To our prospective clients in Australia

Our current understanding is that:

- our test results are sufficient to comply with all Australian regulations (DL2K-LINK may be a possible exception, still pending verification)

- but we can't apply for the c-tick mark without a local representative (tricky business since they become legally liable)

- however, for personal use and not resale, one Australian individual can import a product IF it complies with all standards even without a c-tick mark. This is new information to be confirmed, please see this reply from ACMA.

If a person imports one of these devices into Australia for “personal use” and does not, or will not in the future, supply said device to another person provided the device complies with the applicable radio communications standard and does not cause interference, the device does not require a C-Tick compliance label and may be used in Australia by the person who imported the device.

Comments

By pjpjpj at 2010-12-05 13:21:47 Reply

I think the C-Tick mark will allow you to import to New Zealand as well, correct.

As for Australia, you may have other problems, Item 12
of Schedule 2 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 says:

"Hand‑held electric devices that are designed to administer an electric shock on contact, other than cattle prods designed exclusively for use with animals"

Note that this has been used to prevent the importation of electronic fly swatters in the past (the kind that are shaped like a tennis racket and stun the fly with a mild electric zap). I get the feeling they will frown on a device designed to administer an electric pulse to the male genitals.

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-12-05 22:01:50 Reply

Anything against non-hand held devices?

By pjpjpj at 2010-12-05 22:30:50 Reply

I honestly don't know, but I felt it would be good to bring that particular law to your attention just in case it affects you.

By pjpjpj at 2010-12-05 22:37:53 Reply

I thought I included a link to the relevant law, here it is:
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/previewlodgmentattachments/CAEC5FFF6FA0C50FCA2576C400145ABC/$file/F2005C00131_20050301_CustomsPI.htm#param40>

By dreamloverlabs at 2010-12-06 04:54:10 Reply

Please send directly to info@

thanks

By MistressI at 2010-12-09 17:32:54 Reply

That sounds to me like a law designed to prevent people from importing devices that can be used as weapons. It should be pretty easy to argue that the DL is a wearable device like an MP3 player (an MP3 player could in principle cause pain if the volume is set too loud), rather than a weapon.

By pjpjpj at 2010-12-09 21:40:00 Reply

Yes, I'm quite sure you're correct, but often times laws get applied in ways that aren't considered and you just can't tell if they will try to apply that law to this product without checking.

By zapster at 2010-12-06 08:45:30 Reply

the DL2k is not only "not hand-held", but it also does not provide a shock on contact.

A button must be explicitly pushed in order to deliver the shock. In fact, the part capable of delivering the pulse doesn't even have the ability to do so by itself. I'm sure legal council will be sought before making any decisions here, but to me it seems like a different class of product than that which the cited statute intends to cover.

my totally unqualified $.02