flexible application of any of the preceding methods, with certain exclusions (e.g., domestic selling price in Australia, the higher-of-two-values "current domestic value" system that Australia abandoned in the mid-1970s, or the price in the country of export).

An importer may request that the Collector apply the computed value method (section 161F) before the deductive methods, if the goods are "request goods" as defined in section 154.

## Transaction value: definition and construction

Section 161(1) defines transaction value as "an amount equal to the sum of [the goods'] adjusted price in their import sales transaction and of their price related costs to the extent that those costs have not been taken into account in determining the price of the goods."

The adjusted price is the price determined by the Collector after deducting:

• Deductible financing costs (interest charges that are distinguished from the price and result from a financing arrangement entered into by the purchaser);
• Deductible administrative costs (post-importation costs payable to Australian Commonwealth, state, or local authorities, licensed customs brokers, or other persons in Australia in connection with importation and delivery); and
• Australian inland freight and insurance (costs incurred after the goods arrive in Australia).

The price-related costs that are added back (to the extent not already included in the invoice price) include:

• Buying commission (excluded), but selling commission and brokerage paid by the purchaser are included;
• Assists — the value of goods or services supplied by or on behalf of the purchaser free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the production or sale for export of the imported goods (e.g., materials, components, tools, dies, moulds, engineering work performed outside Australia);
• Royalties and licence fees relating to the imported goods that the buyer must pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale (section 157 provides a detailed definition and a non-exhaustive list of examples, including payments for patents, trademarks, copyright, and manufacturing processes, but excluding charges for the right to reproduce the goods in Australia after importation);
• Proceeds of subsequent resale, disposal, or use — any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the vendor;
• Overseas freight and overseas insurance (the cost of transporting the goods from the place of export to Australia and insuring them during that transportation); and
• Packing costs (the cost of containers and packing, whether for labour or materials, to the extent treated as separate from the price of the goods).

The statutory definitions in section 154 are exhaustive and technical; the Australian Border Force publication Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (available on abf.gov.au) runs to over 140 pages and cross-references the WTO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation instruments and the World Customs Organization commentary on the Valuation Agreement.

## When transaction value cannot be determined

Section 161H lists circumstances in which the Collector cannot determine transaction value, triggering the move to the next method in the hierarchy. Transaction value is unavailable when:

• There is no import sales transaction for the goods (e.g., consignment goods, gifts, free-of-charge samples, goods transferred between related entities without a sale, or barter transactions without an ascertainable monetary price);
• The price cannot be ascertained (e.g., part of the consideration is not expressed in money and cannot be quantified, or "package deals" and "price averaging" arrangements obscure the allocation to specific goods);
• There are restrictions on use or disposal that the Collector considers materially affect the value (other than restrictions imposed by Australian law, geographic limitations on resale, or restrictions that do not substantially affect the value of the goods);
• The sale or price is subject to a condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined;
• The purchaser and vendor are related persons and the relationship influenced the price, unless the importer demonstrates that the transaction value closely approximates one of the test values in section 161H(3) (transaction value of identical or similar goods sold to unrelated buyers in Australia at about the same time, or a deductive or computed value for identical or similar goods); or
• There is insufficient or unreliable information to determine the transaction value (section 160 requires the Collector to make a written determination to that effect before moving to the next method).

The ABF guidance emphasizes that the Collector's determination that transaction value cannot be used must be in writing when based on insufficient or unreliable information, and importers have a right to seek internal review under section 161L or, after payment of duty under protest, external review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or a court.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 159–161, 161H Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation Source: Australian Border Force, Fact Sheet: Value of Imported Goods

Importations from related entities—common in multinational supply chains—trigger heightened scrutiny under Australia's customs valuation regime. Section 161H of the Customs Act 1901 provides that the Collector cannot determine the transaction value of imported goods if the purchaser and vendor are related persons and the relationship influenced the price, unless the importer demonstrates that the declared transaction value closely approximates one of the statutory test values. This is the single most common customs audit issue for cross-border corporate groups.

## Definition of "related persons"

Section 154(3) of the Customs Act 1901 defines when two persons are related. The definition is broad and captures most corporate-group structures. Persons are related if:

• One is an officer or director of the other's business;
• They are legally recognized partners in business;
• They are employer and employee (but an officer or director is not considered an employee solely by reason of that status);
• One person directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds 5% or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both;
• One directly or indirectly controls the other;
• Both are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person;
• Together they directly or indirectly control a third person; or
• They are members of the same family (spouse, siblings, lineal ancestors or descendants).

The 5% shareholding threshold is low by international standards and captures many equity-method investees and joint ventures. The "indirect control" prong reaches multi-tier holding structures. Under these criteria, a wholly owned subsidiary and its foreign parent will ordinarily be related persons, as will sister companies under common ultimate ownership.

## The influence test and its evidentiary burden

Section 161H(1)(e) provides that if the purchaser and vendor are related persons, the Collector cannot determine transaction value unless the importer demonstrates that the relationship did not influence the price. This is a rebuttable presumption: the existence of a related-party relationship does not automatically disqualify transaction value, but the importer bears the burden to prove that the transfer price is acceptable for customs purposes.

Section 161H(2) states that an importer may satisfy this burden by establishing one of two things:

1. The circumstances of the sale indicate that the relationship did not influence the price—e.g., the parties deal at arm's length despite the corporate relationship, or the price is set by a formula tied to external market indices. The importer must provide contemporaneous documentation (transfer pricing studies, comparables, board minutes, pricing-policy memoranda) to substantiate the arm's-length character of the transaction. OR

1. Test-value approximation (the safe harbor): The transaction value closely approximates one of the test values in section 161H(3).

## The section 161H(3) test values (safe harbors)

Section 161H(3) sets out four statutory test values. If the declared transaction value of the related-party goods closely approximates any one of these, the importer satisfies the influence test and the Collector must accept transaction value:

• (a) Transaction value of identical goods sold to unrelated buyers in Australia at or about the same time (within the ±45-day window for identical/similar goods under sections 161A and 161B) under substantially similar conditions (quantity, commercial level, FOB vs. CIF);
• (b) Transaction value of similar goods sold to unrelated buyers in Australia at or about the same time under substantially similar conditions;
• (c) Deductive value (section 161C, 161D, or 161E) of identical or similar goods—the price at which the goods (or identical/similar goods) are sold in Australia to an unrelated buyer in their imported condition or after assembly/packaging, less post-importation costs (domestic transport, duty, profit margin, general expenses); or
• (d) Computed value (section 161F) of identical or similar goods—the sum of production cost, profit, general expenses reasonably incurred by the producer, and the cost of transport, insurance, and loading.

The term "closely approximates" is not defined in the Customs Act 1901. The Australian Border Force Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation provides additional interpretive guidance on the application of this test in related-party contexts, though the final determination rests with the Collector based on the facts of each transaction.

## Interaction with transfer pricing adjustments

A frequent compliance gap arises when importers fail to report year-end transfer pricing (TP) adjustments to ABF. If an Australian importer purchases goods from a related foreign supplier at an invoice price that is later adjusted upward (to meet the arm's-length standard for income-tax purposes under Australia's transfer pricing rules in Subdivision 815-B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997), the importer is required to amend the import declarations and pay additional customs duty on the increased customs value, because section 161(1) defines transaction value by reference to the price of the goods in the import sales transaction. Conversely, if the TP adjustment is downward, the importer may claim a refund.

Section 159 requires the Collector to determine customs value at the time goods are imported, but a post-importation TP adjustment that changes the final price of the goods is a change to the transaction value. Failure to disclose TP adjustments can trigger penalties under section 243T of the Customs Act 1901 (strict-liability offences for incorrect import declarations or for providing false or misleading information). Section 243T applies even when the adjustment results in no net change to duty payable—for example, because the goods were duty-free under a free-trade-agreement preference or because the adjustment was immaterial.

The Australian Taxation Office and ABF do not automatically share TP adjustment data; the onus is on the importer to maintain consistent customs and income-tax positions and to file voluntary disclosures under the Customs Act when material adjustments occur.

## Advance Valuation Advice rulings

Section 161K of the Customs Act 1901 empowers the Comptroller-General of Customs to provide an advance ruling about the determination of the customs value of goods on the application of an owner of goods or an intending owner. A Valuation Advice (VA) ruling provides certainty for related-party importers on:

• The acceptable valuation method (transaction value vs. fallback methods);
• The treatment of specific price-related costs (assists, royalties, proceeds);
• The application of the influence test and the appropriate test value; and
• The protocol for reporting TP adjustments.

Section 161K(3) provides that if the Comptroller-General gives a ruling, the Comptroller-General and every Collector are bound by the ruling in respect of goods to which the ruling applies unless the ruling is revoked or amended under section 161K(4). The Comptroller-General may revoke or amend a ruling if satisfied that it is incorrect (because material information was not disclosed or was incorrectly stated, or the ruling contains an error) or that the law has changed. Revocation or amendment operates prospectively only; goods imported before the revocation/amendment date remain covered by the original ruling.

The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation notes that Valuation Advice rulings are particularly recommended for multinational importers who source goods regularly from related suppliers, to minimize audit exposure and declaration errors.

## Penalties and audit exposure

Section 243T of the Customs Act 1901 creates strict-liability offences for communicating information to Customs that is false or misleading in a material particular (subsection (1)) or omitting from such information any matter or thing without which the information is misleading in a material particular (subsection (2)). The penalty for an individual is 60 penalty units; for a body corporate, 300 penalty units. Importantly, these offences do not require proof of intent or negligence, and they apply per incorrect declaration.

Related-party valuation errors—failure to declare the related-party status, incorrect pricing, non-disclosure of assists or TP adjustments, or incorrect selection of the valuation method—are among the most common declaration defects identified in ABF compliance audits. Importers should implement controls to ensure:

• Import declarations accurately reflect the related-party status;
• Supporting documentation (contracts, transfer pricing studies, test-value calculations) is retained for the period required by section 240 of the Customs Act (generally five years from the date of importation, or longer if the Comptroller-General has required retention for audit purposes); and
• TP adjustments that affect the customs value of previously imported goods are reported to ABF promptly.

Section 243T(4A) provides a safe harbor: a person does not commit an offence if the person, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the information communicated was false or misleading, communicates in writing the correct information to Customs. Voluntary disclosure before ABF commences an audit or investigation is therefore a critical compliance practice for importers in related-party supply chains.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154(3), 159, 161, 161H, 161K, 240, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Production assist costs—commonly called assists—are goods or services that an Australian importer supplies to the foreign producer or vendor, free of charge or at reduced cost, for use in the production or sale for export of the imported goods. Assists are among the most frequently undeclared price-related costs in customs valuation audits, and the Australian Border Force (ABF) has identified assists as a compliance priority.

## Statutory definition — section 154 of the Customs Act 1901

Section 154 of the Customs Act 1901 defines production assist costs as the value of goods or services supplied, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the purchaser of imported goods free of charge or at a reduced cost for use in connection with the production or sale for export of the imported goods, to the extent that the value is not included in the price of the goods.

The statutory text does not enumerate specific categories. Instead, section 154 provides that production assist costs include the value of "any of the following"—which Parliament left open-ended through the phrase "and similar items" in the relevant subsections—and the ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Chapter 3, over 20 pages on assists) identifies the types of goods and services most commonly treated as assists:

• Materials, components, parts, and similar items incorporated in the imported goods;
• Tools, dies, moulds, and similar items used in the production of the imported goods;
• Materials consumed in the production of the imported goods (e.g., lubricants, fuels, catalysts, or other consumables used in the manufacturing process but not incorporated into the finished product);
• Engineering, development, artwork, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in Australia and necessary for the production of the imported goods;
• Other goods or services that the Collector determines fall within the scope of the definition.

The phrase "undertaken elsewhere than in Australia" for engineering and design work is explicit in section 154: design or development work performed in Australia is not a production assist cost and is not added to the customs value, even if the importer provides it free of charge to the foreign manufacturer.

## Valuation treatment under the transaction value method

Section 161(1) of the Customs Act 1901 provides that the transaction value of imported goods is the sum of:

1. The adjusted price in the import sales transaction (the invoice price less deductible financing costs, Australian post-importation costs, and Australian inland freight/insurance); PLUS
2. Price-related costs to the extent not already included in the invoice price.

Section 154 defines price-related costs to include production assist costs. Therefore, the full value of any assist supplied by the purchaser must be added to the invoice price when determining the transaction value, unless that value is already reflected in the invoice price paid to the vendor. This implements the WTO Valuation Agreement Article 8.1(b) in Australian law.

The obligation to declare and value assists applies even when:

• The goods are entered duty-free (e.g., under a free-trade-agreement preference or because the tariff rate is 0%);
• The assist was supplied years before importation (the cost is amortized over the production run to which it relates and must continue to be declared on each shipment until the run is exhausted); or
• The assist was supplied by an affiliate of the importer (e.g., the Australian parent company of the importer provides moulds to the foreign vendor free of charge).

## ABF guidance and common examples

The ABF Valuation Treatment of Production Assist Costs fact sheet (April 2011, available on abf.gov.au) provides illustrative examples drawn from ABF audit experience:

• An Australian clothing importer supplies fabric to a Chinese contract manufacturer, who cuts and sews the fabric into finished garments and exports the garments to Australia. The invoice price covers only the cutting, sewing, and finishing services. The customs value of the imported garments must include the full value of the Australian-sourced fabric.

• An Australian electronics importer supplies injection moulds to a Taiwanese manufacturer for production of plastic housings. The mould cost AUD 50,000 and has a production life of 100,000 units. The importer must add AUD 0.50 per unit to the invoice price of each imported housing to reflect the amortized mould cost, even if the mould was supplied three years before the current shipment.

• An Australian toy importer commissions a design agency in the United Kingdom to develop artwork and engineering drawings for a new product line, then supplies the drawings to a Vietnamese manufacturer. The full cost of the UK design work must be included in the customs value of the imported toys (apportioned across the units in the production run), because the design work was "undertaken elsewhere than in Australia" within the meaning of section 154.

The ABF fact sheet also notes that labels, hang tags, instruction manuals, and packaging materials supplied by the importer to the vendor may be treated as assists, depending on the facts. The Collector's determination depends on whether these items are "for use in connection with the production or sale for export" of the goods under section 154. Importers who supply branding, labeling, or informational materials free of charge should seek advance guidance from ABF on the valuation treatment.

The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation addresses the treatment of:

• Apportionment when the assist is used to produce goods for multiple markets (only the portion attributable to goods exported to Australia is added to the Australian customs value);
• Timing and amortization (the assist value is spread over the useful life or production run, not charged in full to the first shipment);
• Indirect supply (assists provided by an affiliate of the importer or by a third party at the importer's direction are attributed to the importer); and
• Valuation of the assist itself (the cost to the importer to acquire or produce the assist, including freight and insurance to deliver it to the foreign manufacturer, but not Australian inland transport to get the assist to the Australian port for export).

## Audit exposure, penalties, and voluntary disclosure

Production assist costs are among the most common valuation errors identified in ABF compliance audits. Importers often fail to recognize that:

• The moulds or tools they supplied years ago must continue to be amortized and declared on every shipment until the production run is exhausted or the mould is retired;
• Engineering or design work performed by an offshore affiliate or by a third-party consultant is an assist (even though no physical goods change hands);
• A reduced-cost sale of components to the vendor (below the importer's cost) creates an assist equal to the difference between the sale price and the fair value; or
• The cost of branding, labeling, or instructional materials supplied to the vendor may be an assist, depending on the Collector's determination.

Section 243T(1) of the Customs Act 1901 creates a strict-liability offense for communicating to Customs information that is false or misleading in a material particular. ABF imposes penalties under section 243T even when the undeclared assist does not result in additional duty payable—for example, because the goods are duty-free under a free-trade agreement.

Section 243T(4A) provides a safe harbor: a person does not commit an offense under section 243T(1) if the person, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the information communicated was false or misleading, communicates in writing the correct information to Customs. Voluntary disclosure before the commencement of an ABF audit or investigation is therefore critical for penalty mitigation.

## Valuation Advice rulings

Section 161K of the Customs Act 1901 empowers importers to apply for a Valuation Advice (VA) ruling from the Comptroller-General of Customs on the acceptable method of valuing assists, the apportionment methodology, and the protocol for reporting assist costs in import declarations. The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation and the ABF fact sheets strongly recommend obtaining a VA ruling for importers who regularly supply assists, particularly when the supply chain involves multiple affiliates, multi-market production runs, or large capital tooling investments. A VA ruling is binding on the Comptroller-General and every Collector under section 161K(3) unless revoked or amended, and provides certainty on the valuation treatment for five years.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 161, 161K, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Valuation Treatment of Production Assist Costs (Fact Sheet, April 2011) Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Royalties and licence fees paid by an Australian importer to a vendor or to a third party are among the most complex and frequently disputed price-related costs in customs valuation. Section 154 of the Customs Act 1901 includes certain royalties and licence fees in the definition of price-related costs that must be added to the invoice price when determining transaction value under section 161. This implements Article 8.1(c) of the WTO Valuation Agreement in Australian law.

## Statutory definition and inclusion test

Section 154 defines price-related costs to include:

> "all royalties or licence fees paid or payable, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the purchaser to the vendor or to another person under the import sales transaction"

provided the royalty or licence fee does not fall within one of the four statutory exclusions set out in section 154(e)(i)–(iv).

The inclusion test therefore has two elements:

1. Positive requirement — the royalty or licence fee must be paid or payable (a) directly or indirectly, (b) by or on behalf of the purchaser, (c) to the vendor or to another person, and (d) under the import sales transaction; AND

1. Negative requirement — the royalty or licence fee must not fall within one of the four statutory exclusions.

The phrase "under the import sales transaction" is the critical gatekeeper. A royalty is paid "under" the import sales transaction if it is a condition of the sale of the imported goods—that is, if the vendor will not sell the goods to the purchaser unless the purchaser pays (or agrees to pay) the royalty or licence fee. This requirement closely tracks the "condition of sale" language in Article 8.1(c) of the WTO Valuation Agreement.

Section 157 of the Customs Act 1901 is captioned "Interpretation—Royalties" and provides additional definitional material, though the substantive inclusion/exclusion rules remain in section 154.

## The four statutory exclusions

Section 154(e)(i)–(iv) excludes from customs value royalties or licence fees that fall into any of the following four categories:

(i) Royalties that do not relate to the goods in the condition imported

Excluded: royalties or licence fees "that do not relate to the imported goods in the condition, or substantially in the condition, in which they are imported into Australia."

This exclusion applies when the royalty or licence fee relates to post-importation activity (for example, a licence fee for the right to modify, customise, or further process the goods in Australia after importation). The Australian Border Force Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Chapter 3) notes that a royalty relating to imported components that will be assembled into finished goods in Australia does not fall within this exclusion, because the royalty relates to the components in their imported condition.

(ii) Royalties whose relationship to the goods is insubstantial or incidental

Excluded: royalties or licence fees "whose only relationship to the imported goods in the condition in which they are imported into Australia is insubstantial or incidental."

This exclusion applies when the payment is primarily for something other than the imported goods—for example, a franchise fee paid for the right to operate a branded business under a trademark, where the imported goods bearing the trademark are only a minor or incidental part of the overall franchise arrangement. The ABF guidance emphasises that the "insubstantial or incidental" test is fact-specific and requires a case-by-case determination by the Collector, based on the commercial reality of the transaction and the relative value and importance of the imported goods to the overall royalty obligation.

(iii) Royalties merely for the right to reproduce the goods in Australia

Excluded: royalties or licence fees "that are merely for the right to reproduce the imported goods within Australia."

This exclusion carves out payments for the right to copy, replicate, or manufacture the imported goods in Australia after importation. For example, a royalty paid for the right to reproduce imported software, films, or printed materials in Australia falls within this exclusion and is not added to the customs value of the imported master copies or prototypes. However, if the imported goods themselves embody intellectual property (for example, branded finished goods bearing a licensed trademark) and the royalty is a condition of sale of those goods, the exclusion does not apply.

(iv) Royalties for post-importation assembly, construction, maintenance, or technical assistance

Excluded: royalties or licence fees "that are payable for the assembly, erection, construction or maintenance of imported goods after their importation into Australia or for any technical assistance in respect of the goods after their importation."

This exclusion applies to payments for services performed in Australia after the goods are imported. For example, a fee paid to the vendor or a licensor for on-site technical assistance, installation, commissioning, training, or maintenance services in Australia is not part of the customs value of the imported equipment, even if the fee is structured as a royalty or licence payment.

## Common fact patterns and ABF guidance

The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Chapter 3, over 20 pages on royalties and licence fees) addresses several recurring scenarios:

Trademark royalties on branded finished goods

An Australian importer purchases finished consumer goods (apparel, electronics, cosmetics) bearing a licensed trademark from a foreign manufacturer. The importer pays a separate royalty to the trademark owner (a third party unrelated to the manufacturer) calculated as a percentage of the Australian retail selling price or the import value. The royalty agreement is with the trademark owner, not with the manufacturer/vendor.

Analysis: The royalty is includible in customs value if the sale of the goods is conditional on the royalty payment—that is, if the importer could not lawfully import and sell the trademarked goods without the licence from the trademark owner. The ABF guidance notes that even though the royalty is paid to a third party (not the vendor), it is "paid … under the import sales transaction" within the meaning of section 154 if the vendor will not sell the goods unless the purchaser holds a valid trademark licence. The burden is on the importer to demonstrate that the royalty falls within one of the four statutory exclusions; otherwise, the full amount of the royalty attributable to the imported goods must be added to the invoice price.

Technology or patent royalties to a licensor that is not the vendor

An Australian importer purchases components or finished goods incorporating patented technology. The importer pays a royalty to the patent owner (a third party) for the right to import and use the patented goods. The vendor and the patent owner are separate legal entities, though they may be affiliates.

Analysis: The royalty is includible if it is a condition of the sale—that is, if the vendor will not sell the goods unless the purchaser holds a valid patent licence. The fact that the patent owner and the vendor are different persons does not exclude the royalty from customs value, because section 154 expressly includes royalties paid "to the vendor or to another person under the import sales transaction" (emphasis added). The importer must establish that one of the four statutory exclusions applies; the "insubstantial or incidental" exclusion (section 154(e)(ii)) is rarely available for patent royalties tied directly to the imported goods.

Copyright royalties on imported media or software

An Australian importer imports master copies of software, films, or printed materials under a copyright licence from the copyright owner. The importer pays a royalty for the right to reproduce and distribute the works in Australia.

Analysis: If the royalty is "merely for the right to reproduce the imported goods within Australia" (section 154(e)(iii)), the royalty is excluded from customs value. The ABF guidance notes that this exclusion applies only when the imported goods are templates, masters, or prototypes that the importer will copy in Australia; if the imported goods are finished products for resale (for example, pre-pressed DVDs or shrink-wrapped software packages), and the royalty is a condition of the sale of those finished products, the exclusion does not apply and the royalty must be included in customs value.

Post-importation service fees structured as royalties

An Australian importer purchases industrial equipment and separately pays the vendor a "royalty" or "technical assistance fee" for on-site installation, commissioning, training, and maintenance services in Australia after the equipment is imported.

Analysis: The fee falls within the exclusion in section 154(e)(iv) for payments "for the assembly, erection, construction or maintenance of imported goods after their importation into Australia or for any technical assistance in respect of the goods after their importation." The ABF guidance emphasises that the exclusion requires the service to be performed in Australia after importation; a payment for technical assistance provided offshore during the production of the goods (for example, engineering support to the foreign manufacturer) is a production assist cost under section 154 and must be included in customs value.

## Apportionment and timing

When a royalty or licence fee covers both goods imported to Australia and goods sold in other markets, or when the royalty covers imported goods and other items (for example, services or locally sourced goods), the importer must apportion the royalty and include in the customs value only the portion attributable to the imported goods. The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation notes that the Collector may accept a reasonable apportionment methodology proposed by the importer, provided the importer maintains contemporaneous documentation (royalty agreements, invoices, sales data, and apportionment calculations).

When the royalty is based on the resale price of the imported goods in Australia, and that resale price is not known at the time of importation, the importer may declare an estimated customs value and later file an amendment to the import declaration under section 161J once the final royalty is determined. Failure to amend the declaration when the final royalty exceeds the estimate can trigger penalties under section 243T of the Customs Act 1901 for providing false or misleading information.

## Interaction with related-party transactions

Royalty payments from an Australian importer to a related foreign vendor or licensor (for example, a parent company or an affiliate) are subject to heightened scrutiny under section 161H. The Collector may determine that transaction value cannot be used if the related-party relationship influenced the price or the royalty payment, unless the importer demonstrates that the declared value (including the royalty) closely approximates one of the statutory test values (transaction value of identical or similar goods sold to unrelated buyers, or a deductive or computed value).

Importers in related-party supply chains who pay royalties to affiliates should consider obtaining a Valuation Advice (VA) ruling under section 161K to confirm the acceptable treatment of the royalty and to avoid audit exposure.

## Audit exposure, penalties, and voluntary disclosure

Undeclared or incorrectly excluded royalties are among the most common valuation errors identified in ABF compliance audits. Importers often fail to recognise that:

• A royalty paid to a third party (not the vendor) is includible if it is a condition of sale of the imported goods;
• A royalty based on the resale price of the imported goods in Australia must be declared and may require post-importation amendment of the import declaration;
• The statutory exclusions in section 154(e)(i)–(iv) are narrow and require the importer to demonstrate that the facts satisfy the exclusion; or
• A trade name, franchise fee, or brand-support payment may be a royalty or licence fee within the meaning of section 154 if it relates to the imported goods and is a condition of sale.

Section 243T(1) of the Customs Act 1901 creates a strict-liability offence for communicating to Customs information that is false or misleading in a material particular. ABF imposes penalties under section 243T even when the undeclared royalty does not result in additional duty payable—for example, because the goods are duty-free under a free-trade agreement.

Section 243T(4A) provides a safe harbor: a person does not commit an offence under section 243T(1) if the person, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the information communicated was false or misleading, communicates in writing the correct information to Customs. Voluntary disclosure before the commencement of an ABF audit or investigation is therefore critical for penalty mitigation.

## Advance Valuation Advice rulings

Section 161K of the Customs Act 1901 empowers importers to apply for a Valuation Advice (VA) ruling from the Comptroller-General of Customs on the treatment of royalties and licence fees—including whether a particular royalty is paid "under the import sales transaction," whether one of the four statutory exclusions applies, the acceptable apportionment methodology, and the protocol for declaring estimated or variable royalties. A VA ruling is binding on the Comptroller-General and every Collector under section 161K(3) unless revoked or amended, and provides certainty for five years or longer.

The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation and the ABF website strongly recommend obtaining a VA ruling for importers who pay royalties regularly, particularly when the royalty structure is complex (for example, tiered rates, resale-price-based royalties, or multi-party licensing arrangements).

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 157, 161, 161H, 161K, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Overseas freight and insurance costs are mandatory price-related additions to the customs value of imported goods when the invoice price does not already include them. Every Australian importer must determine whether the commercial invoice is denominated on a Free On Board (FOB), Cost Insurance Freight (CIF), or other Incoterms® basis, and must add the cost of international transportation and insurance when calculating the transaction value under section 161 of the Customs Act 1901. This is a daily operational issue on every import declaration.

## Statutory framework — section 154 and section 161

Section 161(1) of the Customs Act 1901 provides that the transaction value of imported goods is the sum of:

1. The adjusted price in the import sales transaction (the invoice price less deductible financing costs, Australian post-importation costs, and Australian inland freight/insurance); PLUS
2. Price-related costs to the extent not already included in the invoice price.

Section 154 defines price-related costs to include, among other elements:

• Overseas freight — the cost of transporting the goods from the place of export to Australia; and
• Overseas insurance — the cost of insuring the goods during that international transportation.

Section 154 defines "overseas freight" as the amount paid or payable by a trader of the goods to a person other than a person related to a trader of the goods in respect of the transportation of the goods from the place of export to Australia, including the cost of obtaining any commercial or other documentation required in respect of that transportation (other than documentation that is Australian inland freight).

Section 154 defines "overseas insurance" as the amount paid or payable by a trader of the goods to a person other than a person related to a trader of the goods in respect of insuring the goods during their transportation from the place of export to Australia.

These definitions implement Article 8.2 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, which requires that the price actually paid or payable shall include "the cost of transport of the imported goods to the port or place of importation" and "the cost of insurance."

## Invoice terms and the FOB / CIF distinction

The obligation to add overseas freight and insurance to the customs value depends on the invoice term (Incoterms® or similar trade term) of the commercial contract. The Australian Border Force Customs Notice 2016/33 — Declaring overseas freight and insurance for the purposes of calculating customs value (August 2016) explains that:

• For Free On Board (FOB) contracts, the invoice amount does not include the cost of overseas freight and overseas insurance. The importer must separately declare the overseas freight amount and the overseas insurance amount in the import declaration, and those amounts are added to the FOB invoice price to determine the customs value.

• For Cost Insurance Freight (CIF) or Cost and Freight (CFR) contracts, the invoice amount does include the overseas freight and insurance amounts. The importer must declare the invoice total as the customs value, and must separately identify the overseas freight and insurance components for statistical and verification purposes (the Australian Border Force's Integrated Cargo System (ICS) requires these fields to be populated even when the amounts are embedded in the CIF or CFR invoice total).

The ABF notice emphasizes that the invoice term determines which valuation elements are mandatory, optional, or not allowed when lodging an import declaration in the ICS. Importers and customs brokers must select the correct invoice term type in the import declaration header; the ICS then enforces field validation rules based on that selection.

## Scope of "overseas freight" — from place of export to Australia

Section 154 defines "place of export" as the place from which the goods commenced their journey to Australia without further processing. The overseas freight component covers the cost of transportation from the place of export to the place of importation in Australia (typically the Australian seaport or airport where the goods are unloaded and presented to the Australian Border Force).

Overseas freight includes:

• Ocean or air freight charges for the international leg of the journey;
• Container freight station (CFS) or terminal handling charges at the foreign port of export (to the extent they relate to loading the goods for export to Australia);
• Documentation fees charged by the carrier or freight forwarder for preparing the bill of lading, air waybill, or other transport documents required for the international shipment; and
• Bunker adjustment factors (BAF), currency adjustment factors (CAF), and similar carrier surcharges that are part of the freight rate for the international transportation.

Overseas freight does not include:

• Foreign inland freight — the cost of transporting the goods within the foreign country from the factory or warehouse to the place of export. Section 154 defines "foreign inland freight" separately, and it is not added to the customs value (foreign inland freight is excluded from customs value unless it is part of the price of the goods in the import sales transaction).

• Australian inland freight — the cost of transporting the goods within Australia after importation (for example, from the Australian seaport to the importer's warehouse). Section 154 defines "Australian inland freight" separately, and it is explicitly deducted from the invoice price when determining the adjusted price under section 161(1).

• Landing charges — wharfage, port fees, and stevedoring charges incurred at the Australian port of importation after the goods arrive. Section 154 treats landing charges as a separate valuation element; they are not included in overseas freight and are not added to the customs value.

The Australian Border Force Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Chapter 3, page 108) clarifies that the boundary between foreign inland freight (excluded) and overseas freight (included) is the place of export. If the commercial invoice is denominated "Ex Works" or "FCA [foreign inland city]," the importer must determine the cost of transportation from the factory or inland city to the seaport or airport of export; that portion is foreign inland freight and is not added to customs value. Only the cost of transportation from the seaport/airport of export to Australia is overseas freight and is added to customs value.

## Scope of "overseas insurance" — marine or air cargo insurance

Section 154 defines "overseas insurance" as the cost of insuring the goods during their transportation from the place of export to Australia. This typically covers:

• Marine cargo insurance (for goods shipped by sea under an Institute Cargo Clauses (ICC) A, B, or C policy, or similar all-risks or named-perils coverage); or
• Air cargo insurance (for goods shipped by air).

The overseas insurance amount is the premium paid or payable for the coverage of the specific shipment of goods being imported, including any war-risk or strike-risk surcharges. If the importer holds an "open policy" or "floating policy" that covers multiple shipments over a period, the importer must apportion the total premium to the specific shipment and declare the apportioned amount in the import declaration.

Overseas insurance does not include:

• Insurance for the goods while they are in storage or in transit within the foreign country before export (that is part of foreign inland insurance, which is not added to customs value); or
• Insurance for the goods after they arrive in Australia (that is part of Australian inland insurance, which is deducted from the invoice price under section 161(1)).

If no insurance was purchased for the international shipment (for example, because the goods are shipped on a CFR basis without insurance, or because the vendor or importer self-insures the risk), the overseas insurance amount is zero and the importer declares zero in the import declaration.

## Declaration requirements — import declaration (N10) data fields

The Australian Border Force Import Declaration (N10) data specification (ABF form 71L) and the Imports Manual — Lodging Import Declarations (Modules 16.1 and 16.3) require the importer or licensed customs broker to populate the following header-level valuation fields when lodging an import declaration in the ICS:

• Invoice Total Amount and Invoice Total Currency — the sum total of all invoices for goods reported on the declaration, in the currency of the invoice;
• Overseas Freight Amount and Overseas Freight Currency — if relevant for determining the customs value, the amount and currency of overseas freight (this field is mandatory for FOB invoices, conditional or optional for other invoice terms);
• Overseas Insurance Amount and Overseas Insurance Currency — if relevant for determining the customs value, the amount and currency of overseas insurance (this field is mandatory for FOB invoices, conditional or optional for other invoice terms);
• Invoice Term Type — a code indicating the Incoterms® or similar trade term (for example, FOB, CIF, CFR, EXW, FCA, DAP, DDP).

The ICS applies field validation rules based on the selected invoice term type. For example, if the importer selects "FOB," the ICS requires the overseas freight and overseas insurance fields to be populated (or explicitly declared as zero if not applicable). If the importer selects "CIF," the ICS may make those fields optional or may require the importer to separately state the freight and insurance components embedded in the CIF invoice total for statistical purposes.

The ABF Customs Notice 2016/33 emphasizes that the importer's obligation to declare overseas freight and insurance is not affected by legislative amendments in 2015 and 2016 that changed the authority for collecting certain trade statistics. The Customs Act 1901 valuation requirements remain unchanged: overseas freight and insurance must be declared to enable the Collector to determine the correct customs value in accordance with section 161.

## Common errors and compliance exposure

Undeclared or incorrectly calculated overseas freight and insurance amounts are among the most common declaration errors identified in Australian Border Force compliance audits. Importers often fail to recognise that:

• The invoice term determines the declaration requirement. An importer who declares "CIF" but provides only the FOB invoice amount (without adding the freight and insurance) understates the customs value.

• Freight charged to a third party must still be declared. If the vendor arranges and pays for the freight on a FOB contract and then invoices the buyer separately for reimbursement, or if a freight forwarder invoices the importer directly, the importer must still determine the overseas freight amount and declare it in the import declaration. The fact that the freight is not included in the vendor's invoice for the goods does not excuse the importer from the obligation to add the freight to the customs value under section 161.

• Estimated freight and insurance amounts are acceptable when actual costs are not yet known at the time of entry, but the importer must later amend the import declaration under section 161J of the Customs Act 1901 if the final invoiced freight or insurance amount differs materially from the estimate. Failure to file a post-entry amendment can trigger penalties under section 243T for providing false or misleading information.

• Related-party freight and insurance arrangements are subject to heightened scrutiny. Section 154 explicitly requires that overseas freight and overseas insurance be paid to a person other than a person related to a trader of the goods. If the importer pays freight or insurance to a related entity (for example, a sister company that operates a shipping line or provides captive insurance), the amount may not qualify as "overseas freight" or "overseas insurance" for customs valuation purposes, and the Collector may determine that the transaction value method cannot be used under section 161H or may impute a market-rate freight/insurance amount based on the cost of equivalent services from an unrelated carrier or insurer.

## Currency conversion — the valuation date

Section 161J of the Customs Act 1901 provides that the value of imported goods must be expressed in Australian currency. If the invoice, freight invoice, or insurance invoice is denominated in a foreign currency, the importer must convert the amounts to Australian dollars using the official rate of exchange published by the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Australian Statistician for the valuation date.

The valuation date is ordinarily the date of export of the goods from the place of export, as stated on the bill of lading, air waybill, or other transport document. Section 154 and the ABF Fact Sheet: Value of Imported Goods confirm that the exchange rate to be used is the rate prevailing on the day the goods were exported, not the day the goods arrive in Australia or the day the import declaration is lodged.

The ABF publishes daily exchange rates in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette (now available online via the ABF website and the ICS reference files). The ABF Customs Notice 2020/08 — Rates of Exchange provides detailed guidance on determining the date of exportation and selecting the applicable exchange rate when the goods are exported on a weekend or public holiday (in which case the rate for the last preceding business day applies).

If the freight or insurance invoice is issued in a different currency from the goods invoice, the importer must convert each invoice separately using the exchange rate for the valuation date, then sum the Australian-dollar equivalents to determine the total customs value.

## Interaction with GST and the "value of the taxable importation"

Customs duty is calculated on the customs value (the transaction value, including overseas freight and insurance, under section 161). The Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable on importation is calculated on a broader base called the "value of the taxable importation" under section 13-20 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999.

The value of the taxable importation is:

• The customs value of the goods (including overseas freight and insurance);
• PLUS the amount paid or payable for the international transport of the goods to Australia (to the extent not already included in the customs value);
• PLUS the amount paid or payable for insuring the goods for that transport (to the extent not already included);
• PLUS the customs duty payable on the importation.

Because overseas freight and insurance are already included in the customs value under the Customs Act 1901 section 161, they are also included in the GST base. Importers therefore pay GST on the freight and insurance as well as on the goods themselves. The 10% GST rate applies to the sum of (customs value + customs duty), and that sum already includes the overseas freight and insurance components.

The Australian Taxation Office and the ABF coordinate on the valuation of imports to ensure consistent treatment of freight and insurance for both customs duty and GST purposes. Importers who understate overseas freight or insurance in the import declaration understate both the customs duty base and the GST base, and face potential penalties and interest charges from both agencies.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 161, 161H, 161J Source: Australian Border Force, Customs Notice 2016/33 — Declaring overseas freight and insurance for the purposes of calculating customs value (August 2016) Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation Source: Australian Border Force, Import Declaration (N10) — Form 71L

When the Collector cannot determine the transaction value of imported goods—because there is no sale, the price cannot be ascertained, a related-party relationship influenced the price and the importer cannot demonstrate that the declared value closely approximates a test value, or for any other reason set out in section 161H of the Customs Act 1901—the Collector must turn to the identical goods value method (section 161A) or, if that fails, the similar goods value method (section 161B). These are the second and third methods in the strict hierarchical cascade established by section 159. Together with the deductive and computed methods that follow them, they provide a framework for valuing goods when transaction value is unavailable—a common scenario for free-of-charge samples, consignments, gifts, related-party transfers where the influence test cannot be satisfied, and used goods imported after personal use overseas.

## Legislative framework — section 156 definitions

Section 156 of the Customs Act 1901 defines identical goods and similar goods for valuation purposes. The definitions are technical and narrower than the ordinary meaning of the words.

Identical goods

Identical goods, in relation to imported goods (the "subject goods"), means other goods that:

• Were produced in the same country as the subject goods;
• Are identical in all respects to the subject goods, including physical characteristics, quality, and reputation (minor differences in appearance that do not affect the value are disregarded); and
• Were produced by the producer of the subject goods, or by another producer only if no identical goods produced by the producer of the subject goods are available.

Goods are not identical goods if they incorporate or reflect any engineering, development, artwork, design work, or plan or sketch undertaken in Australia. This exclusion ensures that goods tailored to Australian specifications or incorporating Australian intellectual property are not used as comparables for valuation purposes.

The statutory definition closely tracks Article 15(2)(a) of the WTO Valuation Agreement (Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994). The phrase "identical in all respects" is strict: goods differing in branding, packaging, or labeling material enough to affect commercial value are not identical goods, even if physically and functionally interchangeable.

Similar goods

Similar goods, in relation to imported goods, means other goods that:

• Were produced in the same country as the subject goods;
• Are capable of performing the same functions as the subject goods and are commercially interchangeable with the subject goods, having regard to their quality, reputation, and the existence of a trademark; and
• Were produced by the producer of the subject goods, or by another producer only if no similar goods produced by the producer of the subject goods are available.

As with identical goods, goods are not similar goods if they incorporate or reflect engineering, development, artwork, design work, or plans or sketches undertaken in Australia.

The "commercially interchangeable" standard is a market test: would a buyer in the importing country regard the goods as acceptable alternatives for the same end use? The Collector considers quality, brand reputation, and whether the goods compete in the same market segment. Goods differing in grade, finish, or performance specifications may still be similar goods if they serve the same function and are sold in comparable commercial contexts.

## Section 161A — Identical goods value method

Section 161A(1) provides that if the Collector cannot determine the transaction value of imported goods, the Collector must determine the identical goods value if there are identical goods (as defined in section 156) that satisfy two timing and comparability conditions:

1. The identical goods were exported to Australia about the same time as the subject goods; AND
2. The identical goods were either:

• (a) sold in the same, or substantially the same, quantities as the subject goods in an import sales transaction at the same trade level as the import sales transaction of the subject goods (e.g., both wholesale, both retail, both FOB, both CIF); OR
• (b) of a kind that reasonable inquiry by the Collector has not shown to be so sold (i.e., no such comparable sale exists, but the Collector can adjust for quantity or trade-level differences).

"About the same time" — the ±45-day window

The phrase "about the same time" is not defined in the Customs Act 1901. The Australian Border Force (ABF) Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation states that "about the same time" ordinarily means within 45 days before or after the date of export of the subject goods (a ±45-day window, for a total 90-day band), reflecting the WTO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation recommendation. This administrative practice is applied consistently across the identical goods, similar goods, and deductive value methods.

The Collector may accept a longer or shorter window if market conditions (seasonal goods, volatile commodity prices, or rapid technological obsolescence) warrant, but the ±45-day default is the starting point. Importers who rely on older or newer comparables bear the burden of demonstrating that the time gap does not materially affect value.

Unit price and adjustments — section 161A(2)

Section 161A(2) defines the unit price of identical goods as the transaction value of those goods (determined under section 161) divided by the number of units of those goods. If identical goods were sold in different quantities or at a different trade level (e.g., the subject goods were a small retail shipment and the identical goods were a large wholesale shipment), the Collector must adjust the unit price to account for the demonstrable difference in value attributable to quantity or trade level. The burden is on the importer to provide evidence (invoices, pricing schedules, volume-discount structures) supporting the adjustment.

The identical goods value of the subject goods is the unit price (as adjusted) multiplied by the number of units of the subject goods.

Availability of multiple comparables — choosing the lowest acceptable value

If the Collector identifies more than one set of identical goods that meet the section 161A criteria, the Collector must use the unit price that results in the lowest customs value for the subject goods. This reflects the importer-favorable principle embedded in the WTO Valuation Agreement: when multiple acceptable comparables exist, the Collector chooses the one most favorable to the importer.

## Section 161B — Similar goods value method

If the Collector cannot determine the transaction value or the identical goods value of imported goods, section 161B requires the Collector to determine the similar goods value if there are similar goods (as defined in section 156) that satisfy the same two conditions as section 161A:

1. The similar goods were exported to Australia about the same time as the subject goods (ordinarily within ±45 days under ABF administrative practice); AND
2. The similar goods were sold in the same or substantially the same quantities, at the same trade level, or are of a kind that reasonable inquiry has not shown to be so sold.

Unit price and adjustments — section 161B(2)

Section 161B(2) defines the unit price of similar goods identically to section 161A(2): the transaction value of the similar goods divided by the number of units, with adjustments for demonstrated differences in quantity or trade level. The similar goods value is the adjusted unit price multiplied by the number of units of the subject goods.

As with identical goods, if multiple sets of similar goods qualify, the Collector uses the unit price that results in the lowest customs value for the subject goods.

## Practical application and ABF guidance

The ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Chapter 4, over 15 pages on identical and similar goods methods) emphasizes that these methods are rarely used in practice because:

• Comparables are difficult to find. The requirement that the goods be produced by the same producer (or, if unavailable, by another producer in the same country) and exported to Australia within ±45 days sharply limits the pool. Importers typically do not have visibility into the pricing of competitors' shipments or even their own prior shipments unless they maintain detailed records.

• Data access is asymmetric. The Collector has access to ABF's import declaration database and can search for identical or similar goods imported by other parties, but the importer does not. The importer can request that the Collector conduct a search, but ABF policy prohibits disclosure of third-party commercial information. The Collector will inform the importer whether qualifying comparables exist and will use the lowest available unit price, but will not disclose the identity of the third-party importer or the specific transaction details.

• Minor differences disqualify goods. Small variations in specification, finish, packaging, or branding can take goods outside the "identical in all respects" standard or the "commercially interchangeable" standard, forcing the Collector to move to the similar goods method or, if no similar goods are available, to the deductive or computed methods.

The ABF guidance provides worked examples:

• Identical goods: An importer receives a shipment of 1,000 widgets from Manufacturer A in China as a free-of-charge sample (no sale, so transaction value is unavailable). The Collector searches the ABF database and finds that another Australian importer purchased 5,000 identical widgets from Manufacturer A in China and exported them to Australia 30 days earlier (within the ±45-day window) for AUD 2.50 per unit. The Collector adjusts the unit price for the quantity difference (the smaller sample shipment would ordinarily command a higher per-unit price if sold, but the importer provides no evidence of the adjustment, so the Collector uses AUD 2.50). The identical goods value is AUD 2.50 × 1,000 = AUD 2,500.

• Similar goods: An importer receives a shipment of branded consumer electronics from Manufacturer B in Japan as a gift (no sale). No identical goods from Manufacturer B are available in the ABF database within ±45 days. The Collector finds that Manufacturer C in Japan exported functionally equivalent, commercially interchangeable electronics to Australia 20 days earlier, sold at the same trade level (wholesale), for AUD 80 per unit. The similar goods value is AUD 80 per unit. If the importer argues that Manufacturer B's goods are higher quality and command a premium, the importer must provide evidence (market pricing, brand surveys, retailer testimony) to support an upward adjustment, or the Collector will use the comparable as is.

## When identical and similar goods methods fail — moving to deductive or computed value

If the Collector cannot determine the transaction value, the identical goods value, or the similar goods value, section 159 requires the Collector to move to the deductive value methods (sections 161C, 161D, 161E—based on the resale price in Australia, adjusted for post-importation costs, profit, and general expenses) or the computed value method (section 161F—based on the cost of production, plus profit and general expenses). If all of those methods fail or cannot be applied, the Collector uses the fall-back value method (section 161G), which is a flexible application of any preceding method with certain statutory exclusions.

The ABF Valuation of Free-of-Charge Goods fact sheet notes that for free-of-charge samples, promotional goods, and gifts, the fall-back deductive method is often the most practical: the Collector (or an expert appraiser retained by the importer) estimates the price at which the goods would be sold in Australia in their imported condition, then works backward to remove post-importation costs (Australian inland freight, duty, GST, importer's profit margin, overhead) to arrive at a notional FOB value. This method is commonly used for used vehicles, secondhand machinery, and one-off importations where no comparables exist.

## Importer obligations and record-keeping

Importers who declare customs value using the identical goods or similar goods method must:

• Declare the valuation basis code "IG" (identical goods) or "SG" (similar goods) in the import declaration, as required by the ABF Documentary Import Declaration Guide;
• Maintain supporting documentation for five years under section 240 of the Customs Act 1901, including evidence of the comparable transaction (if known to the importer) and any quantity or trade-level adjustments;
• Notify the Collector if the importer becomes aware that the declared value was incorrect (e.g., because a more recent comparable became available or the adjustment calculation was wrong). Section 243T(4A) of the Customs Act 1901 provides a safe harbor for voluntary disclosures: a person does not commit an offence under section 243T(1) (strict-liability offence for communicating false or misleading information) if the person, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the information communicated was false or misleading, communicates in writing the correct information to Customs.

Failure to declare the correct valuation method or to retain supporting documentation can trigger penalties under section 243T even when no additional duty is payable.

## Advance Valuation Advice rulings

Section 161K of the Customs Act 1901 empowers importers to apply for a Valuation Advice (VA) ruling from the Comptroller-General of Customs on the acceptable valuation method for regularly imported goods. A VA ruling on the application of the identical goods or similar goods method can confirm:

• Whether proposed comparables (goods imported by the same importer in prior shipments, or goods imported by an affiliate) qualify as identical or similar goods under section 156;
• The acceptable protocol for quantity or trade-level adjustments under sections 161A(2) or 161B(2);
• The treatment of free-of-charge goods or related-party transfers when transaction value is unavailable.

A VA ruling is binding on the Comptroller-General and every Collector under section 161K(3) unless revoked or amended, and remains in effect for five years. Importers who receive regular free-of-charge samples, warranty-replacement goods, or related-party transfers for which the transaction value method is unavailable should consider obtaining a VA ruling to minimize audit exposure and declaration errors.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 156, 159, 161A, 161B, 161H, 161K, 240, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation Source: Australian Border Force, Fact Sheet: Valuation of Free-of-Charge Goods

The computed value method—a last-resort valuation approach under Australia’s customs regime—is set out under section 161F of the Customs Act 1901. This method is applied when preceding methods (transaction value, identical/similar goods, deductive methods) are unsuitable or fail, most often because no sale exists, the relationship influences price, or usable comparables are absent. This method essentially reconstructs the customs value from the exporter’s perspective, using input costs in the country of production, plus a reasonable profit and general expenses normally reflected in export sales to Australia.

## Legal framework and application sequence Section 159 requires strict sequential application of valuation methods. The computed value method may only be applied if the Collector cannot determine value under transaction value (section 161), identical/similar goods (sections 161A-B), or deductive value (sections 161C-E). It typically comes into play for related-party transactions, custom manufacture, or when free-of-charge goods (e.g., commissioned assembly) lack a conventional invoice price and comparables are unavailable.

## Computed value formula under section 161F Section 161F(1) specifies that the computed value of imported goods is calculated as the sum of:

1. The cost (or value) of materials and the fabrication (or other processing) employed in producing the goods;
2. An amount for profit and general expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of goods of the same class or kind, produced by producers in the exporting country, for export to Australia; and
3. Price-related costs required to be added by section 154 (such as assists, royalties, overseas freight, and overseas insurance), where not already included.

The Collector may request that the importer supply supporting records from the foreign manufacturer, detailing costs, overhead, and profit margin. If such records are not provided or are unreliable, the Collector must proceed to the fall-back method (section 161G).

## Key practical issues

• Proving computable cost: Importers bear the burden of obtaining detailed factory-level cost sheets, audited statements, and (if necessary) affidavits from the exporter to prove direct and indirect cost elements.
• Profit and general expenses: These must reflect what is "usually reflected" in export sales to Australia by other manufacturers of similar goods in the export country. That is, arm’s-length manufacturing profit—not an artificially low related-party markup—should be shown.
• Assists/royalties/freight: If these are not already included in the computed cost supplied by the manufacturer, they must be added per sections 154 and 161. The Collector will verify these elements against declared production assists or separately paid royalties.
• Confidentiality: The Collector treats supplier cost data as confidential but may require direct verification or certification.

## Practice note Because foreign suppliers often resist supplying cost/profit data—especially outside related-party groups—computed value is rarely applied in practice unless the importer commands full transparency from the manufacturer (subsidiaries, vertically integrated groups).

If computed value cannot be determined (due to incomplete or unreliable data), the Collector must use section 161G (fall-back method), applying a flexible version of prior methods per WTO Valuation Agreement Art. 7.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 161F Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

The deductive value method occupies the next position in Australia’s customs valuation hierarchy when transaction value and comparable (identical or similar goods) values cannot be determined. Grounded in sections 161C through 161E of the Customs Act 1901—and aligning with Article 5 of the WTO Valuation Agreement—it reconstructs customs value based on the Australian domestic resale price, with specified post-importation deductions.

## Legislative structure and when applied Section 159 mandates strict sequence: the Collector uses deductive value only when sections 161, 161A, and 161B are unavailable. The method covers typical cases such as free-of-charge goods, goods imported on consignment, and related-party imports lacking arm's-length prices, especially when those goods are sold to unrelated buyers in Australia shortly after importation.

## Calculation mechanics (sections 161C–161E) The core formula under section 161C is:

Customs value = unit price at first sale to unrelated Australian buyer (in the condition imported) – deductions for post-import costs, Australian inland freight/insurance, duties/GST, and profits/general expenses

Deductions include:

• Commissions (except buying commissions)
• Usual profit and general expenses in Australia for sales of imported goods of the same class/kind
• Post-importation transport and insurance inside Australia
• Import duties and taxes payable

If the goods undergo minor processing but remain “substantially in the condition imported,” value is still based on the first Australian sale with proportional deduction for value added (section 161D). When not sold until after assembly, packaging, or further work, section 161E allows deduction for those processing costs if separately identified.

If no qualifying sale occurs (e.g., all goods are transferred internally or remain unsold), the Collector must proceed to computed or fall-back value.

## Practical issues and ABF guidance

• The deductive method is the default for valuation of free-of-charge samples and similar consignments, per Australian Border Force (ABF) guidelines.
• Importers must retain documentary proof of post-importation costs, profit, commissions, and the actual resale price to unrelated parties—ABF will require substantiation at audit.
• “Substantial identity” as the imported condition is critical: substantial alteration or incorporation into new products normally disqualifies deductible use.
• Partial deductions are allowed only if the deduction amounts are ascertainable by documentary evidence (see ABF Instructions and Guidelines, Ch. 5).

## Rulings and compliance A Valuation Advice (VA) ruling under section 161K can confirm the application of deductive value and acceptable deduction protocols, providing binding certainty for regular importers.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 159, 161C–161E, 161K Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

When none of the primary customs valuation methods yield a determinable value—transaction value, identical goods, similar goods, deductive value, or computed value—the Australian Customs Act 1901 requires the use of the so-called "fall-back method" under section 161G. This is both a safety valve and a compliance net, ensuring imported goods can always be assigned a customs value, even for the most unusual supply chain paths.

## Legislative basis and direction

Section 161G implements Article 7 of the WTO Valuation Agreement. The Collector must determine "the value of the goods using reasonable means consistent with the provisions of this Division and on the basis of data available in Australia." This means, in effect, that any of the earlier methods can be applied with greater flexibility, subject to express prohibitions on certain approaches spelled out in section 161G(2):

• Domestic price in Australia — the local market price of goods in Australia cannot form the customs value.
• Highest of two alternative values — prohibited (formerly used under deleted Australian provisions pre-WTO).
• Export price from a third country — the price for export to a market other than Australia cannot be used.
• Values based on arbitrary or fictitious considerations — expressly excluded to comply with the WTO Valuation Agreement.

The overarching rule is that the method should be as consistent as possible with the hierarchical logic of the preceding sections.

## When the fall-back method is used

The fall-back method is reserved for edge cases and complex transactions: unique machinery, one-off prototypes, goods without precedent in the Australian market, abnormal related-party logistics where reliable cost or price data are absent, and transactions where incomplete records or local law conflicts frustrate all other methods. The Collector typically issues a written determination outlining:

• What prior methods were attempted and why they failed;
• The data or reasoning to be relied upon; and
• The specific approach adapted for this valuation.

## Practice points

• Flexibility: The Collector may take elements from earlier methods in a non-sequential or combined fashion, except for the barred approaches listed in section 161G(2).
• Transparency: The importer has a right to a written explanation for the chosen valuation basis and can seek review under section 161L.
• Risks: The fall-back method should be approached cautiously—ABF guidance stresses that it should not become a de facto default for difficult cases without real exhaustion of the listed methods.

## Live example

A bespoke industrial plant is imported with unique subassemblies, no identical/similar goods, no resale, and no reliable supplier cost data. The Collector may attempt a partial computed value approach (using cost elements gleaned from engineering estimates or partial records) and supplement with published indexes, always ensuring that the value is not arbitrary or artificially high/low.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 161G Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Australian customs law requires importers to declare the customs value of imported goods in Australian dollars, even if commercial invoices, freight, or insurance premiums are denominated in foreign currency. The statutory framework for currency conversion is governed by section 161J of the Customs Act 1901 and reinforced by Australian Border Force (ABF) guidance.

Valuation date — when to determine the exchange rate

Section 161J(1) mandates that “the value of imported goods must be expressed in Australian currency.” Section 161J(2) directs importers to convert foreign currency using the “rate of exchange in force as notified by the Comptroller-General of Customs in the Gazette at the time the goods were exported.” In practice, this means the rate on the date goods physically leave the country of export—ordinarily the shipment date on the bill of lading or air waybill. This date anchors the customs value used for duty and GST calculation, not the date of arrival in Australia or the date of the import declaration.

If the date of export falls on a weekend or public holiday without a published exchange rate, the rate for the last preceding business day applies. This principle is restated in ABF Customs Notice 2020/08.

Source of official exchange rates

The ABF publishes official daily exchange rates—formerly in the Commonwealth Gazette, now via its website and imported into the Integrated Cargo System (ICS). Importers must use these ABF-notified rates, not those published by commercial banks, the Reserve Bank of Australia, or payment platforms. ICS will reject entries that do not match the official rate for the applicable export date and currency code.

Separate conversion for each valuation element

Where different invoices (goods, freight, insurance) are denominated in different foreign currencies, section 161J and ABF guidance require separate conversion of each element on the export date. The Australian dollar amounts are then summed to establish the customs value.

Audit triggers and compliance

Common errors include using the wrong date (arrival or entry date), picking a commercial bank rate, or failing to convert freight/insurance separately. These mistakes are regularly identified in ABF valuation audits and result in understatements or overstatements of duty and GST. Penalties under section 243T may apply even where no duty is payable (for example, for FTA-qualifying goods or GST-exempt importers) if incorrect currency conversion is discovered.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 161J Source: Australian Border Force, Customs Notice 2020/08 — Rates of Exchange

Advance Valuation Advice (AVA) rulings—often called Valuation Advice (VA) rulings—are binding written determinations issued by the Comptroller-General of Customs at the application of an importer or their agent, setting out the method for determining the customs value of specified goods. This mechanism is critical for Australian importers facing recurring or high-risk valuation scenarios, such as related-party pricing, complex royalty/licence fee structures, or situations where the application of “assists” is unclear.

## Statutory basis and eligibility Section 161K of the Customs Act 1901 empowers “an owner of goods or an intending owner” to apply for an advance ruling about the determination of customs value for certain imports. An AVA ruling may address:

• The applicable valuation method for specific goods;
• The treatment of particular price-related costs (e.g., assists, royalties);
• Protocols for handling transfer pricing adjustments; and
• Specific interpretation of provisions relevant to the applicant’s scenario.

## Application procedure and required content Applications must be made in writing, usually through the Australian Border Force (ABF) “Valuation Advice Request” process. The application must include:

• Full description of the goods and transaction chain;
• Relevant contracts, invoice samples, and evidence supporting the proposed value or method;
• Details of any related-party relationships, assists, or intellectual property/licence arrangements;
• The questions or uncertainties for which the applicant seeks a binding ruling.

Supporting guidance and the application form are available at abf.gov.au. The ABF may request further information or clarification before issuing a determination.

## Binding effect and procedural rights If the Comptroller-General issues a VA ruling, section 161K(3) provides that the Comptroller-General and every Collector are bound by the ruling with respect to the goods specified, unless the ruling is revoked or amended. The ruling remains binding for as long as the underlying facts (transaction structure, goods, contracting parties) remain materially unchanged or until revoked.

Section 161K(4)–(6) sets the protocol for revoking or amending a ruling. The Comptroller-General may amend or revoke a ruling if:

• It is incorrect due to a substantial omission, error, or misstatement by the applicant;
• Material information was not disclosed; or
• A change in law or regulations so requires.

Revocation or amendment operates prospectively only—past imports remain covered by the original ruling until the date of the change.

## Practical significance and common use cases AVA rulings are particularly important for:

• Related-party imports where transfer pricing and customs value may diverge;
• Goods involving complex assists or multi-party royalty/licence fee structures;
• Recurring imports where up-front certainty will avoid audit risk or delays;
• Novel products or supply arrangements where no comparable exists in the ABF’s records.

## Audit and compliance protection Importers relying on a current, in-scope AVA ruling are protected from penalty where the import declarations conform to the ruling. Record-keeping obligations remain: importers must retain the ruling and supporting documents for five years (Customs Act section 240).

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 161K Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Australian customs law draws a sharp distinction between buying commissions (excluded from customs value) and selling commissions or brokerage (included in the customs value unless already reflected in the invoice price). This fundamental adjustment is prescribed by the Customs Act 1901 and is closely monitored by Australian Border Force (ABF) in valuation audits.

## Statutory treatment — sections 154 and 161 Section 154 of the Customs Act 1901 defines price-related costs to be added to the customs value under section 161. It expressly includes "the commission or brokerage… paid or payable by or on behalf of the purchaser to a person, other than a buying agent, in respect of the import sales transaction.” The exclusion for buying commissions is explicit, safeguarding genuine purchasing representation arrangements.

• Buying commissions are fees paid by the importer to a buying agent for the service of representing the buyer in the purchase, inspection, or shipment of goods. These are not added to the customs value, provided the agent is acting solely for the buyer and is not controlled by or remunerated by the vendor. The ABF’s Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (see Ch.3) and WTO decision notes emphasize this distinction. If the agent or intermediary has a dual agency or is indirectly controlled by the vendor, ABF will treat the fee as a selling commission (includible in value) or disregard the invoice price if the purported commission masks an uplift in sale price.

• Selling commissions and brokerage—payments made by the importer to agents acting for the account of the seller—are included in the customs value to the extent not already included in the invoice price. This covers fees to export agents, brokers remunerated by the seller, or any intermediary who facilitates the sale primarily for the seller’s benefit.

This rule implements Article 8.1(a)(i) of the WTO Valuation Agreement and has been carried into local law through the customs value cascade in section 161. Australian practice is consistent with international standards: only bona fide buying commissions are excluded.

## Practical application

• For audit purposes, ABF will scrutinize the contractual relationship and payment flows. They expect documentary evidence that an agent qualifies as a pure buying agent (e.g., instructions issued by the buyer, fee paid directly by the buyer, not indirectly recouped by the vendor).
• Where the same entity acts for both parties, or where the agent’s fee depends on the sale price rather than service provided, the fee is more likely to be treated as a selling commission.
• Commission arrangements must be supported by evidenced agreements, with roles, remuneration, and duties clearly delineated. ABF will disregard labels and look to substance over form.

## Penalties and compliance Errors in commission or brokerage reporting commonly result in underpaid duty and section 243T strict-liability offences (false or misleading declarations). Voluntary disclosure is available (section 243T(4A)) if errors are found before audit commences.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 161, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation

Australian importers who undertake post-importation transfer pricing (TP) adjustments—often arising from year-end reviews or ATO compliance—face specific legal obligations to update customs value and revise duty paid under the Customs Act 1901. These protocols are anchored in newly legislated section 161JAA and enforced through the voluntary disclosure regime in section 243T.

## Statutory requirements for amending customs value Section 161JAA of the Customs Act 1901 (introduced 2019) provides that, where the price of imported goods is increased or decreased after goods have entered for home consumption due to a transfer pricing adjustment, the owner of the goods must:

• Notify Customs (the Comptroller-General) within 30 days after becoming aware of the adjustment (s 161JAA(3)). This is regardless of whether the change is upward (shortfall duty) or downward (refund claim).
• For upward adjustments: lodge an amended import declaration and pay the additional customs duty, GST, or other import charges (s 161JAA(4)).
• For downward adjustments: apply for a refund of overpaid duty following the process in section 163, which imposes a statutory deadline of four years from the date of entry (s 161JAA(5); s 163(1)).

ABF will only process downward adjustments (refunds) if the importer can supply sufficient evidence linking the downward TP adjustment to the previously declared goods (typically, this means robust contemporaneous TP documentation and linking commercial invoices, as clarified in ABF Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation, Ch. 8, 8.4–8.6).

## Voluntary disclosure: safeguarding against penalty Section 243T(1) makes it a strict-liability offence to communicate false or misleading information. However, section 243T(4A) provides that if the importer “as soon as practicable after becoming aware” of an error, notifies Customs in writing with the correct information, no offence is committed. This safe harbor applies even if the adjustment results from a TP review conducted internally years after import, provided prompt disclosure is made after awareness.

## Record-keeping and ATO–Customs coordination ABF does not automatically receive ATO audit data or transfer pricing outcomes. It is the importer’s duty to monitor for any TP-related change to the customs value and to initiate post-entry correction. ABF guidance (Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation, Ch. 8, especially 8.6–8.8) stresses the importance of matching customs declarations with income tax TP outcomes and maintaining supporting documents for at least five years (s 240).

## Practice pointer Failure to follow these protocols risks underpayment penalties and, for repeated failures or material omissions, exclusion from trusted trader privileges. Timely, written voluntary disclosure—linked to specific entry numbers and including supporting adjustment documentation—is the strongest operational shield.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 161JAA, 161, 163, 243T, 240 Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation, Ch. 8 (2023)

Australian customs law and Border Force (ABF) guidance permit—but strictly prescribe—apportionment of value where the declared price, assist, or royalty relates only partly to the goods being imported, or covers several identifiable categories or transaction chains. The apportionment principle is a compliance mainstay for importers handling bundled transactions, shared tooling, and multi-market royalty or assist arrangements.

## Statutory foundations from the Customs Act 1901 Section 154 of the Customs Act 1901 (notably the definitions of price-related costs and assists), together with section 161 (transaction value), provide that customs value comprises the price (or adjusted price) of imported goods plus specified additions, to the extent “not already included in the price.” Where a payment relates only partly to imported goods—or covers goods for multiple markets, including Australia—only the portion attributable to the Australian-imported quantity should be included (see s. 154(2), s. 161(1)).

ABF’s Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation (Ch.3) affirm that apportionment is permitted whenever:

• An assist (e.g., tooling, design, software) or royalty supports production for several destinations, with resulting imports to Australia being only a subset;
• A lump-sum royalty/license fee covers both imported goods and goods not imported (or multiple markets);
• The sales invoice is a “package deal” for different categories of goods grouped at a single price;
• Goods are custom-manufactured as a run and shipped in several consignments over time.

## Method for apportionment The law requires apportionment “in a reasonable manner appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” (GAAP), tracking the WTO Valuation Agreement art. 8.1 commentary. Accepted approaches include:

• Quantity or value share: Allocating the assist, royalty, or price based on the share of goods destined for Australia within the total production or licence scope;
• Production run allocation: Amortizing tooling or design assists across the production run (see ABF Instructions, 3.38–3.41);
• Transaction-specific splits: Where a payment covers several categories of goods (e.g., machinery and spare parts), allocation should reflect relative value or physical unit ratios.

Importers must maintain documentary support for the method and calculation—licence agreements, production records, sales data, as required by s. 240.

## Examples

• Assist tooling for multi-market production: AUD 50,000 mould used for 100,000 units, of which 10,000 units are shipped to Australia. Apportion AUD 5,000 of the mould’s value as an assist for those shipments.
• Royalty covers Australia and New Zealand: Royalty of AUD 100,000 for rights to import and sell in both countries. If only 20% of sales are Australia-bound, only AUD 20,000 should be included when determining Australian customs value.

The Collector may reject unreasonable apportionments or unsupported allocation bases and require a more justifiable method.

## Audit and compliance Failure to apportion properly—either over-declaring (and overpaying duty/GST) or under-declaring (and risking s. 243T penalties for false or misleading information)—is a regular audit finding. Voluntary disclosure is available if errors are found before ABF review.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 154, 161, 240, 243T Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation, Ch. 3 (2023)

Australian importers are legally required to retain detailed records supporting customs value declarations for a statutory minimum period, under section 240 of the Customs Act 1901, reinforced by Australian Border Force (ABF) operational policy. Failure to meet these obligations is one of the most frequent triggers for compliance audits and penalties, even where the declared value itself is not ultimately disputed.

## Statutory requirements — section 240 Section 240(1) of the Customs Act 1901 compels every person who imports goods, or who causes goods to be imported, to "keep, or cause to be kept, such records as will enable any particulars shown in an entry (including any information given in connection with that entry) to be readily verified". The records must be sufficient for ABF officers to substantiate the basis and components of the customs value for each import declaration. Section 240(2) provides that such records must be retained:

• For at least five years after the goods are imported or released from customs control; or as otherwise required by the Comptroller-General by written notice (possible in cases of ongoing investigation or audit).

## Which records must be retained? The law mandates retention of all documents relevant to the customs value calculation, including (but not limited to):

• Commercial invoices, purchase orders, shipping and transport documents (bills of lading, air waybills);
• Contracts, agreements, and amendments evidencing sale, transfer, or licensing terms (including royalty, assist, and related-party pricing documents);
• Cost breakdowns, production records, and valuation advice rulings (if computed or fall-back value is used);
• Evidence of payment, commission/brokerage contracts, and bank statements for transfer pricing adjustments;
• All correspondence, adjustments, and schedules explaining post-importation amendments;
• Documentary support for royalty/assist apportionment and foreign currency conversion calculations.

Section 240(3) allows for records to be kept electronically or in original paper form, provided they are readily accessible and capable of being reproduced for ABF review. Failure to produce records upon request—whether because they were not kept or have since been destroyed—may be taken as evidence of a false or misleading declaration under section 243T.

## Penalties for non-compliance Section 243U makes it an offence not to retain, or to destroy, required records before expiry of the mandatory retention period—subjecting importers to penalty units per breach. Section 243T (strict-liability) also applies where inability to substantiate a customs value leads to a finding that false or misleading information was provided. There is no safe-harbor for inadvertent omission: both knowing and unknowing breaches attract sanction.

## Audit risk and best practices The ABF routinely requests supporting records during post-clearance audits or targeted compliance reviews. Importers should implement robust record-keeping policies that centralize documentation, capture email correspondence contemporaneously, and ensure records for all elements of customs value are traceable to the entry line. Reliance on customs brokers for record retention does not relieve the importer's statutory duty; both parties may be penalized for failures.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 240 Source: Australian Border Force, Instructions and Guidelines: Customs Valuation, Ch. 3.8 (2023)