I wonder how they’re defining “finished” here? I’d guess these Indian fingerboard blanks are probably pretty rough, probably not much more than rough-cut rectangular slabs. So there probably is an argument to be made that they’re not finished fingerboards.
But didn’t the Indian government approve these for export? My understanding is that it was the US government interpreting “finished” more strictly than the Indians themselves.
A competitor? Well, once we find out we can take care of that problem on behalf of Gibson.
That seems to be at the heart of the gov claims.
We can import veneer up to 6 mm. thick, slightly less than 1/4" thick. The complaint filed by the gov. stated that the blanks were around 11 mm thick, I seem to recall. As a previous post notes, this may have stemmed from Gibson's desire to improve quality. The reason fingerboards need to be made thicker is that the surface is milled to a radius to make playing easier. The radius differs between models and is determined by player preference.
The upshot: it is difficult, if not impossible for a company to specify scale length (for frets) and curvature when purchasing fingerboards. Also, the vendors are probably do not have the equipment to provide the degree of precision needed.
The best argument Gibson has is to point out that fingerboard blanks are milled to specific sizes and that these would be extremely difficult to economically use to any other.
The larger issue with Cites treaty and the Lacy act enforcement regime is that smaller entities cannot offer their products on the international market, but must submit to government limits on the scope of their market, which will also stipulate the price.
Cites is impoverishing people.
Here is an example of an iron-clad principal: whenever a law or ruling is created, imagine the most preposterous, exploitative and corrupt purpose to which it can be distorted to serve. Within two years time some bureaucrat will surpass your wildest imagining.