Amazon selling dangerous lighting

[stillp]

If you go through the "Items to declare" lane at an airport, presumably you would declare any items on which you think that duty/UK VAT might be payable. It's not the Customs officer's task to find those items. Compare that with the mail service, which carries many items that have no duty/tax liability. Do you think Customs have the resource to inspect every single package to see what it contains? I don't know what percentage of items are inspected, but I would expect it is rather low. There should of course be a Customs Declaration on the outside of the package.
Larger items, such as vehicles, are often imported UK taxes paid.

 

[JohnW2]

Are you suggesting that people who commit a crime should not be prosecuted?

Not as a generalisation, but I think we need some common sense here. Illegal imports, products which which do not comply with required Standards/regulations, counterfeit goods, stolen goods etc. are so ubiquitous that I suspect that most of us have probably (usually totally unwittingly) purchased some of them. Do you really think it would be reasonable to prosecute us all?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, but you might remember I posted a few pages ago that I think Amazon et al should be made to post a warning to purchasers, that by importing an item they are responsible for the legality of that product, including any taxes due.

 

[stillp]

I should have said that my "No" above refers to private individuals purchasing for their own use. People who import illegal goods in connection with a business should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

 

[EddyP]

Does anyone know of a light fitting that looks just like this that is safe? It's just what we're after but obviously would rather have a safe one.

Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

No, but you might remember I posted a few pages ago that I think Amazon et al should be made to post a warning to purchasers, that by importing an item they are responsible for the legality of that product, including any taxes due.

You did - and, in turn, you might remember that I agreed with you, albeit adding a comment suggesting that not may people would probably notice, and/or take any notice of, such a 'warning'.

As I've said, the problem, particularly with technological products, is that, warning or no warning, very few buyers are going to be able to (or 'could reasonably be expected to be able to'??) determine the legality of a product, particularly before they have seen, 'imported' or even seen the product.

In fact, I've never read the T&Cs for Amazon Marketplace or eBay etc., have you? (even though we should have done). For all I know b(and possibly the same for you), they may well include such a 'warning' - more by way of a 'disclaimer'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I should have said that my "No" above refers to private individuals purchasing for their own use. People who import illegal goods in connection with a business should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

No argument with that - at least, if the business involves re-selling (or leasing or whatever) the products. I'm not so sure if they just buy a batch of light bulbs/whatever for their office which, unbekown to them, turn out to be 'illegal'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Iggifer]

Prohibited content

• Illegal and potentially illegal products: Products sold on the Amazon.website must adhere to all applicable laws. As sellers are legally liable for their actions and transactions, sellers must know the legal parameters surrounding any product they offer for sale on Amazon.co.uk. This includes the sale of products by individuals outside the United Kingdom.
• Products that are not safe: All new toys and electrical equipment must be CE marked. All toys and electrical equipment, whether new or used, must be safe (that is, there is no risk that the equipment will cause death, personal injury or damage to property) and, where applicable, come with a UK standard three-pin plug. You must have used and refurbished electrical equipment tested by an expert prior to listing to verify that it is safe. You must not list any product that has been the subject of a product safety recall, regardless of branding. More information on current product recalls can be found here. Products not meeting these requirements are prohibited

From here

 

[stillp]

Well, they don't enforce that do they!

 

[stillp]

I should have said that my "No" above refers to private individuals purchasing for their own use. People who import illegal goods in connection with a business should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

No argument with that - at least, if the business involves re-selling (or leasing or whatever) the products. I'm not so sure if they just buy a batch of light bulbs/whatever for their office which, unbekown to them, turn out to be 'illegal'.

Kind Regards, John

What if those lights caused an injury to their staff or customers?

 

[JohnW2]

Well, they don't enforce that do they!

Seemingly not (or at least, not to an adequate extent) - but not that all those 'conditions' apply to the sellers - nothing about buyers having responsibilities to ensure that the goods are safe/legal/whatever.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No argument with that - at least, if the business involves re-selling (or leasing or whatever) the products. I'm not so sure if they just buy a batch of light bulbs/whatever for their office which, unbekown to them, turn out to be 'illegal'.

What if those lights caused an injury to their staff or customers?

Maybe - I only said that "I wasn't so sure". However, I think that a blanket "...in connection with a business" might be too wide. For example, many a small "business" is run from a private dwelling, with no staff other than the normal domestic residents of that dwelling and with no customers visiting the building. Again, "I'm not so sure" that it is necessarily reasonable to "prosecute them to the full extent possible" for (unwittingly) importing and installing 'illegal' lights in their house 'because of that business', given that we are agreed that it would not be reasonable were it not for that "business".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

If you go through the "Items to declare" lane at an airport, presumably you would declare any items on which you think that duty/UK VAT might be payable. It's not the Customs officer's task to find those items. Compare that with the mail service, which carries many items that have no duty/tax liability. Do you think Customs have the resource to inspect every single package to see what it contains? I don't know what percentage of items are inspected, but I would expect it is rather low. There should of course be a Customs Declaration on the outside of the package.

Doesn't that make the point even more? As you say, bringing goods into the country in person you make a declaration as to something you think might be taxable face to face. Obviously that can't happen for mailed goods, but isn't that form stuck to the package doing exactly the same thing? It's called a customs declaration, after all! It's telling Customs what's in the package and its estimated value, and inviting them to charge the applicable tax, if any.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... whilst we do not prosecute people further along the supply chain for illegal importation of proscribed items which get through customs, we do indeed prosecute them for selling or even just owning them.

So are you back to suggesting that the buyers of these products (who usually will have no reason to know, or even suspect, that they have committed a crime) should be prosecuted for "just owning them"?

Why are you and PBC so keen to pretend that you can't read and/or pay attention? What advantages do you hope will accrue to you through that pretence?

Shall we try again?

Do I have to use big print?

To expect someone else to be held responsible because the authorities are not doing their job adequately is, IMO, not appropriate

Why do we not operate on the same principle with illegal drugs, smuggled tobacco and alcohol etc?

I think we do. I can't imagine that anyone 'further down the chain' would be prosecuted for the illegal import (by someone else) of drugs, tobacco or alcohol.

Why do we not think it inappropriate to hold the sellers of the shipments which do get through customs accountable?

Accountable for what - see above. It could well be that by using, handling or selling goods that had been illegally imported by someone else that they had omitted other criminal offences for which they could be prosecuted, but they could not be 'held accountable' for the illegal import.

You said "To expect someone else to be held responsible because the authorities are not doing their job adequately is, IMO, not appropriate". I pointed out that that is exactly what we do for some items, and with some of them simple end-customer possession is an offence, it is prosecuted, and people do receive severe sanctions.

You have already asked, and I have already answered, whether I think that Joe Bloggs should be prosecuted because his phone charger burnt him, so what you hope to achieve by asking the same question again I cannot begin to imagine.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, but you might remember I posted a few pages ago that I think Amazon et al should be made to post a warning to purchasers, that by importing an item they are responsible for the legality of that product, including any taxes due.

Well that would be utterly pointless if they knew that they would not face prosecution for "importing" something dodgy. Far better to recognise the reality, and not the fiction, which is that Amazon are so close to being the seller of the item that it makes no practical difference - they are responsible for Lucky Boy Electrics being able to sell the exploding phone charger to Joe Bloggs.

What does it say about the morals of a society which is prepared to imprison a disadvantaged black kid because someone 100 yards away who he barely knew used a knife which he didn't know they had to kill someone, but they are not prepared to do anything to stop UK businesses from profiting by helping foreign companies sell illegal products into the UK?

That is still not a rhetorical question, BTW, no matter how much JW2 tries to pretend that it is.