Gibson Guitar to pay big fine related to wood...

I have my own chair in the corner. :-)

On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote: Snip

So don't you think that they should have actually been in possession before being charged?

Let's say you are the guy in charge of ordering materials at Gibson and place your order. It is confiscated in route and found to not have legal sized contents. Should you be arrested?

It is a very common occurrence for the contents of any shipment, regardless of what the contents is, to not exactly match the packing slip. Mistakes are a daily fact in shipment preparation.

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand $300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

-- We are always the same age inside. -- Gertrude Stein

Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.

"Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit overharvesting and conserve valuable species..."

Rightly or wrongly, on both Gibson's part and the Fed's part, this is how it played out. I suspect it may alter the business and personal practices of some here in the U.S.. There are surely others that will not care and who will continue doing what they are doing figuring that they are flying under the radar. Gibson's products end up on stage, on TV, and in myriad photos... harder to hide perhaps than that nice jewelry box someone made for their wife?

Personally I think we need another Constitutional amendment to the effect that no failure to properly fill out forms shall carry a penalty greater than that for event the slightest violent crime or property crime.

as Pogo said, "We has met the enemy, and they is us".

True, but is it amiss at the Gibson plant or with the regulators/laws?

-- We are always the same age inside. -- Gertrude Stein

A $300,000 fine for violating a foreign law that the foreign country didn't think they violated is a bit stupid to me.

I agree. Any time you get the DOJ or State Department involved the fines t= hat are published might be the negotiated slap on the wrist that comes befo= re they drop the hammer.

I managed International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) compliance for a company tha= t didn't take it too seriously until they got in trouble. I got in when th= ey realized that a few, stupid clerical errors made by us, and some more se= rious infractions by a customer, violated the ITAR. The initial fine was g= oing to be in the $2M-$3M area but we negotiated it down by basically plead= ing, groveling and begging and agreeing to some special terms. We ended up= with a $150K fine plus another $50K allocated for a mandatory training pro= gram and some systems changes. At the end of the day the training and syst= ems changes cost more than that but we were happy to comply. If we had a s= econd infraction within a 3-5 year window the fine could have been quite la= rge.

RonB

are published might be the negotiated slap on the wrist that comes before they drop the hammer.

didn't take it too seriously until they got in trouble. I got in when they realized that a few, stupid clerical errors made by us, and some more serious infractions by a customer, violated the ITAR. The initial fine was going to be in the $2M-$3M area but we negotiated it down by basically pleading, groveling and begging and agreeing to some special terms. We ended up with a $150K fine plus another $50K allocated for a mandatory training program and some systems changes. At the end of the day the training and systems changes cost more than that but we were happy to comply. If we had a second infraction within a 3-5 year window the fine could have been quite large.

ITARs are a slightly different thing than some greenie detail that even the source country doesn't care about. ...unless the deal involves campaign cash (on one side or the other).