The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-20-2011, 09:16 PM
racman racman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 683
Default Cocobolo - now upgraded on CITES ?

I have just noticed that Cocobolo is listed on LMI as shipping within US only due to CITES. However, the only available documentation I have seen is that Cocobolo was listed as Appendix III in 2007.

Does anyone know of any update or upgrade of Cocobolo on CITES?

(Two months to go before my Bashkin Cocobolo/Adi build start so I need to make alternative plans/choices if we will have CITES issues with import to South Africa)
__________________
Cornerstone Zion
Kostal MD

Last edited by racman; 06-20-2011 at 10:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2011, 09:52 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,450
Default

Cocobolo is only listed on Appendix III, and only if sourced from Guatemala.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-20-2011, 09:54 PM
WhistlingFish WhistlingFish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stanley, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 363
Default

Cocobolo is still listed as a CITES III species. I wonder whether LMI have some inside knowledge about imminent changes.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2011, 10:23 PM
racman racman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 683
Default

Thx Howard and Pete
I have e-mailed LMI for more info so hopefully I will get more clarity on this soon as well.
__________________
Cornerstone Zion
Kostal MD
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2011, 10:43 PM
WhistlingFish WhistlingFish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stanley, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racman View Post
Thx Howard and Pete
I have e-mailed LMI for more info so hopefully I will get more clarity on this soon as well.
Roy, please let us know what you find out.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2011, 11:00 PM
Battleman Battleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhistlingFish View Post
Roy, please let us know what you find out.


+1.................
__________________
Thanks for sharing,

Mike Solo
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-21-2011, 12:04 AM
racman racman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhistlingFish View Post
Roy, please let us know what you find out.
Will do !!
__________________
Cornerstone Zion
Kostal MD
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-21-2011, 09:57 AM
old6strng old6strng is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Posts: 285
Default

Roy, I can keep your Bashkin for you at my place, I will make sure it is well played!

I am really looking forward to this build and canít wait to see and hear it! Congrats again.
__________________
Mike

í11 Bashkin Belleza - GC (Cedar/Mahogany)
í89 Taylor 712
Takamine EN-50
ESP Ltd MV-200
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Alan Carruth Alan Carruth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,022
Default

Howard Klepper wrote:
"Cocobolo is only listed on Appendix III, and only if sourced from Guatemala."

That may be the issue. If there's any sort of export restriction on a wood by a particular country, the US authorities can treat that wood from that country as if it were CITES I. If LMI can't confirm the source of their coco, then they have to treat it all is if it were fom Guatemala. At least, that's how I understand it. LMI is covering their butt, but given the confusion the recnt changes in law have brought about, and the really draconian punishments that can be involved, it's understandable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-21-2011, 03:06 PM
racman racman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 683
Default

Just received this reply from Rob at LMI:

"The CITES list has been updated and yes there are more species listed that can not be exported."

I will check out CITES website over the next few days to see if there are new addendums etc, but my initial search only revealed the 2007 Appendix III listing that Howard mentioned.
__________________
Cornerstone Zion
Kostal MD
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-21-2011, 05:07 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Carruth View Post
Howard Klepper wrote:
"Cocobolo is only listed on Appendix III, and only if sourced from Guatemala."

That may be the issue. If there's any sort of export restriction on a wood by a particular country, the US authorities can treat that wood from that country as if it were CITES I.
If it has to be treated as if it came from Guatemala, why not as it is listed: Appendix III? That would not place any restriction on exporting from the US.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-21-2011, 11:28 PM
racman racman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 683
Default

True Howard, but I have just found this recent notification (17Dec 2010) which clarifies Appendix III implementation


http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2010/E042.pdf:
"Implementation of the listing of species in Appendix III where only specified national populations are included"


It seems a little contradictory at times in the notification but I believe the underlying intent is clearly indicated in the last point (Para 9) as to the desired future actions.

However, I still remain unenlightened as to any specific restrictions on any Cocobolo that does not originate from Guatemala. The only issue may be that the onus may be on the exporter/importer to prove that the Cocobolo did not originate from Guatemala which would be difficult. The 2010 notification states that if it did not then no restrictions apply, but how would one prove it to customs officers ......


To be safe, I may have to decide on another back and sides wood for my Bashkin ......
__________________
Cornerstone Zion
Kostal MD
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-22-2011, 01:35 PM
Alan Carruth Alan Carruth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,022
Default

Howard Klepper asked:
"If it has to be treated as if it came from Guatemala, why not as it is listed: Appendix III? "

It's Appendix III if you can show that it didn't come from Guatamala: if you can't show that you have to cover your butt and treat it as if it was Appendix I.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-22-2011, 02:28 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,450
Default

I can't see where that interpretation might come from, Al. Any source? It has never been listed as Appendix I or Appendix II. Only Guatemala has requested Appendix III listing.

The document Racman referred to seems clear enough. The link didn't work, but I found it. See ∂6:
------------------------------------
"Regulation of trade in cases where a Party includes its own population in Appendix III

6.

When one or more specified national populations of a species are included in Appendix III, all other
populations of the species are excluded. The populations that are included are indicated in the CITES
Appendices in brackets, next to the name of the species. The name of the Party that included each
population in Appendix III is also indicated. In accordance with Article V of the Convention, these listings of
individual populations should be implemented as follows:

a)

Export from the State that included the population in Appendix III of specimens originating in that
State: requires the prior grant and presentation of an export permit that has been issued by the
Management Authority of the State of export, in accordance with Article V, paragraph 2, of the
Convention;

b)

Export from States whose populations are not listed in Appendix III of specimens originating in those
States: no CITES document is required;

c)

Re-export of specimens that originated in a population that is included in Appendix III: requires a
certificate issued by the Management Authority of the State of re-export that the specimen was
processed in that State or is being re-exported, in accordance with Article V, paragraph 4; and

d)

Re-export of specimens that originated in a population that is not included in Appendix III: no CITES
document is required."
-----------------------------------
I would suggest that like many parties, LMI is confused about the law and has decided not to risk any mistakes.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon

Last edited by Howard Klepper; 06-22-2011 at 02:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-22-2011, 04:16 PM
dberkowitz dberkowitz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 830
Default

It'sAppendix III, see http://www.cites.org/eng/app/E-Apr27.pdf Search for Dalbergia Retusa. Not sure why LMII is making the restriction. You'd have to email Nathalie. -- db
__________________
David D. Berkowitz
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=