Posted on 09/01/2011 4:47:56 AM PDT by blueyon
There is no domestic ebony business. Scoutmaster is in the business of letting people know not to believe everything you read or hear from Gibson.
Thanks for the input Scoutmaster.
Be my guest.
It’s a good post because God is a “good” God.
Oh I would blast this from the highest roof tops if I were running.
Are you suggesting that we do away with all import restrictions?
How are you harmed by the action of this company?
I'm not. I own Gibson products and will buy more. I'm troubled that nobody seems to care about any facts. They simply believe as The Gospel anything that Gibson says.
I will say, this wouldn't have been the case three years ago. Obama and his DOJ have acted so outrageously that Gibson's claims are now believable. Not as believable if you care to learn the underlying facts, but believable at face value.
“Are you suggesting that we do away with all import restrictions?”
Is it a potential invasive pest or plant? No
Is it a hazard to the health and safety. No
Were people harmed in the exporting country manufacturing this item? Can it be proved with something other than junk science that they were harmed? No
What else should our government say that we cannot import?
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?
What are some of these key facts and details?
All part of the plot, comrades, and it is working! Impoverish America, offer government help to the impoverished in exchange for their votes; become “President for Life”.
Could you give us a source for these accusations referring to import papers you are talking about? I have not seen any evidence of this in even left-wing media sources.
The CEO of Gibson has said (in his YouTube clip) that they have sworn affidavits from numerous members of India’s parliament stating that Obama’s administration is misinterpreting India’s law and that Gibson acted legally.
“There is no Domestic Ebony Business”. That’s what the sarcasm tag was for.
Like you and everyone else, I find the phrase "illegal wood" silly. I wish I had a better way to describe it. There are a few woods that are almost completely illegal to import - Madagascar Ebony and Madagascar Rosewood are two of those.
In the case of the 2009 Madagascar Ebony, I'd say the answer was yes, Gibson imported wood that was illegal to import. If you would like me to explain why, then I would be happy to do so. It was basically a 'lumber laundering' scheme like a 'money laundering' scheme.
I don't think Gibson was overtly involved in the scheme, but the emails show that it knew its purchase was not through authorized sources. Gibson is in much the situation of somebody receiving stolen goods.
Other woods and wood products are exported and imported, like other imports, according to a Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Virtually all, if not all, countries involved in international trade have them and publish them. India has one. It's online.
In the case of East Indian Rosewood, there's a code for veneer (wood under 6mm in thickness); a code for logs, a code for finished products, including those for musical instruments (chess pieces, tuning pegs for violins, bows, etc.), and a code for split, cut, or chipped wood or lumber over 6mm in thickness.
India, like many countries, wants to keep its citizens employed. India allows the export of veneer (which is used to make the sides of guitars), because Indian labor makes the veneer. India allows the export of logs. India allows the export of finished East Indian Rosewood products for musical instruments. India - if you read the tariff code - expressly prohibits the export of the split, cut, or chipped East Indian wood or lumber over 6mm in thickness.
So, you asked, is Gibson importing illegal wood?
When it comes to East Indian Rosewood, Gibson is certainly importing cut pieces of wood over 6mm in thickness. The wood is roughly cut to size of fingerboards for guitars and other musical instruments.
I don't know whether that wood should be considered "finished" wood for musical instruments or cut wood, so I don't know if the import is illegal.
Perhaps Gibson, which is in financial trouble after the Nashville floods, was saving money by having part, but not all, of the labor done in India - creating a product that wasn't quite finished and that fell into the category of cut pieces of wood over 6mm in thickness.
I think the differentiation among types of wood is strange, but then again, I'm not the Indian government. And the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule contains similar differentiations.
And I scratch my head and wonder why Gibson went through such subterfuge to get this wood - leaving its name off the import documents, listing one container of fingerboards as veneer and the other as finished products, using the name of a small California company as the ultimate consignee.
What I'm really pointing out is that there's a lot out there that Gibson's certainly not disclosing - I've posted the contents of internal Gibson emails and other information about the Madgascar Ebony on other threads.
The Nazi state has returned with the face of United States Government.
Are you saying that you providing sources on other threads here at FR in regards to the accusations you are making about import papers and emails?
If so can you point those threads out? I would like to see where you are getting this information from.
You said:
“I think the differentiation among types of wood is strange, but then again, I’m not the Indian government.”
From what was claimed by the CEO of Gibson they have sworn affidavits from numerous members of India’s parliament stating that the Obama administration is using a wrongful interpretation of India’s law and that Gibson has acted legally. The CEO claimed that they were confident that they were to win in Court and thus the second raid in order to further intimidate and continue a witch hunt for evidence.
One container described the contents as East Indian Rosewood Veneer under 6mm in thickness and used the Harmonized Tariff Code for veneer under 6mm in thickness.
Under India's HTC, Rosewood veneer under 6mm in thickness is legal to export.
The other container described the contents as finished wood products, including those for musical instruments and used the HTC code for those products (the HTC identifies those items as things like tuning pegs, violin bows, chess pieces).
Under India's HTC, Rosewood finished wood product are legal to export.
Neither container identified the contents as cut, split, or chipped wood over 6mm in thickness, which is what they contained. Under India's HTC, cut, split, or chipped Rosewood over 6mm in thickness is illegal to export.
Maybe Gibson made two honest mistakes, turning two illegal containers into two legal containers. Gibson knew what East Indian Veneer was; it imported that frequently to use as veneer on headstocks for all three plants, and for the sides of acoustic guitars at its Bozeman, Montana plant.
Maybe Gibson made those two honest mistakes while leaving its name off of the import papers and incorrectly showing the 'ultimate consignee' as a small company in California, but directing shipping to a warehouse in Nashville (a warehouse that had instruction to take possession on behalf of Gibson).
Maybe it was a mistake, like the East Indian Rosewood that was shipped through Canada to the same California "ultimate consignee" at the warehouse used by Gibson in Nashville, the warehouse that had an email from the California company instructing the warehouse that Gibson was the actual ultimate consignee for customs purposes.
The descriptions on those two cargo containers could have been a mistake.
Incidentally, Gibson retained another import company and was taking delivery of other woods at the warehouse in its own name and under customs papers correctly listing it as the ultimate consignee.
Can you please explain how you came to obtain this information? Can you provide any source you used so that I could see the original documentation you used to form these opinions?
” leaving its name off the import documents, “
Who was responsible for filling out the documents? Was it Gibson? Or some other company?
I appreciate the additional and detailed information you have provided on this thread, and I certainly concur that we need to ascertain the facts before going off half-cocked on issues like this.
However, there is an aspect of this, and other cases as well, which raises questions which are equally relevant. That question is, of course, why have no charges been filed? If the government believed it had sufficient evidence to justify the raid and seizure of Gibson’s property in 2009, why no charges, grand jury indictment and trial?
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied, as the saying goes. However, there is a definite pattern of these types of cases which give every indication that the government is far more interested in selective harassment and/or financially breaking certain disfavored businesses, and this case positively reeks of it.
All that you have said about Gibson and its CEO may be true but that in no way excuses or obviates the government from acting to either charge, prosecute and convict them, or drop this and return their property.
The reality seems to be that this case is far more about certain political agendas than about illegal wood.
Marxism is a global power and wealth redistributionist ideology. Internationalists are Marxists. Marxists hate the freedom, power, wealth and happiness of Americans. They always have to hobble the strong to control the weak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.