Official Luthiers Forum!

I am glad that I have reciepts for the Brazilian Rosewood sets I bought years ago (Pre-CITES) from LMI, back when they were selling for $75 a set (and they were quartersawn!). At least with these sets I can show that they were purchased pre-CITES and I can get a CITES export permit.

I have some sets that I bought from a friend who is a luthier in Australia who obtained and sent CITES documents with the sets. In this case I can get a CITES re-Export permit.

I have other sets that were purchased in the US with no documentation and for which while they look quite old (unlike eBay sets that were sawn last month from a beam in a house ) I have no way to prove their purchase or import pre-CITES.

Even those all of those scenarios are in play, because there is no absolute way to identify which set what purchased when and which set of documentation applies to what set, these laws are most likely skirted by many each day.

The potential for abuse is high and I hear anecdotal stories of people who get export documentation from Brazil that is supposedly offical (but is not CITES documentation) but with the implementation of Lacey, enforcement will either get much more strict or it will eventually become impossible, if countries like Brazil dont police their exports.

I can verify that. I recently shipped a guitar to Canada that contained no CITES materials. I inquired about permits and was told I didn't need any. My client had to pay some kind of taxes,(VAT?) but that was it.

_________________
I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said.
http://www.brackettinstruments.com/

It's the law now. That's why we need to talk and discuss here so everyone can learn to live with it or work to change it. Did you write about your problem to the US Customs or F&W to inform them about how problematic border crossing with un-restricted species is? I would not have either.

_________________
Lance Peck

I 100% agree.

_________________
Lance Peck

Until they get that DNA meter it will never happen. And because it is so easy to skirt the laws that is why the border agents get so testy.



Lacey will not make enforcement more strict or effective but it will increase the conviction rate and give a gold star to the prosecutors. More convictions and arrests mean bigger budgets next year.

_________________
Lance Peck

Yes send the stories and let's look at the facts and learn how to avoid what caused the problems. I will offer my constructive opinions and I hope others do as well.
I gotta go cut some wood now.

_________________
Lance Peck

I work in a genetics lab that has occasionally tested suspect imports for species identification. This sort of on-site genetic characterization is probably a ways off, especially for plants.

_________________
Evan McCartney

A friend of a client lost his DeJOnge SS when he crossed into Mich form Sarnia Ontario, last October .. he was going on vacation, taking his guitar with him. The US customs agent did a random inpection, and noticing a guitar case, asked to see whats inside. They took it in the office, and pulled out some book, to confirm that it indeed had some kind of shell on it, as it was a paua rosette. They took it. Have nice day, move along now. He never got it back.

I figure they used the USF&W regs that say you need a permit and license to import shell product into the US - and he didnt have one. As well, the USF&W lists the ports of entry for shell .. The Canadian border crossings, or at least some of them, only allow importation of products of origin of Canada or US. paua wouldnt apply here, as it comes mostly form New Zealand. You have to go thru one of the big ports of entry with the right paperwork for this, and none of them are at the Canadian border ... read the Fretboard Journal article .. it proposes a situation just like this, entering the US at a non port of entry for F&W inspection ...their answer .. unknown.

So what will the US builders driving to Montreal this year do ??? Even items for display only at a show are classified as commercial (I read that on one of the sites, either Lacey or F&W a few weeks back,, and thus need the license/permits to cross the border into the US.)

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Lance, Fillipo and others thank you very much for taking the time to work through this with us. I especially appreciate your questions concerning my experience and my actions. It points out not only what the agent was thinking but more importantly what my role was in escalating this whole fiasco. Don't think that I am offended by any of your questions, I need to learn how to deal with this issue since it will be with us from now on.

To answer a few more of your questions:


No-one from Us customs checked if I returned to Canada with the instruments. The Canadian customs fellow asked if they were mine, "yes" was the answer and I was sent on my way home.


To solve the problem I had to convince the agent or "a" agent that the rosewood was not Brazilian. The problem with the Indian Rosewood was not an issue of documentation but a matter of trust. They did not trust that I was telling the truth about what it was. Two people said that very thing to me over the phone (this was the instrument I shipped).


I suppose it would be both. They said I was "incorrect" (lying) in stating on my paperwork that the guitar was made from something other than Brazilian when "in fact it is Brazilian". The odd thing at the airport was that no-one actually looked at the instrument until the supervisor was called. The Pao Ferro I used is perfectly quartered, straight, even grained and looks like very boring EIR so one with even only a little experience with Rosewoods would have to question if it was actually Brazilian just by looking...I would hope??

So once someone that knew the law was in charge things worked correctly?

Yes, but not without going through the whole process again.

Did you write about your problem to the US Customs or F&W to inform them about how problematic border crossing with un-restricted species is?

No. I prepaired a letter during my downtime in Austin but decided not to send it after my second experience with the shipped guitar. I figured that if I already had one flag on my file (I have no idea if they can really do that but it seems likely) then I'd better not annoy anyone that could stop me from visiting the land of my mother. I thought a better approach might be to learn how to actually work within the law.

And yes the Canadian border folks can be very anal when it comes to guns. But I guess we all need something that makes us feel important in our dead end jobs. Be it harassing guitar players or innocent folks looking to protect themselves in the Alaskan wild.

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

And probably everyone needs a business visa as well to conduct business in the country. Who's idea was it to start enforcing the laws anyway?

_________________
Lance Peck

That's why the entry agent had to be convienced that you were actually going to take them out.



A lot of the problem is that all the border agents like F&W, APHIS, Customs are now under the control of Homeland Security. They don't trust anyone.
At least you were able to convince them.



None of them have probably ever seen a BRW guitar before.



Reboot. that is common in the age of computers.



Good thinking. After a while someone will ad a note to your file not to waste time on this law abider.



Actually she was rather good looking and that is about all I remember after all the years. My wife did wondered why we were in the trailer so long.

_________________
Lance Peck

Lance,

the shell in question was paua .. not a CITES listed species. What the agent thought it was, who knows.

Entering the US .. once you cross the bridge, or enter US soil at a ground crossing (or for that matter, step up to the booth at US customs in a Canadian airport, not even on US soil), you are technically in the US and can be arrested as such ... the guitar WAS in the US, in Mich, at a customs site. He may not have cleared customs, but he was in the US. US soil begins half way across that bridge (take a look at the map) .... Done deal. CITES may or may not have had anything to do with it, the guitar was in fact breaching F&W regs as it was entering at a non port of entry .... who knew ???

Like the other fellow says above .. even if your paperwork is correct, filled out honestly, who is to stop one of these folks from saying you have falsified documents ???? We are at their mercy here ....

There is no formal mechanism for contacting US customs on your way to Canada (or if there is, what is it ?? Stop in voluntarily on your way thru - why bother ??) .. You are leaving the US, and the only folks who now care are those of the country you are entering - Canada. They want to know what you have and are bringing in. Mainly to nail you for taxes (see Laurent's post - selling any guitars up here ?? - you need to pay tax). We just came back from a ski vacation in Vermont (30+ inches of fresh - Woohoo). The Canada customs agent on our way back was concerned about how much we were bringing back, how much booze and any tobacco, and whether or not any one thing was worth more than 400 bucks - each persons limit for this trip. It was all about the money we might owe the Govt.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

May I suggest that people use quotes (especially when they use multiple quotes and quotes within quotes) in a way that identifies the speaker(s)?

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

I guess it has been US law for a long time that to import "wildlife" parts or products requires a F&W permit. It clearly says that on the little paper we all fill out when going through US Customs. But who would have thought they would start enforcing it against shells in a guitar. Probably if they had check the little box that said they had wildlife parts the guitar would have been passed through. Remember they are "paper" people.

That's true, you actually pass through immigration before customs.
Is it that all shells have a designated port of entry or all CITES apx1 species have the designated ports? I don't know the rules on shells other than they are considered wildlife and F&W rules have always applied, dead or alive.

We are at their mercy every step of our lives. Even if we follow their rules they can single us out and beat us to the ground if they want to. But that problem is not because of CITES or Lacey.

I'm a little lost on this comment, I'm not sure exactly what you a responding to. But it is exactly the point I am trying to get across, the USA does not require EXPORT permits for guitars. If you did have an export permit no one in the USA would see it. Most countries are only concerned about what is coming in.

_________________
Lance Peck

As you probably noticed I like quotes.

_________________
Lance Peck

So what about the material that is confiscated by the government? Do they sell it at auction and it magically becomes "legal"?

_________________
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement.

This stuff is scary. I need to deliver 2 guitars to the US this year, one maple but with Madrose binding and bridge, the other Indian with madrose headplate and bridge. I suppose it is the receiver who needs to fill in the Lacey paperwork at the fedex customs point or what?

Thanks....

_________________
Build log

Ok, here is something that was written by a very well known guitar dealer (and maker) here in the US.
Anyone willing to take on the accuracy of his assertions?
(Lance?)

"The mere fact that it is a stringed musical instrument made of wood requires full Lacey declaration completion and filing of PPQ form 505 with APHIS. This form according to its own front page is estimated to take 1.5 hours to complete, and requires listing of ALL genus and species of ANY plant and/or animal materials contained in the instrument. Failure to correctly complete the form may result in a 400K fine, and willful failure to comply or intentional obfuscation of any listed species or other statements on the form will result in jail time + 400K fine. While ALL items containing any plant or animal species are now controlled by the Lacey Act in the USA, only stringed musical instruments currently are required to have PPQ form 505, a blatant singling out of our industry to say the least, which is why I have been vigorously warning all my clients about any overseas travel with their instruments or attempts to import instruments on their own. Stringed musical instruments are SPECIFICALLY on the radar of US border control agents. If you doubt this, remember that Gibson Inc. has already been raided by Federal agents for Lacey violation, along with other raids by ARMED Federal agents on other musical establishments, and seizures of incoming stringed musical instruments, some of which were actually manufactured here in the USA (C. F. Martin guitars).

Unfortunately too many musicians (and dealers, luthiers, etc) are confusing the provisions of Lacey with those of CITES which is a completely separate treaty of laws and regulations governing international trade in endangered species. Unfortunately, the nexus of the two laws potentially places any US citizen in violation of Lacey if they possess any item with CITES banned species for which they do not have a pre-CITES certificate of exemption from the US Dept of Fish and Wildlife. For instance, any guitar made with Brazilian rosewood which was made after June 11, 1992 would be in violation of CITES, and therefore its owner would be in violation of Lacey. It doesn't matter if the wood used was certified pre-CITES. From the standpoint of the government the date of legality for the object is the date of its CREATION, NOT the date of harvest of the materials. A pre-CITES certified set of Brazilian rosewood remains legally pre-CITES only as long as it remains in the raw form in which it was certified. Once re-worked into a new object, the reference date is the date of creation of the object, and if that date is AFTER the elevation of the species to CITES appendix I, then it is in violation. Lacey address not only importation of plant and animal species, but also interstate commerce and even physical possession. You don't have to be making an importation to violate Lacey, mere possession is sufficient. Obviously, under the current law, every stringed musical instrument dealer in the USA is in violation of Lacey.

I don't know what more to do to make this clear to makers, dealers and musicians. So far it seems almost none have a grasp of the mechanics of the law nor its implication, and most seem to be under some kind of delusion that if their instrument is old enough or made without certain woods that somehow the law does not apply to them. That is NOT the case. There is NO exemption for age in reporting requirements, although the director of APHIS has allowed for a slightly streamlined process of compliance in filling out PPQ 505 for instruments made prior to May 22, 2008, but none the less one still has to fill out the form. Failure to do this will result in confiscation and possible criminal prosecution, not to mention a hefty fine and legal fees."

Being in the UK I know absolutely nothing concerning Lacey and/or it's implementation.
Specific forms (PPQ 505) for stringed musical instruments seems to me to be absurd. I've had a quick look at that form. There is no mention of musical instruments that I can find.

This morning after reading every FWS guidance document on CITES, re-reading Lacey, and anything I could find at Customs and Border Control, I called Craig Hoover at FWS.

As Lance previously mentioned, Craig Hoover is Chief of Branch of CITES Operations (policy/Regs)
FWS, Office of International Affairs, Division of Management Authority. Essentially he is the chief biologist in charge of all things CITES at FWS. Craig was able to confirm most of what Lance has been saying and passed on answering portions to others involved in permitting whom I haven't yet been able to reach.

Mahogany. Mahogany is a CITES Appendix II material. According to CITES Appendices document,http://www.cites.org/eng/app/E-1104277.pdf, Honduran Mahogany is only controlled when it is in the form of “Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets and plywood.” See p. 38, footnote 6. According to FWS, unless the material is in a form or category that is controlled, there is no requirement to file a 3-200-32 form, no CITES permit required because it’s not considered CITES material. Despite the apparent discrepancy between the form (which asks to document any CITES listed material, Mr. Hoover stated that finished mahogany parts are not considered controlled under CITES.

Brazilian.

There is no provision within Lacey or CITES for the prohibition of the sale or transport of post-convention materials, other than for export. If it’s not documented, it’s still considered contraband; however, the burden is on the Government to show that it is contraband. It is only in the context of export that the burden is on the exporter – that does not necessarily make the material contraband, it just means that you do not have the documentation necessary for FWS to declare it legal for export. His explanation was that if it's in the US then it was brought in legally, but unless it's papered, you can't export it. I find it peculiar that there is this ambiguity in that a material can be contraband, but still legal for trade within the US. Something to think about. This may be their story now, but that doesn't mean it won't change later.

Personal instruments: Person A is planning on leaving the country with a personal instrument that contains Appendix I materials in a finished form. What is necessary for them to legally carry it out of the country and bring it back in?

50 CFR pt. 2315, relates to personal and household effects. It states that you don’t need documents to import or export unless it contains Appendix I materials, e.g., Brazilian Rosewood. If you have a guitar with Appendix I materials you need a export permit – preconvention certificate (3-200-32) in order to travel with the instrument. This will allow you to get in and out of the US; however, this only applies to the US and does not necessarily protect the owner from other jurisdictions.

As for Appendix II materials in personal instruments, no permit is required if it meets all the other personal exemption requirements.

Now as for repurposing pre-convention materials into guitar sets, the jury is still out as I haven't been able to talk with the permit person Mr. Hoover gave to me. Lance's information thus far has proved to be on point; I suspect this will be as well.

The real problem here, and Mr. Hoover indicated as much is that FWS has difficulty making sense of the regulations and as such it makes it much more difficult to provide unified responses to inquiries such as ours.

So for the time being, this is very good news. I'm reserved in my glee because their is such ambiguity in the regs and procedures that I don't have much confidence in how the agencies might choose to implement the regulations at any date in the future. My recommendation is that going forward people start demanding full chain of custody for their materials such that if in the future implementation or rules change, they will be already have the paperwork.

Lance, I stand corrected. Furthermore, Mr. Hoover intends to make sure the other biologists under his purview understand the distinctions made in these regulations.

Yes. I will take the accuracy on. But only for the sake of discussion and to gain a better understanding. You don't say who the author is when it was written or where his info comes from but it looks to be based on worst case scenario. I will comment and hope someone else will also.



This makes it sound like they Lacey is singling out stringed musical instruments. No so, the law applies to anything made out of wood.



The form is not complicated. The time estimate on the front page does not estimate 1.5 hours to fill it out. The time estimate includes all the time it takes to learn how to fill out the form the first time. Once you know how it probably takes less than 10 minutes to fill out. And why is 1.5 hours a huge problem considering the hours invested in building a guitar? A Customs agent probably will charge $20 extra to fill out the form.

Here is a link to the form...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ ... onform.pdf



Not WILL result... MAY result.


This is not correct. PPQ Form 505 is required for all Plant Products not just stringed instruments.



This is correct. Probably because the majority of stringed musical instruments crossing international borders contain some form of restricted species?



From what I understand all the raids were based on improperly filled out documents and involve restricted species.



No. Possessing an undocumented item is not a violation of Lacey unless you obtained the item through illegal actions.



No. There is legal BRW that can be made into a guitar even today. So to say any guitar made with BRW after 1992 is a violation is not correct.



No, not correct. The pre-CITES certificate wood can be transformed into something else. And that new item can be certified by showing the certificate for the source material.



No, for the above reason. Use the original certificate to obtain a new certificate.


Lacey only address possession if you took possession through illegal means, knowingly.



Not correct.






Is it clear yet?


The "law" does not apply to them for possession.
CITES applies if the are importing or exporting restricted species.
Lacey applies if they are importing.



Yes you have to fill out the form if the form is required for your activity or item. But it is not the end of the world.

_________________
Lance Peck

"I'm reserved in my glee because their is such ambiguity in the regs and procedures that I don't have much confidence in how the agencies might choose to implement the regulations at any date in the future."

(insert clever saying here that I don't want on the internet because what we say can and will be used against us)

_________________
Lance Peck

Thank you for taking the time to respond Lance.

FAQ on APHIS Lacey Act

12. Does the declaration requirement apply to all types of entries?

At present, we will be enforcing the declaration requirement for formal entries (i.e., most commercial shipments). At this time, we are not enforcing the declaration requirement for informal entries (i.e., most personal shipments), personal importations, or mail, transportation and exportation entries, in-transit movements, carnet importations (i.e., merchandise or equipment that will be re-exported within a year), and foreign trade zone and warehouse entries. As with the different product types, we would issue a Federal Register notice before initiating any enforcement regarding such imports.

_________________
Lance Peck

Lance, One last question (maybe) at the head of this thread you said:

"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."

Though in your response above you seem to agree with the need for the PPQ 505 form with APHIS for import. Does this mean that Aphis still controls importation of a wood object but not it's export?

Also a question for for anyone else, though now I far better understand the laws in regard to wood, is there anything we need to know regarding the export or interstate sales of finished objects made from red or green abalone or MOP insofar as F&W is concerned?
(I don't find any of these species listed in the Cities appendicies)