ABF (Tobacco — cargo vs international mail, verbatim): “Most tobacco products are prohibited imports ... cannot be imported through international mail” and “the ABF may seize prohibited tobacco products that arrive by post as a prohibited import and the goods will be destroyed” — on the mail route, cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco are not 'licence required' but directly prohibited.
AU-TOB-POST-BANProhibitedSource due for re-check · 2026-11-04ABF (Tobacco — cargo vs international mail, verbatim): “Most tobacco products are prohibited imports ... cannot be imported through international mail” and “the ABF may seize prohibited tobacco products that arrive by post as a prohibited import and the goods will be destroyed” — on the mail route, cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco are not 'licence required' but directly prohibited.
※ ★ Channel granularity: the ban's source text targets international mail only; once channel-grouping cascades coverage to courier, the official alternative path of 'licence via cargo/freight' also shows as prohibited in this engine — biased strict, the same known limitation as other 'mail-only bans'.
AU-TOB-POSTPrior permit requiredVerified against source · 2026-11-04The tobacco import ban targets 'import' itself, not only cabin baggage; and '1 sealed unopened packet ≤25 cigarettes + 1 opened packet' is a **traveller carry-on** exemption that does not apply to posted parcels. Hence sending tobacco to Australia at any quantity sits on the licence-required path.
※ ★ Evidence strength: this rule's 'the ban applies to non-traveller channels' is derived from the Home Affairs wording of 'import', not from seeing a clause specifically addressing postal tobacco. If a later review finds a separate personal allowance for the post, this rule should be relaxed. ★ 2026-11-04 re-read: the AU postal side does have finer rules (see AU-TOB-POST-BAN) — cigarettes / roll-your-own tobacco are directly banned from posting (stricter than this rule; taking the strictest makes the result more conservative); while cigars / chewing tobacco / oral snuff up to 1.5 kg can come through international mail (looser than this rule, but the model has no tobacco-form dimension and no cigar SKU, so no permissive rule was written) — if a cigar item is ever added, revisit whether this rule is too strict for that form.
ABF (Tobacco — cargo vs international mail, verbatim): “Most tobacco products are prohibited imports ... cannot be imported through international mail” and “the ABF may seize prohibited tobacco products that arrive by post as a prohibited import and the goods will be destroyed” — on the mail route, cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco are not 'licence required' but directly prohibited.
AU-TOB-POST-BANProhibitedSource due for re-check · 2026-11-04ABF (Tobacco — cargo vs international mail, verbatim): “Most tobacco products are prohibited imports ... cannot be imported through international mail” and “the ABF may seize prohibited tobacco products that arrive by post as a prohibited import and the goods will be destroyed” — on the mail route, cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco are not 'licence required' but directly prohibited.
※ ★ Channel granularity: the ban's source text targets international mail only; once channel-grouping cascades coverage to courier, the official alternative path of 'licence via cargo/freight' also shows as prohibited in this engine — biased strict, the same known limitation as other 'mail-only bans'.
AU-TOB-POSTPrior permit requiredVerified against source · 2026-11-04The tobacco import ban targets 'import' itself, not only cabin baggage; and '1 sealed unopened packet ≤25 cigarettes + 1 opened packet' is a **traveller carry-on** exemption that does not apply to posted parcels. Hence sending tobacco to Australia at any quantity sits on the licence-required path.
※ ★ Evidence strength: this rule's 'the ban applies to non-traveller channels' is derived from the Home Affairs wording of 'import', not from seeing a clause specifically addressing postal tobacco. If a later review finds a separate personal allowance for the post, this rule should be relaxed. ★ 2026-11-04 re-read: the AU postal side does have finer rules (see AU-TOB-POST-BAN) — cigarettes / roll-your-own tobacco are directly banned from posting (stricter than this rule; taking the strictest makes the result more conservative); while cigars / chewing tobacco / oral snuff up to 1.5 kg can come through international mail (looser than this rule, but the model has no tobacco-form dimension and no cigar SKU, so no permissive rule was written) — if a cigar item is ever added, revisit whether this rule is too strict for that form.
Amounts follow the current publication of Australia regulators; we never show unverified numbers on a page. Decision-grade ranges appear in the “penalty exposure” section of the full dossier.
One call answers “do you take it” but never “does the country allow it”. Only after all four questions do you have the complete answer. Note the agent's ID and the time of each answer.
“I want to send Cigarettes — two cartons (500 cigarettes) (commercially sealed) from [origin country] to Australia via postal parcel. Does your network accept it?”
Why ask it this way: Ask acceptance first, never compliance — agents are responsible for what they carry, and a compliance question only earns a disclaimer.
“If you accept it: exactly how must the waybill describe the contents? What labels or enclosed documents do you require? Please give me the specific wording.”
Why ask it this way: A waybill description that mismatches the contents is the number-one trigger for inspection. You need exact wording, not “be more detailed”.
“If you don't: which prohibited-items clause applies? Would a change in [processing / packaging / quantity] make it acceptable? Do any of your other services carry it?”
Why ask it this way: Turn “no” into “yes, under condition X” — this question routinely surfaces routes the carrier would never volunteer.
“Is your refusal based on Australia import restrictions, or on your own policy? Can you give me the written link or clause number?”
Why ask it this way: This separates the two switches. Carrier policy can be switched; import law cannot — the answer decides your next move.
DECLARATION — 申告 / 申报
I am carrying/mailing the following item for personal use. / 私は個人使用のために以下の物品を持ち込みます（発送します）。
Item / 物品 : Cigarettes — two cartons (500 cigarettes)
Nature / 性質 : plant · tobacco · commercially_sealed
Quantity / 数量 : 500 cigarettes
Channel : postal parcel
Generated by this site on 2026-11-10. Informational aid only — not an official document, permit, or guarantee of admission. 本卡片为信息辅助文件，非官方文件、非许可、不保证放行。
⚠️ Print this page alone. The card is designed to be shown by itself — the officer does not need our verdicts or sources.
Links go to the regulator's or carrier's own pages. We do not host, mirror, or replace the source text. If you believe a verdict here conflicts with the official wording, tell us and include the link — confirmed errors are corrected publicly.
A carrier answers “do we take this on our network today”; import and biosecurity authorities in Australia answers “does this country let it in”. Two independent questions — no single institution answers both, and seized parcels almost always trace back to asking only one. This site solves the two switches together and shows you what change makes it work.
Selling (Shopify / Etsy / your own store)? One-off verdicts don't scale — see the For sellers: bulk SKU checking and rule-change alerts ($29/month).