Like you and everyone else, I find the phrase "illegal wood" silly. I wish I had a better way to describe it. There are a few woods that are almost completely illegal to import - Madagascar Ebony and Madagascar Rosewood are two of those.
In the case of the 2009 Madagascar Ebony, I'd say the answer was yes, Gibson imported wood that was illegal to import. If you would like me to explain why, then I would be happy to do so. It was basically a 'lumber laundering' scheme like a 'money laundering' scheme.
I don't think Gibson was overtly involved in the scheme, but the emails show that it knew its purchase was not through authorized sources. Gibson is in much the situation of somebody receiving stolen goods.
Other woods and wood products are exported and imported, like other imports, according to a Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Virtually all, if not all, countries involved in international trade have them and publish them. India has one. It's online.
In the case of East Indian Rosewood, there's a code for veneer (wood under 6mm in thickness); a code for logs, a code for finished products, including those for musical instruments (chess pieces, tuning pegs for violins, bows, etc.), and a code for split, cut, or chipped wood or lumber over 6mm in thickness.
India, like many countries, wants to keep its citizens employed. India allows the export of veneer (which is used to make the sides of guitars), because Indian labor makes the veneer. India allows the export of logs. India allows the export of finished East Indian Rosewood products for musical instruments. India - if you read the tariff code - expressly prohibits the export of the split, cut, or chipped East Indian wood or lumber over 6mm in thickness.
So, you asked, is Gibson importing illegal wood?
When it comes to East Indian Rosewood, Gibson is certainly importing cut pieces of wood over 6mm in thickness. The wood is roughly cut to size of fingerboards for guitars and other musical instruments.
I don't know whether that wood should be considered "finished" wood for musical instruments or cut wood, so I don't know if the import is illegal.
Perhaps Gibson, which is in financial trouble after the Nashville floods, was saving money by having part, but not all, of the labor done in India - creating a product that wasn't quite finished and that fell into the category of cut pieces of wood over 6mm in thickness.
I think the differentiation among types of wood is strange, but then again, I'm not the Indian government. And the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule contains similar differentiations.
And I scratch my head and wonder why Gibson went through such subterfuge to get this wood - leaving its name off the import documents, listing one container of fingerboards as veneer and the other as finished products, using the name of a small California company as the ultimate consignee.
What I'm really pointing out is that there's a lot out there that Gibson's certainly not disclosing - I've posted the contents of internal Gibson emails and other information about the Madgascar Ebony on other threads.
Are you saying that you providing sources on other threads here at FR in regards to the accusations you are making about import papers and emails?
If so can you point those threads out? I would like to see where you are getting this information from.
You said:
“I think the differentiation among types of wood is strange, but then again, I’m not the Indian government.”
From what was claimed by the CEO of Gibson they have sworn affidavits from numerous members of India’s parliament stating that the Obama administration is using a wrongful interpretation of India’s law and that Gibson has acted legally. The CEO claimed that they were confident that they were to win in Court and thus the second raid in order to further intimidate and continue a witch hunt for evidence.
” leaving its name off the import documents, “
Who was responsible for filling out the documents? Was it Gibson? Or some other company?
I appreciate the additional and detailed information you have provided on this thread, and I certainly concur that we need to ascertain the facts before going off half-cocked on issues like this.
However, there is an aspect of this, and other cases as well, which raises questions which are equally relevant. That question is, of course, why have no charges been filed? If the government believed it had sufficient evidence to justify the raid and seizure of Gibson’s property in 2009, why no charges, grand jury indictment and trial?
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental tenet of our justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied, as the saying goes. However, there is a definite pattern of these types of cases which give every indication that the government is far more interested in selective harassment and/or financially breaking certain disfavored businesses, and this case positively reeks of it.
All that you have said about Gibson and its CEO may be true but that in no way excuses or obviates the government from acting to either charge, prosecute and convict them, or drop this and return their property.
The reality seems to be that this case is far more about certain political agendas than about illegal wood.
Thank you. Appreciate the info.