Gibson Guitar Chief Denies Wrongdoing

[Rutabagared]

.

 

[AlexThePalex]

Bad bad Gibson.  [mad]

Now I know why I never liked their guitars.  [tongue]

 

[MarkF]

Gibson CEO Interview

 

[mwhafner]

Bad bad Gibson.

In the USA, we have a concept of "presumption of innocence".

I am generally one that believes where there is smoke, there is fire.  I am not so sure on this one.  I think this is the third attempt to nail Gibson with import violations under the current "regime".    If they have done something wrong, then they should pay the price, but it sure sounds like they just have a couple of environmental groups with an axe to grind. 

 

Now I know why I never liked their guitars.

They aren't a top of the line manufacturer, and for the most part don't pretend to be. 

BTW, I have no connection to Gibson.  Their HQ is in my hometown, and I have meet a few of their executives.  I have never discussed this situation with any of them.

 

[Nigel]

That's just guitars.Watch out if you go anywhere near raw foods!
Police Begin "Guns Drawn" Raids on Organic Food Stores in California

 

[Jonhilgen]

Another good article about this, and the possession of banned hardwoods.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

 

[spikfot]

"but it sure sounds like they just have a couple of environmental groups with an axe to grind"

Not sure how you came away with that, but anyway...

If found guilty, Gibson should be made an example of and fined in the 7 figure range. Corporations have been supporting illegal harvesting practices for far too long.
Here's a link to the actual affidavit:

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/blog/affidavit-search-warrant-gibson-raid

 

[WarnerConstCo.]

Dig a little deeper and you see an issue about not enough milling was done on the wood in india, according to our gov't.

he was having most of the work done here, when they only want you to be able to buy it in veneer form from there.

 

[John Stevens]

Corporations have been supporting illegal harvesting practices for far too long.

Hi William.  You might want to read the affidavit, because none of the charges involve illegal harvesting.  If you read paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17, you'll see that "Warner Construction" is correct.  A better copy of the warrant is at this URL:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.pdf

The charge is that Gibson broke a U.S. law that says Gibson is not allowed to break India's law regarding the exportation of wood products.  The scandalous thing is that the Indian law has nothing to do with the environment.  Rather, it's a law that restrains trade in a way that favors the Indian wood processing industry over foreign wood processing industries.  In other words, Gibson has been charged with violating an Indian "corporate welfare" statute.  (Ironically, if you understand the economics of tariffs, you'll understand why the Indian law harms the people of India as well as foreigners who want to buy wood products from India.)

The specific Indian law at issue is section 2.29 of its Foreign Trade Policy, which is described in paragraph 17 of the warrant.  Section 2.29 prohibits exportation of wood products that fit the description in section 4407 of the "International Tariff Code," which is quoted in paragraph 10 warrant.  Section 4407 prohibits the exportation of wood products "sawn or chipped lengthwise, diced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6mm."  In other words, if lumber is 6mm or less in thickness, it can be exported, regardless of what species it is.  The full text of section 4407 can be found at this URL:
http://www.cybex.in/indian-custom-duty/Wood-Sawn-Chipped-Lengthwise-Sliced-Hs-Code-4407.aspx

(For what it might be worth, paragraph ten of the warrant contains a typographical error that changes the meaning of the quoted text of section 4407:  the phrase "of a thickness" was mis-typed so it reads "or a thickness".)

So there you go--If guilty, Gibson is guilty of violating an Indian law that favors Indian businesses that process wood at the expense of Indian businesses that want to sell unprocessed (or less processed) Indian wood in a more competitive market that would include foreign buyers.

Regards,

John

 

[John Stevens]

Corporations have been supporting illegal harvesting practices for far too long.

One more thing.  We hear people say things like this about "corporations" doing bad things, but it's important for us all to understand that a "corporation" can't actually do anything by itself--it's the directors, and the officers and other employees, who do everything in the name of the corporation.  Corporations are only a type of business firm, and like unincorporated firms, they are run by people.  The people who run corporations are no more or less virtuous than the people who run unincorporated business firms.  If a business firm harms the environment or human beings, the harm is the same regardless of whether the firm is incorporated.  By the same token, if a business firm improves the lives of people, the improvements aren't less valuable, nor is the firm less worthy of praise, if it's incorporated.

Regards,

John

 

[mwhafner]

Not sure how you came away with that, but anyway...

I presented that comment as supposition.  If the reports are correct, Martin uses the same distributor and has received shipments of the same or similar woods.  The difference, check out the campaign contributions of the executives from each company and the causes they support.  It may not be environmental groups, but there is most likely a political agenda (outside the strict enforcement of the law) at play here.  

If found guilty, Gibson should be made an example of and fined in the 7 figure range. Corporations have been supporting illegal harvesting practices for far too long.

If they acted criminally, then they should be punished under current law.  However, the government has a responsibility to quickly resolve these issues.  They have held Gibson property since the first seizure in 2009, and no charges have been filed.  This seems to be a pretty clear violation of a corporate citizen's 4th Amendment rights.  This issue has nothing to do with illegal harvesting practices or the exploitation of rare species.  It is important to remember that the the US is not a socialist country, and property rights are paramount.  

Dig a little deeper and you see an issue about not enough milling was done on the wood in india, according to our gov't.

he was having most of the work done here, when they only want you to be able to buy it in veneer form from there.

That is correct.  According to the administrative execution of the Lacey Act, it is legal to import veneers, but not hardwood stock of certain woods.  Apparently, the importation paperwork was filled out to indicate that the stock was veneer material.  It also appears to be legal to import the finished product.  Considering the current economic conditions, it is asinine to hold an employer should be punished over a couple passes through the bandsaw.  

The way the Lacey Act is drafted, almost any American woodworker who has used non-native species is guilty of a violation.    

 

[mwhafner]

Hi William.  You might want to read the affidavit, because none of the charges involve illegal harvesting.  If you read paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17, you'll see that "Warner Construction" is correct.  A better copy of the warrant is at this URL:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.pdf

The charge is that Gibson broke a U.S. law that says Gibson is not allowed to break India's law regarding the exportation of wood products.  The scandalous thing is that the Indian law has nothing to do with the environment.  Rather, it's a law that restrains trade in a way that favors the Indian wood processing industry over foreign wood processing industries.  In other words, Gibson has been charged with violating an Indian "corporate welfare" statute.  (Ironically, if you understand the economics of tariffs, you'll understand why the Indian law harms the people of India as well as foreigners who want to buy wood products from India.)

The specific Indian law at issue is section 2.29 of its Foreign Trade Policy, which is described in paragraph 17 of the warrant.  Section 2.29 prohibits exportation of wood products that fit the description in section 4407 of the "International Tariff Code," which is quoted in paragraph 10 warrant.  Section 4407 prohibits the exportation of wood products "sawn or chipped lengthwise, diced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6mm."  In other words, if lumber is 6mm or less in thickness, it can be exported, regardless of what species it is.  The full text of section 4407 can be found at this URL:
http://www.cybex.in/indian-custom-duty/Wood-Sawn-Chipped-Lengthwise-Sliced-Hs-Code-4407.aspx

(For what it might be worth, paragraph ten of the warrant contains a typographical error that changes the meaning of the quoted text of section 4407:  the phrase "of a thickness" was mis-typed so it reads "or a thickness".)

So there you go--If guilty, Gibson is guilty of violating an Indian law that favors Indian businesses that process wood at the expense of Indian businesses that want to sell unprocessed (or less processed) Indian wood in a more competitive market that would include foreign buyers.

Regards,

John

While I agree 100% with your assertion, the most recent action on the Lacey Act subjects US citizens (both private and corporate) to the provisions of foreign laws.  While the correct mechanism for this type of legislation is a treaty, it is current law and enfoceable until ruled unconstitutional. 

 

[peter halle]

This is a woodworking and tool forum.  The original poster asked that this not become a polical debate, so how about we not delve into the polical or rightness / wrongness of governmental actions aspect of this as it relates to applicability of enforcement or enforcement of one issue versus other issues?

I am sure that somewhere out there people are being paid to delve into that stuff, but they aren't members here.

Thanks in advance.

Peter - moderator

 

[WarnerConstCo.]

It is hard to discuss what the real issue is, without getting into the silly policies that are behind the whole issue.