Morris & Forndran

todras said:
HMR&C will require the remittance of VAT 20% + 3.7% on top of that figure, so an effective tariff of 23.7% in Pounds Sterling payable prior to the lots being released. The imposition of this tariff would make the brushes prohibitively expensive so Brad is giving up on them apparently and will make the handles anew.

I'm a lot like you @Mark1966, wheresas you can't resist a spreadsheet I can't resist a bit of prescriptive legislation and delegated authority by way of Regulations, especially on NYE so here is a link to the tarrif designation for brushes in the UK from HMR&C (including shaving brushes). I note that the calculation of duty on inbound items it at the discretion of HMR&C and they are tough, almost immovable on their valuations.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but mate, this is the link to BRUSHES including shaving brushes. Are we not talking about nothing more than a "handle", a shaped piece of plastic rod with a hold bored into the middle? Surely that is not a "brush" ...

:)
 
Mark1966 said:
Ahhh, but mate, this is the link to BRUSHES including shaving brushes. Are we not talking about nothing more than a "handle", a shaped piece of plastic rod with a hold bored into the middle? Surely that is not a "brush" ...
Click to expand...

It's the law we are discussing, not a variance or balance sheet, You need to think reasonable person test and be up on your common law. Ill give you a few internet points for reciting the 'other purpose' defense though :p

So the common law position has a test about 'things' (not entities, property, equitable things etc covered by other common law), it is a position adopted by the courts both here in Aussie and in the UK. There was a recent case about 'crack pipes' of all things having legitimate uses (they lost) where it came up and it goes roughly like this....

It is a brush by virtue of the sole intent and purpose in it's design and manufacture is being and existing only as a receptacle with an aperture specific to receive a brush. It has no other conceivable use or purpose given the care taken in turning it by hand other than to receive whats commonly known as a shaving brush. It is in the eyes of the law and the reasonable person as a thing a shaving brush handle and ipso facto is therefore subject to the tariff designated for shaving brushes based on it's country of origin.
 
@todras what I don't understand is how the rest of them went through. The issue i have with your Argument is that a shaving brush handle is only a tiny fraction of the brush so why have they valued it so highly? It's a piece of turned resin after all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rami said:
@todras what I don't understand is how the rest of them went through. The issue i have with your Argument is that a shaving brush handle is only a tiny fraction of the brush so why have they valued it so highly? It's a piece of turned resin after all.
Click to expand...

Hey man it's not my personal argument, it's the common law position formed by the justices who heard specific cases and ruled. I think it sucks too!

The other packages went through as they were probably not inspected, only roughly 0.5% to 1% of all packages are physically inspected.

Most (probably all but I am not certain ) packages are run through a ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) machine to detect explosives or drugs with sniffer dogs used. Once packages pass this point they are free to pass unless designated for physical inspection - it may be the case that due to the quantity of unique packages received from the same address in the period a couple were flagged for physical inspection or it may be purely random. Once they were inspected they were passed to revenue services once it became apparent they were duitable items.
 
todras said:
It's the law we are discussing, not a variance or balance sheet, You need to think reasonable person test and be up on your common law. Ill give you a few internet points for reciting the 'other purpose' defense though :p

So the common law position has a test about 'things' (not entities, property, equitable things etc covered by other common law), it is a position adopted by the courts both here in Aussie and in the UK. There was a recent case about 'crack pipes' of all things having legitimate uses (they lost) where it came up and it goes roughly like this....

It is a brush by virtue of the sole intent and purpose in it's design and manufacture is being and existing only as a receptacle with an aperture specific to receive a brush. It has no other conceivable use or purpose given the care taken in turning it by hand other than to receive whats commonly known as a shaving brush. It is in the eyes of the law and the reasonable person as a thing a shaving brush handle and ipso facto is therefore subject to the tariff designated for shaving brushes based on it's country of origin.
Click to expand...

Would a reasonable person REALLY describe a bit of resin with a hole a brush? Like calling a rod without anything on the bottom a broom!

Lawyers just love these sort of fights, I remember reading screeds of pernickety arguments being made in relation to sales tax regarding components for an end product and whether it was taxable or not. Regulation with this level of specificity is clearly intended to exclude those items not specifically covered. I think they should engage you to fight it all the way to the House of Lords.

Pro-bono of course ... ;)
 
Mark1966 said:
Would a reasonable person REALLY describe a bit of resin with a hole a brush? Like calling a rod without anything on the bottom a broom!
Click to expand...

When it is contextualized accurately and not reductively dismissed as a bit of resin, yes I believe they would and they have repeatedly in case law as the argument is delivered by a specialist counsel in a court room: logically, forensically and persuasively and not by a shaver 3 or 4 glasses of malt in. tbh I regret pointing out the law now as I just bloody well knew the form and type of arguments that would be offered in opposition to what I said. I agree with you all in principle, it's just the law in two countries regrettably does not :D

It will come as no small surprise that all of the arguements put forward before the courts (exhaustively) have been argued and failed in relation to the types of things defences including no doubt many, many disputes with the notorious HMR&C service over import duty. Even contesting valuations of goods with them is futile, due to the legislation they are a power unto themselves which does not surprise me as they generate millions of pounds in revenue.

I do want you and everyone else for that matter to know that and I as much as anyone, dislike the tariff...it is after-all one of my brushes that was grabbed by customs!

I have previous experience with EU countries and tariffs: I sent a very good friend of mine in the Netherlands an Occam's brush, soap and shaving cream set as a post grad present (Comp Sci), anyway the Dutch customs opened and inspected the package and applied the following tarrifs that are (in NL) collected by the postal service on delivery...
  1. Standard Import tariff of 15%
  2. Non-Eu country tariff of 6.5% and
  3. Luxury Tariff of 35 euros.
I ended up paying 86 euros or thereabouts for the articles to be released and delivered to him, it came in at around $120 extra on the set that Darcy did for me at a discount as it was a gift.

Mark1966 said:
Regulation with this level of specificity is clearly intended to exclude those items not specifically covered.
Click to expand...

That too is arguable, most legislation is by intent (especially where it concerns revenue) deliberately intended to be as broad as possible in scope. By specifically unrelated example The Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act contains provisions identical in relation to paraphernalia (razor blade and mirror together = paraphernalia) and also chemicals that when combined are able to, can, may etc create prohibited substances. There are several other examples along exactly the same lines pertaining to everyday things and all of them apply the reasonable person test which when framed and delivered forensically by a prosecutor in a court-room appears logical, persuasive and convincing.

Mark1966 said:
I think they should engage you to fight it all the way to the House of Lords.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean Her Majestys High Court of Justice of England and Wales and subsequently an appellate application seeking leave to the Privy Council when the High Court refuses leave, General.... I'll stick to my lowly suburban property law and hanging out on Australian Wet Shaving forums :)
 
todras said:
When it is contextualized accurately and not reductively dismissed as a bit of resin, yes I believe they would and they have repeatedly in case law as the argument is delivered by a specialist counsel in a court room: logically, forensically and persuasively and not by a shaver 3 or 4 glasses of malt in. tbh I regret pointing out the law now as I just bloody well knew the form and type of arguments that would be offered in opposition to what I said. I agree with you all in principle, it's just the law in two countries regrettably does not :D

It will come as no small surprise that all of the arguements put forward before the courts (exhaustively) have been argued and failed in relation to the types of things defences including no doubt many, many disputes with the notorious HMR&C service over import duty. Even contesting valuations of goods with them is futile, due to the legislation they are a power unto themselves which does not surprise me as they generate millions of pounds in revenue.

I do want you and everyone else for that matter to know that and I as much as anyone, dislike the tariff...it is after-all one of my brushes that was grabbed by customs!

I have previous experience with EU countries and tariffs: I sent a very good friend of mine in the Netherlands an Occam's brush, soap and shaving cream set as a post grad present (Comp Sci), anyway the Dutch customs opened and inspected the package and applied the following tarrifs that are (in NL) collected by the postal service on delivery...
  1. Standard Import tariff of 15%
  2. Non-Eu country tariff of 6.5% and
  3. Luxury Tariff of 35 euros.
I ended up paying 86 euros or thereabouts for the articles to be released and delivered to him, it came in at around $120 extra on the set that Darcy did for me at a discount as it was a gift.



That too is arguable, most legislation is by intent (especially where it concerns revenue) deliberately intended to be as broad as possible in scope. By specifically unrelated example The Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act contains provisions identical in relation to paraphernalia (razor blade and mirror together = paraphernalia) and also chemicals that when combined are able to, can, may etc create prohibited substances. There are several other examples along exactly the same lines pertaining to everyday things and all of them apply the reasonable person test which when framed and delivered forensically by a prosecutor in a court-room appears logical, persuasive and convincing.



I'm guessing you mean Her Majestys High Court of Justice of England and Wales and subsequently an appellate application seeking leave to the Privy Council when the High Court refuses leave, General.... I'll stick to my lowly suburban property law and hanging out on Australian Wet Shaving forums :)
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point!

;)
 
@Psmith - this question is for you and your latest...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
todras said:
It's the law we are discussing, not a variance or balance sheet, You need to think reasonable person test and be up on your common law. Ill give you a few internet points for reciting the 'other purpose' defense though :p

So the common law position has a test about 'things' (not entities, property, equitable things etc covered by other common law), it is a position adopted by the courts both here in Aussie and in the UK. There was a recent case about 'crack pipes' of all things having legitimate uses (they lost) where it came up and it goes roughly like this....

It is a brush by virtue of the sole intent and purpose in it's design and manufacture is being and existing only as a receptacle with an aperture specific to receive a brush. It has no other conceivable use or purpose given the care taken in turning it by hand other than to receive whats commonly known as a shaving brush. It is in the eyes of the law and the reasonable person as a thing a shaving brush handle and ipso facto is therefore subject to the tariff designated for shaving brushes based on it's country of origin.
Click to expand...

It is with interest, I note you mention 'reasonable person' testing of the validity of such claims.
Now I may not be reasonable, yet to me, jury nullification would be a path I would seek, as no reasonable person will pick up a handle without a knot and attempt to shave with it and I would love to see the boffins proclaiming otherwise, seek to disprove this.
I would even donate a puck of Crabtree & Evelyn and a shavette with a Feather blade for this demonstration.
Simply put, when tested beyond theory in the real world, the argument they're presenting fails.
 
borked said:
Now I may not be reasonable, yet to me, jury nullification would be a path I would seek,
Click to expand...

It would not be heard before a jury as it is not a criminal matter and you would have to persuade the jury if it was, that the handles and brushes seized by HM&C customs were not in fact shave brushes but something other that was not duitable which would be no mean feat.

For nullification to occur you would then have to counter the prosecutor's position that the paying of tax in a country used for hospitals, roads, etc, etc and how it is an obligation for the greater good yadda yadda and how honest people pay what is owing. Unless of course the case was heard in the US in which case you could suggest a big corporation conspiracy or prosecute some other nonsense they would no doubt immediately believe you.

In the case of handles only being seized, the prosecutor would dutifully stand up and present to the court 5 objects: a banana, an antique dueling pistol(unloaded), a wrapped sandwich(his lunch), a mobile telephone and lastly a knot.

He would in turn and with deliberate theatrical effect try and insert each object into the handle for the full benefit of the court, turning with a raised eyebrow to the judge after each object and saying 'no, clearly not' until he reached the brush which would fit perfectly into the handle. At which point he would sigh contentedly and knowingly 'there we are that fits perfectly, just as intended' and rest whereupon the justice would give an almost imperceptible wry smile and shuffle some papers.

borked said:
Simply put, when tested beyond theory in the real world, the argument they're presenting fails.
Click to expand...

If you ever get the matter up in a court, I'd love to hear how it goes :)
 
...and therein lies the quintessential example of why the layman believes not in the legal system :)
Remind me to take a handfull of toothpicks ;)
 
borked said:
...and therein lies the quintessential example of why the layman believes not in the legal system :)
Remind me to take a handfull of toothpicks ;)
Click to expand...

Now now, thats contemptible and we both know contempt of court is incarceration until the 'contempt is purged' to the satisfaction of the court - how would you trade all those Polsilvers then ?

In seriousness I agree with you absolutely though, the law is a complete ass in so many situations and their are advocates who skillfully and wantonly game the system without conscience. I do firmly believe personally though we do not get to pick and choose what laws we comply with, but I know I am in the minority and others think differently :)
 
Yeah, I've experienced first hand enough of the legal system fighting the government for rightful compensation, to know the system is, simply put, broken.
I live to a moral standard, rather than artificial legal constraints, designed to suit a minority, at the expense of the majority.

*Grabs a few drilled resin handles to use as paper weights, places toothpicks into one, pencils and eraser into another and paperclips into a third, looks over to the defendant and ask how they like that example of reasonable doubt, whilst eating their lunch/exhibit.*
 
No emails from Brad Sears after my "order thank you". I was Order #BSSW1200 and always assumed a February 2017 shipment.
If true, I do feel sorry for Brad - artisans are good in the shop and not good battling government bureaucracy. Guessing several weeks of work now sitting in some government warehouse.
 
Guys I don't see the issue here? The law around import duty is effectively designed to include both the named items (eg brushes) and their component parts (eg handles and knots). Would an import tariff on shaving brushes be effective if all you had to do to circumvent it is disconnect the handle from the knot? It would immediately lead to creative new designs in the world of shaving brushes at the very least. If HM Customs and Revenue let things get through just because they weren't fully assembled yet, a massive hole in that aforesaid revenue line would open up extremely quickly!

Those who draft and execute these laws know this...

Unless you are arguing for a world of free trade without tariffs? In which case I wholeheartedly agree with you - free trade is a great global leveller. Provided of course we can name where the money would come from as a result. But even we aren't quite there yet and the UK / EU are certainly a long way back compared to us...
 
Well said @RazorPlay , that is exactly the case.

Most of our discussion was in jest and in the spirit of healthy, vigorous on-line debate. We are all cool bananas from where I sit :)
 
@todras

Cool bananas who are a bit shocked that the brushes are going to be 25% dearer just to pass through the uk. May be more economical to give lee a holiday in the usa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top