Beginner Is it a ""Grey import"" how do you find out ? (Help required please)

[Retune]

You stating Nikon are involved in practises with dealers that could involve preferential treatment is a little bit naughty, it is bordering on a form of corruption. If someone made allegations like this about me in a public platform which were untrue (and I doubt if you are 100% certain) I would be instructing a solicitor to deal with the matter . Need I say more?

You have to be very careful about writing statements that could involve legal action because they can be very costly indeed.

You might be surprised how the law actually operates when it comes to companies controlling international distribution through their authorised channels, which in turn decide the wholesale price. See for example:

Tesco loses fight to sell cheap Levis

Tesco has conceded defeat in its battle to sell cheap Levi jeans after a four-year battle ended in the high court ruling in favour of Levi Strauss. By Julia Finch.

www.theguardian.com

The thing that's illegal is attempting to fix the price that the retailers sell your stuff on at.

 

[Retune]

I don't understand your point. I mean it's how the whole think works surely? Of course that is their policy. It's like if I bought something from Sainsbury's then tried to return it to Tescos. If Nikon was all one big shop they'd not care where you bought it from. I mean all Nikons are made by Nikon so what would the problem be?

As it is Nikon UK have different interests. They are different from Nikon USA etc etc and they are not the same as Nikon in Japan. They each have an agreement to distribute the goods and in return have financial and other obligations surely? They are a franchise. Same as Canon etc etc If I'm being really dozy here I stand to be corrected but its always been my understanding.

I believe my description is pretty much the way it is. It might be dressed up as some other structure but it comes down to that arrangement in practice. Nikon UK have an agreement with Nikon to be the sole distributors for Nikon gear in the UK. Nikon international agree to that just as they have arrangements with groups all over the world who have a financial arrangement with Nikon and other arrangements with other groups elsewhere. These groups seek to be a monopoly in each country and aggressively try to stamp out competition for what is the ability to sell exactly the same product with an increased price

Nikon UK is not just a franchise, but a wholly owned subsidiary of Nikon Japan.

 

[wooster]

You stating Nikon are involved in practises with dealers that could involve preferential treatment is a little bit naughty, it is bordering on a form of corruption. If someone made allegations like this about me in a public platform which were untrue (and I doubt if you are 100% certain) I would be instructing a solicitor to deal with the matter . Need I say more?

You have to be very careful about writing statements that could involve legal action because they can be very costly indeed.

b
I'm not saying they're giving dealers any preferential treatment. No idea where you got that from? I'm saying they are trying to monopolise sales of cameras in the UK. It's not corrupt,( no idea where you get that from either) its normal business practice. Hence they don't like other importers. Are you saying thats untrue?

 

[wooster]

Nikon UK is not just a franchise, but a wholly owned subsidiary of Nikon Japan.

Fair enough I stand corrected, but they aren't the same people is my point. They have different objectives or else no-one would care if you bought grey or not. Nikon are no different from any other international company. Nikon UK don't like grey, neither does Canon UK or presumably Sony UK. Of course they don't. They want your money. Thats the point I'm trying to make. ie it isn't anything to do with tax or imports or product; their relationship with Nikon (or whichever company you pick) is designed to make money and thats the arrangement they have. Their dislike of grey is simply because it threatens their monopoly. Nothing else.

 

[Retune]

Fair enough I stand corrected, but they aren't the same people is my point. They have different objectives or else no-one would care if you bought grey or not. Nikon are no different from any other international company. Nikon UK don't like grey, neither does Canon UK or presumably Sony UK. Of course they don't. They want your money. Thats the point I'm trying to make. ie it isn't anything to do with tax or imports or product; their relationship with Nikon (or whichever company you pick) is designed to make money and thats the arrangement they have. Their dislike of grey is simply because it threatens their monopoly. Nothing else.

I don't disagree that this is a money-making arrangement - Nikon the global corporation maximises its profits in the UK if everyone buys through its sole distributor, which in this case is a subsidiary (but isn't in every part of the world). The tax issue is something separate, and not what the manufacturers are concerned about, except inasmuch as it give consumers an extra incentive to buy grey. Big companies like to have globalisation all their own way - outsource to countries with cheap labour and other costs, sell more cheaply in markets that won't bear the highest prices, but maintain elevated wholesale prices in countries that can afford it. Grey imports (again leaving aside the tax issue) threaten this cosy arrangement, which is why companies like Levi Strauss (as above) have gone after retailers using this channel to undercut the shops their official distributor feeds, invoking 'intellectual property' arguments that the courts seem to have sided with in some cases. It seems baffling to me that IP arguments can be used to restrict imports, but here we are.

 

[Dryce]

I don't find the argument that 'HMRC haven't cracked down on it, so it must be fine' terribly convincing, especially since the EU have decided that cross-border VAT evasion (not avoidance) is such a massive problem they are completely changing the way they levy VAT on imports from third countries, and the UK is following suit (and has in fact already pre-empted the implementation of the new EU regime with its own equivalent). But I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong.

I take the alternative view - that any sort of competent enforcement should catch a reasonable proportion of such shipments sent by post.

I'm not suggesting 100% - but how hard would it be to run % of packages through an airport type scanner - the 'lost' VAT on the likes of phpotographic gear could easily add up to more than the cost of the scanning - particularly if it was targeted. (The irony being that successful enforcement would mean you would discourage illicit trade to the point where you'd have no tangible evidence of that 'lost' VAT).

Any legitimate, VAT-compliant importer will have no difficulty in providing an itemised receipt showing exactly how much VAT has been paid. Most would do so without the customer asking.

This isn't necessarily true. If an organised HK supplier ships bulk consignments then the VAT documentation would likely reflect the overall value and be dealt with by the shipping agent. A separate agent responsible for breaking up and despatching the consignment would not necessarily be VAT registered - VAT would only add to the labour cost.

I think it's pretty obvious that some grey imports are likely to be under-declared / mis-declared as exempt.

But there are established HK suppliers that have been trading in plain sight for years - selling high value gear. As a UK taxpayer I would expect HMRC to have investigated this. The cumulative value of potentially lost VAT over the years would more than justify this - and even if they couldn't block it then a naming and shaming exercise would probably get some results. It would certainly remove some of the speculation and replace it with hard information..

 

[wooster]

I don't disagree that this is a money-making arrangement - Nikon the global corporation maximises its profits in the UK if everyone buys through its sole distributor, which in this case is a subsidiary (but isn't in every part of the world). The tax issue is something separate, and not what the manufacturers are concerned about, except inasmuch as it give consumers an extra incentive to buy grey. Big companies like to have globalisation all their own way - outsource to countries with cheap labour and other costs, sell more cheaply in markets that won't bear the highest prices, but maintain elevated wholesale prices in countries that can afford it. Grey imports (again leaving aside the tax issue) threaten this cosy arrangement, which is why companies like Levi Strauss (as above) have gone after retailers using this channel to undercut the shops their official distributor feeds, invoking 'intellectual property' arguments that the courts seem to have sided with in some cases. It seems baffling to me that IP arguments can be used to restrict imports, but here we are.

Agreed. I clearly didn't express it very well but that is more or less what I was trying to say.

I was attempting to make the point that Nikon UK is a financial arrangement beneficial to both companies. It was formed to officially handles sales and official service of Nikon products in the UK and in return gets sole official distribution rights from Nikon. There are financial benefits for Nikon UK and Nikon. If they have sole rights they will charge what the market will stand. Grey can sometimes undercut this arrangement. There are benefits to consumers such as after sales service, warranties etc but it's not a legal requirement to buy from them.

I guess my point was that this is a purely financial and business arrangement to maximise service and profits and not anything to do with UK tax law etc and that there is no legal or moral issue about buying Nikon products outside this purely financial and, for the consumer, safe, arrangement. They are business people not moral guardians. Neither is there anything wrong with Nikon's business arrangements. Obviously Nikon UK tries to do all they can to discourage competition. I have even heard stories that they refuse to service grey Nikon products outside warranty. I'm not sure if this is true. If I'm spending a lot of cash I'd buy directly from Canon UK for security but others quite legitimately decide to do otherwise.

I assume this applies to most multinational companies and there should be no guilt associated with buying grey.

 

[taxboy]

I take the alternative view - that any sort of competent enforcement should catch a reasonable proportion of such shipments sent by post.

I'm not suggesting 100% - but how hard would it be to run % of packages through an airport type scanner - the 'lost' VAT on the likes of phpotographic gear could easily add up to more than the cost of the scanning - particularly if it was targeted. (The irony being that successful enforcement would mean you would discourage illicit trade to the point where you'd have no tangible evidence of that 'lost' VAT).



This isn't necessarily true. If an organised HK supplier ships bulk consignments then the VAT documentation would likely reflect the overall value and be dealt with by the shipping agent. A separate agent responsible for breaking up and despatching the consignment would not necessarily be VAT registered - VAT would only add to the labour cost.

I think it's pretty obvious that some grey imports are likely to be under-declared / mis-declared as exempt.

But there are established HK suppliers that have been trading in plain sight for years - selling high value gear. As a UK taxpayer I would expect HMRC to have investigated this. The cumulative value of potentially lost VAT over the years would more than justify this - and even if they couldn't block it then a naming and shaming exercise would probably get some results. It would certainly remove some of the speculation and replace it with hard information..

Naming and shaming is only permitted for deliberate defaulters for larger amounts (in excess of £25k I think). If import taxes were being evaded it would be the importer who had committed the offence and not the supplier.
Here's the latest list https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ddd/current-list-of-deliberate-tax-defaulters