In looking more carefully at NAMM's proposals, I start to wonder whether they are just naive, or if this is a publicity stunt to try to convince people they are doing something.
The main reason is their call for APHIS to establish a
de minimus exception from declaration requirements. That's asking a federal agency to unilaterally amend a congressional statute. This is from APHIS Q&A on declarations:
9. Is there a de minimis exception?
The statute does not provide for any de minimis exceptions, either to the substantive prohibitions or to the declaration requirement....
That's the point. There are no exceptions to the law as Congress has written it. The APHIS quote goes on to say that there can be mitigating circumstances when the penalties/fines and or jail time is determined, but they don't have the power to change a law of Congress.
What they can do, are doing, and are inviting comment on, is decide how that law will be enforced. At present, they say they are not enforcing the requirements on informal entries. This probably means everyone in small business or in individual transactions have no need to worry.
Much.
There aren't any clear definitions I can find about what constitutes an informal entry. NAMM says less than $2500 - the Luthier's Guild feels it means less than 8 identical items. Apparently they don't agree, and I've never found references to either standard.
The more important point, however, is that even if these vaguely defined "informal entries" are not being held to the letter of the law today, it doesn't mean that can't change tomorrow. Point #9 goes on to make it very clear that knowing violations are the ones subject to the most severe penalties.
So are you going to say "I knowingly imported plant material without a declaration, but I didn't think you were currently enforcing that law?"
