Exporting instruments to the USA

Here is a link to a post on the ANZLF where Peter Coombe who is a mandolin and guitar builder has posted what you need to do if you are to send and instrument to the USA and comply with the Lacey Act. He's spent a great deal of time and effort to get this sorted out as almost his entire market is based in the USA.

Exporting instruments to the USA.

Allen said:

Here is a link to a post on the ANZLF where Peter Coombe who is a mandolin and guitar builder has posted what you need to do if you are to send and instrument to the USA and comply with the Lacey Act. He's spent a great deal of time and effort to get this sorted out as almost his entire market is based in the USA.

Exporting instruments to the USA.

Click to expand...

Wow. I had no idea it took all that.

I think that red tape, a strong Australian dollar, and shipping costs explains why we don't see many Australian ukes here in the USA.

Allen, do you ship to the USA, or is it not worth the trouble?

I'm thinking "Only if I have to..."

I've sold quite a few guitars to the USA before your currency tanked and the Lacey act was being enforced. Now I get enquires but nothing eventuates. My market now is mostly domestic, and trying to get my head around what it would take to send an instrument to the USA gives me a headache. Plus the added cost of the shipping is going to tip the scale for any mid priced instruments. I could only see it eventuating on something really customised and the purchaser was in the pointy end of the market.

Hello Allen,

That was a great post. The page you referenced was excellent, especially in reference to the various mechanics of shipment.

We are fighting our way through the same maze. It's urgently important to us, as although we do fit & finish here in Louisiana, we build in Central America. Every instrument, in other words, is technically an import.

In wading through all this, I have come to a different conclusion. I can't say I'm confident about it, but I actually got through to FWS and had one of their anonymous representatives confirm my interpretation. Here's the page:

http://www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/cpc.pdf

Reading this, it appears the process Peter outlines would be for Appendix I only. We are using only Appendix II & III woods, and it appears that in those instances (as well as for woods not listed at all), the simple declaration form will suffice - in other words no import permit required.

If you think he would be interested, run this by Peter and see what his take is. I can tell he's been looking at the situation longer than me - but without this one page, I probably would have also taken his view, and one page amid the mountains of info is awfully easy to miss.

Dirk, what is the "simple declaration form" you refer to and is there still the 60 day review time with it?

Moore Bettah Ukuleles said:

Dirk, what is the "simple declaration form" you refer to and is there still the 60 day review time with it?

Click to expand...

Here is the form (and supplemental form with extra space for the additional entires needed for all the materials in stringed instruments). It's basically listing everything your instrument is made of and declaring they are as stated. What you're swearing to is that there are no Lacey violations. I don't think the 60 days are neccessary, but I haven't worked out all the mechanics yet.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/declarationform.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/declarationform-supp.pdf

I did say simple didn't I? Well, the one thing that isn't simple is the "quantity of material". In other words, the weight of everything (weight of Dalbergia Retusa binding!!). As long as everything totals the weight of the instrument, you won't have to be that exact.

Somebody, also has published a list of typical wieights for all the elements of a guitar. I can't find it at the moment, but let me know if you want it. I figure I can just divide by the percentage of the ukulele weight, then make sure it all adds up to the total weight of the instrument.

There's a whole lot to get through. Here's an even more exhaustive guide from the Luthier's Guild:

http://www.luth.org/cites.htm

The one thing that has me worried, is that APHIS says a permit would be required - FWS says only for Appendix I!

Are you importing something Chuck?

I'm trying to figure the catch 22 of importing intruments with woods that may not require a permit, and then shipping them to Australia, for instance, where export documents appear to require CITES documents from the country of origin.

So much fun!

I'm not importing finished instruments certainly but I am bringing shell and other inlay materials from Australia. My last order was about a year ago though so I don't know how the distributor has changed business. And of course, a lot of the woods we use are imported from a distributor but certainly nothing that is on the appendix 1 list. I'm just thinking that this is just the beginning. Today we worry about imports, tomorrow it will be exports. My volume of production is so small but still it's made me think twice about the way I do business and even how I build.
Thanks for the effort you've taken to share this information with us.

This stuff is such a pain in the ass for us...the little guys...and I'm old enough and cynical enough to believe that the big guys get around this all the time (Gibson being a unique case of probable revenge...). As an American, I'd like to think: "Wow, this is a boost for "Buy American"!" here in the 'States, but it's not...given all the consumer goods from 3rd world countries I see in stores here. It's another "bury the little guys in utter bullshit" thing.

If any "industry" uses precious resources well, it's the music industry as practiced by even the largest of our domestic guitar, bass, and uke manufacturers. We luthiers are not the problem, and we've not the resources to bribe, scam, and legalize the grinning fool bureaucrats who would equate us with the worst of the worst despoilers of nature...

And that's probably as political as I dare get here.

Rick Turner said:

[...]
And that's probably as political as I dare get here.

Click to expand...

I think that, within reason, if you need to introduce an element of relevant political discussion here in this thread then go ahead. After all, this is what you guys do. For the rest of us it's a concern and a pain in the rear: for you pros it's more serious than that. Discuss in whatever depth and breadth you need to. Just be guided by your sense of propriety.

NOW I understand why the American luthiers are so concerned about what might happen to their instruments if they export them internationally.... Happily we don't seem to have the same level of import restrictions here in Australia apart from the major cites issue. Specifically no additional wood type import restrictions I can identify out side of quarantine issues of disease/infestation.* Finally got responses from all 3 departments here regarding importing inlayed ukulele and all seems good - barring the inevitable 10% tax

*brazilian rosewood still an issue

southcoastukes said:

Hello Allen,

If you think he would be interested, run this by Peter and see what his take is. I can tell he's been looking at the situation longer than me - but without this one page, I probably would have also taken his view, and one page amid the mountains of info is awfully easy to miss.

Click to expand...

I've let Peter know of this thread and pointed him to it. Thanks for your heads up Dirk.

Peter has had a look at this thread and the documents mentioned by Dirk. Here is his reply to me.

Peter Coombe said:

Allen

Thanks for that. Glad to see someone is finding it useful. However, there is some misunderstanding there. My mandola does not contain any CITES listed species, but a US F&W import/export permit was necessary because it contained Paua shell inlay. If the instrument involves a commercial transaction and it contains shell then a permit is necessary. If there was no shell then we would not have needed the permit. It does not matter what species the shelfish is, and does not matter how small or large the amount of shell is, if it is a commercial transaction, then a F&W import/export permit is definately required.

As far as CITES listed species is concerned, I recommend that Australian based Luthiers do not export CITES listed species. It is just too hard. You need an Australian export permit to do that and it won't necessarily always be approved. Australia has tougher rules than the minimum requirements of the CITES treaty. Appendix III are treated as if they were Appendix II and some Appendix II species are treated as if they were Appendix I, and as far as I am aware Appendix I are banned from import/export. There are exceptions, but we don't fit the exceptions. My tips do not cover the requirements for CITES. The CITES rules in the USA are different.

If there are no CITES listed species then import/export from Australia at the moment should be no problem so long as it follows the AQUIS rules on imports.

Click to expand...

The phrase "commercial transactions" was mentioned a couple of times in Peter's informative response. I am aware that some individuals are attempting to circumvent these regulations by "personally" carrying these items through customs. Is doing so, without the proper documentation legal? It seem snot to be.

Chuck -

Tomorrow is here! Check back on that first link ("Who needs Permits" - there's some sections on exports, and guess what?) Doing any business in Japan?

Thanks Alan (and thanks to Peter),

I had not even gotten to the shell issue, although I knew a list existed and I'd have to check it out once I felt confident about the wood. No wonder Duke of Pearl & Rescue Pearl are sweating bullets!

Our instruments have 3/32" MOP side markers - that's it in the way of shell. If it turns out that those are the only things that would bump us out of Declaration only and into Permit, I'm going to have to think about using even those!

Plastic side dots? OMG!

Use unbleached Cow Bone. It Yellows nicely and doesn't look cheap. I'm sure there are many other alternatives that will look fine, contrasting wood perhaps?
The synthetic Ivoroid or perloid. They use the stuff on high end (high price) Classical Guitar tuners and I've yet to hear one player or maker complain about it.

southcoastukes said:

Chuck -

Tomorrow is here! Check back on that first link ("Who needs Permits" - there's some sections on exports, and guess what?) Doing any business in Japan?

Thanks Alan (and thanks to Peter),

I had not even gotten to the shell issue, although I knew a list existed and I'd have to check it out once I felt confident about the wood. No wonder Duke of Pearl & Rescue Pearl are sweating bullets!

Our instruments have 3/32" MOP side markers - that's it in the way of shell. If it turns out that those are the only things that would bump us out of Declaration only and into Permit, I'm going to have to think about using even those!

Plastic side dots? OMG!

Click to expand...

So a permit is required for any exportation out of the USA of any of the materials listed in appendices 1, 2 and 3?
I've stopped shipping Internationally about a year ago. Strangely, the couple of wholesaler I deal with have either shipped or carried these instruments through customs and have not been concerned with it. That's why I asked about the "personal" aspect of transporting these materials.
Regarding the side dots, I believe plastic rod is pretty commonly used. It's cheap and easy to install. Given the small size I doubt if any one is going to care whether it's pearl shell or not.

Thanks, Rick.

Michael N. said:

Use unbleached Cow Bone. It Yellows nicely and doesn't look cheap...

Click to expand...

Thanks Michael,

I like this idea. Has it got an historical use? I was just on the phone a half hour ago with my partner Omar in Central America. He has always refused to used "store bought bone". He prefers to go to his friend the local butcher and pick through his stash for the "good ones".

I jokingly asked him if his butcher could provide us paperwork on his cattle.

Moore Bettah Ukuleles said:

The phrase "commercial transactions" was mentioned a couple of times in Peter's informative response. I am aware that some individuals are attempting to circumvent these regulations by "personally" carrying these items through customs. Is doing so, without the proper documentation legal? It seem snot to be.

Click to expand...

In the US, they are being called "formal entries" not "commercial transactions" but they only apply to people importing goods and not exporting goods. You should read the FAQ at the APHIS website. Interestingly, I can't find anything, anywhere on how the Lacey Act addresses exports or re-exports from the US.