Official Luthiers Forum!

Seems to me, from the speed reading I did of the above .pdf file about the warrant, that it is most likely someone in India decided to cut costs and not do the final step of thicknessing to 6mm...I for one do NOT consider 10mm to be a 'split log'...

I would have to say that unless FSW can find a smoking gun indicating the 10mm was requested by someone they are up the creek with nothing to stand on...

on a side note, I would far rather be known as a radical right wing nutcase Tea Party member than a corrupted and pwnded member of the Donkeys or Elephants...

The answer is neither. Either India has an exception for fingerboard and bridge blanks or they don't. Either they permit them to be exported under the HTC for musical instrument parts or not. If they are not, and this affidavit confused the hell out of another wood dealer who specializes in wood from India, then everything is illegal. Furthermore, all export of musical instrument fingerboards would cease to happen to the US. Imports of all musical instruments would cease because they would have to prove that the fingerboards were obtained legally and so on. If India wants trade in their material they're going to either have to come to Gibson's defense, or no one is going to use their material and all American builders will go to either a phenolic or another wood for fingerboards.

Thanks for posting the link to the affidavit Dave. I retract my hunch about what Gibson was up to.

So if this agent has done his homework, then all of the fingerboards, bridge blanks, (and neck blanks--anything thicker than 6mm) from India have been illegal for years now.

If that's the case, I would guess that India will amend it's law quickly, to avoid losing significant export business. Maybe I'm naive.

Money talks and BS walks. IF we can all quit bickering, and taking political cheap shots at one another . We should do what any normal detective 101 would do, just follow the money trail and your questions will be answered shortly, or in court . Let/s wait and see what happens , once this all blows over and we will all have a clearer understanding how this will affect all luthiers.

Wow, 6mm vs 10mm.
This is a long story, at least 35 years old, right?

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

Mostly correct.

The exported entered the correct code for his country's export according to Indian customs. I incorrectly listed Gibson as the consignee on the Lacey Ppwk...the material was destined for them, but at this time LMI owns and is (was, ?) warehousing it. The broker made a mistake and listed the material as veneers, although all other paperwork correctly listed it as fingerboards (they have remedied this with an oops letter). The warehouse employee incorrectly informed the feds as to the ownership (although they bill me for the storage fees). The officers incorrectly came to the conclusion that we are smuggling wood.

Many do think just that Todd , that this is the Government and they know what they are doing. It is so difficult for a small business to know what is legal . Ignorance of the law is not something that will float . I hope we can someday have an answer to all these hard questions .
In todays economy the government should be helping to get US companies and businesses to expand and these kind of entanglements will drive business out of business or off shore .

_________________
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

+1

It is cause for concern and yes, the more transparency and factual information we all have, the better. But there seems to be a belief among some of the participants here (shared by a groundswell political movement) that we would be better off to dismantle government regulations altogether. I think that would be a huge mistake and a disservice to our careers (and hobbies) in the long run. It's clear that there is a limited supply of the wood we like to use. It's also clear that people with short-term profit motives typically outnumber those with a more enlightened, long-term perspective. I don't know of anything other than government regulation that will keep those with the short view from ruining it for those with the long view. For that reason, I think we would benefit if this conversation could go in the direction of how to improve the regulations and their implementation rather than the easier approach of just bashing the government.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

+1 for what Kent just said. It is unfortunate but would appear a necessary evil that most all legislation go through this process of weeding out the extremes before it can reach a point of fairness and equity. Sometimes that process never takes place and we become burdened by the knee jerk solutions of the past forever, so again, in the long run, as bitter as it all may appear now, this is probably a good thing.

I cannot see how USA and India would agree to walk away from trade in EIRW and IE because there is just too much money at stake. The only alternative I can see happening is going to be amendments to Indian Law or more strict enforcing of those guidelines currently in place, and clarity for the FWS and everyone else affected by this situation. Quite simply this is not something that falls under the intent of the Lacey Act because it is not a matter of conservation of an endangered or threatened resources. It is about enforcing India's right under their law to make the most of a 'sustainable' resources so they will do what it takes to ensure that trade continues by upping the restriction to 10mm if that is the most cost effective measure, or making sure that all exporters run stock through a sander to meet the current 6mm requirement.

Cheers

Kim

Fillippo 20 months is a very short time for gov/t bureaucrats and pencil pushers. I just knew this story is all about $$$,

If HS 4407 was incorrectly written on the export/import paperwork, then it appears to have been incorrect for many prior shipments according to the PDF.

If HS 4407 is not the correctly applicable regulation for the size pieces in question, which one is the correct one? Presumably there are export/import records somewhere showing the correct regulation, right? If so, then it would seem to be an example of a simple paperwork error, easily correctable.

I'm not taking sides here, just sayin'.

_________________
The member formerly known as erikbojerik....

Not quite. HS4407 is sawn unfinished material > 6 mm thick and cannot be exported from India under their regulations. The import paperwork listed the material as HS4408, meaning it was less than 6mm thick, and it clearly isn't. It sounds like there have been many fingerboard shipments delivered to Gibson under this incorrect classification, which is asking for trouble.

However, the paperwork from the Indian exporter describes the June shipment as HS9209 "finished parts", which FWS claim is false -- it's not clear if Indian authorities would agree, as they may consider the fingerboard blank to be sufficiently finished under their interpretation. According to the affidavit, FWS have not consulted directly with Indian authorities, quoting only what is posted on the Indian website. If India agrees with the exporter's classification, then there is no basis under Lacey for prohibiting the wood entry to the US, although it still needs to come in with the proper classification and paperwork. If, however, India regards the material in question as HS4707 (i.e., sawn material > 6 mm, not finished), then it would be legally prohibited from leaving the India, and therefore prohibited US entry under Lacey.

The affidavit describes, and Nathalie confesses to, other import paperwork errors. The fuzzy area of who actually owns the stuff and who is the legal consignee has obviously confused both LMII and the warehouse storing the wood (not surprising, really). Whether these are truely fraudulent declarations or just sloppy paperwork, they've been used by FWS to build a case of smuggling and false declaration.

It all seems a bit over the top, so I've got to conclude that FWS is on the Gibson case based on other suspicions (and the fact they are currently being sued by Gibson for holding onto siezed property for over two years, without charges being laid). Pretty lame.

All very interesting, and thanks to those who ferreted out the material.

As I suspected it appears to be a legal issue. My interpretation is similar to Tim's. Unfortunately it has wide ramifications for all us all and potentially can do great damage to the music instrument and music industry. Are all the thousands of guitars, mandolins, violins etc containing Indian Ebony now illegal to import/export in the USA?

It is interesting to note that the Lacey Act amendments were introduced to stop illegally logged timber from being imported into the US. This wood was not illegally logged, there is nothing in the affidavit that claims the wood was illegally logged. Also interesting to note, quoted from the US F&W web site -

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the premier government agency dedicated to the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats. "

This has nothing to do with conservation of Indian Ebony and Rosewood. It is basically a legal issue. What US F&W are effectively doing is to make a practice that has been going on for 30 odd years (i.e export of Indian Ebony and Rosewood from India with no intervention from Indian authorities), illegal in the USA. It has wide ramifications if they win. I would think that Gibson has very good grounds for escalating this to the highest level in US politics. Then maybe some sanity will (might?) return.

I have contacted an Indian wood supplier and his comments are very interesting. He says anything less then 6mm is ok. More than 6mm but less than 12mm needs to be finished or semi finished. Sanding is considered to be sufficient by Indian Customs. More than 12mm is not permitted so would be illegal.

The Gibson fingerboard blanks are 10mm thick. So, if they are sanded or otherwise further processed then they would have been legally exported from India, and the tariff classification from India (HS 9209.92.00) is correct. If rough sawn they would be illegal. My strong hunch is that they were sanded and US F&W are wrong in claiming the Indian documentation is false, but there is still the matter of incorrect tariff classification on the US import documents. If they were not sanded then Indian customs would have stopped the export. A bit of a legal pothole.

All my Indian Ebony fingerboards are 12mm or less and sanded so I'm legal (phew).

This is completely ridicuous and has nothing whatsoever to do with conservation of plants and wildlife.

Peter

Only one shipment (see item #18 in the PDF). Many others came in under HS4407 (see items 25-28 in the PDF).



Indeed - if they were all exported under HS9209 with India's approval (are Indian exporters private or govt?) and imported under HS4407 mistakenly, then there should be prior generations of (correct) paperwork to back up this position. Is what I'm saying.



Indeed - and all it takes is a bad lightbulb in your tail light for the authorities to pull you over and check you out for a DUI. There is plenty of legal basis for draconian investigation of the law if the authorities are sufficiently inspired (as they appear to be in this case), and it really is a shame - but if I were Gibson I'm not sure I would look to the legal system to slap the wrists of overzealous investigators.

My predition is that if Gibson's importing has been mostly legit and they eventually get their stock back, I'm not sure there's much they can do about the loss of production (and profit) as a result of the investigation.

_________________
The member formerly known as erikbojerik....

Does anyone have an answer as to why Gibson was singled out by the government? Why did they not raid Martin, or Taylor? Surely these companies receive their fingerboards in the same state of finish as Gibson. Am I missing something here?

Filippo,
I, think you might be right about the Fed double down theory. Could it be that this latest raid was an attempt to gather evidence of criminal conduct they were unable to produce in the first raid, or is it possible that this is an attempt to intimidate Gibson for having filed suit in their efforts to recover property that was seized in the first raid? Maybe a little bit of both?

I'd still like to know if anyone knows why Gibson was singled out by the government in the first place? Why did they not raid Martin, or Taylor?

That's an excellent and eloquent start on a letter to your representatives.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_i ... rs_cfm.cfm

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

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

It's also likely that Gibson might just close the Nashville plant and maintain its legal department purely for imports, and move their manufacturing to Mexico or something...

A LOT less government not to mention cheaper labor there... and thanks to NAFTA tariffs are minimal.

_________________
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

[quote="Tai Fu"]It's also likely that Gibson might just close the Nashville plant and maintain its legal department purely for imports, and move their manufacturing to Mexico or something...

A LOT less government not to mention cheaper labor there... and thanks to NAFTA tariffs are minimal.[/quote
Those imported guitars will still be subject to Lacey, will they not?

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

Given the Indian restrictions of HS 4407, I'm wondering why exporters/importers don't use HS 4403 (wood in the rough or roughly squared, i.e., logs) for fingerboard stock. Maybe some do?
http://comtrade.un.org/db/mr/rfCommodit ... H1&cc=4403

On the embassy page that Lance found http://www.indianembassy.org.cn/Commerc ... ubMenuId=0
HS 4403 is only restricted for sandalwood and red sanders. I imagine 4403 would be more expensive for US importers (more US labor and bulky shipping), but it seems a lot less risky.

_________________
David Malicky

It looks like 4403 is written to define the use of Sandalwood and Red Sanders ONLY. Other species are not addressed separately, but generally with the thickness limit.

_________________
Lance Peck

Thanks for the quick reply and info. I noticed that the international HS 4407 says "wood sawn lengthwise.. OF a thickness exceeding 6mm" (which makes sense to be parallel to 4408, as well as distinct from 4403). But the Indian Embassy's site for 4407 says "wood sawn... OR a thickness exceeding 6 mm". The Embassy's text apparently came from India's Export Policy: Schedule 2 at
http://dgft.gov.in/exim/2000/download-ftp1011.htm
There's a log's worth of difference between "of" and "or"! I wonder if "or" is a clerical error or intentional.

I thought the HS was supposed to be harmonized? Wiki (and others) say "the contracting parties must employ all 4- and 6-digit provisions and the international rules and notes without deviation, but are free to adopt additional subcategories and notes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_System
Changing "of" to "or" is a deviation, which would favor a clerical error, but it may not matter unless it's changed back.

_________________
David Malicky

Occording to the Indian wood supplier I contacted -

"Now, as far as my concern goes I have read the indian customs act and books related to description of customs premission. I have seen that it is written over there that Indian Red Sanders and Indian Sandal Wood is not at all permitted to be exportered. There is no mention of Indian Rosewood and Indian Ebony that is it not legal to be exported. I have read that indian customs state that woods exceeding 12mm in any specie is not allowed to be exported. he government considers that to be stumps or logs. "

There is your answer. Unprocessed stumps or logs are not permitted (i.e HS 4403 is illegal) and Sandlewood and Red Sanders is not permitted in any form.

Peter.