Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #93, comment 3


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2024-04-12T02:05:06Z (8 months ago)
Author:
Mike Dewhirst

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #93, comment 3

    initial v1  
    1 The current Chemintro approach of producing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between local introducer and overseas supplier was designed as a pragmatic device to semi-satisfy the AICIS requirement of a written undertaking.
     1The current Chemintro MoU design imperative was that no overseas supplier would accept being bound by a written undertaking to reveal trade secrets to a government body. They would sooner scrap their Australian market.
    22
    3 The original MoU design notion was that no-one is going to accept being bound by a written undertaking to reveal trade secrets to a government body.
    4 
    5 Overseas suppliers would prefer to scrap their Australian market.
    6 
    7 Larger introducers would obtain the source documentation or not bother importing in the first place. Only smaller introducers are likely caught by written undertakings.
     3Larger introducers would obtain source documentation or not bother importing in the first place. Only smaller introducers are likely caught by written undertakings.
    84
    95''**These April 2024 amendments suddenly make the MoU exactly the instrument required for those smaller players.**''
    106
    11 Previously, a legally binding written undertaking was required for **all** introductions where the introducer didn't hold source documentation.
     7Previously, **all** introductions where the introducer didn't hold source documentation were subject to a written undertaking.
    128
    13 Now, source documentation is only required if AICIS request it for particular chemicals and the introducer now only needs to document the basis of their belief that it will be provided.
     9The big change is source documentation is only required if AICIS request it for **particular** chemicals.
    1410
    15 The local introducer whose business depends on the supplier not scrapping their Australian market can say
     11Now, the introducer only needs to document the basis of their belief that it will be provided.
    1612
    17  "Here is our MoU which describes the information which MAY be requested for this chemical and sets out the consequences involved. You don't have to get lawyers involved for a written undertaking to actually reveal your trade secrets, just sign the MoU so I am covered according to the Rules and I can introduce the chemical"
     13''**Such belief cannot be held unless the overseas supplier knows what might be requested!**''
    1814
    19  "Each MoU will be the basis of my belief that you understand exactly what the Rules require and that you will provide AICIS-requested information."
     15The local introducer whose business depends on the supplier not scrapping their Australian market can quite legitimately and honestly say to an overseas supplier ...
    2016
    21 As indicated, the MoU sets out the consequences of failing to provide AICIS-requested information and there is therefore a valid and informed choice to be made by the overseas supplier in their role as the Chemical Identity Holder.
     17 "Sign this MoU which describes information which MAY be requested by AICIS for this particular chemical. Further, this MoU will be the basis of my belief that, also understanding the particular consequences involved, you intend to provide that information if AICIS requests it."
     18
     19As indicated, the MoU sets out the consequences of failing to provide AICIS-requested information.
     20
     21There is therefore a real and properly informed choice to be made by the overseas supplier in their role as the Chemical Information Holder - if AICIS request the information.
     22