| Author |
 Replies: 78 / Views: 11,378 |
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
6430 Posts |
|
|
Chip, I assume the declared amount was above the $800 de minimis threshold? Otherwise, tariffs should not apply (unless it was coming from China/Hong Kong). |
Send note to Staff 
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
911 Posts |
|
|
I just received some auction lots from Canada and the invoice certified that the goods qualify for preferential tariffs under the USMCA (US Mexico Canada) agreement, so I think there is no tariff due on my shipment. However, the shipment was before Trump cut-off trade talks with Canada on Friday, so as Chip noted, things can change on a daily basis.
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1125 Posts |
|
|
Rev: Yes, it was above the de minimus amount. However, it was the 4th time I had an opportunity for this item and I wasn't going to let the potential for tariffs stop me. Chip  |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by chipg - 06/28/2025 5:46 pm |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
3483 Posts |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
6430 Posts |
|
|
Gorgeous block! And with your initials to boot, so unlikely to see its like ever again. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United Kingdom
8577 Posts |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Watching the business news on BBC World, this morning. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c939q47xlleoQuote:
Trump signs order ending global tariff exemption for low-cost goods
The administration already ended the de minimis exemption for Chinese goods on 2 May but the rest of the world was spared until now. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 07/31/2025 12:39 am |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Some context as to why: Quote:
Packages entering the United States using the duty-free de minimis exemption are typically subject to less scrutiny than traditional imports; however, the packages can pose health, safety, national and economic security risks.
Between 2015 and 2024, the volume of de minimis shipments entering the U.S. increased from 134 million shipments to over 1.36 billion shipments. On average, CBP processes over 4 million de minimis shipments into the U.S. each day.
The de minimis exemption has been abused, with shippers sending illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, precursors, and paraphernalia into the United States in reliance on the lower security measures applied to de minimis shipments, killing Americans.
Enforcement data consistently shows that de minimis shipments account for the majority of all cargo enforcement actions. In FY24, 90% of all cargo seizures originated as de minimis shipments, including:
98% of narcotics seizures (by number of cases).97% of intellectual property rights seizures, totaling 31 million counterfeit items.
77% of health and safety/prohibited items seizures totaling more than 20 million dangerous or illicit items (e.g., weapons parts and Glock switches).
The volume of de minimis shipments, even from countries that historically have not been the primary source of de minimis abuse, has skyrocketed this year, with 309 million so far for FY25 (through June 30), compared to 115 million for all of FY24, resulting in significant lost revenue for the United States.
CBP is increasingly interdicting de minimis shipments where the certificate of origin is misrepresented in an attempt to circumvent duties. Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...ts-globally/ |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by rogdcam - 07/31/2025 10:52 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
6326 Posts |
|
|
Rogdcam, Quotes should contain a citation as to the source. Otherwise there is no way to have even the slightest clue as to the veracity of the claims contained. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1053 Posts |
|
|
The source of the information is the White House so the veracity of the claims should be questioned.
How does a new 25% tariff on small business imports improve the enforcement of illegal goods entering the US? CBP could just as easily improve the contraband enforcement without the added costs (tariffs plus service charges) to law-abiding consumers.
The USPS can barely manage efficient First Class Mail delivery today, using minimal human labor involvement. Now they plan to inspect "over 4 million de minimis shipments into the U.S. each day" including evaluating the value of the contents, assigning the right tariff rate depending on the type of goods, creating an invoice, and collecting the duty from the addressee. Good luck with that. I expect that an audit will show the costs of de minimis tax collection will far outweigh the revenue received.
Not to mention the disruption to all the small businesses involved in the supply chain (buyers and sellers) that this will impact, but that is a different topic.
My concern here is about the practical implementation of the new rule. From my experience with tariff collection by the post office (reported here earlier) indicates the destination post office clerks are not prepared to handle a monumental change like this. I predict the policy will be reversed again in a couple of weeks. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
6430 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
How does a new 25% tariff on small business imports improve the enforcement of illegal goods entering the US? CBP could just as easily improve the contraband enforcement without the added costs (tariffs plus service charges) to law-abiding consumers. The tariff itself does not improve enforcement, but rather the process associated with it does. Presumably the tariff is necessary to offset the costs of increased scrutiny. Quote:
The USPS can barely manage efficient First Class Mail delivery today, using minimal human labor involvement. Now they plan to inspect "over 4 million de minimis shipments into the U.S. each day" including evaluating the value of the contents, assigning the right tariff rate depending on the type of goods, creating an invoice, and collecting the duty from the addressee. No. It's not the USPS that will be performing this process, but rather CBP. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
The source of the information is the White House so the veracity of the claims should be questioned. \ The above comment is why I did not initially provide the source. The statistics in numbers in the press release are sound if you go and look. The logic seems OK IMO (it is just an opinion). But since it came from The White House the veracity needs to be questioned depending on where your ideology lies. Would the veracity of the White House release be OK if the current POTUS was of your Party? What if it came from the media? Well, that would be a problem as well for someone. If it came from the New York Times that would be an issue. If it came from Fox that would be an issue. Question: What source would not have its veracity questioned? Again, the numbers in the White House release are publicly available. They check out. Those would be the basis for questioning the veracity. Do you question the veracity of the agencies providing the data? What is acceptable? Where does this end? Sad |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
6326 Posts |
|
|
Since I was the one who asked for the source, I am happy to answer. It is simply a matter of good scholarship practice.
I did not know the source when I asked, and had no particular political/factual axe to grind *then* or now that I know the source.
Thank you for adding the citation. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Replies: 78 / Views: 11,378 |
|
Posted 06/28/2025 1:45 pm
