CITES Restrictions

richardp69

Enlightened Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
6,007
Reaction score
5,965
Location
Barton City, Michigan
I know the CITES deal has been discussed here often and maybe somewhere in all the comments is the answer to my question. But, I choose to take the lazy man option and just ask again.

I am not faced with this situation but if I ever sell a RW guitar on line and need to ship to either Alaska or Hawaii, do the same issues apply like if I were shipping to Europe???
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
To my knowledge, CITIES restrictions only apply when shipping in and out of the country. Last I heard, Hawaii and Alaska were still part of the US :)
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,114
Location
Central Massachusetts
Richard, I'm fairly sure Clyde is right about this. CITES stuff is purely international. In fact, I would imagine that US territories (Puerto Rico, USVI, etc...) are also not affected by CITES -- i.e., within US boundaries.

Europe, oh yeah... big time. And, depending on the port, extremely important.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Yes.
But it gets me wondering: If the guitar transits through Canada to get to Alaska, does CITES kick in? (I don't know, but I'd find out if I needed to ship to Alaska)

Would you need a passport to fly to Alaska even if you transit through Canada? I don't think so. Even if you are physically are in Canada, you're considered in US territory until you cross customs.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,114
Location
Central Massachusetts
Clyde, I'm not sure the answer is that simple. When my family took a cruise in AK, we got off the cruise ship in Vancouver at the end and then flew Canada Air back to the states. We needed a passport for that leg of the journey. I mean, maybe that sounds obvious as we were, technically, in Vancouver and took transportation there to the airport...

What I"m saying is that I think the answer is that it depends on what ports freight travels through. If the guitar were to get unloaded somewhere in Canada, then my guess is that it would be subject to customs / CITES.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Would you need a passport to fly to Alaska even if you transit through Canada? I don't think so. Even if you are physically are in Canada, you're considered in US territory until you cross customs.
Right but would you ship a guitar via airfreight? ($$$$$)
Chances are it's gonna go on the ground.
By sea would definitely be exempted as well.
And while it would seem to make sense that if it was being shipped for example by the US Postal Service, it would still be considered to be "on US soil" while under their consignment, I don't want to make that assumption.
I really don't know.
That's why I wondered.
NAFTA adds another element of uncertainty (to me):
While it's designed to facilitate international commerce, that doesn't mean the trucks are exempted from Customs inspections.
So, if the Post Office subcontracts a common commercial carrier, and the guitar is being shipped across the Canadian border in a commercial transaction, I'm betting CITES absolutely kicks in, it's specifically targeted at commercial transactions whether private or not.

Ah, I see Chaz presented issues similar to mine, but again the critical point seems to be "crossing a border on the ground"

I agree with your original point, I don't think air freight would be subject to inspection when technically (and in fact) it's going from one US port of entry to another US port of entry.
 
Last edited:

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,114
Location
Central Massachusetts
Indeed, Al. And, I guess the answer to Richard's original post is not as clear as I'd originally thought.

If I have a gig in Juneau, but I change planes in Vancouver...

If I have a gig in Hawaii, but ... well, that one seems pretty safe.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Indeed, Al. And, I guess the answer to Richard's original post is not as clear as I'd originally thought.

If I have a gig in Juneau, but I change planes in Vancouver...
Well in this case, 'cause it's your personal instrument, I think you get a pass, much like Clyde himself did here, when he bought an F512 in the US to bring back home to Canada.
In this case the instrument was already "his" and he wasn't bringing it into Canada to re-sell:
http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/showthread.php?195328-My-great-F512-Adventure
But they still could ask for proof it qualified as CITES-exempt (pre-CITES or non-regulated wood or under 10kg of regulated wood as personal possession) , see post #26 in that tghread.
If I have a gig in Hawaii, but ... well, that one seems pretty safe.
'long as you don't stop and get off the plane in Mexico first........... :biggrin-new:
 
Last edited:

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
NAFTA adds another element of uncertainty (to me):
While it's designed to facilitate international commerce, that doesn't mean the trucks are exempted from Customs inspections.
So, if the Post Office subcontracts a common commercial carrier, and the guitar is being shipped across the Canadian border in a commercial transaction, I'm betting CITES absolutely kicks in, it's specifically targeted at commercial transactions whether private or not.

If that were true, you would not only be subject to CITES, but also to Canadian taxes and duties... which I am positive that merchandise transiting from USA mainland to Alaska through Canada is not subject to.

I quite often order camera equipment from B&H in New York State. Since many Canadians order equipment from them, to facilitate transport, a lot of their most popular stuff is stored in a bonded warehouse in Canada, which is considered "US territory" until it is officially processed as being sold into Canada. So even though it is physically in Canada, its still considered as being in the US. If you were to ship a guitar by land to Alaska, I am 99% sure it would transit through a bonded warehouse in Canada and travel via a secure trucking transport until it reaches Alaska. As long as it stays inside the "secure" truck, it is considered as being US territory.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
If that were true, you would not only be subject to CITES, but also to Canadian taxes and duties... which I am positive that merchandise transiting from USA mainland to Alaska through Canada is not subject to.
THAT's part of the NAFTA, which is why I mentioned it.

I quite often order camera equipment from B&H in New York State. Since many Canadians order equipment from them, to facilitate transport, a lot of their most popular stuff is stored in a bonded warehouse in Canada, which is considered "US territory" until it is officially processed as being sold into Canada. So even though it is physically in Canada, its still considered as being in the US.
That's still not quite the same thing; that's a manufacturer selling directly to Canadian customers, but not paying duties etc until a sale is actually shipped to the customer.
Also that's not CITES regulated product.
But I bet THIS or at least a similar concept would apply to something the US Postal Service is shipping across Canadian soil on behalf of one US citizen to another:
If you were to ship a guitar by land to Alaska, I am 99% sure it would transit through a bonded warehouse in Canada and travel via a secure trucking transport until it reaches Alaska. As long as it stays inside the "secure" truck, it is considered as being US territory.
I just wasn't sure.
Actually I'm still not sure.
Technically if you try to ship (or simply possess)a CITES-listed endangered animal species INSIDE the US the US Fish and Wildlife Service can seize it, even from the US Postal Service's possession.
They are the US agency tasked with internal enforcement of the US's CITES treaty obligations.
That's why they conducted the raids seizing Gibson's illegally imported wood.
Just because it made it across the border didn't make it exempt from enforcement if found to be illegal after the fact.

What's occurring to me now is that even inside the US, non-CITES compliant instruments are technically subject to seizure, even if they're a very very low priority, so the safest thing to do is to have documentation demonstrating CITES compliance accompany anything being shipped.
If the violation is discovered while it's transiting Canada, I suppose the US could ask Canada to seize it for them, because the treaty itself is based on mutual reciprocal enforcement.
I suppose Canada could say, "No, foot that bill on your own dime but we won't interfere with your effort while you're here", and it's an extreme "What if" scenario, but it demonstrates all the potential complications I can foresee...

So raised the caution to "find out" as a "better safe than sorry" suggestion.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
FYI

http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/sh...-Regs-for-US-citizens-Official-FWS-newsletter

But CITES is an international treaty so it doesn't apply unless an international border is crossed.


Yes.
But it gets me wondering: If the guitar transits through Canada to get to Alaska, does CITES kick in? (I don't know, but I'd find out if I needed to ship to Alaska)

I have to revisit this in light of my previous post.
Strictly speaking, the US (and all signatories) do have responsibilities to enforce CITES even inside their own borders.
US F &W Service is tasked with it because originally they were seen as the logical entity to keep watch over trade in endangered animal species.
In the limited issue of guitar shipment, sure it CAN be scrutinized when it crosses a border, but technically, if somebody manages to smuggle a Braz rosewood guitar into the country and they can't later prove it was in their possession "pre-CITES", it can be seized, even though F&WS assures us they're not out actively looking for such violations.
They're more interested in endangered African/Asian/South American wildlife that's smuggled in, but the point is, there actually IS internal enforcement of CITES regs in the US.
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
I have to revisit this in light of my previous post.
Strictly speaking, the US (and all signatories) do have responsibilities to enforce CITES even inside their own borders.
US F &W Service is tasked with it because originally they were seen as the logical entity to keep watch over trade in endangered animal species.
In the limited issue of guitar shipment, sure it CAN be scrutinized when it crosses a border, but technically, if somebody manages to smuggle a Braz rosewood guitar into the country and they can't later prove it was in their possession "pre-CITES", it can be seized, even though F&WS assures us they're not out actively looking for such violations.
They're more interested in endangered African/Asian/South American wildlife that's smuggled in, but the point is, there actually IS internal enforcement of CITES regs in the US.

There's theory, then there's reality. And from what I've read, heard and lived through myself, border agents have no clue about CITES regulations. So far I've brought in 4 guitars with RW across the border... 2 myself and 2 by shipping, and no one at the border has even heard about CITES regulations. I've called the F&WS to ask for information about CITES appendix II regarding RW, and they had to pass the phone around the whole office before someone there even knew what I was talking about... even then, they referred me to the FDA saying they would know more about it. (sigh...)

So I wouldn't worry too much about it... it seems our RW guitars are pretty low on their priority list.:anonymous:
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
So I wouldn't worry too much about it... it seems our RW guitars are pretty low on their priority list.:anonymous:

Right!
And it's nice to know the priority is far more on unscrupulous plunder-for-profit of extremely vulnerable wildlife than the small percentage of wood that goes to the instrument manufacturing industry.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
There is a thing called the Virginia Inland Port. It is a couple hundred miles from any commercially significant body of water. It has a full Customs Office and can handle import and export processing. A ship docks in, say, Newport News, the cargo is offloaded to rail or truck, shipped to the port and then the cargo is processed for import. The reverse is true for export. The point here is that while the cargo is technically being transported by ground within the USA there is a process that treats it as not being imported into the US while in transit in the US. So it seems that an international shipping company could invoke something similar and not be subject to import/export regulations when shipping from the continental USA to Alaska or Hawaii. If you depart from the USA and travel without leaving your transport (plane or ship) going to or from those destinations you don't need a passport and your luggage does not go through customs.

I question the claims about the enforcement of CITES on instruments that are currently in the USA. The analogy to Gibson is misleading because the charges against Gibson came from not CITES, but the Lacey Act which "prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold." Page 20 of https://www.fws.gov/international/p...appendix-II-timber-listings-December-2016.pdf discusses instruments and in general an instrument manufactured prior to January 2, 2017 and transported across the border for personal use (not sale) is not subject to CITES. If it's not subject to CITES at the border then it is not subject to CITES in the country. Note a big exception to that date is Brazilian Rosewood but you can read the PDF yourself.

I am as much of a lawyer as everyone else who has commented on this so far, so my comments might approach an informed opinion, but that is all they are, an opinion. That said I did assist CBP in tracking exports that left the USA and ended up in a country that should not have had them because of international sanctions.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I question the claims about the enforcement of CITES on instruments that are currently in the USA. The analogy to Gibson is misleading because the charges against Gibson came from not CITES, but the Lacey Act which "prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold."
From the usual source:
"CITES is one of the largest and oldest conservation and sustainable use agreements in existence. Participation is voluntary, and countries that have agreed to be bound by the Convention are known as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on the Parties, it does not take the place of national laws.
Rather it provides a framework respected by each Party, which must adopt their own domestic legislation to implement CITES at the national level.
The Lacey Act, already in place since 1900, was originally intended to promote domestic conservation and prevention of introduction of predatory and nuisance species, but it made a handy platform on which to prosecute the seizure of wood because it was harvested illegally in anther country, and other potential actions in support of CITES, such as the Lumber Liquidators prosecution.
BUT the distinction is correct and worth noting.

Page 20 of https://www.fws.gov/international/p...appendix-II-timber-listings-December-2016.pdf discusses instruments and in general an instrument manufactured prior to January 2, 2017 and transported across the border for personal use (not sale) is not subject to CITES.
Actually, there are other materials like inlay that may be subject to CITES regardless of when it was made, but technically for woods, the "Exemption" or "pre-CITES" date is the date the species in question was first listed, and that listing is attached to that FWS letter.
January 2 2017 was the "effective date" for all the previously unlisted species of rosewood that were added en masse in 2016.

If it's not subject to CITES at the border then it is not subject to CITES in the country.
Not directly, no.
So my semantic usage was admittedly sloppy, but I guarantee you if illegal ivory gets into the county, it's subject to seizure under the Lacey Act and the US can verifiably demonstrate its commitment to CITES.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,114
Location
Central Massachusetts
If that were true, you would not only be subject to CITES, but also to Canadian taxes and duties... which I am positive that merchandise transiting from USA mainland to Alaska through Canada is not subject to.

I quite often order camera equipment from B&H in New York State. Since many Canadians order equipment from them, to facilitate transport, a lot of their most popular stuff is stored in a bonded warehouse in Canada, which is considered "US territory" until it is officially processed as being sold into Canada. So even though it is physically in Canada, its still considered as being in the US. If you were to ship a guitar by land to Alaska, I am 99% sure it would transit through a bonded warehouse in Canada and travel via a secure trucking transport until it reaches Alaska. As long as it stays inside the "secure" truck, it is considered as being US territory.
Clyde that's really great info. Man, this is complicated, huh, guys?

It doesn't seem at all right or necessary that packages from lower 48 destined for AK (or opposite direction) would have to go through Canadian customs, but I wonder if it's actually so. Are there "transfer centers" or "hubs" within Canada itself like we have such that carriers would unload packages from one truck and put on another (on Canadian soil, that is)... Wouldn't this constitute a right/need for customs to be involved? Isn't that analogous to my taking my family across town to the airport in Vancouver after the cruise ship to the airport? Same question regarding Mexico.

I'm continuing the "theoretical" discussion here, but there's no question in my mind that actual practice is far less onerous, particularly when we're talking CITES and US <-> US destinations... US <-> Europe, or even Europe <-> Europe... That's another story.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
BUT the distinction is correct and worth noting.

The distinction is important. Domestic opposition to treaties is often rooted in the belief that treaties create US law or the possible conflict between existing US law and the treaty obligation. Individuals don't sign treaties and thus individual violations must be dealt with under US law.
 
Top