Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 02:25:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1000 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
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 said
elsewhere, ultimately it's your decision, but you've got more to weigh up than
just your own honesty & view of government regulation.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
