Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:16:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1174 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I don't agree. In your situation you are knowingly and deliberately lying,
> > breaking the law and trying to make some clumsy political point whilst
> > doing so. I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the word “merchandise".
>
> Lets make this crystal clear... suppose you and I both lived in the US and
> we had the same level of yearly sales (say 5 things a year, well below what
> you and I do in actuality) and we had identical lots to buyers in the same
> country (say OZ). Say the lot was valued at 20 USD. Say both buyers are
> paying using the same payment mechanism. Say both buyers asked that the
> customs form be marked gift because they feel customs duties are an unfair
> restraint of trade. All these suppositions are to make this as apples to
> apples as possible.
Their views/wants are irrelevant in this. It is *you* who are filling in the
form. It is *you* who are deliberately committing fraud.
Scott A
>
> What you're saying is that because you've rationalised this lot as "not
> merchandise" for your moral convenience you're more fundamentally honest
> than I am because I know it IS merchandise but agree that the buyer is
> correct about the government not having a legitimate right to the money that
> the duty represents.
>
> Is that what you are saying? Yes or no, and we'll proceed from there.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I haven't denied that I'm breaking a law. (...) But you haven't given a yes or no answer to this question. Repeating, is it your assertion that when you rationalise something for your convenience that you're fundamentally honest than someone (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) "merchandise". (...) But it's *them* who requested it, it's *them* who benefits (or not, if customs disagrees with the declaration), and it's *them* who may think twice about dealing with you in future if you decline their request. As I've (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Lets make this crystal clear... suppose you and I both lived in the US and we had the same level of yearly sales (say 5 things a year, well below what you and I do in actuality) and we had identical lots to buyers in the same country (say OZ). (...) (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
|
|
|
|
