Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This is a mod repost as the original has been deleted. Please keep the comments focused on the beware itself.

Special note: We did discuss at length whether or not to repost this certain beware. However, in the end we do feel what made this a bewareable offense was the incredible overestimation of the shipping that led to the OP almost having to pay the price of the item in customs fees.

Given that, and how the original beware became sidetracked on the color of the ref, we are requesting that commentary on whether or not the ref was green be dropped. Any further comments discussing the color will be instantly frozen. The issue has been discussed at length, and we do feel that it can only continue to go in circles.

Original Link: http://artists-beware.livejournal.com/813026.html

Original Screencap: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76717253/screens/Community_Moderation_-_2014-12-27_20.44.50.png
Artist's beware has moved!
Do NOT repost your old bewares. They are being archived.


( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 30th, 2014 10:40 pm (UTC)
I'll be basically reposting the comment I made in the original Beware:
A lot on this Beware seems to stem from general inexperience from both sides. Generally the artists possible comments about the hood being lounge-able and that the hood can be tossed back seem like they themselves haven't worn a similarly weighted hoodie for a long time and fell trap to the old:
"yeah I can carry this, this bag weights nothing at all!"
*fifteen minutes later*
"holy fuuuuug"

That they seem to have started these hoodie commissions roughly the time OP commissioned one probably accounts for why they also didn't understand to make sue the stitching etc would be extra durable. And the artist changed the description to "more of a non-general fursuit" later to me would be the responsible thing to do if they now got more experience on that it's not as comfy for long term use, though in the Beware this seems to be seen more of a negative thing? Though I didn't see a quote from the artist directly telling the hoodie is good for lounging.

Also the extended shipping is inconvenient, but not something I see that should be for the artist to compensate or be against them, assuming they did their part correctly in terms of tracking and such, so I'm not sure what the OP would want done. But as for the custom fee's I think it would have been fair if the artist had chipped in on paying them, since even though OP's country's super strict customs things are not their fault, it was their error to put such a high price on the customs slip, even if it wasn't intended.
However because there were no proper proof/caps on what had been discussed, it's hard to say if the artist suggested anything of the sort.

As for the waiting time, again I don't see any caps about your hoodie being finished in March (March waitlist to me doesn't automatically mean everything will be done in March) and (if the OP hadn't flounced) I'd question why you didn't contact the artist earlier than July.
Five months is still a long time for a hoodie and I'd say wrong measurements may be totally their issue (no proof of these were provided), but otherwise it really seems the OP mainly got the short end of an inexperienced seller who didn't have much experience outside US shipping and a prototype outfit with problems they/you didn't know to account for.
Dec. 31st, 2014 01:28 am (UTC)
Well, the customs fees, that is fees assuming one PROPERLY declared the cost, shouldn't be the responsibility of the seller to 'chip in'. They're taxes applied by the government of the buyer on an imported purchase, the seller would have no responsibility to pay these.
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:20 am (UTC)
I think what they were meaning was that the seller should have chipped in because the value they put on the customs slip was way higher than the price the OP paid for the goods. I completely agree that it's the buyer who should be responsible for customs/import taxes, but it's the seller's responsibility to fill out the customs declaration properly and the value of the item should be the value that the buyer paid for it. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I bought something from overseas and got hit with double the tax fees because the seller had randomly decided to list the item's value on the customs form as double its actual cost.

ETA: No idea why this double-posted, can I delete the duplicate?

Edited at 2014-12-31 03:22 am (UTC)
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:25 am (UTC)
mod comment
got it for you
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:30 am (UTC)
This was a big part of the beware for me. Their lie cost the OP more money than they would have spent on customs normally, and the seller seemed to have no interest in compensating them for that. I thought it was strange that this was so glossed over in the comments of the original post of the beware. I know if that had happened to me, I would be demanding they pay the difference for their markup, and I would expect AB to have my back on that, since it was the seller's mistake.

Edited at 2014-12-31 03:31 am (UTC)
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:38 am (UTC)
This is what I was thinking. I was rather bewildered that the OP kept nitpicking little details when, to me, that mis-declaration was the real problem and was more than enough of a reason to be upset. The color was subjective and the artist never actually insulted the OP, so complaining so thoroughly about those things seemed really out of place. I think OP would've saved themselves the frustration of people talking those things to death if they would've just focused on the customs problem...
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:43 am (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that over declaring the value in hopes of cashing in on the postal insurance if it gets lost is FRAUD. Like, literally a crime. The seller had the buyer paying feels in relation to their attempt to engage in fraud.
Dec. 31st, 2014 03:50 am (UTC)
It's possible they just rounded up as someone mentioned in the original post because they didn't know better. I don't want to immediately assume devious intent, because we aren't the seller so we can never truly know.

But when it comes to compensation, intent wouldn't matter. She owed it to the OP to make up for what her mistake caused him to overpay. Period.
Dec. 31st, 2014 05:12 am (UTC)
I did the math in the deleted thread, just going to put what I remember here.

It's roughly $50 NZ flat fee for duties(not based on direct value like in Canada). So that $50(it's actually $46.89 which is IETF fee + biosecurity fee) no matter what, BUT the direct value changes the rest by a lot.

Import duty for Clothes is 10% and tax is 15%(NZ taxes the direct value, unlike Canada which taxes the total value).

So if the hoodie cost $250 the tax and duty is about $63(+the base $50 charge), but based on the $500 value that means that OP had to pay $125(+ the base $50 charge), instead.

I personally think that based on the fact OP contacted customs them about the fraudulent/artificial insurance value and received a refund of some of the money that customs NZ intends to go after the seller for the money that was discounted.
NZ customs has a few different valuation methods they accept- including for commissioned work- but in all cases they will not accept a valuation based on "Arbitrary or fictitious values". In other words you can't just round up, or guess, or make up a value to try and get a windfall if you have to make an insurance claim.
Dec. 31st, 2014 05:23 pm (UTC)
Not to mention, in order to get a refund, you have to provide proof that the item was worth what you declared. This could include Paypal invoices, Etsy receipts, etc. No proof, no refund. I know the USPS at least is pretty strict on this, and I assume Canada Post is the same way.

When I ship things, I would feel awful if I declared the value as higher than what it's worth, since I know it would result in the customer having to pay higher customs fees. As it is, if it's a pricey item, I try to warn them before shipping that their country may charge them customs/tax to receive the item, and that per federal law I MUST put the correct value on the customs form. So far I've never had anyone complain.
Dec. 31st, 2014 10:50 am (UTC)
To me it was mainly because they had so many claims without proof, like the hoodie description, deadlines, the colour issue, wrong measurements (in one of the caps the artist told the OP to re-measure the hoodie to see the measurements were as requested, so it's bit odd to me they didn't do it) and nothing to go by about the customs claims in terms of what the artist actually said.
The colour thing was the only one with actual visible proof so I don't really wonder why the original post got sidetracked, especially after the OP's replies.
In their original advice post the community was with them, but they just weren't transparent enough in this one.
Dec. 31st, 2014 10:27 am (UTC)
Like the original post reads, the seller had tacked extra 300 dollars in the customs cost. However from what I could glance from it too, it seemed the seller had thought it would work like an insurance, added a rough number that would cover the item, time and materials, and did what they could to help the buyer bring the cost down.
Dec. 31st, 2014 08:26 pm (UTC)
This. It looked to me as though they were trying to make sure that if the item got lost in the post and they had to refund the buyer, nobody would be out money.
Dec. 31st, 2014 08:32 pm (UTC)
Yup, and as misguided as that was (and by god I'd hope they learned their lesson from this), to me it's hard to take it as maliciously as the OP described it in places, like in the original advice post where they said something along the lines that "the artist might forge receipts in order to fake that the item really cost as much" if it had gotten lost.
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )


A_B icon
Commissioner & Artist, Warning & Kudos Community
Artists Beware

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com