Official Luthiers Forum!

I was trying to avoid this discussion given the hyperbolic nature of some of the posts, but I digress.

The issue is that India prohibits the export of Indian ebony in thicknesses greater than 6mm, except if it is a finished product. India, which manages their ebony and rosewood logging and auctions logs off for processing, considers a rough sawn fingerboard blank a finished product. What has happened in the recent raid on Gibson is that FWS is misinterpreting Indian law. FWS is unilaterally deciding that a fingerboard blank is not a finished product, and therefore its export is in violation of Indian law and constitutes a Lacey violation. Furthermore, FWS determination that it is not a finished product allows them to accuse Luthier's Merchantile of importing wood into the US with improper Harmonized Trade Codes.

And for the record, I want to say how brave Rick Davis is for his comments. I echo his comments that we in the musical instrument community have a vested interest in environmental regulations, and in particular those that promote forest management. The US does not manage its forests. We allow logs to be exported whole out of the US, unprocessed and thus shipping possible jobs outside the US. We get no value added for our own resources. As a result of our poor forest management, we are currently looking a the possibility of only 10+ more years of sitka spruce for guitar tops. So for all of you whose consternation over Lacey is boiling over, I'd like you to consider a world in which you can no longer make guitars out of Alaskan spruce.

I don't like how the Lacey Act was written, nor being implemented; however, its amendments were enacted because other countries were going to start banning the importation of US goods if the US didn't start doing something to prevent the illegal importation and exportation of forest products. Europe has enacted similar regulations. Japan has very tough regulations. Australia is in the process of enacting legislation as well.

What is different, in my estimation is that unlike the US, when I called the Australian equivalents of USDA-APHIS and FWS, everyone there was on the same page. They knew the regulations both foreign and domestic, they knew how they were applied, and the answers were the same across agencies. That is what is missing in the US -- a level of consistency within agencies and across agencies when it comes to understanding international issues such as CITES. When I called APHIS and FWS I got several wrong answers to the same question. That is what is unacceptable.

My hope is that Gibson will not settle this case with the Government and force it through the courts so that there is legal precedent. I hope that the current publicity can be used in a positive way to make appropriate changes to the legislation so that it is functional. Lacey's been around a long time, so anyone who thinks that it can be overturned is fooling themselves. However, with a little luck we might get a bite at the apple (something we didn't take as an industry the first time because we didn't see it coming) and make changes that make the regulations workable.

David D. Berkowitz
Berkowitz Guitars

India is not a tiny little backwoods country... They have published laws with definitions. A log is not a fingerboard no matter what a government official says.
If it is a domestic harvested wood thicker than 6mm in can't be exported legally.

This is the export policy for lumber in India that I found published on their Embassy website.

S# 146
Item Description:
Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end jointed, or a thickness exceeding 6 mm other than sawn timber made exclusively out of imported logs/timber

Export Policy:
Prohibited

Nature of Restriction:
Not permitted to be exported

_________________
Lance Peck

Lance I get that. But what I don't know is whether all Indian regulations are published on their Embassy's page. Furthermore, it would appear to be inconsistent with the enormous industry of rough sawn guitar wood sold from India. The implication is that enormous quantities of wood are being exported as rough sawn guitar parts in violation of export policy to every country in the world and none of it is being stopped by Government officials in India. I don't know the answers to those questions. My understanding is that these are considered finished parts.

It's possible that its planks with work done on a part of it so that India considers it finished part.

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

Lance, can you please provide the link? -- db

David, are you saying that Gibson actually purchased this wood as fingerboard blanks from LMI? The assumption here was that these were split logs that they purchased directly from sources in India.

I think that yes, we need to be responsible in how we acquire wood and which wood we choose. I think what has some folks in a bit of an uproar was the actions of the FWS agents that seemingly drew conclusions and subsequently raided Gibson without filing charges or explaining their actions (Gibson had the right to that information, and it was denied them) and also seemingly not doing due diligence in contacting the Indian authorities for clarification regarding what they deemed as a "finished product". Some of this information is not available to us, so we draw conclusions that may or may not be factual. Obviously to us, a raw fingerboard blank is no different than an Indian Rosewood or Ebony turning blank found at Woodcraft or Rockler or any similar woodworking store. I'm not sure why those companies aren't being targeted as well by FWS. The fact that these raids were with such heavily armed and numerous agents also rattles folks, since this isn't a war on drugs or anything that is sociologically criminal on that level.

Since there is a host of missing information, and a heightened level of discord in this thread, I'm going to bow out after this post. I maintain that we need to stay on top of this and try to get a handle on how this is going to affect us all. If these were parts from LMI, we're all in potential violation if we have any of this wood in our shops, at least in the eyes of the FWS folks. I hope not, because it will be potentially signaling the beginning of the end of this craft.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Lance, I see you're looking at the HTC. However, the fingerboards that are exported from India are exported under the 9209 tariff code, musical instrument parts for guitars (HTS 9202). These parts are not stipulated to be finished and they can be made of wood, plastic, metal, etc. LMI has documents from the Ministry of Trade stating that Indian law allows for the export of fingerboards of EIR and EIE.

David, I got that reg from their complete list of exports put online for importers to determine the exportability of any Indian product. (which includes bio weapons?).
I have no idea whether the Indian Customs office determined that fingerboards are a finished product. The issue is that if they did they probably made a "mistake" based on the Indian law. It does seem like a fingerboard blank could be considered a finished product.... until you read the definitions of a finished product....

2.1.5.6 Finished Lumber and Wood Products: Lumber and wood products that will Not undergo further processing and are ready for sale to the final demand user, either an individual consumer or business firm. This includes soft and hardwood lumber, plywood and millwork products. This does Not include furniture (see Finished Furniture and Household Durables) or pulp and paper products (see Finished Pulp, Paper, and Allied Products). (Definition Source: The Producer Price Index)[quote]

I have personally tried to argue this point in several government offices with always the same result. I have always been informed by officials that for wood to be considered a finished product it had to be in a condition that dedicates it for one use, by the end user.

How does the use of a fingerboard blank differ from the use of a 2x4 stud? The fact that it is used to make a guitar is not really different than a stud being used to make a house. Fingerboard blanks could be used to make jewelery boxes in the USA in direct competition with Indian craftsmen and I'm sure that is what the intent of the Indian law was to prevent.

I'm just trying to use logic about this rather than what we think it should be or want it to be. Gibson is getting the shaft but so far the things they have offered in defense are not going to help them much.

_________________
Lance Peck

I seem to have lost the link bookmark, it was published on the Indian Embassy in Bejing.
I'll see if I can find it again.

_________________
Lance Peck

That would be great if they are actually allowed and Gibson actually acquired what is specified as exportable.

_________________
Lance Peck

Here it is

http://www.indianembassy.org.cn/Commerc ... ubMenuId=0

_________________
Lance Peck

If Gibson is being persecuted for being in possession of unslotted indian rosewood and ebony fingerboard blanks then most luthiers, guitar manufacturers, and suppliers must be in danger.

I don't agree with that Lance. If we are in fact talking about a load of fretboard blanks, I think Gibson will successfully argue that the product 'has' been defined for single purpose without further process. The product is a fingerboard 'blank' which is a separate product to a completed fingerboard. These finished products had been acquired by a company with no other use for wood converted to those specific dimensions. To my mind, and I dare say the the minds of the Indian legislators, your analogy with 2x4 stud doesn't work because the same could be then be said for finished jewellery boxes, what is to stop them from being reworked into bridge pins and bridge pins being reworked into tooth picks for leprechauns??

If the FWS has alleged that a breech of the Lacey Act has occurred based upon their own interpretation of Indian law and those allegations are challenged, then a USA court cannot allow itself to be influenced by the FWS's interpretation. Rather a magistrate would need to take council from the Indian Government on how 'they' interpret 'their' laws. If Gibson Guitars have the paperwork that ticks all the boxes in relation to that advice, then the FWS is sunk regardless of how they view a tapered stick with saw marks still in it. On the other hand, if Gibson had knowingly received wood with properties outside those stated on the import documentation, then hang on to your old Gibson because they could well become collectables of a bygone era.

Cheers

Kim

I am just happy to see this is all finally coming to a head now. The end result of this should see reforms, and who knows, if this case causes enough pain for the stupidity unleashed in the first drafts, then those reform just may finally make this legislation workable. Until people can look at the Lacey Act with a degree of respect that it is the best way we have to deal with the really bad situation created by poor management of resources in the past, it will have no effect other than to scare the wits out of good honest people and breed further mistrust of much needed conservation law.

For small builders in the USA its very fortunate that Gibson has been challenged now as they have the funds to stand the required distance to force a reassessment. If the iron fisted, dictatorial approach enacted upon them had been applied to any of you guys, it is hard to see how any one of you could withstand the financial challenge. The main problem with that being such lack of challenge would, over time, deliver legitimacy to this law in its current form and validate the way it is currently being enforced and I don't think anyone would be happy with that.

Cheers

Kim

Let's hope that's the road they choose. The cynic in me sees a scenario where Gibson works things out on the DL with the government leaving them free to harass Gibson's competitors.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Glad to see this discussion back on track.

Is a pity there are no pictures of the Indian Ebony under question. If they are indeed guitar fingerboard blanks then F&W are going to look a bit silly since thousands or probably millions have been exported from India over many years. If they are actually "sawn logs" then Gibson does have a problem. Hopefully they are fingerboard blanks and something good will come from this. Otherwise we are all in trouble.

Okay, at this point, we're all just speculating. We don't have any of the facts. We're trying to read between the lines. I don't want to miss out on the fun, so I'll add my speculation: Gibson= guilty as charged. Remember, I'm just playing my hunches.

We know that government corruption is rampant in India. (Anyone been following the hunger strike?) I'm guessing that if you are a large U.S. company, with connections and money, you can get an inspector to look the other way. The "Gibson" company is just a name. I don't understand why small builders would identify with a huge corporation that has traded hands several times, built guitars that varied from historic to worse than garbage, moved out of state because it didn't want to negotiate with the workers who had built its reputation, and moved much of its production overseas.

Nor do I have much respect for FWS. When I worked in commercial fishing, we were boarded at sea by inspectors once. Asked if he had any silver salmon on board, our captain admitted that he had two.
Silver salmon season didn't open for two more days, but it was the (slightly dishonest) custom in the fleet to count opening dates by when the catch would be delivered to the dock. We were required to bring the illegal catch on deck, and surprisingly, the captain had to identify the illegal fish. The inspector couldn't tell a Silver from a King! (Coho v.s. Chinook for you northerners.)

So why do I suspect Gibson is guilty? I admit, corporate greed v.s. government agency incompetence--that game should play to a draw. The stories say that the shipment was mislabeled. Sawn logs were listed as "fingerboards". Maybe these were fingerboard blanks that FWS considered "sawn logs". or maybe these were large lumber billets listed as "fingerboard blanks". Importantly, the shipment wasn't listed as a Gibson import. It was delivered to an anonymous warehouse, and later retrieved by Gibson. Gibson knew it was being watched, and tried to cover its tracks. Why hasn't FWS filed charges on their previous raid? They want an air tight case--evidence of continued, deliberate violation--hence the latest bust.

Again, I'm playing my hunches. We all are. We'll see how this plays out.

Don, the problem of "sawn logs" comes from the FWS officer's Affidavit where he describes a shipment of "25 bundles of Indian Ebony wood (Diospyros ebenum) in the form of sawn logs consisting of one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) pieces sawn to the dimensions of 510/530 x 75/70 x 10mm and 510/530 x 72/62 x 10mm ." Those are fingerboard blanks.



Interestingly worded section. My problem with the definition is that plywood is a product that does undergo further processing -- people don't only use full sheets of plywood they make other things with plywood. Similarly, fingerboard blanks get changed into fingerboards. It's a poorly written regulation.

Additionally the affidavit only cites HS Code 4407 which goes to their argument that India prohibits the export of sawn wood. LMI used the HS code for musical instrument parts. The difficulty here is that there was a determination in 1993 CBP that indian and ebony fingerboard blanks were to be classified under 4407.



The problem here is that there is no information in this determination regarding how India views this classification, which I think is the crux of the issue.

Eric, I'd missed your post. The problem here is that if Gibson is found guilty, then every manufacturer and builder is guilty. Consequently, every guitar, violin, electric or acoustic is illegal and cannot be exported. Furthermore, that's the end of ebony and rosewood fingerboards until the US and India work this out. It's a mess.

While I have popped in on this thread to read from time to time I will start by saying that I have not read it in it's entirety ( to much politcal goop). But from what I have read and seen, both here and elsewhere I wonder if this stems more from the fact that Gibson is an importer? I think this may be the real issue. The best way to stop the trafficking of illegal goods that are not of domestic origin is to stop the importation of these items, rather than track them down in small quantity interstate dealings.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

It seems that this citation refers to the US American "Producer Price Index", not the Indian one. If the same definition is not nailed down in Indian regulations it doesn't mean anything because there's no logic behind interpreting Indian laws referring to US American definitions.

Todd, seriously?? Let me remind you that Lacey was passed under a Republican administration and signed by Bush. Henry's made his fair share and then some of enemies. My senate contacts, who last year told me it was a whistleblower within Gibson, and confirmed by excerpts of internal emails suggesting that Gibson knew very well that they were purchasing wood from Madagascar that was illegal and could be obtained on the grey market.

I don't think its right either Filippo, but it is far more effective to have a corporation with the financial backing to launch an aggressive enough challenge to finally thrash this out. So yes we sits and waits, and hopefully, some clarity will be delivered for all parties, especially the FWS because I suspect the greatest problem in all this is it is they, the very party charged with enforcing the Lacey Act, who are the most confused of us all.

Cheers

Kim

My bad, misread the post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900
The Lacey act was in effect since 1900 . There were a lot of amendments to this law . CF Martin spends a great deal of money to consultants to be in compliance with the Law . Martin also works with the Government to assure they are within the law
This is not an easy law to be sure that you are in compliance as it relies on the laws of the country of origin . No one here is on the inside of what is going on between the Government and Gibson . The laws are just so vague and interpretation of the rules are so inconsistent .

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it