Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:11:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1098 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > Well, considering that the "gift" denotes the contents of the package (or so
> > > > I would assume the "law" dictates), then no, not really...
> > >
> > > But if I sell you an old 3055 (say) for $3 & postage is "Merchandise" more
> > > appropriate than "gift"?
> >
> > Not unless you define merchandise as necessarily above a certain cost or
> > from a certain source. I'd say merchandise in this case is when you've paid
> > for the contents of the package. If you only paid shipping, then, sure, mark
> > it as a gift.
> >
> > > Merchandise is more for describing buying from a
> > > commercial organisation.
> >
> > Well, I disagree totally. I'd consider merchandise to be something that
> > you've paid for (goods, not really so much services-- although construable
> > as such).
>
> I'm am talking about the intent of the form. If I as an individual am
> selling you goods as an individual I do not view that as "merchandise" when
> I fill in the form. If I as an entrepreneur were selling goods to you and
> others for profit then I’d be more likely to view it as "merchandise". I
> think the scale should be taken into account.
Bottom line is that *you* don't get to define merchandise, the people who
wrote the form (and made the law) do. Doesn't matter what you think.
thanks,
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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? (...) (23 years ago, 19-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 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I'm am talking about the intent of the form. If I as an individual am selling you goods as an individual I do not view that as "merchandise" when I fill in the form. If I as an entrepreneur were selling goods to you and others for profit then (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
