E-Packet deliveries from China will cost a lot more in shipping soon

[Uncle Willie]

You can nit pick it all you want. They are required by The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 to follow regulations set by the commission. That is the law that ends up with those regulations.

So, there is no actual Law requiring this particular Bulk Mail Program .. ??

And, what that has to do with Chinese shipping I don't have a clue ..

 

[bombastinator]

Just look at where the thread went.

As I said I take your point

 

[bombastinator]

OK, let me re-phrase .. although I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from ::

"Why should we not withdraw from this Treaty and re-negotiate, booting China out of said Treaty .. ?? .. "

Because it may very well do more harm than good. We export as well as import. The more interesting question imho is why is the ban not made only to the special economic zones where most of the problem is and have an entirely different set of laws anyway but instead to the entire country?

 

[Beamslider]

It has nothing to do with China shipping. The thread has moved outside that into Postal vs carriers. It was in response to that. I named the law. It is the Law setting up the Postal Oversite Commission.

Congress doe not micro mange and write thousands of laws on each item. Congress designates an Agency to set regulations by passing a law giving authority to that agency. The Regulations created by that Agency have the full force of the law and same status as a statute passed by Congress.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Because it may very well do more harm than good. We export as well as import. The more interesting question imho is why is the ban not made only to the special economic zones where most of the problem is and have an entirely different set of laws anyway but instead to the entire country?

We're talking about small ticket items .. E-Packet was the point of the Thread .. China Direct to Consumer .. not container loads .. and why the USPS Domestic Shipping Rates are lopsided against the USA as it relates to us shipping to them, again Direct to Consumer ..

At least, that's been my assumption when the OP made the Thread ..

 

[bombastinator]

We're talking about small ticket items .. E-Packet was the point of the Thread .. China Direct to Consumer .. not container loads .. and why the USPS Domestic Shipping Rates are lopsided against the USA as it relates to us shipping to them, again Direct to Consumer ..

At least, that's been my assumption when the OP made the Thread ..

everything sold export small ticket or not comes from the export zones

 

[puffon]

Just got a e-packet from FT and I just noticed on the label
That reads, For commercial items only if known,HS
Tariffnumber and country of origins of goods.

Also I had to sign for it.

What was the declared value on the package label?

 

[leftyandsparky]

What was the declared value on the package label?

$20.00 and it also said customs may open officially.
I don’t know if this is common, since I haven’t ordered in over a year. Thought it was interesting.

 

[Uncle Willie]

everything sold export small ticket or not comes from the export zones

Then let me advocate for USA Export Zones where USPS must provide the same rate as China for outgoing shipments .. oh, I'm sorry .. we already have Foreign Trade Zones .. which do absolutely nothing for the Direct to Consumer USA seller attempting to ship Internationally ..

What seems to get lost in translation on this Thread is the idea of a 4 OZ padded envelope shipment from the USA to China costing a US seller $14 and change vs a China seller apparently able to get that same 4 OZ delivered all the way to New York City for, apparently, cents .. that's the problem .. it's simple .. USPS is still doing the work .. and a small business USA seller is unable to tap into the Chinese Market in the way that they have tapped into ours because of the disparity ..

All I have ever advocated for is a Level Playing field ..

 

[puffon]

$20.00 and it also said customs may open officially.
I don’t know if this is common, since I haven’t ordered in over a year. Thought it was interesting.

Yes, I wonder if/where we make the tariff payment? Maybe they will give us a call...LOL!
I have 5 small pkgs en-route from CN., but can't read the label shown on FT.

 

[leftyandsparky]

$20.00 and it also said customs may open officially.
I don’t know if this is common, since I haven’t ordered in over a year. Thought it was interesting.

I spent a total of $21.45

 

[leftyandsparky]

Yes, I wonder if/where we make the tariff payment? Maybe they will give us a call...LOL!
I have 5 small pkgs en-route from CN., but can't read the label shown on FT.

Mine is showing it’s from
Changi airfreight centre
Singapore

 

[bombastinator]

Then let me advocate for USA Export Zones where USPS must provide the same rate as China for outgoing shipments .. oh, I'm sorry .. we already have Foreign Trade Zones .. which do absolutely nothing for the Direct to Consumer USA seller attempting to ship Internationally ..

What seems to get lost in translation on this Thread is the idea of a 4 OZ padded envelope shipment from the USA to China costing a US seller $14 and change vs a China seller apparently able to get that same 4 OZ delivered all the way to New York City for, apparently, cents .. that's the problem .. it's simple .. USPS is still doing the work .. and a small business USA seller is unable to tap into the Chinese Market in the way that they have tapped into ours because of the disparity ..

All I have ever advocated for is a Level Playing field ..

Repeating your argument doesn’t change it. No one is saying the playing field is level.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Repeating your argument doesn’t change it. No one is saying the playing field is level.

Which is exactly why Treaty Withdrawal makes sense ..

 

[bombastinator]

Which is exactly why Treaty Withdrawal makes sense ..

1. Actual treaty withdrawal hasn’t happened yet
2. I do not believe that this is why the treaty withdrawal is being done as evidenced by the way it is being done
3. Just because an action has a single positive outcome doesn’t mean it avoids numerous other negative outcomes
4. This argument already happened at the international level in the previous administration. It is not new. Much like Obamacare it was blocked by the people now supporting it, albeit in a cruder fashion

 

[tiburonfirst]

1) USPS loses money from Countries that are within the Treaty

2) China no longer qualifies as a Treaty country

uncle willie - 193 countries are in the treaty including the usa! it is an agreement between all those countries to charge a predetermined hand-off fee for small mailings not to exceed 4.4 lbs! developing countries are in a special category with lower fees. without a doubt, china should no longer be included in that special category but leaving the treaty will void all agreements in effect we have with foreign countries. because what we do for them they do for us! unless everybody here gets the facts straight there is no need to discuss.

 

[zoiDman]

Repeating your argument doesn’t change it. No one is saying the playing field is level.

Then Shouldn't we be Looking for Ways to Level the Playing Field?

 

[Uncle Willie]

uncle willie - 193 countries are in the treaty including the usa! it is an agreement between all those countries to charge a predetermined hand-off fee for small mailings not to exceed 4.4 lbs! developing countries are in a special category with lower fees. without a doubt, china should no longer be included in that special category but leaving the treaty will void all agreements in effect we have with foreign countries. because what we do for them they do for us! unless everybody here gets the facts straight there is no need to discuss.

I know how it works .. and, as I stated previously, withdraw and re-negotiate, excluding China / Hong Kong and any other Country that no longer qualifies .. I'm not advocating against tearing up the Treaty, just re-negotiation ..

I've shipped goods for at least 40 years .. I know of no Country that "We do for them and They do for us" using the shipping cost scenario .. although, I'd be happy to look at any link that shows Countries that I can ship to at a deeply discounted rate thru USPS ..

 

[bombastinator]

Then Shouldn't we be Looking for Ways to Level the Playing Field?

Why do people keep replying like I disagree with that statement?
Yes. WayS. Imho this particular attempt though appears crude and disengenuious. We shall see what we shall see though. That particular game is just beginning.

 

[leftyandsparky]

Bottom line from the whole thread is we will be paying more for shipping, correct?