New Low Value Goods Levy on Imported Goods less than $1000 from 1st April

• 

  Bargain-Hunter on 17/04/2026 - 14:23

  Yes, for a recent order, DHL wanted me to pay $2.21 + GST before they would release my order for delivery.
  At first, I thought it was a scam before I googled it.
  Thanks, National!

  • 6
  • 

    felixfurtak on 17/04/2026 - 14:37

    Seems like ridiculous overhead for a tiny amount of revenue. Couriers will have to employ more people to collect the money and will pass those costs on to customers. Businesses will have to waste their time paying tiny invoices that effectively cost more to process than their value.

    • 9
• 

  Fox419 on 17/04/2026 - 13:55

  When a government cuts taxes, it usually has to make up that revenue somewhere else.
  That often shows up through increases in other charges, for example, higher rego fees, expanded GST collection on overseas purchases, toll roads, ACC levy increases, and higher FENZ levies etc etc.

  • 3
  • 

    felixfurtak on 17/04/2026 - 14:05

    "It's not a tax, it's a Levy" - Christopher Luxon (probably)

    • 9
• 

  ScottCran on 17/04/2026 - 19:27

  Seems a bit silly to add all the admin, hassle, and inefficiency of taxing (ahem, sorry, levying) low value goods, and then only taking a small fee (made up of a customs levy, MPI levy, and GST on both), instead of just charging GST on the value. It's the worst of both worlds, all the hassle and cost for a meagre increase in government revenue.

  Valuing labour at the median hourly rate, if just 4.3min of time are added across the supply chain by this change per parcel, it will be a net negative on the economy.

  Between the time it takes for consumers to pay, the admin and labour for companies to collect, the time for accountants to process and audit, and the economic impact, cost and time of parcels being held up or delayed as a result - this is at best going to do close to nothing, more likely it will hurt the economy.

  I agree with @tacobaron in regards to low value imports being unfair to domestic producers. But this is the worst of both worlds, they should either charge GST on all imports or keep the low value exception.

  • 2
  • 

    RockCartel on 17/04/2026 - 20:52

    They can't charge GST on the value because some (Amazon, AliExpress, etc) collect GST at point of sale.
    It would be even more of a time burden trying to find out if GST was already collected.

    • 1
    • 

      ScottCran on 18/04/2026 - 11:08

      Fair point, I forgot about that.

      I think the additional burden could be worth it - IF the burden of levies is already in place*. Customs declarations already require loads of info, I think the only needed changes would be to include the sellers GST number and a checkbox on if GST has been collected. It would be a small change, and only to the companies already going through the admin of collecting GST on their end.

      *Though, I thought about it more overnight, and I think much of the inefficiency of these levies could be mitigated if carriers just build it into the cost of sending parcels to NZ (which, considering the time and money savings on their end for doing so, is likely). Perhaps GST could be built into shipping as well, if the carriers collected GST from the sender as well as the levy, but that is significantly more messy than collecting a fixed fee.

      I think we'll have to see how carriers charge this levy going forward, as the way they collect it will have a big impact on how much inefficiency it creates.

      • 0
• 

  Nil Einne on 20/04/2026 - 18:06

  Looking at the fees, one thing I find interesting is for a lot of smaller imports, it'll be technically cheaper to use the UPU mail fee i.e. NZ Post unless I'm missing something. At least for me, very few of my low value imports exceed 1.72kg. However I imagine the greater cost and slower time frames compared to the systems exporters/sellers have developed means most will just keep doing what they're doing unless they come up with something with NZ Post.

  One issue which has been raised elsewhere which I haven't seen a clear answer for is is whether AliExpress etc can structure their shipments so they have a bunch of parcels which are $900-$999 compromised of a bunch of individual parcels to be sent to different people and pay the $2.21+GST fee once.

  From what I understand, they already often bulk ship with the stuff separated after customs processing. So if they can do this, they might and the fee will generally still be tiny. The NewsRoom article mention how the change is to stop importers processing a lot of parcels as one, but I think this is more when they are still individual parcels. I assume it's a little different it's submitted as one parcel with a value $900-$999 and customs etc are supposed to treat it as one parcel in their system, only opening it if needed for inspection.

  The next question is whether this matters i.e. have customs already considered that many will do this and so their fee takes this into account and they'll still collect roughly what they need? If so, then perhaps this will be largely irrelevant to AliExpress, TEMU etc and it's only smaller sellers who'll be hit. (People may question the fairness but OTOH there's a question over how much extra cost it is to process these bulk packages vs smaller individual ones.)

  • 2
  • 

    ScottCran on 21/04/2026 - 17:19

    One issue which has been raised elsewhere which I haven't seen a clear answer for is is whether AliExpress etc can structure their shipments so they have a bunch of parcels which are $900-$999 compromised of a bunch of individual parcels to be sent to different people and pay the $2.21+GST fee once.

    I was also curious about this, and it took way too long to find a firm answer. Custom's states the new changes are being charged on the consignment level.¹ A consignment is "all goods that are shipped together under a unique House Bill Number from one consignor to one consignee."² A house bill number (HAWB for air/HBL for sea) is a contract, receipt, and tracking number all in one, formalising a delivery from a shipper to a specific address.³ So basically, if a bunch of small parcels are shipped together, they will still be charged a levy for each parcel*⁴.

    However, I wondered, what's stopping importers from putting a bunch of parcels each with their own HAWBs into a bigger box with it's own HAWB (not to be confused with putting them under a MAWB - master air waybill, which is a normal part of air freight)? That is to say, shipping a master carton with it's own HAWB (worth less than 1000NZD), to a specific NZ address, where the master carton is then broken down and individual parcels shipped out. Well, the Customs (Inward Cargo Report) Rules 2024, sch 4 Manner in which Inward Cargo Report relating to Air Cargo to be provided, page 30,⁵ states, "Is this consignment a consolidation? Cargo must be reported at House Bill equivalent level. For airfreight, this must be provided by the Carrier unless Customs has approved an application…". Even if customs allows the carrier to not declare it at the house bill level, "It will then become the responsibility of the party indicated in the 'Deconsolidator' fields to report the consignment at House Way Bill equivalent level". So no, importers can not abuse this by consolidating parcels.

    My surface-level interpretation is that for importers to legally consolidate small items under one shipment to get around the low value good levies, they would need to have no contracts relating to the carriage of individual items in that consolidation, and nothing tied to those items equivalent to a HAWB. So Temu/Aliexpress would need to open a warehouse in NZ, ship 900-999NZD consignments containing multiple items to that warehouse, then add the shipping label in NZ. Which I'd guess would be more expensive than just paying the levies.

    Goes without saying, but IANAL, take my interpretation and analysis with a grain of salt.

    Sources:

    ---

    1. Customs Low Value Goods Levy Information Pack - page 4 ↩

    2. Customs Low Value Goods Levy Information Pack - page 3 ↩

    3. HAWB Definition ↩

    4. *Unless parcels with different HAWBs arrive on the same day, same craft, same flight, have the same importer, and the same supplier, and are valued at less than 1000NZD combined. Customs Low Value Goods Levy Information Pack - page 6 ↩

    5. Customs (Inward Cargo Report) Rules 2024 - page 30 ↩

    • 0
    • 

      ScottCran on 21/04/2026 - 19:06

      My surface-level interpretation is that for importers to legally consolidate small items under one shipment to get around the low value good levies, they would need to have no contracts relating to the carriage of individual items in that consolidation, and nothing tied to those items equivalent to a HAWB. So Temu/Aliexpress would need to open a warehouse in NZ, ship 900-999NZD consignments containing multiple items to that warehouse, then add the shipping label in NZ. Which I'd guess would be more expensive than just paying the levies.

      Although, even in that situation, customs might interpret the items in the consolidation as being at the "House Bill equivalent level". If importers are taking the piss, I doubt customs is going to interpret it in their favour.

      • 0
• 

  Stoic on 17/04/2026 - 16:12

  Surprised there weren't more news articles about this.

  I guess I havent noticed as I havent been buying anything from overseas recently with shipping costs being so expensive and exchange rates with Aus and Euro being so bad.

  • 1
• 

  moreroastpork on 17/04/2026 - 13:46

  Yes, I noticed an "import charges" of NZ$2.20 on my amazon order yesterday, total NZ$112.25. Just thought it was the usual BS made-up charge.

  • 0
• 

  tacobaron on 17/04/2026 - 14:45

  Annoying because I order all sorts of cheap plastic crap from overseas. But I think this is a great idea tbh.

  • 0
  • 

    felixfurtak on 17/04/2026 - 14:54

    Why is it a great idea?

    It doesn't bear any relation to the value of the goods. If multiple items arrive in one package you get charged once, but if the same items arrive in different packages you get charged more.

    Ali and Temu are already co-packaging items together to reduce their cost, so it's not even a very effective Temu tax.

    It seems to be just adding inefficiency and cost to businesses and consumers.

    • 2
    • 

      tacobaron on 17/04/2026 - 15:32

      We impose strict regulations and other restrictions (generally reasonable ones IMO) on our own manufacturers, especially around things like minimum wage, workers right and the environment. We then allow countries who follow none of those, to export goods to us. Effectively creating a significant advantage to non domestic production and destroying our industrial capabilities.

      Plus this stuff is mostly plastic junk we're addicted too. You can't argue with the pricing, it's incredible. But it doesn't include the real costs to the environment and other issues.

      Tax the crap out of it IMO. And I say this as someone who buys plenty of this stuff.

      • 3
• 

  Alan6984 on 17/04/2026 - 14:58

  The whole point of the $1000 customs limit was that it was deemed too inefficient to collect the GST low value items, then they started forcing the overseas suppliers to collect GST at point of sale and now there's an additional cost which you sometimes have to pay directly to the courier to get your item delivered.

  I suspect that what was previously inefficient to collect, has now become far more viable due to technological progression.

  Up to this point, I imagine that we were all paying for the costs anyway - it just came out of general tax (income tax, GST etc), whereas now it will be user-pays.

  Seems quite fair and reasonable to me that I should pay to cover the costs I create if I import something. I don't see why I should expect everyone else to pick up the tab for me.

  • 0
  • 

    felixfurtak on 17/04/2026 - 15:28

    But the item already has GST on it. Now there's a levy which also has GST applied. It's a tax on top of a tax.

    I just had to waste half an hour of my time at work working out why I had to pay DHL $2.20 + GST.

    Then I had to pay it with my credit card.

    Now I have to put an expense claim into Xero for $2.20+GST

    Next our accountant has to process that claim

    Then payroll needs to make a payment to me.

    That's likely already cost our business more than $100 just in wages alone.

    Now repeat this millions of times across the country. It's a massive cost to business and consumers.

    • 8
    • 

      RockCartel on 17/04/2026 - 15:54

      Exactly.
      I personally don't care about $2.21 (or $2.09 sea freight).
      But wow, how much is this costing our nation in productivity loss.

      • 2
    • 

      conradb42 on 18/04/2026 - 21:30

      Right - so you think the government should not bother charging you the $2.20 + GST but apparently it's important enough that you are going to claim it from your employer?

      If it's such a hassle then stick with one of the vendors that will charge the fee up front.

      Perhaps the previous discussions on here about how to evade GST/duties/import costs will die down.

      • 2
      • 

        felixfurtak on 20/04/2026 - 08:08

        I'm fine with the charge, but it's the inefficiency of the collection method that is the problem.

        • -1
        • 

          Nil Einne on 20/04/2026 - 18:08

          @felixfurtak: As far as I can tell, there's no 'collection method' built in to the system. It's up to importers how they want to deal with it. I suspect the assumption when designing is that most shipping companies will just charge higher shipping fees or include it in their fee to the seller/shipper in some way. If they don't, it seems to me that's on them not on the government.

          I'd be very surprised if they don't in most cases though. Since as far as I can tell, the entirety of the $2.21+GST fee goes to the government, this means shippers will either have to eat the cost of collecting this fee by sending out invoices in some way, or add their own collection fee on top of it. And add delays from needing to wait for the fee. Easier for everyone if they just charge whoever paid for the shipment. For large sellers like AliExpress, Temu, Amazon, they can easily put this as a separate fee with a FAQ/footnote/whatever to emphasise hey the government is charging us this if they want to.

          • 0
          • 

            felixfurtak on 21/04/2026 - 08:38

            @Nil Einne: "As far as I can tell, there's no 'collection method' built in to the system."

            Yes, and it's this ambiguity that I have an issue with. It would indeed be better if couriers just built it into their pricing model, but without that, it seems ripe for abuse. Lots of random courier companies asking people for small amounts of money is also a great opportunity for scammers. You buy something and you have no idea if this fee has been already been paid by the seller or not. Amazon at least itemize it on their bill but others don't.

            • 0
  • 

    Nil Einne on 20/04/2026 - 18:00

    This seems to have a decent discussion.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/06/too-much-temu-new-customs-…

    I always thought from previous discussions that the way it was structured previously mean it was high value good importers who were subsiding low value goods but actually Alan6984 is right that it did end up coming from general taxation.

    Note that a key point here. Customs was always charging a fee to importers. It's just that in the past, those importing a lot were able to combine all their imports for one fee so only paid a tiny amount per parcel and so it made no real difference to the shipping cost. (Those importing a small amount were hit with a large fee as a result.) And still it wasn't enough so about $70 million came from general taxation.

    And to be clear, this is explicitly no promoted as something to discourage low value good purchases. Instead it's solely promoted as a way of ensuring all importers pay roughly their fair share of the cost instead of some paying proportionally way too much, some paying way too little, and a fair bit coming out of general taxation.

    It seems likely to me that what will end up happening is you'll just pay this at the point of purchase whether as a separate fee or just a high shipping fee. I can't imagine it's efficient for DHL etc to be collecting a $2.21+GST fee. AliExpress etc already charge GST so no reason they won't just add this probably as a separate fee. They're going to have to deal with the EU fee after all. The craziness of the end of de minimis in the US shows how much worst it can be when the government just wants to screw with low value good imports.

    • 2
    • 

      Alan6984 on 20/04/2026 - 20:33

      It seems likely to me that what will end up happening is you'll just pay this at the point of purchase whether as a separate fee or just a high shipping fee. I can't imagine it's efficient for DHL etc to be collecting a $2.21+GST fee. AliExpress etc already charge GST so no reason they won't just add this probably as a separate fee.

      That seems to make perfect sense to me too.

      As with many things, it might take a little time for things to settle to be as efficient as possible, but I see no reason why this won't do so reasonably soon.

      • 0
• 

  Alan6984 on 20/04/2026 - 20:36

  The next question is whether this matters i.e. have customs already considered that many will do this and so their fee takes this into account and they'll still collect roughly what they need? If so, then perhaps this will be largely irrelevant to AliExpress, TEMU etc and it's only smaller sellers who'll be hit. (People may question the fairness but OTOH there's a question over how much extra cost it is to process these bulk packages vs smaller individual ones.)

  I think that NZ Customs will definitely have considered that already.

  Even if they have got it slightly wrong and they are still under-recovering, there is nothing stopping them increasing the fee in a year or two to fix that.

  • 0