Official Luthiers Forum!

Let’s discuss in this thread how Luthiers can get along and be happy with environmental law.

I will write some information here that we can all discuss. Perhaps we can put to rest some of the rumors. Let me say upfront that I am not an attorney and I am not giving anyone advice. I am relaying information I was given directly from government agents responsible for enforcing the law.

There are a bunch of Federal laws that now apply to guitar making and for every law there must be a thousand rumors about it. As an importer and dealer of exotic hardwood I am in a position that these laws concern me. I have always had a good understanding of the rules for importing plants and wood into the USA. I’m not an exporter but I do know how to ask questions to the different governing agencies.

Most of the rules only apply to import or export. Very little of CITES or The Lacey Act apply to a finished guitar. There is no reason for Luthiers to fear these laws. If you approach the laws with the desire to comply and assume they are there to protect the wild species, compliance is simple. There is no need to discuss if the law is good or bad, we are all probably on both sides. But the fact is the laws are here and are going to stay.

I have contacted numerous officials with F&W and APHIS about the requirements to export a guitar. You can scratch APHIS off the list of concerns. APHIS does not have jurisdiction over finished wood products. So this only leaves F&W to be concerned with.

I have spoken with Robert Gabel, the Chief of the Division of Management Authority,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/International Affairs. He put me in contact with Craig Hoover who is directly responsible for CITES in the USA. Most of what I am writing here is based on my communications with Mr. Hoover but also included is information I got from numerous APHIS agents.

There are three laws that might affect your guitar.
1. ESA – Endangered species Act of the USA
2. CITES
3. Lacey Act

The Endangered Species Act is mainly concerned with native species of the USA. However some species like African elephants are listed. I don’t think any lutherie wood species are listed by the ESA.

Neither CITES nor the Lacey Act provide a means for an enforcement agency to come to your residence, or shop, to inspect what you might have that might be illegal. In order to trigger an inspection or offense the listed species must cross a state or international border.

I am going to limit my scope of information to wood used to make guitars and other items. I’m not referring to animal parts such as shell or ivory although the same rules apply.

CITES only applies to commercial trade in species that are listed on the CITES protected list. Complying with CITES is complicated for both import and export.

CITES is controlled by F&W not APHIS.

You do not need CITES documents to import a guitar unless it contains CITES apx1 species. The only wood species of concern is likely Brazilian Rosewood.
But realize that even the BRW is not covered under CITES unless the import is commercial. A privately owned guitar is not subject to CITES. If you want to make sure that you can return with your guitar that you took on vacation or tour, US Customs has a procedure to register the item before you leave the country with it. Basically proof that you owned the guitar and are simply returning with it rather than importing a product from another country that would be subject to import duties.

Importing CITES apx1 species simply should be avoided unless you are very sure of what you are doing.

CITES apx2 or apx3 species are not an issue with a finished guitar. All, or most, of the wood species in CITES apx2 or apx3 are listed as “restricted” in the form of Logs, Sawn lumber or Veneer. All other forms are not subject to CITES.

The Mahogany or Spanish Cedar neck in a guitar is not subject to CITES protection.
However, all species whether protected or not by CITES or ESA are potentially subject to the Lacey Act.

If you ask F&W to issue a CITES export license they do not inspect your guitar before it arrives at the international border. If you request an export license you must send your supporting documents along with your application to the DC office. If the documents are in order they issue the export license. Once your guitar and export documents arrive at the international border (Customs) the guitar is inspected by F&W. If your documents are in order and match what the inspector sees the shipment is allowed to proceed.

The Lacey Act applies to commerce for both interstate and international.

The Lacey Act is only enforced by the paperwork you fill out for the species you are transporting or commercializing. If you fail to submit the required form when you import the species you are subject to violation. If you falsify, or make a mistake, filling out the documents you are subject to violation.

Lacy documents only apply to imports and not exports. Lacey export documents do not exist and therefore are not required.

There are no Lacey documents to fill out for interstate transport. For interstate transport Lacey only becomes an issue if you cross a state line with species that have not been taken from the wild in a legal manor.

Lacey does not apply to intrastate commerce. In other words, if you don’t cross a border Lacey does not apply.

It is easy to file the Lacey documents when importing, just know and identify the species you are listing. You must know that the species you are importing were removed from the wild through legal means. In other, words don’t try to sneak around the laws.

The thing with Lacey is that it gives the Government tools to aid in prosecution of violations. Law abiders love this and smugglers hate it.

The Lacey Act does not apply to a finished guitar if it was made with legally obtained materials.

Lacey import documents are only required for “Formal” imports into the USA. (A “formal import” is for a value of $2000 or more.)

How does APHIS get involved?
APHIS is responsible for plant health.
APHIS does not issue CITES documents, they only certify CITES documents issued by F&W.
APHIS has no reason to inspect a guitar.
APHIS has no procedure or form to issue an export or re-export license for a guitar. The only certificates they deal with are phytosanitary issues. They have no jurisdiction over finished wood products. APHIS has no method to certify the species of wood used to make a guitar. Just because you show them receipts that you purchased wood does not give them a means to certify that the guitar you are presenting them was made from that particular wood.

What about BRW?
The best thing to do is to build with something else and avoid hassles. However possession of undocumented BRW wood is not a crime.

If you have BRW that you have reason to believe was obtained legally you can legally buy and sell it.

You cannot import or export BRW without CITES certification.

You can build a guitar out of undocumented BRW and sell it within the USA.
You can travel in and out of the USA with a personal guitar made from BRW without breaking the law. But if you are carrying the guitar out of the country to sell it you need a CITES export license. The key factor here is that if you are bringing a BRW guitar into the USA and a Customs inspector suspects you are actually bringing in a guitar that you purchased abroad then that inspector is instructed by the procedures manual to seize and hold the guitar until you can prove that it is your personal property that you had carried out of the USA on your travels. You will get the guitar back if you provide the ownership proof, but if you can’t…. then likely they will assume you were trying to smuggle it in. There is a very precise instruction manual the inspectors must follow. Although it is 350 pages long it is very simple to understand and easy to see why they might confiscate something.

To end on a side note…. When the F&W inherited enforcing the Lacey Act on Luthiers because guitars contain plants species they were also charged with regulating the import of all products containing plant materials. So along with dealing with someone importing a guitar F&W now must oversee all imports of rubber. Yes rubber. Rubber is a plant product that comes from trees. The USF&W Service now must watch out for rubber smugglers. Who da thunk there were rubber poachers in the forest.

_________________
Lance Peck

Thanks, Lance! Very informative! I have a friend who works for the Commerce Department, and he's been working to understand all this. Your explanation is the best I've seen. He told me, according to his conversations with folks who work for the regulating agencies, that Guitars have become the unfortunate target because of the value of the finished product, and the reputation for BRW use in the instruments, that the law was really intended for pallet loads of wood and that's what set the $ amount.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Thanks Lance.

There is a refreshing touch of optimism in your post that I haven't seen in other threads concerning this issue.

Thank You

Elman

Thank you, it is good to see that the picture is becoming clearer on this topic

Filippo,sort of like the law in CA says you can smoke marijuana if you have a license,
but the feds can still bust you for it?
No, I don't smoke pot.
Thank you for taking the time for writing that, Lance.
Very informative.
Some day we'll have to have a gov't certification stamped on the guitars we build.
Hey, they could charge us money to do that!

No disrespect taken, Hey I'm here to discuss this situation that effects you more than me.
I don't make or export guitars. But I do import and export wood.
I have been involved off and on with import and export of living plants for 40+ years.
I have had my share of real world experience in dealing with government related laws. (insert an icon that is not available)

Frankly the restrictions imposed on the sale and use of threatened species helps me more than hurts me. I deal in alternative species so the sooner you guys give up building with protected species the sooner you will realize there are other choices and look closer at what we offer.

But the point is it does not matter if you are exporting a guitar made from mahogany or a chair, the law applies equally to both. As it does also with BRW. BRW is singled out for reasons everyone here already knows, no matter what form it is in it is restricted. In the Lacey Act they made a special point to include guitars because of the threat to BRW, not to pick on Luthiers. So no matter whether I have exported a guitar or not it is easy to find the answers about the law. BRW is protected in any shape or form by it's CITES class listing and the restrictions imposed by the listing country. Mahogany, Spanish Cedar, and a couple Rosewood species are listed in CITES but by their listing countries anything other than "raw" forms is NOT listed and CITES does not apply. This is clearly outlined the the CITES protocal. Take a look at this pdf document I put on our site for you to read. http://www.forgottenwoods.net/downoads/cites.pdf look for page 3-14. Read the Mahogany listing and you will see how a guitar is excluded from CITES.

The above touches on the academic look at the law. But what I wrote in the first post is the interpretation of the law by the man that approves or disapproves every CITES export License in the USA. He told me that F&W does NOT require a CITES export permit for guitars unless they contain a species listed as restricted in a finished form.
Maybe he does not know what district officers are telling people but he does know what he thinks they are telling people. You are welcome to call him and ask for yourself, he is actually a very nice and polite person to talk to. I'd be happy to give you his contact number through PM.

Fillipo, I have seen you post questions about >>>does anyone know anyone who has lost a guitar to F&W?<<<. Have you gotten any first hand replies?
Have you had a problem exporting or importing a guitar?
I did ask Mr Hoover if F&W has confiscated any guitars that he was aware of because of what species they contained. His reply was that the only seizures or confiscations were do to improperly filled out paperwork, not because of the species content. So the solution is simple if you intend to import or export anything you best know how to fill out a form correctly or be prepared to accept the outcome.

The truth is CITES and Lacey, no matter how much we hate them are our friends. Without these laws the extreme environmental groups would have an open pathway to close off all use of "wildlife". Let's keep discussing this and keep the questions going, it is important.

_________________
Lance Peck

Not exactly like weed in CA where Federal law completely forbids it's use. For guitar wood Federal law actually expressly permits it's use and provides rules to do so.

Unless you can prove that the wood actually used in a guitar is actually the wood you legally purchased the government will never be able to certify the legality of the wood. Until they have DNA meters that function like moisture meters it will never happen. But i bet they will charge us for the service now so they can implement it in 2040.

_________________
Lance Peck

The problem is that the value of hand made music instruments is mostly labour, so almost every instrument will be worth more than $2000 but at least 80% of that is labour. It would have made much more sense to use the value of the wood excluding labour, then small quantities of wood would not get caught up with pallet loads if that was indeed the intention. BRW has been covered by CITES since 1992, so I don't see the point, or is it that CITES is not being enforced properly?

As a maker who used to export to the USA on a regular basis this mess is a nightmare. It used to be easy! What is required of me now is around 10 times as much work as some one importing a container load of wood into the USA. This is because one of my mandolins might contain over 30 different parts and maybe 6 or 7 different species of wood, plus less than a gm of shell, none of which is CITES listed, but everthing has to be weighed and documented. Not only that, but I now need to try and understand USA law and the requirements of USF&W. Thoretically all this stuff is the responsibility of the importer, but customers have no idea, and when they do try and find out for themselves, they run away terrified. I now have just about a zero chance of finding USA customers who are willing to take the risk. Result is about 50% of my sales is now down the toilet. Added to this is I now can't get shell from the USA, and my USA fingerboard supplier has ceased international shipments becasue he is not willing to risk bankrupcy. How I convince a customer that it is worth it when potentially they could loose the instrument or face a massive fine, I don't know. How can anyone be happy about this?

Peter

Not even the F&W is happy about this burden. When Lacey was implemented a few years ago to cover wood we had a container with about 40 different species half way here from Peru. When the container landed in Los Angeles we were asked for the Lacey documents? Who the heck was Lacey? Our Customs Broker did not even know about Lacey! Fortunately there was a grace period to allow us to file the documents late, since no one really knew about Lacey. But who knew exactly how many pieces of each species we had let alone the exact weight? It was a mess, so yes I have been there too.

The $2000 value has nothing to do with any specific product. That is a limit that US Customs decided a long time ago to separate a casual import from a commercial import. So the value applies to a musical instrument of a rock no differently.

The Lacey and CITES documents are more about having the correct documents properly filled than actually how much of what is in the product. If your documents are in order the inspector has little reason to doubt their accuracy. That is unless you are trying to slide something through.

You should capitalize on the nightmare. Get to be an expert about the documents so you can guarantee their accuracy. Don't use any species that is a close look alike to a CITES 1 species and you should have a product that will pass right through. You can use Lacey to eliminate your competition.

_________________
Lance Peck

Lance, Thank you for this.
To clarify, you wrote :
" He told me that F&W does require a CITES export permit for guitars unless they contain a species listed as restricted in a finished form."
Is this correct as written? or should there be a "NOT" between does and require? Otherwise it doesn't seem to make sense.

Thanks!

NOT

Thanks I gotta go fix that.

_________________
Lance Peck

This is the nub of it isn't it! The problem with all of this stuff is that it does little for the intended purpose, preservation of rare or endangered species. And the only real way to deal with that is in the country of origin, at least until trees have smooth silky fur and big googly eyes. Until then all of this looks protectionist. The problem is that it does not really eliminate the competition as much as eliminate the markets. This is truly a global economy these days with the internet so not being to export your product seriously impacts your market share. If a business is happy with a customer base solely within the bounds of their own boarders then none of this matters to them anyway. It is all still quite a mess but as Lance says, not too difficult yet to comply. The last order I recently sent to Taylor guitars required only one document from my end and Taylor supplied that. I have heard of no issues with any of my packages yet (now why did I go and say that!!).

Anyway, thanks to both Lance and David for keeping this conversation going!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Becoming an expert on this stuff is a good idea, but my point was that potential customers get scared when they read about the penalties. Being an expert won't change that. They are effectively totally reliant on me to get it right, but the legal responsibility is entirely with them. Huge risk from their point of view, and personally I don't blame them from pulling out. Worst case scenario is they are bunkrupted if something goes seriously wrong. That is very unlikely, but the consequences are so dire that it is a risk that to many is unacceptable. It is for precisely this reason I no longer can get fingerboards from my US supplier of 15 years. I don't use CITES listed species. but what do customers know about CITES and Lacey - nothing. What do they know about wood? Usually next to nothing. Adding this (unacceptable to most) risk to imports into the USA from my point of view looks like a form of trade restriction and effectively turns free trade agreements into a joke. I agree with Shane. It does effectively eliminate the market. Harassing individual Luthiers does nothing for conservation of wildlife. Harassing large importers or exporters (i.e. our suppliers and the large manufacturers) might have some impact, and would be far more efficient. US F&W probably don't want the paper mountain this stuff is creating, but they haved to follow the legislative guidelines so we are stuck with it.

Peter

CITES seems easy enough to understand, even for luthiers, and enforce for the agencies concerned with the task, .

However Lacey seems to leave a lot of interpretation in the hands of concerned agencies, mostly customs in that case. IMHO this is not good news and leaves the door open for a lot of misunderstanding, abuse and random mistakes.

The last time I was confronted with Lacey was last year, crossing the border to Canada to go to the Montreal show with another builder. He did all the work before going, calling the customs office in Portland, ME, getting and filling all the paperwork for the species concerned by Lacey that were on his instruments. Between my friend's and mine we had 8 guitars in the van. The Canadian custom agents asked us to pull over. They were extremely nice and of course knew about the Lacey act, but their only concern was to know if we intended to sell the guitars in Canada, and pay sales tax. One agent stated that it didn't matter because in case of a sale at the show, the MGS is supposed to fill the paperwork and collect taxes. Wonderful. Then my friend gave the agents his bundle of Lacey-related paperwork. The look on their faces was inimitable… We waited about 40 minutes outside before they came out and asked to see some guitars. We opened a few cases, they complimented us on our work, asked a few questions about luthiery, prices, lifestyle and so on, asked if a mahogany guitar was rosewood, wished us good luck and we were on our way. Those guys, although very friendly and professional, were absolutely not trained to enforce anything Lacey-related with tonewoods. Crossing the border back in the USA we showed no paperwork and the agents seemed concerned only with persons, and not goods.

I realise this is totally anecdotal, but I can only imagine the kind of nightmare this could have been if we stumbled on custom agents on a bad day, either crossing to the USA or Canada.

Lance, we need to thank you for putting the time and effort in trying to shed some light on Lacey /CITES issues. However, with all due respect, your suggestion is silly. Even builders sometimes can't differentiate between some pieces of Braz, MadRW or cocobolo under finish just to name a few. So, we should stop using those species (and a lot of others)? How can agents tell in a finished guitars what wood species are there if they want to check, especially when untrained? It all seems too vague to me.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

If you ask me, the government needs to do more about all the invasive speices and tree killing bugs coming from forign countries than being worried about a tree in brazil.

You are correct it does little or nothing for the preservation of any species. In fact it actually is worse than nothing. We can get into the politics of conservation and I have plenty of opinions about that. Maybe best to attack that important issue in a separate discussion. So to keep the focus here on how to comply and survive with the rules I won't tell you what I really think yet.

_________________
Lance Peck

You are right customers don't know anything about CITES or Lacey.
If your products do not contain any CITES species then CITES does not apply to your product or to your customers.
Lacey is a simple "list of ingredients" for your product.

Both laws are here to stay and they will never get less restrictive. If we want to survive in the business we will need to adapt and play the hand that is dealt us.

If I were you my approach would be to learn exactly what the laws are and how to comply. It really is not difficult but does require time effort and expense on your part.
I would make a very big point to my customers that my product contained no CITES species. Don't apologize for it promote that you take pride in the fact.
Guarantee your customers that you will provide the correctly filled out Lacey documents.
Identify what the risk actually is to your customers... How many instruments are actually confiscated. How many people have been fined or prosecuted for importing an instrument with improper Lacey forms? Develop a company statement about the truth and not rumors.

It suddenly becomes a job.

_________________
Lance Peck

I've been reading along with much interest and will quickly relate two situations where I almost lost (or was threatened with the loose of) instruments because of this issue.

One was crossing the border into the USA on my way to GFA in Austin, TX last summer. I was traveling by plane, had the paperwork all filled and expected a reasonable experience crossing through with my instruments. One was Western Maple and the other Pao Ferro/Morado. The official asked me about the Pao Ferro as she seemed not to have any reference material on its scientific name "Caesalpinia ferrea"or "Machaerium scleroxylum Tul." Even though the information was on the forms she asked me where the wood was from, I answered "Bolivia", she asked "Any where else?" and stupidly I answered "Brazil, I think".

To make this very short, I begged and pleaded, a supervisor of the supervisor was called, I begged and pleaded some more, I promised my first born and finally the SWAT team was called off, I was given a stern warning concerning transporting banned materials (of which I had none!) and I was sent on my way with the knowledge that "a note was being added to my file".

The second incident occurred a few days later when I sent an East Indian Rosewood instrument over the border from Canada to a prospective client in the USA. The "note to my file" obviously popped up because the problem was such that it took over $400.00 in phone calls, faxes and various other expenses to get the instrument released to its new owner. He was so "freaked" by the experience that he refused the instrument and is at this point reassessing if he really wants to deal with the hassle of a "Rosewood" instrument or not.

Since last summer and these two experiences I have not sent any instruments to the USA. I have sent to Australia, Spain, South America, Mexico, Italy and France and have had zero issues...make of that as you will.

I'm not convinced that the implementation or enforcement of these laws in its/their present manifestation is entirely for the preservation of the species. As I tell my martial arts students…”if someone grabs you with their one hand you’d better be very clear what they are doing with their other because something even more unpleasant may be coming your way…”

_________________
How can I be lost? I'm always right here!

That is very true. So if you plan to transport items across international borders (import/export). YOU need to know the laws and rules that apply to the items you are moving. I have crossed through international customs countless times carrying various legal items in from South America. I have never been treated badly by US Customs. But I always have my documents and paperwork in order and ready for them. Lacey is simple, have the form ready and correctly filled out. The customs agent will compare your form to the item covered and if it appears correct he will pass you through. That is unless he suspects you are hiding something.



Not anecdotal at all. You see Lacey Act did not cause you any problems. You caused yourself grief by worrying about it.
First off there was no reason to show the Lacey documents to a Canadian Customs agent. WHY do that Lacey is for entering the USA not another country. Never give more information than is required or asked for. Be prepared and only speak when spoken to.

I notice in your story you did not say the US border agents asked to see your guitars or Lacey Documents or ask for an export license. That is because you don't need a permit to take the guitars out of the country unless the contain CITES covered species. Did any US agent ask you what was in your car as you left the USA?

And most importantly when you enter the USA don't give Lacey documents unless they are required. Are you positive that your guitars were subject to Lacey? Does Lacey apply to guitars that you personally own and are carrying back into the country after you carried them out? Was it a commercial importation? No.

We can't rely on every border crossing agent to understand Lacey so we must understand the law and tell them what it says. (in a polite way of course). Maybe we need to consider that agents have a bad dayy for a reason and we should try to not make it worse? ( I hate to stick up for feds.)



The suggestion is not silly if you want to be sure to avoid any problems without taking any risk.
Even on a freezing cold day you should not wear a ski mask into a bank unless you are prepared to be seen as a bank robber.
So when crossing a border if you have a species that no one can tell apart from a protected species what is the agent supposed to do?
Actually they have a protocol that they are supposed to follow. If they suspect that a CITES species is not correctly identified they are required to seize the item and hold for the biologist to identify it. It should not be an arbitrary decision made by an agent in a bad mood.

To familiarize yourself with their procedure look at the document of prodedure for Cites Lumber Species.
http://forgottenwoods.net/downloads/cites.pdf
Go to page 2-12 to see what they must do about Rosewood.
This is written like a species key works... kind of a road map for them to follow.
If the agent needs to identify a suspected species they refer to page F-1.

It seems vague to us but they actually have procedure to follow and methods to determine the true identity of the species. It may require that they hold and examine the item, and we just don't like that at all.

My suggestion is based on reality.... if you wear a ski mask into the bank the guard is going to assume you are a bad guy.
It is not silly it is sad.

_________________
Lance Peck

Exactly! Keep the paperwork until it is requested.
The Canadians were not clueless they just have no reason to ask for paperwork because no paperwork was required.
The Americans were not clueless they just had no reason to suspect paper work was required. Since they did not declare a formal import entry perhaps Lacey does not apply?

_________________
Lance Peck

I'm curious what forms you gave them and what forms did they ask for?
Did you declare the true value of the instruments and import them as a formal entry?

Why was answering "Brazil" stupid? Was Brazil not listed on the form?

The flag for the agent was probably the genus Caesalinia since it is the same genus as Pernambuco.



What were you begging and pleading for? And why? Was she threatening to take your guitars?



How did you send the instrument over the border?
What was the problem that you had to resolve?



Been coming for a long time now.

_________________
Lance Peck

Thanks Lance for your help and continued patience on all of this.
As it's hard to decipher anecdotal info as to how it applies to various scenarios (for those of us still on the learning curve)
might I impose on you to comment on how Lacey and or Cites might apply to these hypothetical situations?

#1-A luthier in the US has a guitar he built from materials none of which fall under the Cites I appendix and wishes to ship it to another country.
#2-A luthier in the US has a guitar he built from Brazilian rosewood for which he has Cites certification and wishes to ship it to a another country
#3-A luthier in the US has a guitar he built from legally obtained undocumented Brazilian rosewood and wishes to sell it to a customer in another state who then intends to ship it to another country.
#4- A luthier in the US has a guitar he built from Brazilian rosewood that was bought without paperwork directly from a seller in Brazil who shipped it directly to him and wants to ship it to another state.

Many Thanks!










3

I'm curious what forms you gave them and what forms did they ask for?

I didn't give them any more than what they asked for. The lady asked for the Certificate of origin (NAFTA), the Plant Product Declaration Form and proof that the instruments were returning to Canada with me. The latter may have been what got the whole thing rolling because I had not flown into the USA with instruments for many years (always driven) and was not aware of Carnet. So in her defense it was only my word that they were not staying in the USA. However, what followed was quite different from a concern over wither I was or was not going to sell the instruments.

Did you declare the true value of the instruments and import them as a formal entry?

Yes, I see no value in trying to deceive the customs officials. They have their job to do and it’s my duty to make sure that job is as easy as possible for them, at least where I am concerned. I made clear their value, that they were my personal instruments, were for display at the trade show in Austin TX only and would be returning to Canada when I returned.

Why was answering "Brazil" stupid? Was Brazil not listed on the form?

In this case I knew where the wood came from as the supplier, a personal friend, had traveled to Bolivia to select the logs. I cannot remember if "Brazil" was on the form. I'd have to look in my files. In any case the moment I mentioned the word “Brazil” is when things went seriously sideways and the fast and furious questioning began. I honestly believe that we would have been on our way if I had not mentioned “Brazil”.

What were you begging and pleading for? And why? Was she threatening to take your guitars?

Not merely threatening! The initial agent called two others to come and they commenced to pick up the packaged instruments to take them to a side room. I was begging to have them reconsider and not take my instrument because I was on my way to the convention and would not get them back in time to show, if indeed they were to be returned. My concern was also that only one instrument contained any rosewood of any kind but they were intent on taking both.

How did you send the instrument over the border?

In the first case I was hand carrying them with my airline luggage. In the second the instrument was sent via UPS.

What was the problem that you had to resolve?

In both cases I was informed that it was because of the “Rosewood” in the instruments that there was an issue. However, neither one contained any banned material. One sent by UPS was Indian Rosewood, the other two at the airport, one being Pao Ferro and the other which they were intent on taking also was Western Big Leaf maple from Vancouver Island, Canada.

I’m convinced that the official at the airport was intent on a bust for whatever reason and she thought she had me. It wasn’t until a couple superior officers were called over that things changed and I was able to convince them that neither I nor my guitars were involved in something illegal. She even followed us part way down the isle towards our connecting flight lecturing us on the evils of transporting banned materials. At least she was persistent. She would have made a good Royal Canadian Mountie…they almost always get their man.

I wasn’t the only one at that convention that had issues coming into the USA. Luthiers, dealers, performers and visitors with instruments, many voiced concerns about the scrutiny they and their instruments had received.

_________________
How can I be lost? I'm always right here!

OK, I comment with what I believe to be correct. I will assume the luthier is selling this guitar and not shipping it as a personal item.



Ship without any documents required by the USA. But verify if the destination country has any restrictions or requirements. (This should be the responcibility of the reciever to know his countries laws)



Must have a CITES re-export license. Submit the application to F&W along with the certification you have and they will issue the license. (I forget the cost but maybe $200 and a couple months process time?) They call this a license but it only applies to the one guitar for one shipment so it is more like a permit.



You can legally sell it within the USA. But it can not qualify for a CITES export license without the BRW being documented.

If you sell the guitar to someone in the USA with the idea that they will, as a private person transport the guitar out of the country, for delivery to your actual final customer you would be in violation of the Lacey Act.(conspiracy to avoid the law). If you built the guitar for a customer who you knew intended to try to export it illegally (without CITES) you could possibly be an accessory to a Lacey Act violation. But in any case undocumented BRW can not cross any international border legally.



This gets more tricky (risky) but is an interesting scenario without any good outcome.
We will assume the purchase and shipment from Brazil was after BRW was CITES listed.
Once the BRW is in the USA technically it is not subject to CITES for possession and can be sold as long as it does not cross an international border. However. when the luthier bought undocumented BRW from Brazil and transported it across two international borders two separate but related problems arise.

1. CITES was violated with the transport. The luthier only assumes that F&W does not know he smuggled in the BRW. F&W may well be aware and have an open investigation (undercover?) watching the movement of the smuggler (that is what the luthier is by law). The sale of the BRW guitar would complete the evidence that the wood was used in commerce.
2.The luthier knows the BRW was obtained illegally without CITES documents (or will be assumed to know). The sale and transport across state lines would be a Lacey Act violation.

3. The luthier knows the BRW is illegal. When he plans with another person a way to sell the guitar without getting caught he has committed a federal crime called conspiracy.
The only hope for a sale without a problem is if the customer keeps quiet and is not a federal agent in disguise.



You're welcome, these were excellent scenarios to question.

_________________
Lance Peck

It was my friend who had all the paperwork, not me, but that is irrelevant in the context. What matters is that he was trying to do the right thing by showing paperwork identifying the provenance of the wood on his guitars, Lacey and CITES related. And CITES matters for Canada. Believe me the Canadian agents took 40 minutes to check things out.
Nothing was asked when we crossed the border back to the USA, and the agent did not ask to see the guitars (but he checked my resident card/file on the system for a long time). However the year before that (2009) I had to open all the cases back at the US border, but no mention of Lacey or CITES. Since my name is on my guitars labels it was hard to believe they were goods I purchased in Canada…
In any case, my point in relating that story is that, contrary to what you insist on, it is not enough to fill out the paperwork. If you are confronted with suspicious custom agents, they will question everything. As Scot's story illustrates, what proves that you didn't declare the B&S of your guitar to be Pau Ferro when in reality they are (paperless) Brazilian rosewood (or so the agent thinks, if it comes from Brazil)? Is a random custom agent trained to make the difference? Some luthiers can't. It's even worse for shell.
In the form of a finished guitar I think we all know what can happen: the guitar will be held indefinitely. Or will you accept that a biologist takes a sample out of the back for analysis?

In a perfect world nobody ever cheats and no one suspect anyone of doing so.

I understand your advice of not using a lot of exotics traditionally used on guitars, and you may have a bias there, but I and others are in the business of building high end instruments for customers who expect the best and are willing to pay for it.

I do not want to sound negative, but I see here the potential for a lot of grief.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/