CITES again... 500+ guitars seized

Bigsby

Book burning is sinister because it's all about destroying ideas and knowledge. This is more like burning book shelves. Rosewood book shelves. Destroying these guitars hardly seems like a good solution to the problem, but I guess every other solution raises some kind of issue too. Real shame that we have to have these regulations, but something has to be done to protect resources like rosewood.

Didn't know the Taliban were hot on noise abatement. Learn something every day. Unless you're a young girl prevented from attending school by the Taliban (or the local council).

Jez6345789

I think this is atrocious overreach from HMRC. That penalises a small business, has little basis in fairness or law. on what is effectively new and shifting legislation.  The legal reality is if there were a hundred guitars added in above the permit level technically they are the illegal items should be seized and disposed of. 

Confiscation and destruction are one of the tools in their box. They could have impounded it and asked for corrected paperwork, yes you pay costs storage etc but if you can get it sorted quickly its better than destruction. 


This is customs sending a message to the trade but also making themselves a nice headline in the enforcement community that in the UK we are implementing this new legislation with great effect. So when CITES ask for their figures they can all get a fat slap on the back for a job well done. 
 
Few small businesses can afford the legal costs of taking HMRC to court they know it so from time to time tend to simply put the big boots and stamp on a particular trade. 

The seized shipment could have been sold for charity donated to schools 

This type of overreach will get even more if we move out of the customs union and small business will pay the price of this kind of overreach. 

I am not sure if it's still the case but when I first started importing  20 odd years ago they pretty much told me they had their trusted importers in my market segment and frankly, they make it hard for new importers to get started with delayed permits etc etc. I went through that sort of crap for about a year then there was a change of policy and someone told them they were there to help business do it correctly and things got better. 

Rant mode off

crunchman

octatonic said:

Whitecat said:

octatonic said:

So if I am leaving the country and taking guitars with me (via a commercial shipper) will I need to get CITIES clearance for my rosewood equipped guitars?

I don't have receipts for some of them because they were bought, well, here.

Yes.

You'll need export permits on this end, and import permits at your destination.

Not sure what to do about no receipts - possibly proof that a serial number dates it to a certain year might be OK.

OK, that might mean I am leaving a few things here then.

Will you still be travelling to the UK at all, or have UK based friends coming to visit you?  If so, then you could take them with you on the plane as personal possessions (you may have already figured that out).

jeztone2

Bigsby said:

Book burning is sinister because it's all about destroying ideas and knowledge. This is more like burning book shelves. Rosewood book shelves. Destroying these guitars hardly seems like a good solution to the problem, but I guess every other solution raises some kind of issue too. Real shame that we have to have these regulations, but something has to be done to protect resources like rosewood.

Didn't know the Taliban were hot on noise abatement. Learn something every day. Unless you're a young girl prevented from attending school by the Taliban (or the local council).

But that's the thing. I lived next door to a 24 hour gym for 6 years. Constant noise problems. People dealing drugs in the car park. Council and Police did nothing. But I bet if it was a pub or venue, they'd have lost their licence. I don't think it's about noise. I think it's about stopping people from having fun. 

Rocker

Why all the aggro about the CITES confiscation of musical instruments? The rules are there and are a clear as day. The paperwork needs to be completed to move instruments across international borders. This clearly was not done for the 500 odd guitars alluded to in the OP. The CITES rules may be daft, may be plain stupid and wrong but they are the law. And these laws were flagged many years before their introduction so ignorance of the law is no defence.

57Deluxe

we as a Forum/group should lobby a guitar-minded MP or ex MP...???

HAL9000

Rocker said:

Why all the aggro about the CITES confiscation of musical instruments? The rules are there and are a clear as day. The paperwork needs to be completed to move instruments across international borders. This clearly was not done for the EXTRA  guitars added by the supplier. The CITES rules may be daft, may be plain stupid and wrong but they are the law. And these laws were flagged many years before their introduction so ignorance of the law is no defence.

FTFY

darthed1981

Rocker said:

Why all the aggro about the CITES confiscation of musical instruments? The rules are there and are a clear as day. The paperwork needs to be completed to move instruments across international borders. This clearly was not done for the 500 odd guitars alluded to in the OP. The CITES rules may be daft, may be plain stupid and wrong but they are the law. And these laws were flagged many years before their introduction so ignorance of the law is no defence.

I find myself rather agreeing with this.

There are two halves to it, and I feel there isn't much defense for the importing business.  Law across business for everything from tax to health and safety to copyright and employment law is complicated.  This leaves every business with the choice of hiring/training staff or employing third parties to ensure compliance.  If the business fails and takes a financial hit, it's harsh to blame the people enforcing the law for that.

The other half is the destruction of the instruments, which is very unfortunate.  Sad fact is though, were they to be gifted to charities then a lot of them would end up sold through third parties, and therefore HMRC would be enabling the "trade" in unpermitted rosewood.  It is possible an accomodation could be reached with a single charity, as Lee Anderton suggested, might still happen.

The background to this, remember, is the horrific destruction of forests and associated ecosystems worldwide, something that the international community is singularly failing to control and which will haunt future generations.  Maybe a bit of extreme punishment is needed for people to take the laws seriously...?

ICBM

darthed1981 said:

I find myself rather agreeing with this.

There are two halves to it, and I feel there isn't much defense for the importing business.  Law across business for everything from tax to health and safety to copyright and employment law is complicated.  This leaves every business with the choice of hiring/training staff or employing third parties to ensure compliance.  If the business fails and takes a financial hit, it's harsh to blame the people enforcing the law for that.

The other half is the destruction of the instruments, which is very unfortunate.  Sad fact is though, were they to be gifted to charities then a lot of them would end up sold through third parties, and therefore HMRC would be enabling the "trade" in unpermitted rosewood.  It is possible an accomodation could be reached with a single charity, as Lee Anderton suggested, might still happen.

The background to this, remember, is the horrific destruction of forests and associated ecosystems worldwide, something that the international community is singularly failing to control and which will haunt future generations.  Maybe a bit of extreme punishment is needed for people to take the laws seriously...?

That's true, but destroying the guitars to make the point is actively counterproductive - it will simply cause more guitars to be made - from the same materials, just with more care taken over the documentation. Thus it will, even if only in a small way, contribute to further rosewood logging.

This is not the same as the case with elephant ivory since there is no legal trade in it, with or without documentation.

Keefy

Can anyone explain what the score is if you want to take a guitar on a gig/holiday trip into mainland Europe? (I have done this a couple of times.) Would you just need a copy of the receipt showing that it was purchased pre-CITES?

Whitecat

Keefy said:

Can anyone explain what the score is if you want to take a guitar on a gig/holiday trip into mainland Europe? (I have done this a couple of times.) Would you just need a copy of the receipt showing that it was purchased pre-CITES?

Hand-carrying requires no permits. Only instruments shipped via third parties do. A receipt would not be a bad idea for when you return though - lest U.K. Customs accuse you of buying it abroad and trying to sneak it back in. 

57Deluxe

/\ so we are heading towards: Certificate of Ownership, that could then lead to having having to have a 'Licence to Own' which will require photo ID and no doubt periodic renewal @£80 a pop...

jeztone2

57Deluxe said:

/\ so we are heading towards: Certificate of Ownership, that could then lead to having having to have a 'Licence to Own' which will require photo ID and no doubt periodic renewal @£80 a pop...

Yes, because the 1% don't pay tax. It's another excuse to bleed the lower middle class. Plus the Government would know about you owning assets. So they could potentially  tax the used market when you sell. 
If people resisted that, they'd start dumping guitars. Thus devaluing the asset so institutions could purchase them at knock down prices.

They've killed off home ownership for many young people. Savings aren't worth shit, so I guess the next thing to attack is non liquid assets. 

darthed1981

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

I find myself rather agreeing with this.

There are two halves to it, and I feel there isn't much defense for the importing business.  Law across business for everything from tax to health and safety to copyright and employment law is complicated.  This leaves every business with the choice of hiring/training staff or employing third parties to ensure compliance.  If the business fails and takes a financial hit, it's harsh to blame the people enforcing the law for that.

The other half is the destruction of the instruments, which is very unfortunate.  Sad fact is though, were they to be gifted to charities then a lot of them would end up sold through third parties, and therefore HMRC would be enabling the "trade" in unpermitted rosewood.  It is possible an accomodation could be reached with a single charity, as Lee Anderton suggested, might still happen.

The background to this, remember, is the horrific destruction of forests and associated ecosystems worldwide, something that the international community is singularly failing to control and which will haunt future generations.  Maybe a bit of extreme punishment is needed for people to take the laws seriously...?

That's true, but destroying the guitars to make the point is actively counterproductive - it will simply cause more guitars to be made - from the same materials, just with more care taken over the documentation. Thus it will, even if only in a small way, contribute to further rosewood logging.

This is not the same as the case with elephant ivory since there is no legal trade in it, with or without documentation.

I wasn't in on the ivory allegory.

Perhaps the best solution then, make the shipper pay to ship them back then obtain correct permits and ship again?

guitars4you

just heard an interesting story regarding CITES

Three guitars from the early 60's - all with Brz board - a business has applied for a CITES certificate in order to sell them - deceased estate - But no proof exists to prove date of purchase, origin of purchase etc so CITES won't grant a licence

mbe

So does this judge put on a black cap, all dramatic like, when he condemns these guitars?

Jez6345789

The Selectron case seems to be based on additional items added in to the shipment from the bit we have heard here, the overreach if this is correct is destroying a whole shipment just to look good in the enforcement monthly journal. They ultimately have discretion to fine seize or consult. Yes business should have their ducks lined up but how many times have I had to tell suppliers only ship stuff on the commercial invoice and manifest only to get a few gift boxes of extra products. In countries where this stuff is less rigorously enforced its expected if my container gets pulled its a proper nightmare but still they do it.

So if you think customs are not grandstanding with this.

When I and others tried to report regular importation of endangered species which was happening on a biweekly basis all with fake documents it took 18 months and serious lobbying from our industry to actually get them to act. They said due to being under resourced.

Again with the comments on the 60’s guitars who will realistically have a receipt from 1960’s.

in fairness I also have to say over the years I have received good support and advice but have come to see it as whatever the agenda is this year as their approach is at times schizophrenic.

axisus

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

crunchman

axisus said:

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

This rosewood is not illegal though.  With the correct paperwork, it would be fine.

A more proportionate response would be to send it back, and let them get the paperwork correct.  Wanton destruction of 500 guitars isn't helping anyone except some jobsworth bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own importance.

Whitecat

crunchman said:

axisus said:

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

This rosewood is not illegal though.  With the correct paperwork, it would be fine.

A more proportionate response would be to send it back, and let them get the paperwork correct.  Wanton destruction of 500 guitars isn't helping anyone except some jobsworth bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own importance.

I get why they don't though. Because chancers could easily game every single shipment, doing the bare minimum, and hope they don't get caught, and when they do, just "fix the papers." There's no incentive to follow the rules in the first place if there's always a free second chance.