DVD-quality lessons (including tabs/sheet music) available for immediate viewing on any device.
Take your playing to the next level with the help of a local or online banjo teacher.
Weekly newsletter includes free lessons, favorite member content, banjo news and more.
Premier Sponsors
|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/214277/2
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/29/2011: 13:29:23
Regarding Lacey Act issues:
None of the shell currently used in the industry is "listed" (threatened, endangered, or protected), but border agents have more than once confused it with the couple of species which are, such as white ocean pearl oyster (Pinctada maxima) for the banned White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni), or Paua ab. (H. iris) for the protected Black ab. (H. cracherodii). An expert could easily distinguish these but border agents can't possible be specialists in all the thousands of things they need to deal with. Even if paperwork is correctly submitted it can still be challenged and the material sent to a government lab for testing (and you can be charged over $1000.00 for the lab work and a "storage" fee even if the government was wrong).
Lacey requires interstate shipments of fish or wildlife materials/products to be labeled as such on the outside of every container, with a full description attached either outside or inside (common and Latin species names, country of origin, and amount of each in metric volume or weight). No one has ever yet bothered to enforce this law, but if ever challenged that wouldn't be accepted as a defense. The interstate marking regulation does NOT apply to plant materials such as instrument woods.
Some things to keep in mind on all of this are that 1) CITES only applies at the international border; 2) the Lacey Act concerns materials already in the U.S., but along with demanding conformance to domestic tribal, state or federal laws (Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, etc.) it also requires that no international laws were violated (such as CITES) or those of any country involved in the material’s origin or chain of custody.
The way this plays out in practice is that for any material already here in the states (which isn’t just outright illegal) it’s up to the U.S. agencies to prove that a violation has been committed, and that can’t be done without them producing either a paper trail or witnesses. So for any Brazilian rosewood that lacks paperwork, it might be questioned but can’t be confiscated or banned from use or sale. But as soon as that wood (or anything made from it) tries to leave the country the burden of proof changes and it’s then up to the owner to provide a paper trail proving it was imported legally or pre-ban.
If using paperless B.R. you should probably get the buyer to sign off on a statement saying they understand that the wood is legal within the U.S., but that it cannot be legally exported and that you will not be responsible for anything that happens if it is ever presented at the border. Include this on the invoice and/or on a document that stays in the instrument case (or maybe on the label?).
APHIS recently issued guidelines for getting exemption certificates on pre-2008 items (including guitars) which contain unknown woods or lack other information (but only if the wood is really not identifiable!): http://aphis.usda.gov/plant_he...-codes.pdf
It’s also possible, at least theoretically, to get exemption certification on old paperless “legacy” or “estate” woods such as Brazilian by using the Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form PPQ-505 , and this is the same form used to register pre-ban wood that has legitimate documents. The APHIS agent who spoke at June’s ASIA meeting asked for a show of hands among the hall full of luthiers of anyone who had attempted to get certification based on a simple written statement of fact, and no hands went up. He said that although uncommon, there have been allowances made for a clear and detailed written history when no actual paper trail was available, and that the luthier community should give this a try. Write up as much detailed history on your old wood as you can recall, noting names, dates, locations, the amount involved in the original transaction, and the exact amount of wood now being held; if possible, contact anyone involved in the original deal, or any other witnesses, and get them to write up and sign supporting statements. Have this material notarized and submit it, along with the required application fee, and see what happens. I have a luthier friend who at this moment is doing exactly that, so we’ll see what happens!
For information on the current state of affairs with the Gibson raids, send me your email address and will reply with several attachments, including a long and very interesting affidavit used in getting the search warrant for the latest raids of August 24th in Nashville and Memphis.
mvolcjak - Posted - 08/29/2011: 13:41:46
Chuck,
Great post - I see you are in the "luthier trade" so you have some insight into this issue.
So what this appears to come down to is the US gov't's interpretation of Indian Law - and not India actually asking that their laws be enforced!?! This is all making my head hurt....
This makes the Lacey act changes even more troubling than I have been thinking.
Take it Easy ... MarK
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/30/2011: 00:37:05
Gibson was first raided in November of 2009, supposedly through a tip by someone at the Nashville factory who was aware of Lacey violations involving wood that was illegally logged in a Madagascar national forest. Woods, instruments, computers and other things were confiscated as evidence but so far no charges have been filed. But of course Gibson was now in the enforcement spotlight, so it appears the feds were monitoring Gibson's subsequent activities hoping to catch them doing something else wrong. The shipment to Gibson from LMII in last week's raids had some paperwork glitches though the wood itself was fully papered and cleared by Indian authorities. U.S. authorities, however, are claiming that according to Indian regs the wood is just illegally exported rough-sawn logs over 6mm thick rather than legitimately worked instrument parts. That's a problem, since LMII has documents from the Indian Ministry of Commerce approving fingerboard blanks for export, as well as signed-off Indian export papers.
The wood in question is from sustainable sources which are tightly regulated by the Indian government, and not from endangered or protected forests. And it's not just governmental permission that's involved but approval from deep-ecology non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that have done intensive on-site investigations from the trees to the mills right on through the entire custodial chain of those who have anything to do with handling the woods. For instance, certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC, at fsc.org), or the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA, at eia-global.org and forestlegality.org). These various watch-dog groups are working tightly with the guitar industry (among others) to provide trustworthy documentation for legally and responsibly harvested materials, while making it as hard as possible for dishonest suppliers to survive.
It thus would seem that the U.S. government is selectively choosing to interpret Indian laws contrary to how Indian authorities understand their own regs!
In answer to the question raised about any individual instruments being challenged at the U.S. border, yes that has happened multiple times (and increasingly so). Canadian luthier Linda Manzer has experience with this, as do several luthiers returning from the recent Montreal Guitar Festival, along with a number of other players and builders around the country. I can personally relate horror stories of overzealous USFWS agents threatening to destroy items because of small technical oversights. Customs agents are on the lookout for guitar cases, or even a mention of guitar related activities. Seattle's Michael Gurian recently had a correctly papered shipment of East Indian rosewood confiscated as suspected Brazilian rosewood (a CITES I material) -- after several weeks he was called to pick up his shipment since Government lab tests had confirmed it was indeed Indian, but he had to pay $1,200.00 for the lab test plus several hundred more for "storage" fees. Another wood dealer, Gulab Gibwani in NJ, had his shipment of Indian rosewood confiscated over a minor technical issue involving the phytosanitary labeling, and the port of entry authorities refused to speak with their own agency officials in NJ claiming they were "out of their jurisdiction" -- he was finally allowed to keep the wood but had to spend $10,000.00 shipping empty forklift palettes back to India. Many instruments (and other items) are constantly crossing the borders unchallenged, only because there's such a shortage of agents and not because the movements are legal. Travel at your own risk...
DanielT - Posted - 08/30/2011: 05:51:39
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
Gibson was first raided in November of 2009, supposedly through a tip by someone at the Nashville factory who was aware of Lacey violations involving wood that was illegally logged in a Madagascar national forest.
Hm. Maybe Gibson should treat their employees better.
BanjoLink - Posted - 08/30/2011: 09:33:07
Gosh Daniel - don't you just hate it when real facts come out - now you have to accuse Gibson of mis-treating their employees - therefore a mole! And yeah, I know about their reputation. By the way, I am no friend or fan of Henry - just a little irritated with the rules and regulations that have bound up and destroyed jobs in this country.
pick1936 - Posted - 08/30/2011: 13:10:17
Chris Martin seems to be working for these guys. ( He is such a tree hugger), As mentioned above thou Why Only Gibson.?? I have two Gibson accoustics, ( both over 50 Years old. Not For Sale) I really think all this ignorant tactic is over the Top.
Nechville. In Higginsville
Lee Kelso
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/30/2011: 13:34:59
Slamming Chris Martin is unjustified and uncalled for. Martin has been working hard to make sure their materials are legally sourced -- you got a problem with that? So have Bob Taylor, Paul Reed Smith, and many others in the industry. So have LMII and myself. Does that mean we're all conspiring to bring anyone down? Stick with the topic.
TB-4 Guy - Posted - 08/30/2011: 15:24:38
quote:
Originally posted by DanielT
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
Gibson was first raided in November of 2009, supposedly through a tip by someone at the Nashville factory who was aware of Lacey violations involving wood that was illegally logged in a Madagascar national forest.
Hm. Maybe Gibson should treat their employees better.
You mean that you think Gibson mistreats their employees? In what way?
DanielT - Posted - 08/30/2011: 16:56:47
I have read right here on this board about how, shall we say, "dissatisfied" some former employees have been with Gibson. They are as big a bully in the musical instrument industry as there is. What I'm suggesting, based on the Duke of Pearl's suggestion, is that if this whole thing came about "supposedly through a tip by someone at the Nashville factory" it may very well be that a disgruntled employee called foul to make Gibson pay. It seems snarky, but if they had an excellent track record it wouldn't. It is, however, kind of entertaining to think that someone would suspect that I work(ed) for Gibson, based what I'm written here. I assure you, I've not only never worked for Gibson, I've never worked for any instrument company in my life ever, nor have I even ever worked for a music store.
By the way, pick1936, the 70s called and they want their insult back.
(edited for clarity)
Edited by - DanielT on 08/30/2011 16:58:14
pick1936 - Posted - 08/30/2011: 21:31:31
Hey man, I just gave My Opinion. I think I still have that right. (( I am sorry for My statement about Martin guitars)) I just never got hold of one that played and sounded as good as the old Gibsons I have owned 3 Gibsons, and 4 Martins over the last 60 years, The only good sounding Martin I owned was a 1956 D--18. I kept it until I started to have problems with it. as for the ( 70's) I was working for General Motors Leeds plant K.C.. Mo. So I do not know what You were refering to??. (My Opinion) is I like Gibson guitars, and do not like Martin guitars. I gave them a chance did not like any of the four I owned. My (Opinion) Now as for the very best flat--Top guitar I ever owned was in 1953 I traded for a 1938 American made Epiphone flat--top. It had better volume,, tone, everything.. It was later stolen from Me. It beat the Martins, AND Gibsons I have had since. But if Gibson Co. is so bad now, guess They have it coming. I will miss them. By the way Danielt Where were You in the 70,s??
Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso
Edited by - pick1936 on 08/30/2011 21:34:35
DanielT - Posted - 08/30/2011: 22:05:04
quote:
Originally posted by pick1936
as for the ( 70's) I was working for General Motors Leeds plant K.C.. Mo. So I do not know what You were refering to??.
I was referring to your use of the word "treehugger." It's a really old fashioned insult.
quote:
Originally posted by pick1936
By the way Danielt Where were You in the 70,s??
I was in elementary school in Massachusetts.
pick1936 - Posted - 08/30/2011: 22:35:42
Back in the 70's I lever heard the Word Tree hugger. I have mostly been hearing it from the M.C. T.V. in Lexington Kentucky. He starts the show, and ends the show with calling Himself a Tree hugger . He always has Bluegrass and Old Time music. I do not intend to be a trouble maker. I only Give My Opinion. I do not yet understand why Gibson would not have good jobs, and benefits for the workers. I had never heard anything about this until lately. If they are really guilty, then They should have to pay. I would be let down if They close them down completely. They made many fine instruments over the years. I do think things have changed very much since Henry took over. from what I have heard, and read. Is mostly concerned, and putting emphasis on the Les Paul electrics. I guess We have to wait, and see.
Pick What You like.
Like What You Pick.
Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso
pick1936 - Posted - 08/30/2011: 23:28:15
Chuck, I have read, and heard much about You over the years. I am sorry I slammed Martin. I just always prefered Gibson Guitars. I am glad You are on the H.O. You have been in this business for a good while. I am sure You will be a great help answering questions Here. Thanks in advance for what You will contribute to us. Take care.
Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso
DanielT - Posted - 08/30/2011: 23:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
Many instruments (and other items) are constantly crossing the borders unchallenged, only because there's such a shortage of agents and not because the movements are legal. Travel at your own risk...
Wait, so how many cases of musicians actually losing their instruments can be documented? (I'm talking in the manner Gibson Expert John Thomas of Quinnipiac University suggests will happen; wait, I'm sorry, this is article in Acoustic Guitar magazine in which Thomas is actually referred to as a "Gibson expert." What is his connection to Gibson, anyway?) In an article on the site I've linked to here, Thomas says it's happening mostly on Canada / US crossings. But so far, I'm not seeing or hearing any relevant stories from the musicians I know who regularly cross borders. At all. The Duke of Pearl's examples are all of luthiers, not musicians carrying instruments - an anybody here post specific examples of musicians who have had their instruments confiscated as a direct result of the Lacey Act?
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/31/2011: 00:06:51
Thanks for the nice words, Lee...it takes a good man to apologize, so no hard feelings and am glad to make your acquaintance! There's some bad stuff going down right now and as people who all like instruments we're in this together trying to figure out how to respond and what to do. Preferring a Gibson or a Martin is one thing, and liking Henry or Chris is another, but none of us would enjoy seeing either grand old company get into trouble if they don't deserve it. And whether we like it or not, we'll all be discovering (as some have already) that the same regulations bothering Gibson also impact our own freedoms in very intrusive ways. Most of these laws were born of decent people with good intentions, but when misapplied and unevenly enforced they harm honest businesses and musicians without saving a single bush or critter!
jbalch - Posted - 08/31/2011: 10:58:32
Interesting coverage in the New York Times:
artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...l-agents/
banjoak - Posted - 08/31/2011: 14:54:00
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
In answer to the question raised about any individual instruments being challenged at the U.S. border, yes that has happened multiple times (and increasingly so). Canadian luthier Linda Manzer has experience with this, as do several luthiers returning from the recent Montreal Guitar Festival, along with a number of other players and builders around the country....
....Many instruments (and other items) are constantly crossing the borders unchallenged, only because there's such a shortage of agents and not because the movements are legal. Travel at your own risk...
Other than antecdotal stories, can you point me to any actual case, documents being demanded, charges been brought, instruments seized, on an musician just bringing their personal instrument across a border? I could perhaps understand luthiers/builders being stopped and needing to provide documentation for instruments. (is their an actual case?) They might be crossing the border to sell an instrument (or a few); which countries want to regulate besides the material. A luthier friend of mine used to sometimes have trouble (pre-2008) crossing into Windsor Canada with newer instruments. He had to prove he wasn't going to sell them.
So far the stories though are about shipments of goods and materials.
As far as the "customs agents being on the lookout" - what evidence do you have of that? Is there a memo/directive from the agents boss? And why, if that were the directive, would we not hear about it (or see it) all of the time? A mightly lot of personal instruments cross the border every day. If that were the directive, it sure seems like we would be hearing about it (as most folks do not have documentation). I don't think it would have to do with being short staffed.
Edited by - banjoak on 08/31/2011 15:03:26
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 08/31/2011: 17:41:41
First off, the guitar and piano enforcement phase of Lacey was initiated no longer ago than April 1, 2010, so it's only just beginning to gain momentum and although a few individual instrument owners have encountered border enforcement most of the attention has been centered on commercial transactions. Expect this to change in the next couple of years.
Secondly, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the agency in charge of enforcement on violations at ports of entry -- according to USFWS Special Agent Marilee Brown (who investigated us for 9 months in 2010) there are only about 80 or so port agents and maybe 250 in the field, far too few to even begin monitoring the thousands of illegal activities that occur each day. At least for now, their focus goes to the most visible infractions, but in the words of a New York port inspector, "Eventually we'll catch them all"
Thirdly, while being investigated last year I received plenty of wrong or sometimes incomplete information from U.S. Customs and USFWS agents, only getting knowledgeable answers (if then) when able to reach top officials, usually in Washington, DC, offices. A few of these admitted that many if not most of those working in enforcement at lower levels really don’t yet understand some of the fine or more obscure points of their own agency’s regulations and protocols. This misinformation can be blamed on a variety of reasons, including unfamiliarity with specialized and rarely referenced sections of the Code or quoting information that can be 10 or 15 years outdated (as much of the cached internet material is). It’s pretty frustrating, since you and I are held legally accountable for understanding and complying with very complex laws even though enforcement agents may not. Even the USFWS agent investigating us acknowledged the problem several times. The best response when this happens is to be able to quote directly from specific regulations which the agent can then check for themselves – of course, this means having done your own homework earlier!
Finally, other difficulties are that various agencies can sometimes have little or no communication with each other even though paperwork often needs to be coordinated between them; and that by law any government employee can not legally be held accountable or responsible in court for anything they may tell you, even if printed and signed on an agency’s letterhead! So be warned not to believe everything you’re told by lawyers, brokers, or government workers…do your own homework.
Here's one example of what can increasingly be expected, from an excellent article By John Thomas, in the Fretboard Journal (fretboardjournal.com/magazine/11 ):
Recently, George Gruhn forwarded to me an email from James Fry of Long & McQuade, Canada’s largest chain of guitar retailers. “Two months ago,” writes Fry, “I sent a Taylor guitar back to Taylor from Canada for warranty repairs. The rosette had abalone inlay in it. A week later, I got a call from someone at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Montana.” They’d pulled the guitar, noticed the abalone shell in it and indicated to Fry that he needed special paperwork and a license to ship it across the border. They also told him that the regulation had been in effect for a couple of years or so, probably referring to the addition of white abalone to ESA in 200, and assured him that they had “tests” to detect the real thing.
“Another story to add to this nightmare,” Fry continues. “Our music-store shipping department shipped a customer’s Martin D-42 back to the Martin factory for warranty work last month. Today, we got a letter in the mail from the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with a fine for $225 for ‘knowingly shipping abalone shell’ across the border without proper U.S. Fish and Wildlife paperwork. The poor guy in our shipping department has his name on this fine. If he wants to contest it, he has to show up in federal court in the U.S. to do so.” (Fry has since told me that the shop paid the fine, but USFWS has not released the guitar.)
Here's a USFWS bulletin recently issue targeting musical instruments and the “international trade in plants and wildlife": fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/...ments.pdf. Being in the industry since 1963, I've been in pretty constant touch with all sorts of people in the guitar universe: the largest factories, boutique luthiers, materials vendors, vintage instrument dealers, collectors, and players...and especially in the last 2 years. I'm personally aware of several personal instrument confiscations, but not at liberty to divulge details -- in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "listen to me now and belief me later".
Currently, there may not be more than a dozen or so instances of "personal effects" instrument seizures and penalty assessments; but waiting to see if things escalate wouldn't be the smartest tactic since decades-old violations can be retroactively enforced once an investigation is started. I'm not going to waste time researching or arguing about how many case histories may exist -- either accept the regulations as presented, or ignore them in the hope that a big spotlight doesn't turn your way!
Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 08/31/2011 17:54:36
parapatton - Posted - 08/31/2011: 17:44:59
Here's the Guild of American Luthiers publication of the CITES & Lacy Act from April 2011:
luth.org/cites.htm
The Introduction in Section 1 clearly states what's covered and who's at risk.
Earls 5 - Posted - 08/31/2011: 19:57:32
the future looks pretty dark for small shops trying to scratch out a decent living. Just wonderful. All these extra documents to keep up with
will surely make prices sky-rocket on many instruments, and in this economy that means much fewer sales. Can you say "domino effect"?
Lynne - Posted - 09/01/2011: 04:20:40
When I first started in the manufacturing business I worked for a company that made drinking fountains for the L1011 jet.
It was unbelievable how much paperwork was necessary to make a water fountain for aerospace. Plus having to have inspectors come over
and mark all the dies that it took to make the part.
These days it would be much, much more. It's one of the reasons we don't do government work.
Paperwork is the bane of doing business, all kinds of paperwork. Just the paperwork for employees is staggering.
You just can't skip the paperwork.
DanielT - Posted - 09/01/2011: 07:42:34
Why don't we look at the actual declaration form so we don't have to speculate on how much or how little needs to be provided:
aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/la...nform.pdf
The required information looks pretty straightforward.
This is the search warrant affidavit:
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages...rrant.pdf
So what was actually bring brought in? Lets start by looking number 10. It explains HS Code 4407, which essentially says you can't import wood cut as you want it if you're in the fretboard game if it exceeds 6mm in thickness. Now jump down to number 19. Upon inspection, these logs were found to be 10mm thick – thicker than is allowed. Back up to #12 in the affidavit. The importer described these fretboards as a 4408 classification – which does not violate Lacey – when their thickness actually makes them a 4407 classification. Isn't that a violation?
Further, the affidavit describes how Gibson isn't listed as final consignee on their declaration form but the fretboards were ultimately destined for them. Wouldn't this put them in violation as well?
What the Lacey act does is prohibit the import of something that is illegally exported from the country of origin. Based on what the affidavit says, it seems that Gibson not only broke the law, but did it willfully by misrepresenting what was coming in and who the final consignee was to be. It is very disingenuous of Henry Juszkiewicz to claim that his rights are being violated when he himself is in violation. (And if we're to believe something he himself said about importing this way for "more than 17 years," he's been in violation – admitting it, even – since even before the date tariff classification ruling NY 881630, a ruling that relates specifically to importing wood for fingerboards, was decided just over 17 years ago in 1993.)
I could take or leave Gibson instruments – sure, they're good but I wouldn't necessarily buy one unless it really spoke to me. But what really bothers me about this whole episode is how willingly accepted Gibson's point of view was without even a sniff at the details of the case against them. In most coverage I've seen – even mainstream coverage – there is clear political bias that mobilizes support for Gibson. That or just lazy knee jerk journalism that makes people think "oh no, not the guitars! Won't someone please think about the guitars!"
Basically, I think people should be very wary of any sort of journalistic writing that quotes Gibson's CEO and doesn't cite this affidavit or that doesn't examine both sides for possible malfeasance.
mvolcjak - Posted - 09/01/2011: 09:38:53
Daniel,
You are interpreting the gov't's claim. From what I can find, HS 4407 merely relates to ALL (lumber) wood over 6mm (be it oak or ebony). I believe that the Indian Gov't is who placed the restriction on 6mm ebony, not the US gov't, so from what I have read, the Indian gov't approved this shipment. If this is the case, then why would the US gov't interfere?
All I can say is that we cannot try this case here.
CITES and the Lacey act are well intentioned, but poorly crafted efforts that are supposed to save endangered species - but go way beyond this. These types of laws (that overreach) tend to actually encourage (via the black market) the type of behavior they are trying to prevent.
One can argue in favor of, or against Gibson, but this case is merely the one that has been publicized. The real issue here is still how CITES and the Lacey act are actually implemented/enforced by the US gov.t. Checkout the 2008 Fretboard Journal article the Duke of Pearl refers to for some insight as to how the law is being both interpreted and enforced.
Take it Easy ... MarK
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 11:04:19
The PPQ-505 form requires listing:
8. Consignee name: Name of the individual or company who ordered and will ultimately receive the shipment.
9. Consignee address: Enter the address of the individual or company in #8.
Not as simple as it seems, since it was LMII who actually ordered and bought the wood, to satisfy a sale of theirs to Gibson; but rather than take delivery in CA and then spending money reshipping to Nashville, LMII simply had the wood drop-shipped (a common business practice) to the people who are in charge of warehousing woods for Gibson (so it wasn't going directly to Gibson's plant address). Gibson wasn't the one bringing the wood in, it was being imported by LMII.
As for the tariff code, it was entered wrongly on only some, not all, of the paperwork -- something LMII had spotted and was in the process of correcting (but unable to get an agency response to). Inconsistent tariff codes are something that's happened on a couple of our own shell import shipments when some desk jockey at the brokerage decides to change the correct tariff codes we supply (thus instantly converting a load of shell blanks into a shipment of "jewelry", for instance!).
U.S. courts have determined that a government agency's interpretation of the regs they enforce does not always hold the same legal force of argument as the words of the actual regulation itself. Much of what's presented in the search warrant affidavit sounds impressive but is only an agent's interpretation (for instance his addition of the word "finished" when referencing instrument parts). In fact, he's attempting to interpret not only U.S. regs but the laws of a foreign government. And doing so without bothering to consult Indian authorities who have issued and signed documents held by LMII which disagree with his private interpretation. It's not up to the U.S. to tell India how to enforce their own statutes. Papers held by LMII include not only permission from the Indian Ministry of Commerce to export fingerboard blanks over 6mm thick, but signed-off customs inspection papers from India and certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (or "FSC", an NGO watchdog organization working with the guitar industry to establish legitimate wood sourcing).
For anyone who may have heard it, yesterday's NPR piece was bad reporting and deeply flawed, since no one seems to have done their background research: other than involving Gibson, the two raids over 1 1/2 years apart had little or nothing to do with each other, contrary to what was reported. The first raid concerned endangered Madagascar woods alledgedly logged illegally in a national forest (yet to be charged or proven); the latest raids involve non-endangered woods logged in Indian government controlled sustainably managed plantations, brought into the U.S. (as they have been for almost 20 years, by everybody) with full paperwork from both the Indian authorities and certification from the FSC).
DanielT - Posted - 09/01/2011: 11:16:16
quote:
Originally posted by mvolcjak
from what I have read, the Indian gov't approved this shipment.
And what precisely is your source on that? Please don't say Gibson - their word is suspect. If it's from "some guy I know, and he heard it," then it should also be suspect. Maybe it got "approval" because of a payoff, or maybe it's just plain lack of oversight in India. What does approval mean? It sounds suspect anyway. Gibson got approval from the Indian government for this one specific shipment? That's weird. Does the US sign off on every single shipment? Somehow, I doubt it. Things get out sometimes, just like things get in sometimes. It's our government's job to police this.
quote:
Originally posted by mvolcjak
If this is the case, then why would the US gov't interfere?
The government interfered because it violates rules on our end. Listen, in Columbia having one gram of cocaine for personal use is legal. The government says it's okay. But put that cocaine in an envelope and send it to someone in Albuquerque and it doesn't magically become legal here - that New Mexican is going to be in trouble. Based on what's in the affidavit, Gibson seems to have been acting in a less than straightforward manner when it came to their paperwork in importing wood that violates US rules. That's why they're being investigated.
Take a step back, though, and ask yourself this: if this wood was approved for export by the Indian government, then why should Gibson bother falsifying the documents? And if there was approval, where is the special note from government agency in India saying so?
quote:
Originally posted by
mvolcjak
One can argue in favor of, or against Gibson, but this case is merely the one that has been publicized. The real issue here is still how CITES and the Lacey act are actually implemented/enforced by the US gov.t. Checkout the 2008 Fretboard Journal article the Duke of Pearl refers to for some insight as to how the law is being both interpreted and enforced.
Yes, it's the one that got publicized because it's an accessible way to frame and publicize a political issue. I am concerned with media bias. Lookit, a percentage of the people who can afford high end Gibson instruments are the ones with the most disposable income. These people are very often of the baby boomer generation who believe in rock and roll and who at least at one point believed that "only a Gibson is good enough." If you can convince these people that the government is "bullying" a company that represents some element of peoples's leisure time and has nostalgic resonance, even if it is just planting a seed of doubt in the mind of someone who has a different politic, then it becomes a very effective tool. In many, many of the articles I've seen about this issue, the reporting focuses exclusively on what Gibson says. Almost no source mentions the affidavit. So, the story becomes this: Gibson gets pinched, their CEO goes on about it using buzz terms like "government overreach" and "harassment," and then the media takes the sound bites and turns Gibson's CEO into some sort of angel being pestered by the devil government. But if you look at what the government affidavit actually says, it's much more complicated because it's easy to find major holes in Gibson's story. But no one looks at the affidavit because most media sources won't include it and because the reportage distracts people with the idea that this overreach is just the beginning, and that the government is coming for your vintage instrument next.
It's just silly.
DanielT - Posted - 09/01/2011: 11:31:58
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
The PPQ-505 form requires listing:
8. Consignee name: Name of the individual or company who ordered and will ultimately receive the shipment.
9. Consignee address: Enter the address of the individual or company in #8.
The PPQ-505 form also requires listing:
6. Importer name.
7. Importer address.
First off, how do you know LMII has these documents? What exactly do they say? There's a lot of information still missing - these documents may not be entirely on the up and up. Second you're claiming that LMII is the ultimate consignee. However, they are both the importer and a middleman - Gibson is the ultimate consignee and I think what the argument is that that should have been reflected on the form.
And it's all well and good to have a note from the Indian government, but at issue in the affidavit is how Gibson has run afoul of US law. It's not up to the Indian government to tell us how to interpret our laws.
Also, because something's common business practice doesn't mean it's legal.
mvolcjak - Posted - 09/01/2011: 13:21:59
The way I read 4407 is that it merely refers to "lumber" that exceeds 6mm thick. It is merely an import (tarrif) definition. (I looked up code HS 4407 and ebony is not even listed - whatever that means. Teak is listed, which is probably as scarce and expensive.)
Unlike cocaine, to my knowledge, there is no US law that says that imported (or importing) ebony exceeding 6mm in width is illegal. If there is I would like to see it, as I "googled" for importation law(s) related to ebony and found no US law. (From what I can find Lacey does not explicitly cover imported ebony > 6mm either.) It is an Indian regulation that dictates 6mm ebony, since they want as much milling done in India as possible. Again a labor issue, not an environmental one.
Finally, we will (hopefully) find out what has happened here at some point. Again, we can discuss this, but I really think that people (like the Duke of Pearl) and other individuals in the trades are the ones with the "vested" interest in this. That may make them suspect to some people, but they certainly can bring worthwhile (and factual) information to this discussion. These individuals (and I am not speaking corporations here), are in business, which to my mind, means that they need to maintain their integrity to stay in business - so I tend do give credence to what they are saying.
The US government does not have such integrity concerns, and perhaps, neither does the Gibson "corporation", since they are both big enough to get by without any integrity at all.
Take it Easy ... MarK
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 15:33:25
The documentation mentioned is on file with Natalie Swango at LMII, so feel free to contact her about it. we also hold documents concerning stuff we bring in but there's no way it will be included with the shipments we make when reselling to customers. It's not necessary or required, and the docs contain proprietary information (such as our costs, and contact info for our suppliers) which it would be idiotic to reveal to customers or competitors who would then either use it for unfair competitive advantage or try to go around us and deal direct. It can take a business many years to work up trustworthy sources and establish trade relationships, and no sane business person is going to publish that information.
DanielT brings up valid concerns; but along with many others in the guitar industry I've also studied the search warrant affidavit and have sent the link to as many as have requested it, along with much more detailed information on all the regulatory issues. Contact me with an email address and I'll send you the attachments.
Quote: "...at issue in the affidavit is how Gibson has run afoul of US law. It's not up to the Indian government to tell us how to interpret our laws
.".T There's a bit of circular reasoning here. The affidavit is making an as yet untested claim that Gibson broke U.S. law; the U.S. law in question is one requiring that the laws of India be obeyed; if indeed the affidavit is wrong and the Indian laws were in fact obeyed (based on contrary evidences), how can the conclusion be reached that India is telling us how to interpret U.S. law? If the question is whether or not Indian law was or was not violated, the initial charge that it was violated (the premise of the argument) cannot be used as proof that it actually was (the conclusion of the argument). In other words, when an argument uses one of its premises as a conclusion, that argument is said to be circular and it proves nothing.
Quote: "Also, because something's common business practice doesn't mean it's legal. ""
This is deliberately taking the statement out of context, since it wasn't offered as an argument for legality, only as an evidence that for many years India has had no problem with wood over 6mm being exported in the form of fingerboard blanks, and that no Indian agency or official has ever contested their shipment out of the country. They have been worked exclusively by Indian labor: felled, sawn, sized, planed, waxed, palletized, etc., conditions which have always met with India's intent in keeping as much work as possible inside the country. The blanks can't be processed any further without making them into something other than a fingerboard blank, and India has never once objected (and still hasn't).
DanielT needs to settle down and try to understand what's going on here, not just bring his own biases and assumptions to the table and selectively read them into the material. Although the raids of 2009 and 2011 were on Gibson, the issues for each are completely separate in almost all aspects, and none of us can predict exactly how this will end. But is it anyone's contention here that this is all just something that will blow over and that no one in the guitar world needs to change the way they're doing things? That the laws really only apply to a few small corporations like Gibson and not to every one of us? That guitars and their materials can continue to pass across international borders without being challenged? If that's what you believe, then live it out and good luck to you!
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 15:54:37
A Letter From NAMM to President Obama and Members of the U.S. Congress
September 1, 2011
We are writing today on behalf of the music products industry to express deep frustration over a regulation that is impacting music products manufacturers as well as retailers and owners of musical instruments in the U.S. The National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) is a 110-year-old trade association representing the interests of manufacturers, retailers and distributors of musical instruments. Many of NAMM's nearly 9,000 member companies are being negatively impacted by the Lacey Act, a well-intentioned law, but one with unintended consequences that we feel are damaging to our industry and the economy.
The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900 and amended most recently in May of 2008 to include criminal liability for importing, owning, transporting or selling plant material that is illegally harvested, the wide range of interpretation possible in the law and lack of regulatory clarity has resulted in great difficulty in compliance. The confusion is due in large part to the law's ambitious scope, including enforcement of the laws from all other countries that are the source of these natural materials
The recent high profile raid (multiple federal agencies with automatic weapons) of Gibson Guitars, a leading NAMM member company in Tennessee, compounded with the slow response on needed guidance for compliance that we have been seeking has created fear and uncertainty for all those involved in the manufacturing, distribution and retailing of instruments and increasingly, artists and owners of musical instruments.
NAMM members care deeply and are committed to the ecologically sustainable use of tone woods for the production of musical instruments.
We understand that long-term success depends upon future availability of these materials to build and sell the iconic instruments that have defined America's popular music traditions. NAMM member products are valued and played around the world and are some of our country's most recognizable exports. Most NAMM members are small businesses employing local artisans and others who are passionate about music and music education. They produce jobs, pay taxes and support their communities.
We cannot state strongly enough the impact that this confusion, uncertainty and threat of criminality are having on our industry even when intentions of due care and compliance are followed and documented. We have concrete ideas on how to improve the law and are ready to work with Members of Congress and federal agencies to make positive changes that will fulfill the intended vision of the Lacey Act and preserve not only the world's forests, but the vital work of U.S. manufacturing and commerce in the music products industry.
Sincerely,
Kevin Cranle
Chairman, NAMM
President, Willis Music Company
Joe Lamond
President and CEO, NAMM
HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/01/2011: 16:02:01
quote:
Originally posted by DanielT
First off, how do you know LMII has these documents? What exactly do they say? There's a lot of information still missing - these documents may not be entirely on the up and up. Second you're claiming that LMII is the ultimate consignee. However, they are both the importer and a middleman - Gibson is the ultimate consignee and I think what the argument is that that should have been reflected on the form.
And it's all well and good to have a note from the Indian government, but at issue in the affidavit is how Gibson has run afoul of US law. It's not up to the Indian government to tell us how to interpret our laws.
Also, because something's common business practice doesn't mean it's legal.
Obviously DanielT hasn't read nor understands the United States Constitution. This is the document that allows people to express ignorance of the laws under the guise of freedom of speech... From a previous post; No confusion here, The DOJ says that it is your responsibility to know and if they raid or arrest you, or your company, proof is required on your part, that the materials used to manufacture the product in question meets the law and have been aquired legally. In the case of Gibson, the DOJ raided, locked the doors and confiscated woods, materials, records and computer systems without proof and well after a year haven't been able to file charges all the while refusing to give the materials seized, back to Gibson. The problem with the DOJ is that, it is acting outside of the constitution (the law of the land which they are sworn to uphold) by saying you are guilty until you prove your innocence, which is direct violation of our legal constitutional rights that state; "A person is innocent until proven guilty. They are also violating the right to a speedy trial... Once again I'm typing this with a smile on my face so as not to be seen as creating a needless controversy. There must be song somewhere in all of this, Hmmm, "DOJ please, don't lean on me" "Just want to play my banjo' "So please, just let me be" NAH, probably wouldn't sell. "Hardrock"
mralston - Posted - 09/01/2011: 16:29:04
Here's my contribution of non-facts to this discussion:
1. I recently mailed an old MARTIN tenor guitar to a guy I met at Clifftop who is from NASHVILLE (HOME OF GIBSON GUITARS). I can tell you that the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE carried the guitar to his address in Nashville, the item was declared as a guitar, it was shipped in the MARTIN guitar case, the item DID NOT HAVE SHRED OF PAPERWORK DOCUMENTING ORIGIN, it was made from MAHOGANY THAT could have been ILLEGALLY HARVESTED in the mid 1900's, and the shipment WAS NOT INTERCEPTED BY THE BLACK HELICOPTERS. Therefore, Barack Obama has personally given Martin Guitars a free pass. ;)
2. I bought a bunch of banjos and a fiddle from a guy in Halifax, Nova Scotia around 2005. Back then, NAFTA was getting a lot of attention. I called the regional Customs office in Maine, was told by the chief honcho that I just needed documentation of the cost of the instruments AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MANUFACTURED IN THE USA, and I would be fine. Linda and I did some sightseeing, collected some Bay of Fundy rocks, and picked up the instruments in Halifax. On the way back to the US Linda and I got the full-blown, "please pull your vehicle over here" search at the US border. Our car full of stinky laundry, buckets of rocks with partially-decomposed seaweed, and the note from the seller that the instruments were US-MADE did the trick, and the border agent figured out that we were neither international terrorists nor banjo smugglers........ we passed the inspection. I can tell you that the border agent WAS CARRYING A LOADED WEAPON, HE WAS DRESSED IN A BLACK SWAT OUTFIT, and as far as Linda and I could tell, HE DID NOT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR. I can see the logic behind NAFTA, and I can see the logic behind the Lacey Act. Sometimes implementation gets goofy, doesn't it ???
Edited by - mralston on 09/01/2011 16:38:45
TNCowboy - Posted - 09/01/2011: 16:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by HARDROCK KID
Obviously DanielT hasn't read nor understands the United States Constitution. This is the document that allows people to express ignorance of the laws under the guise of freedom of speech... From a previous post; No confusion here, The DOJ says that it is your responsibility to know and if they raid or arrest you, or your company, proof is required on your part, that the materials used to manufacture the product in question meets the law and have been aquired legally. In the case of Gibson, the DOJ raided, locked the doors and confiscated woods, materials, records and computer systems without proof and well after a year haven't been able to file charges all the while refusing to give the materials seized, back to Gibson. The problem with the DOJ is that, it is acting outside of the constitution (the law of the land which they are sworn to uphold) by saying you are guilty until you prove your innocence, which is direct violation of our legal constitutional rights that state; "A person is innocent until proven guilty. They are also violating the right to a speedy trial... Once again I'm typing this with a smile on my face so as not to be seen as creating a needless controversy. There must be song somewhere in all of this, Hmmm, "DOJ please, don't lean on me" "Just want to play my banjo' "So please, just let me be" NAH, probably wouldn't sell. "Hardrock"
Right on Kid!! The Constitution seems to be the one document (or victim) left out of this discussion. Why is Gibson's word suspect and the DOJ's word not; aren't they innocent until PROVEN guilty (or is that just a technicality). BTW Martin is a big Dem contributor; Gibson donates to RNC hmmm....why would Holder and Co. go after Gibson?? Why would the '09 raid still not lead to charges? Gibson; the question of love em or hate em is a distraction. the real question is are we a country of law based on the Constitution or not? Why then is the DOJ prohibiting Gibson from their day in court?
Edited by - TNCowboy on 09/01/2011 16:55:56
Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/01/2011: 16:49:21
Note: Read the Constitution to see what it actually says. Then go through hundreds of Supreme Court decisions to see what the Constitution means. There's a difference--the meaning is almost always more elaborate than the words of the document.
mvolcjak - Posted - 09/01/2011: 16:58:22
mralston,
#1 appears to be an internal US shipment, (PA to TN) which has nothing to do with the Lacey act and the imports (from foreign countries) that it covers.
#2 Occurred in 2005. The Lacey act changes under discussion here were passed in 2008 & went into effect in 2010.
So, while both stories are interesting, they do not appear relevant to the current issues related to the 2008 Lacey act changes being discussed here.
Take it Easy ... MarK
Edited by - mvolcjak on 09/01/2011 17:01:39
HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/01/2011: 17:07:37
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Rogers
Note: Read the Constitution to see what it actually says. Then go through hundreds of Supreme Court decisions to see what the Constitution means. There's a difference--the meaning is almost always more elaborate than the words of the document.
Hi Bill; Yes it seems that who ever happens to be in power gets the legal leverage in these decisions. After the last 3 administrations there seems to be plenty of case work for the Supremes in the future. The Constitution never changes. The people it provides a defined system of justice for try to slant it to their benefit. Good post. "Hardrock"
TNCowboy - Posted - 09/01/2011: 17:13:45
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Rogers
Note: Read the Constitution to see what it actually says. Then go through hundreds of Supreme Court decisions to see what the Constitution means. There's a difference--the meaning is almost always more elaborate than the words of the document.
With respect Bill,
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the authority given to the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Constitution; it does not exist read Article III . I had the pleasure of listening to a Constitutional Law Professor make that case quite well. The framers were wise enough to write it in language plain enough for the common man to understand. We ought to be careful not to allow a few elites to explain the Cabala to us poor lower class serfs.
DanielT - Posted - 09/01/2011: 17:52:16
quote:
Originally posted by Duke of Pearl
DanielT needs to settle down and try to understand what's going on here, not just bring his own biases and assumptions to the table and selectively read them into the material.
Duke, like I said before my concern here is how this incident is being spun in the media. I am saying that Gibson is neither innocent nor guilty - it's far too soon to make that determination conclusively. What I AM saying is that it is entirely likely they were sloppy in their paperwork, enough so to warrant the raid. I think your letter is great - if you say the Lacey act is an issue then this letter should be embraced by all elements of the industry (and cosigned by any organization whose constituents import wood). But for certain there is more to the story than Gibson's side of it, you have to look at the affidavit as well. You may be doing that, the people here may be doing that, but your casual reader of CNN or Fox or whatever isn't. Only one side of the story is being represented "out there."
I'm sorry I'm the only one who finds this whole thing maddening, but there you go.
quote:
Originally posted by HARDROCK KID
Obviously DanielT hasn't read nor understands the United States Constitution. This is the document that allows people to express ignorance of the laws under the guise of freedom of speech...
Hardrock, something tells me I'm not the first person you've said this to this week.
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 18:09:35
Quote: "#1 appears to be an internal US shipment, (PA to TN) which has nothing to do with the Lacey act and the imports (from foreign countries) that it covers."
Lacey does apply at both interstate and national levels (see: Lacey Act).
The Lacey Act also requires (see here) that all shipments entering/exiting the U.S. or moving interstate which contain any fish or wildlife (not plant) materials or products be clearly so marked on the outside of the box or container:
§ 3372. Prohibited acts:
(b) Marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person to import, export, or transport in interstate commerce any container or package containing any fish or wildlife unless the container or package has previously been plainly marked, labeled, or tagged in accordance with the regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 3376 (a) of this title.
(d) False labeling offenses
It is unlawful for any person to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any fish, wildlife, or plant which has been, or is intended to be—
(1) imported, exported, transported, sold, purchased, or received from any foreign country; or
(2) transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
To be in compliance with “paragraph (2) of section 3376 (a)”, how should this be done (see 50 CFR 14.81 and 82)?
For imports/exports: by either 1) writing on the outside of the box “CONTAINS WILDLIFE PRODUCTS” and attaching a list of the contents which includes both the common and Latin names of the species involved, whether they are venomous or not, their countries of origin, their Harmonized Tariff Code Classification Numbers, and your FWS Import/Export Permit/License Number, or, 2) writing on the box only your FWS Permit/License Number (“FWS LE XXXXXX-X”) and including a detailed list inside the shipment.
For interstate shipments: writing on the outside of the box “CONTAINS WILDLIFE PRODUCTS” (or a FWS Import/Export Permit/License Number, if you have one) and having either on or inside the box an itemized list with common and Latin names, stating whether or not they are venomous, and their country of origin (an FWS Import/Export Permit/License and tariff code are not required since you’re not importing or exporting).
Although I haven’t heard of these interstate shipping regulations being enforced anywhere yet, and it’s extremely doubtful that any carrier or agency is even paying attention, we’re now using a stamp for marking all packages with our FWS Import/Export Permit/License number as mentioned above to avoid FWS showing up at some point and citing us for non-compliance.
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 18:29:55
Hey, DanielT...I and many others are finding it to be a lot more than just maddening, so we're all on the same page! Am also in agreement that mindlessly supporting Gibson is unfortunately the norm rather than the exception. But it's critical to realize that there are two almost unrelated issues involved with the Gibson raids and alleged violations. It's very possible they'll be found guilty of the Madagascar activities while being completely exonerated on the Indian issues -- that's my guess. But none of the latter is really about Gibson, since for almost 20 years virtually 100% of the U.S. guitar industry has been dependent on government controlled, sustainably harvested, non-endangered woods coming from India with the government's blessings -- the wood industry in India depends as much on us as we do on them, and to cut off that flow would severely damage a major industry and the lives of many workers on both continents (to say nothing of the criminalization of anyone owning a guitar containing those woods, including most imports). That's insane, and would amount to an abusive use of regulatory power.
DanielT - Posted - 09/01/2011: 18:48:59
When did I mention the Madagascar issue? I don't think I've confused these two clearly unrelated issues at any point.
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/01/2011: 19:00:40
Sorry I wasn't clear about not meaning you specifically, but others, and certainly in several of the media reports on NPR, YouTube, and TV news. Thanks for keeping things lively in this discussion.
mvolcjak - Posted - 09/01/2011: 19:26:26
Duke,
Oops..
Sorry about the mis-statement regarding interstate shipments. I was so involved with the import piece & India I did not catch that . This makes Lacey even more of an issue and even more absurd.
So it seems that at some point, anything from old pianos to antique household furniture to old wooden wood-working tools may well be subjected to federal scrutiny at some point in time if they were ever transported or shipped across state lines!. All very worrisome stuff.
ThanX for the clarification and for all your great posts.
Take it Easy ... MarK
Earls 5 - Posted - 09/01/2011: 20:11:49
Any product made or derived from animal or plant? Like for instance cotton [plant products], fruits,vegetables,wheat, corn etc. etc.
Seems there are an awful lot of products on many levels of commerce made from all kinds of plants & animals moving around every day.
In fact, everything mankind makes comes from something in or on the earth, at least I can not think of anything that is just whipped up from without.
fair is fair - let em regulate everything right down to the air we breath, it comes from the trees - right?
Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/01/2011: 20:22:27
quote:
Originally posted by TNCowboy
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Rogers
Note: Read the Constitution to see what it actually says. Then go through hundreds of Supreme Court decisions to see what the Constitution means. There's a difference--the meaning is almost always more elaborate than the words of the document.
With respect Bill,
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the authority given to the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Constitution; it does not exist read Article III . I had the pleasure of listening to a Constitutional Law Professor make that case quite well. The framers were wise enough to write it in language plain enough for the common man to understand. We ought to be careful not to allow a few elites to explain the Cabala to us poor lower class serfs.
Well, I teach Con Law at the area night law school, and your statement is correct. But in Marbury v. Madison (q.v.), John Marshall asserted the right of judicial review, and it has been accepted ever since. Marbury is arguably the most important Supreme Court decision in history for just that reason. Without judicial review, the U.S. does not have three co-equal branches of government nor a complete system of "checks and balances."
banjoak - Posted - 09/01/2011: 23:57:42
I did hear the NPR story, and one thing was that nobody was exactly sure how this would come down in court, as some of this needs a test court case to sort out. And there was an acknowledgement of the issues involving unintended consequences, relating to vintage instruments, that most folks are not going to get documentation, and it was not intended to prevent musicians from international travel. The question is how do they better craft legislation to protect against illegal harvesting, (and the end user does play a part, demand)
Gibson will have it's day in court. As is often the case, we either don't actually know all of the details, nor are the issues (and interpretations of law) nearly as simple as what is presented in the media.
I do wonder though, if it was a corporation like the Yamaha Music Corporation that was charged with illegal wood products on cheap guitars, would it stir such an outcry?
Edited by - banjoak on 09/02/2011 00:01:08
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011: 00:11:05
Here's a statement from Natalie Swango at Luthiers Mercantile International (LMII), who imported the wood involved in Gibson's latest raids: “The exporter entered the correct code for his country's export according to Indian customs. I incorrectly listed Gibson as the consignee on the Lacey paperwork...the material was destined for them, but at this time LMI owns and is (was, ?) warehousing it. The broker made a mistake and listed the material as veneers, although all other paperwork correctly listed it as fingerboards (they have remedied this with an oops letter). The warehouse employee incorrectly informed the feds as to the ownership (although they bill me for the storage fees). The officers incorrectly came to the conclusion that we are smuggling wood.”
Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011: 14:21:28
I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.”
DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011: 15:15:10
So what I'm seeing in this is that there was enough inconsistency in the paperwork (three examples, by your reckoning) to warrant additional attention and further investigation by government authorities.
I really think that this kind of information should be included in the reporting of this issue. It helps present a clearer picture.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent (EU/GDPR Only)
Copyright 2026 Banjo Hangout. All Rights Reserved.
