|
|
 | | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
| (...) Whereas I would call it a lie but not necessarily dishonest. I go back to my example I gave earlier. Are inflatable tanks lies? Yes. Are they morally wrong? Not necessarily. (24 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Yeah, its gets attenuated pretty fast. In the U.S. such a thing has it's origins in congressionally generated legislations, is duplicated by administrative law (sometimes with errors, additions, and omissions), and implemented by people that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
| (...) Yes, both received something of value (to them) in exchange for their goods. (...) Again, you're receiving something of value for your goods, so it's not a gift. Generally, in working out a trade, both parties agree on some kind of monetary (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: EconMinutae 101 (was: Customs question...)
|
| (...) I think we're getting way off here-- the question is "Is it honest to mark packages as 'gift'?" Is the PBJ merchandise? Eh, I dunno. I'd hesitate to call it such. But I certainly wouldn't call it a gift. If you're trading Lego for Lego? Eh, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) The form, at least in the US is very terse. There is essentially no explanatory text. It seems to me that they leave it up to my discretion to use the form how I see fit. What do you check if the package contains gifts and merchandise? Both? (...) (24 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
