Code of Conduct
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 64
  1. #1

    Default Shipping Perfume

    Man, there’s a lot of populist claptrap in the other concurrent threads concerning the issue. This is no grand conspiracy. The sky is not falling. Nobody’s hair should be on fire.

    Really, how about we try and have an intelligent conversation.

    If you haven’t already looked into your respective countries’ gov’t run mail orgs policies and procedures, please do so for yourselves. No, that doesn’t mean picking up the phone and talking to 1 of the 500,000 USPS employees, lol. You do that, and you are liable to get up to 500,000 different answers. Rather, find their most recent policies and procedures from their site. Read them, then ask specific questions to the point person indicated in the ‘contact us’ area. Also, you should acquaint yourselves with alternative private shippers in your locale (fedex, ups, dhl etc)… I think you’ll find that you can still ship internationally. Sure, the cost might give you GI distress but more likely than not it reflects a truer cost of air transporting such material. Arguably, for a while now you and I have simply been lucky enough to exploit a process with lower costs to us because of lax monitoring. At least, up till now. Yeah, we’ve been stealing. Face it. Perhaps lax monitoring will continue for some of us, while others may see more monitoring come out of their respective gov’t run mail orgs.



    For the U.S.

    -Today… straight from USPS website:
    https://www.usps.com/ship/can-you-ship-it.htm

    There are rules and restrictions for what can and can’t be mailed.
    This list is not exhaustive, but in most cases, you can't send…

    Perfume − Perfume containing alcohol is prohibited on air transportation, and can only be shipped domestically via surface transportation. Perfume containing alcohol is prohibited in international shipments.


    -USPS Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail was updated December 2012. The following link gets you to that publication in all its 398 pages of glory. Obviously, it’s informative.



    -USDOT put out this little flier – note that hazmat is ok to ship as long as mailers adhere to DOT’s indentified safe ways of packaging and shipping them – the system of visual hazard communication involves labels, markings, placards, shipping papers that will let everyone in the transport process know what it is and will enable them to use this visual communication quickly to limit damage and protect lives. This is consistent with the international community (i.e. think 'United Nations').


    I’m not certain but I would not be surprised if most other countries are the same or quite similar. I will be saying this alot I think.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So… why is this all happening now?

    Well, I don’t think it is all just happening now. At least not in the U.S. In the U.S., perfume has ‘always’ been known as a hazardous material (‘hazmat’ in the U.S. is known as ‘dangerous goods’ internationally). I’m sure we all know that perfume is mostly ethanol, a flammable liquid, with a flashpoint of around 70F. With the advent of the internet and the boom of online transactions, there has been a huge increase in the number of people sending more and more parcels through the mails. In the U.S. the USPS puts the onus on the mailer to be truthful and knowledgeable about what they’re mailing. Just because you do not hear “Does this parcel contain anything fragile, liquid, perishable,or potentially hazardous?”, does not mean you’ve effectively been given a discount to use the mails to ship hazmat at non-hazmat prices. So, for those in the U.S. that have been truthful all along, well nothing has changed. NADA. Five years ago when you declared to the postmaster that you had perfume to send cross country via air OR overseas or Canada or Mexico, you would’ve/should’ve been told that the USPS cannot help you. You would’ve/should’ve been told that it can be shipped ground only to its U.S. destination but that transport (air or ground, no matter) of perfume internationally was prohibited. That hasn’t changed.

    I’m not certain but I would not be surprised if most other countries were the same or quite similar in this regard, both back then as well as today.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Another thought: Do a Search: “shipping perfume internationally” for past threads on the shipping issue… you’ll see that this has been talked about here at BN for years.
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/250...lly-is-illegal
    from 2010
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/209...ipping-Perfume
    from April, 2008
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/262...-to-Australia-!
    from Oct, 2010
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/203...(USA-shipping)
    from Dec, 2007
    and so on and so on.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So, why is there a perceived change all the sudden? In general, standard rules have recently changed for treatment of lithium batteries and a few other items unrelated to perfume. Memos and rule updates ensued. Also, through the continued efforts of international orgs to ensure that dangerous goods are properly handled, I believe that more pressure is being put upon those mail carrying orgs that do not offer such international transport services for dangerous materials. More pressure to step up their monitoring to ensure that these dangerous goods and dangerous materials (e.g. bombs) do not find their way into the mail stream for rational reasons of security and safety. The international effort involves standard labels, markings, placards, shipping papers, etc., that lets everyone in the transport process know what it is. This will enable those folks to readily identify the package contents in a quick and visual manner if/when they should have to deal with an accident in order to limit damages and protect lives, including their own. I don’t know about you guys, but this doesn’t sound diabolical to me. This is common sense.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So who are these international ‘agitators’? If you're patient enough with my cut/pastes from the respective sites, I think you’ll soon get a feel for the interwoven and unified international collaboration regarding safety/security efforts as they relate to air transport.

    - - - Updated - - -

    ICAO refers to the International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO biannually publishes the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, which specifies the procedures for shipping hazardous materials via air transportation and is recognized by USDOT (in 49 CFR 171.11). ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations and was created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection. The organization serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 191 Member States. The broad principles governing the international transport of dangerous goods by air are contained in Annex 18 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation —The Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The Technical Instructions amplify the basic provisions of Annex 18 and contain all the detailed instructions necessary for the safe international transport of dangerous goods by air. Dangerous goods can be carried safely by air transport providing certain principles are adopted. These principles have been used in developing the Technical Instructions. They are intended to facilitate transport while providing a level of safety such that dangerous goods can be carried without placing an aircraft or its occupants at risk, providing all the requirements are fulfilled. They try to ensure that should an incident occur it cannot lead to an accident. Annex 18 deals with the "Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air". In general it sets down broad principles but one of the Standards requires that dangerous goods are carried in accordance with the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (the “Technical Instructions”). States are required by Annex 18 to have inspection and enforcement procedures to ensure that dangerous goods are being carried in compliance with the requirements. In a nutshell, dangerous goods are carried regularly and routinely by air all over the world. To ensure that they do not put an aircraft and its occupants at risk, there are international Standards that each State, under the provisions of the Chicago Convention, is required to introduce into national legislation. This system ensures governmental control over the carriage of dangerous goods by air and gives worldwide harmonization of safety standards. Contact info: Dr. Katherine Rooney, Chief, Dangerous Goods Section, E-mail: dgs@icao.int . Just remember though… ICAO has no direct authority over and does not tell the USPS how to run its business. If USPS does not wish to offer international shipping services for hazmat/dangerous materials, that’s its call. Required training, compliance, audits, etc., cost real resources that USPS has already decided can be put to better use.

    - - - Updated - - -

    ICAO (cont.)From its latest Annual Report… As the report shows, the global accident rate, while remarkably low at four accidents per million departures, has remained constant over the past several years. The report emphasizes ICAO’s strategy to reduce the accident rate through greater coordination and harmonization of multiple safety programmes, in a synchronized and systemic manner. This proactive approach relies on new analytic capabilities to prioritize existing and emerging safety issues, and to better target mitigation and enhancement resources to areas with the highest risk. Global air transport is arguably as safe and secure as it has ever been. ICAO remains vigilant and attuned to evolving issues and trends. We are increasingly proactive, while demonstrating the required flexibility to react quickly and assuredly when necessary. Overall, our programmes and activities remain aligned with our three Strategic Objectives: safety, security, and environmental protection and the sustainable development of air transport. In safety, these include: the growing demand for ICAO’s assistance in transition and reconstruction after conflict or crisis; the growing awareness of the human factors aspects of increased automation on the flight deck; the entry of remotely piloted aircraft into non-segregated airspace; harmonization of ICAO’s safety monitoring framework with those of States and international organizations; and the expansion of the transport of dangerous goods by air.

    - - - Updated - - -

    ICAO (cont.)
    Dangerous Goods Programme -- A dangerous goods training course on Volume 1 of the Dangerous Goods Training Manual — Using the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (Doc 9375) was provided at ICAO Headquarters and in various States. The course is directed towards safety inspectors responsible for dangerous goods, yet benefits anyone with a need for knowledge of the detailed provisions in the Technical Instructions. An agreement signed with the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA) established an ICAO/FIATA Dangerous Goods by Air Strengthening and harmonizing security approaches. A wide range of developments in the regulatory field contributed to the strengthening of the security framework and the harmonization of approaches to aviation security by States, ICAO and other stakeholders, as highlighted below. Amendment 12 to Annex 17 — Security, which became applicable in July, included new and strengthened aviation security provisions, including more stringent air cargo security measures and a requirement to apply screening and other security controls to persons other than passengers. The amendment emphasized the need for States to implement security measures in line with a risk-based approach. During its 22nd meeting in Montréal in March, the Aviation Security Panel
    considered ways of enhancing the global aviation security policy framework in light of the continuing threat to civil aviation and established new working groups to focus on air cargo security and the issue of mandatory staff screening. A revamped edition of the Aviation Security Manual (Doc 8973, Restricted), formerly titled the Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference, was disseminated to better assist States in implementing Annex 17 provisions, including those introduced by Amendment 12. The eighth edition consolidates the five volumes of the previous edition into a single comprehensive document, improving usability and effectiveness. Among other things, it provides aviation security authorities with enhanced guidance on cargo supply chain security, human factors and one-stop security arrangements. In light of the ever-changing threat and the need for States to implement measures based on risk assessment, ICAO started developing a new risk assessment tool known as the Risk Context Statement. The living document will provide States with a more accurate description of the threat and risk environment as well as a methodology for preparing their own national risk assessments. As a result of concerns raised by States with regard to the Annex 17 Standard requiring the screening of persons other than passengers, a working group of the Aviation Security Panel agreed in June on alternative amendments to be considered by the Panel in 2012. In a related development, a definition for the sensitive areas of an airport requiring such screening was developed, as well as guidance material for implementing relevant measures. ICAO and the World Customs Organization (WCO) strengthened cooperation in order to address threats to global air cargo security and improve cargo facilitation. In June, the two organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding that calls for harmonized development of ICAO and WCO policies, Standards and guidance material for air cargo security, while considering contributions from partners such as the Global Express Association (GEA), Universal Postal Union (UPU), and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). As part of the effort to enhance guidance to States on strengthening cargo security, ICAO began developing a high-risk cargo concept. States were also urged to develop supply chain security programmes that distinguish between high-risk cargo and conventional shipments, and to implement appropriate methods to screen high-risk cargo. ICAO adopted a leadership role in the development of a blueprint for a future passenger screening checkpoint and enhanced processes that will achieve security objectives while minimizing the impact on operations. Working with the newly established Technical Advisory Group on Next Generation Screening (TAG/NGen), the Secretariat is coordinating global efforts to define concepts for screening checkpoints of the future in collaboration with State and industry partners. The first meeting of the TAG/NGen convened in Paris in December. A study group met in December to consider guidance on the harmonized implementation of screening technologies for the detection of explosives in liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs). It developed general principles for ensuring a harmonized approach to LAGs and recommended that a list of mutually recognized minimum requirements for the screening of LAGs be developed and maintained by States and industry stakeholders. Membership of the AVSEC Point of Contact (PoC) Network expanded to 183 States and two Special Administrative Regions (SARs), up from a total of 172 in 2010. A system test of the communications network, used to transmit information on imminent threats as well as guidelines on countermeasures, was conducted in June and confirmed its efficiency and effectiveness.
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 21st February 2013 at 11:28 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    That's the longest post I've seen in awhile. Lol....Answer "NO" to the hazardous materials question. Tell them that it's glass so they'll put a fragile sticker on it. They'll ask you if you wrapped it up good and answer "YES". No need for tracking anymore if your shipping out priority because it's free now. I'm not sure why people are running into problems, but these have been the rules for awhile now.
    Summer 2014 favorites

    1. Terre d'Hermes Eau Tres Fraiche (orange)
    2. Dueto Citiver (Vetiver)
    3. Dior Homme Sport 2012 (Citron)
    4. Lalique Encre Noire Sport (Woody)
    5. Dior Homme Eau (Iris)
    6.Chanel Allure Edition Blanche (Lemon)

    7. Cartier Roadster (Mint)
    8. Joop Splash (Fruity)
    9. Lanvin L'homme Sport (Petitgrain))
    10. Jesus Del Pozo Adventure Quasar (Gin)

  3. #3

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    IATA refers to the International Air Transportation Association. IATA annually publishes the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, which provides procedures for shippers to prepare hazardous materials for safe transport by air via commercial air transportation. The IATA regulations contain all of the ICAO Technical Instructions as well as some more restrictive requirements that reflect air transport industry standard practices or operational considerations. It’s available on their site for about $300 and they call it the industry standard for shipping dangerous goods internationally by air. IATA is the trade association for the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic. They support many areas of aviation activity and help formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues. Vision: To be the force for value creation and innovation driving a safe, secure and profitable air transport industry that sustainably connects and enriches our world. Mission: IATA’s mission is to represent, lead, and serve the airline industry. They improve understanding of the air transport industry among decision makers and increase awareness of the benefits that aviation brings to national and global economies. Advocating for the interests of airlines across the globe, they challenge unreasonable rules and charges, hold regulators and governments to account, and strive for sensible regulation. For nearly 70 years, they have developed global commercial standards upon which the air transport industry is built. They aim to assist airlines by simplifying processes and increasing passenger convenience while reducing costs and improving efficiency. They help airlines to operate safely, securely, efficiently, and economically under clearly defined rules.

    I’d think they’d be one of the organizations to contact should a BNr really wish to put forth exactly how and why these recently perceived developments are unfair and should be reconsidered. Afterall, part of its mission is to challenge unreasonable rules. Whether they’d consider a BNr a stakeholder is another questionable though.

    - - - Updated - - -
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 26th February 2013 at 12:06 AM. Reason: grammar correction

  4. #4
    hednic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McLean, NYC, & Búzios
    Posts
    78,531

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by silentrich View Post
    That's the longest post I've seen in awhile. Lol....Answer "NO" to the hazardous materials question. Tell them that it's glass so they'll put a fragile sticker on it. They'll ask you if you wrapped it up good and answer "YES". No need for tracking anymore if your shipping out priority because it's free now.
    Seems pretty simple.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    FIATA, in French "Fédération Internationale des Associations de Transitaires et Assimilés", in English "International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations", in German "Internationale Föderation der Spediteurorganisationen", was founded in Vienna/Austria on May 31, 1926.

    FIATA, a non-governmental organisation, represents today an industry covering approximately 40,000 forwarding and logistics firms, also known as the "Architects of Transport", employing around 8 - 10 million people in 150 countries.

    FIATA has consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations (inter alia ECE, ESCAP, ESCWA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

    It is recognised as representing the freight forwarding industry by many other governmental organisations, governmental authorities, private international organisations in the field of transport such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Union of Railways (UIC), the International Road Transport Union (IRU), the World Customs Organization (WCO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc.

    In summary FIATA is the largest non-governmental organisation in the field of transportation. Its influence is worldwide. FIATA's main objectives are: to unite the freight forwarding industry worldwide to represent, promote and protect the interests of the industry by participating as advisors or experts in meetings of international bodies dealing with transportation to familiarise trade and industry and the public at large with the services rendered by freight forwarders through the dissemination of information, distribution of publications, etc. to improve the quality of services rendered by freight forwarders by developing and promoting uniform forwarding documents, standard trading conditions, etc. to assist with vocational training for freight forwarders, liability insurance problems, tools for electronic commerce including electronic data interchange (EDI) and barcode.

  6. #6

  7. #7

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Enough with the international players. It should be obvious that there is a push for standardization and harmonization in order to enhance security and safety as it relates to air transport of hazmat/dangerous goods.

    The system is loose. There are gaping holes... we know them. Some of us, myself included have helped create them. When I go to the USPS and just say "NO" (per above) they don't label that package of flammable liquid properly. It gets sorted with like packages, finds its way to the airport and is put aboard a FedEx, UPS or other private carrier that has contracted out with the USPS (yeah that's right, the USPS contracts most if not all of this out). There are two good reasons why this looseness is unsustainable and will change. (1) Cargo plane accidents are not unheard of [ http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?page_id=3259 ] and there have been at least a couple within the last few years presumably caused by fires in the cargo hold ignited by lithium batteries. The lithium batteries were obviously properly declared, and the carrier had to report as much to the country of incident. Were there any mis-labelled parcels containing perfume? Did they ignite? If so, would they have been stored in the same area and ignited if properly labelled? If the air transporters are going to be held accountable for these mishaps, which they obviously should, they will justifiably continue to fight to close the "just say NO" loopholes within the system. (2) Bombs sent through the mail system are not unheard of [ Oct 2010; 1 on FedEx cargo jet, 1 on UPS, both originating from Yemen ] and there is a continued drive for greater inspection of packages before departure and upon arrival for the obvious national security and transport personnel safety reasons. We've already seen BN'r accounts of thier "just say NO" mis-labelled parcels getting caught up either by customs or the ultimate air transport carrier. This net is just going to get tighter, as it should.

    The system has been loose and the USPS (RM, etc.) have, more or less, been asked to do what it can to tighten things up. For now, a reminder campaign is what we're seeing. However, if it remains loose, what next? Perhaps requiring items to be packed in front of a postclerk?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Aside:
    After poking around a few aviation forums, it appears that most jets that reach relevant altitude keep the passenger cabin and cargo hold areas at the same pressure; Bad things tend to happen when, for instance, cargo doors fail and the cargo hold looses pressure. Also, it appears that temperation in the cargo hold is kept at, or close to, that of the cabin. Both holds true for either passenger flights or freight flights. Hence, it would seem that pressurization issues don't normally exist and are likely not the reason for damaged bottles.

    If anyone knows differently, I'm all ears.
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 21st February 2013 at 11:58 PM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    Man, there’s a lot of populist claptrap in the other concurrent threads concerning the issue. This is no grand conspiracy. The sky is not falling. Nobody’s hair should be on fire.

    Really, how about we try and have an intelligent conversation.

    If you haven’t already looked into your respective countries’ gov’t run mail orgs policies and procedures, please do so for yourselves. No, that doesn’t mean picking up the phone and talking to 1 of the 500,000 USPS employees, lol. [....]
    How patronising can one be?!

    I gather you're not a small eBay perfume seller...

  9. #9

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    PalmBeach - Shows how many members feel 'though!
    Tried linking them earlier, but it didn't work!

    I understand that the reasons for the revisions are not RM's fault.

    DuNezDeBuzier - our problem is that they DID very suddenly change the rules here but didn't tell us, or their own staff, so many, many people have had their goods destroyed.
    There was no visible publicity - the website was re-designed one weekend. live on the Sunday, with the new restrictions applying from the Monday.
    The only noticeable reference to the changes was in the 'Press Release' bit, which users checking prices don't really look at as it's buried in the small bits.
    There is a page showing effective dates for changes, but it is not in an obvious place.

    We were not leafleted or given any opportunity to look at posters in P.O.'s before they started x-raying & then destroying goods that we'd paid them to deliver.
    Last time I looked, the only poster on display was re. International shipping.

    This applies to domestic goods not travelling by air as well as international post.

    Call it 'populist claptrap' all you like, but the fact remains that staff were not told the current updated rules (they were given the ones applying from July, which are different from those applying now) & their Chairman's Office has admitted a need for 'further training' because they finally realised it was a problem (aka 'mistake').
    And they're looking for a Head of Communications.

    I've had a painful & lengthy Twitter conversation with them today, as it appeared that staff were still giving the wrong information to consumers - and they still are.

    If it's 'populist' to think that's bad & be upset, so be it.

    I, personally, expect higher standards.

    Edit: The link mumsy refers to :-
    http://www.royalmail.com/termschanges
    has been extensively added to late in the day 21 Feb - hopefully it will prevent further misunderstandings - thank you Mr. Gee.
    Last edited by lpp; 22nd February 2013 at 10:57 AM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    I put my hand right up and say I am one on many of these threads. The reason for the UK fuss is this:-

    We, as small non commercial senders, are 'suddenly and without warning' not allowed to send perfume by ground or air using the normal mailing system... Is that simple enough to understand our distress?

    If we as a domestic sender wish to send four small 1ml samples then hazmat is not an option.
    We must become a business in order to send anything at all.

    There is one way and that is to lie. I would rather find a legitimate way if it were possible, but so far I cannot find any loophole.

    Please don't speak to us as if we are daft. Some of us have put in a huge amount of time and work to find all this out for the general good. Not to deliver 'populist claptrap' as you call it. We have written many letters to powers that be to try and obtain a solution for all of us.

    If you have better information that will help, then deliver the answer.
    I'm sad enough without your public scorn ladled on top.
    Last edited by mumsy; 21st February 2013 at 02:19 PM.

  11. #11
    Basenotes Plus
    ericrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,125

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    I can speak from personal experience. I connected with an online member regarding the sales of a nearly full 100ml bottle of Vintage (early-1980's timeframe) Givenchy Eau de Vetyver. I posted the funds to his PayPal account. He lived in the UK.

    He thought sending it to the US would not be a problem. This is when we both discovered just "how much" things have changed. He said Royal Mail declined sending it - period. Nothing to the US. After several days of pure uncertainty, he found a private carrier who he believed would do it. On their main page, they list items they are NOT willing to send - Perfumes wasn't listed. However, I went a page deeper into the site by clicking on shipping internationally and Perfumes was indeed there. I shared that information and the page with him.

    We were...sunk. Unless he shipped it on a boat that had a 45-60 day window of delivery, no tracking and would be put into a large container with everything from sofas to bowling balls and only God knows what else - the realization that the risk of this bottle's plight was simply too high. I pulled back and he agreed, very professionally and refunded me the full amount through PayPal.

    Neither one of us (at the time) could believe just how drastic things have become. My personal sentiment is that you should speak DIRECTLY with the seller and make sure that an agreement is put in place for all International shipments that if they are destroyed and you never receive the item...then you are entitled to a full refund. It is seller's risk to do business.

    I know that sounds unfair - but it is your business that we are trusting will deliver the goods purchased. Anything short of that - and funds need to be returned, in full.

    Not to sound condescending, but why has IFRA not stepped in immediately and resolved this issue. My only answer that is logical is that they only want LARGE distributors (ie. Fragrance manufacturers) to be able to do world-wide distribution of product. The small sellers will throw in the towel and the scents of yesterday stay where they are (at least in the same country) which may be IFRA's will any way.

    I am hopeful for resolution...but am not holding my breath.

    Cheers,

    ericrico
    “Some perfumes are as fragrant as an infant’s flesh, sweet as an oboe’s cry, and greener than the spring; While others are triumphant, decadent or rich; Having the expansion of infinite things, like ambergris and musk, benzoin and frankincense, which sing the transports of the mind and every sense.”

    ― Charles Baudelaire, The Flowers of Evil & Paris Spleen

  12. #12

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    I'm going to drive the stuff myself soon but California is a bit far.......

  13. #13

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Les Senteurs have given up sending abroad now -- not sure if its for ever.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Thanks for sharing your experiences ericrico and for your comments - totally agree.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Some response at last. Mr Gee seems to be on the ball if he was responsible. Not an advance but at least some clarification.

    Well found @DuNezDeBuzier. It has just been added to the site.

    http://www.royalmail.com/termschanges

  16. #16

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by Bela View Post
    How patronising can one be?!...
    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Call it 'populist claptrap' all you like, but the fact remains that staff were not told the current updated rules (they were given the ones applying from July, which are different from those applying now) & their Chairman's Office has admitted a need for 'further training' because they finally realised it was a problem (aka 'mistake')...

    If it's 'populist' to think that's bad & be upset, so be it.

    I, personally, expect higher standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by mumsy View Post
    ...We, as small non commercial senders, are 'suddenly and without warning' not allowed to send perfume by ground or air using the normal mailing system... Is that simple enough to understand our distress?

    If we as a domestic sender wish to send four small 1ml samples then hazmat is not an option.
    We must become a business in order to send anything at all.

    There is one way and that is to lie. I would rather find a legitimate way if it were possible, but so far I cannot find any loophole.

    Please don't speak to us as if we are daft. Some of us have put in a huge amount of time and work to find all this out for the general good. Not to deliver 'populist claptrap' as you call it. We have written many letters to powers that be to try and obtain a solution for all of us.

    If you have better information that will help, then deliver the answer.
    I'm sad enough without your public scorn ladled on top.

    It did sound a little condescending. Sorry folks. Not my intent. There does seem to be so much misinformation being bandied about on this topic, though. Hopefully we agree that perceived or real changes in the enforcement of rules does not necessarily mean that the rules themselves have changed.

    On other threads it was made out that U.S. regs had changed. As should be clear now, they certainly have not changed with respect to transporting hazmat/flammable liquids/perfume. In the states we have the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, legislated in 1960, which defines what hazmat is and how it may be acceptably transported. Enforcement over carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.) is shared by various agencies mostly under the Department of Transportation. Proper labeling seems a key criteria. Neither the USPS, UPS or FedEx have changed their rules regarding offered transport of truthfully declared perfume. By its rules…USPS will only ship it domestically using ground and will label it accordingly to its category 3 hazmat requirements; air is prohibited; international is prohibited. These rules have not changed. Private carriers can and do offer ground, air, and/or international transport of it and will label it accordingly.

    I (wrongly?) assumed the UK and most other countries represented by BNrs had similar legislation in effect regarding the transport of dangerous goods with proper labeling being a key criteria as well and that those regs and gov’t carrier policy & procedure had not changed or had not changed as drastically as some of the posts were making it out to be. So, in other words, was it a change in rules or simply a change in enforcement?

    Please help me understand. Are UK and others who have and are pro-actively declaring the parcels as perfume experiencing any difference in the services offered and/or in the success of their shipments? After re-viewing the posts from other similar threads, it seems that many of us are simply now seeing the consequences of not declaring perfume as the material shipped (aka the “just say NO” approach from a few posts above).

    If this all boils down to a RM royal phuck up... meaning: if they are the only carrier (gov’t or private anywhere) that has changed its rules recently AND it’s not the case of stepped up enforcement of what’s already on the books, then I stand by my first few words of my OP. If this is the case, in my opinion it is naive, ignorant, and plain irresponsible to start threads or add to them claiming such global changes and conspiracy. Eh, maybe these words are too harsh. In any event, I’m just trying to put a fine point on the issue and perhaps provide a little clarity in my own way.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    For those shipping within the CONUS, if you declare that your package contains perfume/cologne does anyone know if anything aside from the speed of delivery changes (granted, that also depends on where your package is going)? Does the price increase or is it just that your package has to be transported by ground?

  18. #18

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    @mumsy - that's one that I referred to earlier. It refers to rules for us 'consumers' from July, still can't post scent right now domestically - see link from pdf re. General Terms on that page:-
    http://www.royalmail.com/personal/he...ohibited-Goods
    Rules for 'contract' clients are different.

    @DuNezDeBuzier - undoubtedly, some people here have been taking liberties with overseas post & complaining when it went wrong, but it was not previously illegal for consumers to post scent domestically and that's what upsets me - that we were not given the proper notice that this was changed.
    These rules are not ours, they emanate rom the U.N., so will eventually affect all signatories, although the degree & methods of adherence may differ.
    Last edited by lpp; 21st February 2013 at 10:36 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    @DuNezDeBuzier - undoubtedly, some people here have been taking liberties with overseas post & complaining when it went wrong, but it was not previously illegal for consumers to post scent domestically and that's what upsets me - that we were not given the proper notice that this was changed.
    These rules are not ours, they emanate rom the U.N., so will eventually affect all signatories, although the degree of adherence may differ.
    I'm familiar with the UN and as of late with its appendage UPU (Universal Postal Union). To be blunt, I don't agree with assertions made here or in other threads that the UPU has instituted rules prohibiting the domestic ground or domestic air transport of dangerous goods/flammable liquid/perfume that are now binding upon it's members (effectively all UN members). If you can, please provide a cite. It is a diplomatic functionary and does not have the authority, real or imagined, to usurp that of the USDOT, impose stricter requirements than those laid out in the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, or have any say whatsoever as to how the USPS operates its business. In this, I am rather certain.

    The US representative to the UPU as well as representatives from the other member States convene and work towards standards and harmonization that effectively and efficiently allow all postal sectors to work with each other in order to promote and maintain the international mail. The UPU has no business, nor has it shown an inclination to, meddle in the affairs of any one or group of member States' domestic postal services. It is not what they are about.

    ===
    update:

    I jumped to conclusions you were referring to UPU when you mentioned the UN. The other and perhaps more relevant UN specialized agency in this context would be the ACIO (see OP). As noted, ACIO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air are formally recognized by USDOT, the inference being they are adopted through the administrative law process. However, and again, these do not relate to whether a carrier (gov’t or private) can offer domestic or international air transport services of the dangerous goods, rather they are about the safe and secure handling of dangerous goods when air transport is used.
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 22nd February 2013 at 12:53 AM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdown...stManualEn.pdf

    Sorry, late here, but I read much of this yesterday & made some notes.
    Seems to be what people are referring to.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Yes, I've seen that.

    Can you narrow your cite down a bit? <chuckle>
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 22nd February 2013 at 12:44 AM.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  22. #22

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by silentrich View Post
    That's the longest post I've seen in awhile. Lol....Answer "NO" to the hazardous materials question. Tell them that it's glass so they'll put a fragile sticker on it. They'll ask you if you wrapped it up good and answer "YES". No need for tracking anymore if your shipping out priority because it's free now. I'm not sure why people are running into problems, but these have been the rules for awhile now.
    That's all there is to it.


    And if for some crazy reason they ask for you to open your package, DO NOT. You're not legally obligated to and all you have to do is take your package and walk out of the post office.


    Then go to the next one the town over.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    Yes, I've seen that.

    Can you narrow your cite down a bit? <chuckle>
    - The index helps, slightly.

    I think that you have been more safety compliant/efficient than us for a very long time, hopefully our mail staff here will be trained to comply with the guidelines by July & we may ship scent domestically again.

    Technically we can currently ship by licensed Hazchem carriers, but they charge too much non-contract.
    After Privatisation it may alter.

    Anyway, going 2 meet daughter today, so have a nice day.
    & thanks for the clarification!

  24. #24

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    Please help me understand. Are UK and others who have and are pro-actively declaring the parcels as perfume experiencing any difference in the services offered and/or in the success of their shipments?
    A big fat yes. If you are honest about the contents, then the PO technically should not accept any at all.

    This has always been allowed before, whether by lax enforcement or otherwise. The 143,137 current listings on ebay for fragrance give you a clue as to the size of the 'misunderstanding' if it is so, by the general public. That does not take into consideration the many other listings for other flammable materials such as artists varnishes, paints, etc, the bone and fossil collectors, any home decoration type listings for white spirit, domestic paint etc etc etc........ ad infinitum.

    All these things now under the very clear revised regulations, currently illegal to send by domestic mail without a business contract.

    Gawd help the UK economy now... let alone the RM themselves. Their business is at the most risk if we all complied to the letter as from today.

    ....and the main point is.... nobody minds putting a label on to segregate these flammable things, but a ban is not productive. It should be up to any delivery system to obtain the correct hazmat certification if they require the business. It is all very well encouraging internet business, but not if the available and comprehensive delivery system is not linked in a useful way.
    Last edited by mumsy; 22nd February 2013 at 08:36 AM.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    It did sound a little condescending. Sorry folks. Not my intent. There does seem to be so much misinformation being bandied about on this topic, though. Hopefully we agree that perceived or real changes in the enforcement of rules does not necessarily mean that the rules themselves have changed.

    On other threads it was made out that U.S. regs had changed. As should be clear now, they certainly have not changed with respect to transporting hazmat/flammable liquids/perfume. In the states we have the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, legislated in 1960, which defines what hazmat is and how it may be acceptably transported. Enforcement over carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc.) is shared by various agencies mostly under the Department of Transportation. Proper labeling seems a key criteria. Neither the USPS, UPS or FedEx have changed their rules regarding offered transport of truthfully declared perfume. By its rules…USPS will only ship it domestically using ground and will label it accordingly to its category 3 hazmat requirements; air is prohibited; international is prohibited. These rules have not changed. Private carriers can and do offer ground, air, and/or international transport of it and will label it accordingly.

    I (wrongly?) assumed the UK and most other countries represented by BNrs had similar legislation in effect regarding the transport of dangerous goods with proper labeling being a key criteria as well and that those regs and gov’t carrier policy & procedure had not changed or had not changed as drastically as some of the posts were making it out to be. So, in other words, was it a change in rules or simply a change in enforcement?

    Please help me understand. Are UK and others who have and are pro-actively declaring the parcels as perfume experiencing any difference in the services offered and/or in the success of their shipments? After re-viewing the posts from other similar threads, it seems that many of us are simply now seeing the consequences of not declaring perfume as the material shipped (aka the “just say NO” approach from a few posts above).

    If this all boils down to a RM royal phuck up... meaning: if they are the only carrier (gov’t or private anywhere) that has changed its rules recently AND it’s not the case of stepped up enforcement of what’s already on the books, then I stand by my first few words of my OP. If this is the case, in my opinion it is naive, ignorant, and plain irresponsible to start threads or add to them claiming such global changes and conspiracy. Eh, maybe these words are too harsh. In any event, I’m just trying to put a fine point on the issue and perhaps provide a little clarity in my own way.

    For years and I mean years, here in the UK if you go to a post office and try to post perfume, customs forms etc filled in correctly. You will be told you cannot post perfume. Simple. That is why people unfortunately had to lie. Some couriers would do it, but for a swap or buying one bottle it was far too expensive to post.

    Even within the UK about three years ago I went to sent a decent of 5mls and was told no, you cannot send perfume by post. Yet strangely asking friends who work in department stores they had no problem. In fact the packages where never declare as perfume to start with. I was actually told at a post office, I could not post makeup foundation by Royal Mail.
    DONNA

  26. #26

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    It seems to be one of those idiosyncracies that has been politely ignored.

    I have sent perfumes marked as such for a long time and it has never been challenged. I don't like to have to tell porkies, nor risk my precious vintage frags to customs destruction.

    I wish to be able to do this legally for my own exams. I wonder if an allowance for under a ml could be persuaded as long as it was packaged carefully in an approved packaging system. I cannot see that as a fire risk particularly. No more than a nylon/plastic suitcase. Those are petroleum based products too. I bet they burn very well and much less so than the plane fuel on board.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Cars carry petrol and diesel.... maybe they need a hazmat sticker.......
    Last edited by mumsy; 22nd February 2013 at 09:03 AM.

  27. #27

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Legal, illegal, I dunno.
    But, here's a question:
    *If* receiving a bottle of perfume from the US or other non-EU country has historically involved a breach of postal regulations somewhere along the line, then how can Royal Mail, together with HM Revenue and Customs levy a handling fee and import taxes / VAT on the item ?
    Surely that's knowingly profiting from a crime ?

  28. #28

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by gandhajala View Post
    Legal, illegal, I dunno.
    But, here's a question:
    *If* receiving a bottle of perfume from the US or other non-EU country has historically involved a breach of postal regulations somewhere along the line, then how can Royal Mail, together with HM Revenue and Customs levy a handling fee and import taxes / VAT on the item ?
    Surely that's knowingly profiting from a crime ?
    That my friend is a very good argument. I wonder if that's a valid point to make in court? Would love to argue this - but it's just impossible to take RoyalMail before a court!! Thieves.

  29. #29
    Basenotes Plus
    PalmBeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,832

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by gandhajala View Post
    Legal, illegal, I dunno.
    But, here's a question:
    *If* receiving a bottle of perfume from the US or other non-EU country has historically involved a breach of postal regulations somewhere along the line, then how can Royal Mail, together with HM Revenue and Customs levy a handling fee and import taxes / VAT on the item ?
    Surely that's knowingly profiting from a crime ?
    LOL! You mean to say a government profits from a Crime being committed? Say it ain't so.

    Our lovely government has been profiting for illegal acts in one way or another for as long as I have been alive which is quite a few years.

  30. #30

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by Buysblind View Post
    That's all there is to it.


    And if for some crazy reason they ask for you to open your package, DO NOT. You're not legally obligated to and all you have to do is take your package and walk out of the post office.


    Then go to the next one the town over.
    I've never had or heard of them every asking anyone to open a package, but if they did just look around and make sure there's a line behind you and tell them it's sex toys that your shipping to your grand mother.
    Summer 2014 favorites

    1. Terre d'Hermes Eau Tres Fraiche (orange)
    2. Dueto Citiver (Vetiver)
    3. Dior Homme Sport 2012 (Citron)
    4. Lalique Encre Noire Sport (Woody)
    5. Dior Homme Eau (Iris)
    6.Chanel Allure Edition Blanche (Lemon)

    7. Cartier Roadster (Mint)
    8. Joop Splash (Fruity)
    9. Lanvin L'homme Sport (Petitgrain))
    10. Jesus Del Pozo Adventure Quasar (Gin)

  31. #31

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by silentrich View Post
    I've never had or heard of them every asking anyone to open a package, but if they did just look around and make sure there's a line behind you and tell them it's sex toys that your shipping to your grand mother.
    "Trust me...that is NOT a bottle of Rochas Man."

  32. #32

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by Buysblind View Post
    "Trust me...that is NOT a bottle of Rochas Man."
    Lol...yeah, I think if you pulled it out slowly enough it'd work. If it was a female employee though it might get confiscated
    Summer 2014 favorites

    1. Terre d'Hermes Eau Tres Fraiche (orange)
    2. Dueto Citiver (Vetiver)
    3. Dior Homme Sport 2012 (Citron)
    4. Lalique Encre Noire Sport (Woody)
    5. Dior Homme Eau (Iris)
    6.Chanel Allure Edition Blanche (Lemon)

    7. Cartier Roadster (Mint)
    8. Joop Splash (Fruity)
    9. Lanvin L'homme Sport (Petitgrain))
    10. Jesus Del Pozo Adventure Quasar (Gin)

  33. #33

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by PalmBeach View Post
    We now have, what, four or five different threads on perfume mailing?
    He's started this new thread deliberatley, using exactly the same thread title as I used for my thread....just to be awkward. Op has a real attitude problem, attacking everyone.
    Last edited by david; 17th August 2014 at 12:38 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  34. #34

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Just to be awkward. Op has a real attitude problem, attacking everyone.
    I take issue with posts that confuse fact with speculation and conjecture. Yours are know for just that. When dealing with subject matter like this, the community is best served with sticking to the facts. If you've got an opinion, offer it up as just that. It makes for lively discussion if you can back it up good logic and reasoning. You're right, that is my attitude. If you've got a problem with it, I really don't care.

    If you care to stick to the facts and further explore and discuss the reasons behind some of the rule or enforcement changes we've seen, I'd like to see you add to this thread. But please don't blow the issue out of proportion like you've done elsewhere. This is not some grand conspiracy originating with the UPU/UN. Perfume has not, just now, been deemed as hazmat either. It has been the case for decades in the US and I would bet the same in most developed countries.

  35. #35

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    I take issue with posts that confuse fact with speculation and conjecture. Yours are know for just that. When dealing with subject matter like this, the community is best served with sticking to the facts. If you've got an opinion, offer it up as just that. It makes for lively discussion if you can back it up good logic and reasoning. You're right, that is my attitude. If you've got a problem with it, I really don't care.

    If you care to stick to the facts and further explore and discuss the reasons behind some of the rule or enforcement changes we've seen, I'd like to see you add to this thread. But please don't blow the issue out of proportion like you've done elsewhere. This is not some grand conspiracy originating with the UPU/UN. Perfume has not, just now, been deemed as hazmat either. It has been the case for decades in the US and I would bet the same in most developed countries.
    I think you should read my posts VERY carefully.
    I state in the opening post of my thread....

    "The spokesman I talked to from the International Civil Aviation Authorities told me that the issue of perfumes being classed as hazardous materials, (because of the high alcohol content) has been known and enforced for several years."
    You are just re~hashing things I said at the very beginng of the thread.

    Again, if you read my posts properly you will see back up evidence of every single piece of information I put forward. I also provided copies of emails sent to me, including the senders name and position within the Royal Mail.
    .....and I was stating facts, (not cospiricy theories) when I said that the enforcement came from the UPO, which is an agency within the UN. Fact, not fiction.

    Why are you trying to damage me this way ? and why are you attacking other posters so aggresively ?
    Last edited by david; 24th February 2013 at 09:45 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  36. #36

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    That would be interesting to know

  37. #37

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    If anyone appears wrongly informed and someone else knows better, then steer the conversation in the right direction with correct information to the better good of all. No swiping needed, just real information to help everyone. The whole idea of a forum is to discuss ideas and things we have found, not condemn anyone for being, or not being, correct.

  38. #38

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    david... I mostly like your posts. Seriously. It seems you are very passionate about perfume/cologne. That is admirable. In fact, I think I owe you a beer for your words about Les Copains Homme and specifically how you’d tied it to Yatagan. I found a bottle and it's great. I might just owe you 2 beers because I went back and got another. If you’re ever in Chicago, let me know

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    I think you should read my posts VERY carefully...
    Why are you trying to damage me this way ? and why are you attacking other posters so aggresively ?
    That’s exactly the issue david. I’m not into ad-hominen attacks, but I do take umbrage with some of your posts on this subject. If you want credibility from me as well as others (I’m quite sure) on this issue, I strongly suggest you edit or delete your posts #33 and #64 in mr. dampier’s thread entitled “USPS' Perfume Crackdown March 1; No Air/Priority Shipments” in the male fragrance forum http://www.basenotes.net/threads/324...rity-Shipments . As they read now:


    #33
    “It is a TOTAL, (worldwide) ban and includes LAND and SEA shipping. ALL METHODS OF SHIPMENT.
    The enforcement came from the UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION, not as some people think the Civil Aviation Authorities. This is not about perfumes/alcohol being carried on planes ~ it is about all forms of shipping perfumes/alcohol. The ban also includes lithium batteries and, (of all things!) nail varnish ???????..............
    This planet has become pathetic.”
    “Please see my thread entitled shipping perfumes, and my posts on this thread. This has nothing to do with aircraft. This ban affects roal/land haulage / rail haulage and sea haulage. All forms of shipment.”


    #64
    "Hi Paul,
    I got all of my information via the UK press office of the Civil Aviation Authorities. I phoned the press office, (you can google to find their number ~ or alternatively write to them) The guy I spoke to was very helpful and extremely knowledgable. He explained to me that this regulation has come from the UPU. He also told me that the International Civil Aviation Authorities do not like the regulation, ( I am assuming because aircraft make a lot of revenue from transporting packages) and that the UK postal service, (Royal Mail) are fighting the regulation for the same reason. The Royal Mail want the alcohol limit, currently at 24 percent, lifted, (obviously to be able to ship perfume).
    I really hope everyone investgates this issue and I think as many members as possible should contact the press on all levels including newspapers, radio and television.
    The Universal Postal Union has deliberately kept this very quiet...so as not to create a fuss.
    .....that's probably the reason you are not finding any direct information there."



    What we know:

    1. There has been no documented ban on perfume transport, either globally or at any national level.

    2. Aside from UK’s Royal Mail, it appears that no gov’t or private carrier has made any recent rule changes affecting the transport of perfume.

    3. The recent RM documented changes are actually an easing of restrictions with respect to perfume transport. Now, a properly registered business can transport perfume domestically provided restrictions are met. In July, this additional freedom will be extended to the personal class. Neither class could, can, or will be allowed to transport internationally though.

    4. Rules of some gov’t carriers (e.g. CanadaPost, AusPost,) have not and do not allow for the domestic or international transport of perfume.

    5. In some countries, gov’t carriers appear to be administering a reminder campaign that perfume is a hazardous material / dangerous good and, as such, is either non-mailable or can be mailed with restrictions (e.g. ground only).

    6. For the most part, the reminder campaigns noted above are typically relegated to the postal clerk asking “Does this parcel contain anything fragile, liquid, perishable, or potentially hazardous?”, or similar, and posters on the walls, etc.

    7. We, in the BN community, have yet to identify and pinpoint any credible, publicly accessible, documentary support indicating exactly why the RM changed its rules.

    8. We, in the BN community, have yet to identify and pinpoint any credible, publicly accessible, documentary support indicating why some gov’t carriers appear to be administering a reminder campaign as to the mailability of hazardous materials / dangerous goods.

    9. Most countries have hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation.

    10. Some country’s hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation expressly adopt or assimilate international hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, and/or UN model regulations into their own national regulations.

    11. Perfume is typically categorized under hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation as a flammable liquid (i.e. category 3).

    12. Perfume is mostly ethanol.

    13. Ethanol has a flashpoint of around 70F.

    14. We’ve yet to come across any recent documented national hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation amendments affecting either the categorization or transport of perfume.

    15. We’ve yet to come across any recent documented international hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, or model UN regulation showing amendments affecting either the categorization or transport of perfume.

    16. We’ve yet to hear any instances where BNrs have had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were being followed.

    17. We’ve heard plenty of instances where BNrs have had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were not being followed.

    18. Confiscations, etc. do not appear to be a new development, however, apparently it may be occurring more frequently within some nations or at some national borders.

    19. We’ve heard plenty of instances where BNrs have not had a perfume shipment destroyed, confiscated, etc. where the gov’t carrier’s rules were not being followed.

    20. Just because gov’t carriers’ rules expressly prohibit or restrict the domestic or international transport of perfume, that does not mean that private carriers are prohibited or restricted from offering those transport services.

    21. Private carrier rates for domestic and/or international perfume transport tend to be greater, and oftentimes much greater than the rates charged by gov’t carriers for similar sized parcels of non-hazardous materials / non-dangerous goods.

    22. There is recent readily available documented national hazardous materials / dangerous goods legislation amendments affecting the transport of lithium ion batteries.

    23. There is recent readily available documented international hazardous material / dangerous goods legislation, treatise, or model UN regulation showing amendments affecting the transport of lithium ion batteries.

    24. There have been at least two documented and relatively recent occurrences where bombs were found in the international mail-stream.

    25. Most (All?) gov’t and private carriers put the onus on the mailer to accurately declare the contents of packages the mailer puts into or attempts to put into the mail-stream.

    26. Most gov’t carriers put the onus on the mailer to understand and abide by its rules.

    27. Mailers that are ignorant of gov’t carrier rules and/or inaccurately declare the contents of packages put into the mail-stream are subject to loss of property, fines, prison time... whether because gov’t carrier rules or national/international hazardous materials/dangerous goods regulations were violated.

    28. As a service to BNrs of all experience, it is probably more helpful to have an unemotional, factual account of this broad issue available in these forums. As adults, we can then make our own informed decisions about how best to transport our perfumes.


    There are a few of us here that, for whatever reasons, feel compelled to dig a little deeper with this issue in order to pass along good and useful information. If anyone sees any errors in any of the above points, please air it out, let's discuss, and I'll make the changes to the list.

    I’m not out to prove anybody right or wrong or make anyone look bad. I just want accuracy for the benefit of the BN community. And… for the sake of the seriousness of this subject matter, I ask that emotional out pouring or rants be saved for a different thread. Please contribute if you can.

    - - - Updated - - -

    just to make it clear re USPS, I'm adding...

    29. The USPS has not changed any of its rules affecting the transport of perfume. Per its rules, perfume is a hazardous material that is prohibited from domestic air and international transport; ground transport is permissible if it is accurately declared as perfume and its hazardous materials rules are followed.
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 25th February 2013 at 11:35 PM. Reason: spellin erroars

  39. #39

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Much food for thought there.

    Will let you know if we ever find out why what's happening happened in the U.K.

    For many small/start-up non RM contract businesses here, July (when the alleged 'easing' of recently imposed inland restrictions may take place) will be too late.

    The intended 'modernisation' will see many jobs lost in the Postal sector if current plans succeed.
    Link on David's thread #

    This is not going to help the recession one bit.

    My interest in this is because I expect the authorities to give the public notice before drastically changing rules & I was raised to oppose unfairness.
    I'm full time (not on any State benefits btw) caring for an elderly brain-damaged parent & that's a breeze compared to getting to the bottom of this one
    Last edited by lpp; 26th February 2013 at 08:02 PM.

  40. #40

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    My interest in this is because I expect the authorities to give the public notice before drastically changing rules & I was raised to oppose unfairness.
    Indeed, but primarily I expect the authorities to made *reasonable* decisions, not preposterous ones.

    And I don't expect overbearing men to tell me what I should or should not be exercised by. Posts can be skipped very easily. I had no difficulty in giving some on this page a miss.
    Last edited by Bela; 26th February 2013 at 12:53 PM.

  41. #41

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Suggest that everyone who is affected writes to their M.P.'s.

  42. #42

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Suggest that everyone who is affected writes to their M.P.'s.
    And to Vince Cable.

    *Everyone* who buys or sells perfume will be affected in one way or another in the end.

  43. #43

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Also Chuka Umunna, Shadow for Business, Innovation & Skills.

    I've contacted a few people so far & will update if their replies manage to break through the current wall of silence!

    Please see David's thread in Male Fragrance, particularly with ref. to the planned 'locals'
    - links on post #87.

    This will presumably result in many job losses in the Postal sector if it goes ahead as planned, with those of us living in rural areas left without an accessible service.
    Many very old people here rely on Sub P.O.'s to draw cash, etc. and will have problems travelling to places with said 'locals' as public transport is declining in rural areas.

    p.s. - not being 'political' on purpose, but if as many people are as concerned as they seem to be, we need to do something together here in the U.K. to register our acute displeasure as most members & potential future members, not to mention small businesses, are affected.
    Last edited by lpp; 26th February 2013 at 08:11 PM.

  44. #44

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    For those still tuned in...

    There are 2 great articles (pp. 9 & 13) perhaps explaining alot of what we're seeing/hearing as of late: http://news.upu.int/uploads/media/un..._2_2012_en.pdf

    The mentioned UPU security chain standards were apparently both approved at its Oct2012 Doha Congress. As of yet, I've not been able to find any documentation trail referencing the UPU security chain standards to the ICAO, IATA, our goverment regs, or postal regs. It's odd to me that there is no apparent formal tract. I've got some queries outstanding, maybe they'll shed more light.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  45. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    4,476
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    i just lie and say im selling books.

  46. #46

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Apparently sending them to Belfast for x-ray here, despite we cant ship by sea/air & it's in Ireland.....

  47. #47

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    DuNezDeBuzier quote, "If you want credibility from me as well as others (I’m quite sure) on this issue, I strongly suggest you edit or delete your posts #33 and #64 in mr. dampier’s thread entitled “USPS' Perfume Crackdown March 1; No Air/Priority Shipments” in the male fragrance forum"

    ....you hijack a thread I started, using EXACTLY the same thread title, (something unheard of on basenotes code of ethics).
    ....then you have the nerve to tell me how I should earn credibility from YOU, (and others!).
    How patronising !
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  48. #48

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by lpp View Post
    Apparently sending them to Belfast for x-ray here, despite we cant ship by sea/air & it's in Ireland.....
    Yes, I am in Belfast. We are Northern Ireland(home for many years to opening suspicious packages LOL), only a few miles across from Scotland so not a long sea journey.
    DONNA

  49. #49

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Hi Donna - yes, assumed that was the reason that they were/are apparently being sent there - as you already have the equipment!

    - - - Updated - - -
    Edit 5 March
    New thread re. Royal Mail slightly altered business terms/new prices/links
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/327...49#post2866549
    Last edited by lpp; 5th March 2013 at 01:02 PM.

  50. #50

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    All rumor aside, all speculation and fear-mongering aside, In the United States, MY POST OFFICE has indeed cracked down. I have been told it is illegal to ship fragrance overseas, illegal to ship in the USA even ground, that it is fine to ship overseas, that it is ok to ship ground USA if a ORM-D sticker is affixed, that the sticker isn't needed...Their own people don't know what is going on. I had to show the postal worker I usually deal with the USPS regs about flashpoints, amounts, etc. before she grudgingly allowed it. Then 3 days later another worker disputed me again. I hate feeling like a criminal. I have begun refusing bids on EBAY for my stuff from overseas customers b/c the post office I use said I can be fined/imprisoned if they catch me b/c they know that I know the regs...

  51. #51

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    @Diogenes65 - So sorry, your story is very familiar to us here.

    There has just been a slight relaxation announced here for smaller business users within the U.K., recently publicised by Ebay.

    Overseas shipping remains impossible here for smaller businesses and individuals who can't afford to 'vote with their feet' and take contracts with other shippers.
    Last edited by lpp; 6th March 2013 at 05:30 PM.

  52. #52

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    I've been told the same at my P.O., Diogenes65. I'm not a seller, just a sample swapper. I was told that lying to a postal worker is in fact a crime and they are now specifically asking if packages contain perfume. The penalties are overly severe: that's federal prison time, not just a few days in the county lock-up. And fines can be up to $25,000. As you saw, the worst part is that even the postal employees aren't trained well on this. I bet if I drove to a different P.O., I'd get a whole new set of answers.

    For now, I feel too uncomfortable to ship internationally. Will let those who wish to continue lying find out if the government is serious about these penalties or not. Such a shame they can't seem to figure a way to offer international shipping on these items. I'd gladly pay more but UPS and such are cost prohibitive for packages that only amount to a bunch of half-used samples. Agree with those who've said USPS should be finding more ways to make money instead of losing it.
    Last edited by PerfumedLady; 6th March 2013 at 05:33 PM.
    The nose wants what it wants!

  53. #53

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Maybe someone should write a script up and try to sell it to some movie execs.
    Last edited by silentrich; 6th March 2013 at 07:51 PM.
    Summer 2014 favorites

    1. Terre d'Hermes Eau Tres Fraiche (orange)
    2. Dueto Citiver (Vetiver)
    3. Dior Homme Sport 2012 (Citron)
    4. Lalique Encre Noire Sport (Woody)
    5. Dior Homme Eau (Iris)
    6.Chanel Allure Edition Blanche (Lemon)

    7. Cartier Roadster (Mint)
    8. Joop Splash (Fruity)
    9. Lanvin L'homme Sport (Petitgrain))
    10. Jesus Del Pozo Adventure Quasar (Gin)

  54. #54

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    ^ Yeah, it could be like Midnight Express where the protagonist sends some perfume through USPS air because he did not truthfully declare it as such. It accelerates a fire in the cargo hold caused by some spontaneously combustible lithium-ion batteries. Most of the crew perish, but one grabs the last remaining bits of the package the protagonist sent before parachuting to safety. The flamming wreckage falls on an orphanage. His return address is clearly visible. He's sentenced to life in guatonimo... Until he head-butts a corrupt guard then swims off to the Cayman Islands where he works his way up from a conch fisherman, to scuba instructor, to owning a Creed Boutique in Georgetown. He makes money hand over fist selling at exorbitant prices to the Cruise sect. Having changed his name to Count Montecristo, he returns to the US and convinces the gov't to sell him the USPS because it is not making nearly as much money as it could if it had only allowed perfume to be transported as a non-hazardous material. He then allows all mailers to use his Count Montecristo's Postal Service to transport perfume and other legislated hazardous substances as if they were not, in fact, hazardous. And he, (a) lives happily ever after, (b) is thrown back in jail for willfully violating the hazardous materials act, or (c) he is elected prez because he give the people what they truly want. Hey, aren't alternative endings en vogue?
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  55. #55

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Good story, DNDB! Would add just one thing: some vintage samples in that parcel. That would then allow for a scene in which everyone in the vicinity of the crash loses their limbs and eyeballs due to exposure to oakmoss and nitromusks!
    The nose wants what it wants!

  56. #56

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    ^ Yeah, it could be like Midnight Express where the protagonist sends some perfume through USPS air because he did not truthfully declare it as such. It accelerates a fire in the cargo hold caused by some spontaneously combustible lithium-ion batteries. Most of the crew perish, but one grabs the last remaining bits of the package the protagonist sent before parachuting to safety. The flamming wreckage falls on an orphanage. His return address is clearly visible. He's sentenced to life in guatonimo... Until he head-butts a corrupt guard then swims off to the Cayman Islands where he works his way up from a conch fisherman, to scuba instructor, to owning a Creed Boutique in Georgetown. He makes money hand over fist selling at exorbitant prices to the Cruise sect. Having changed his name to Count Montecristo, he returns to the US and convinces the gov't to sell him the USPS because it is not making nearly as much money as it could if it had only allowed perfume to be transported as a non-hazardous material. He then allows all mailers to use his Count Montecristo's Postal Service to transport perfume and other legislated hazardous substances as if they were not, in fact, hazardous. And he, (a) lives happily ever after, (b) is thrown back in jail for willfully violating the hazardous materials act, or (c) he is elected prez because he give the people what they truly want. Hey, aren't alternative endings en vogue?
    That is awesome! I love the Montecristo take. Also edit it so he pays them in Sacagewea dollars, because they know not what paper money is and will only use it for toilet paper and for making paper airplanes.
    Last edited by silentrich; 7th March 2013 at 01:07 AM.
    Summer 2014 favorites

    1. Terre d'Hermes Eau Tres Fraiche (orange)
    2. Dueto Citiver (Vetiver)
    3. Dior Homme Sport 2012 (Citron)
    4. Lalique Encre Noire Sport (Woody)
    5. Dior Homme Eau (Iris)
    6.Chanel Allure Edition Blanche (Lemon)

    7. Cartier Roadster (Mint)
    8. Joop Splash (Fruity)
    9. Lanvin L'homme Sport (Petitgrain))
    10. Jesus Del Pozo Adventure Quasar (Gin)

  57. #57

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    ^ Yeah, it could be like Midnight Express where the protagonist sends some perfume through USPS air because he did not truthfully declare it as such. It accelerates a fire in the cargo hold caused by some spontaneously combustible lithium-ion batteries. Most of the crew perish, but one grabs the last remaining bits of the package the protagonist sent before parachuting to safety. The flamming wreckage falls on an orphanage. His return address is clearly visible. He's sentenced to life in guatonimo... Until he head-butts a corrupt guard then swims off to the Cayman Islands where he works his way up from a conch fisherman, to scuba instructor, to owning a Creed Boutique in Georgetown. He makes money hand over fist selling at exorbitant prices to the Cruise sect. Having changed his name to Count Montecristo, he returns to the US and convinces the gov't to sell him the USPS because it is not making nearly as much money as it could if it had only allowed perfume to be transported as a non-hazardous material. He then allows all mailers to use his Count Montecristo's Postal Service to transport perfume and other legislated hazardous substances as if they were not, in fact, hazardous. And he, (a) lives happily ever after, (b) is thrown back in jail for willfully violating the hazardous materials act, or (c) he is elected prez because he give the people what they truly want. Hey, aren't alternative endings en vogue?
    Thanks so much for good laugh!

  58. #58

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    That's really cool everyone

    Might have problems financing it 'though.....

  59. #59

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    I feel bad for those small sellers, especially in the UK who now are scrambling to find inexpensive shippers. I know guys like Chris Bartlett can't really compete with the big houses as far as price, and now to not be able to ship...what gets me is that these planes that carry my 1ml sample vial in cargo are carrying 1 liter bottles of 120 Proof Brandy in the galley. Your telling me my sample is likely to take the plane down faster than that bottle of brandy???

  60. #60

    Default Re: Shipping Perfume

    It's not good

Similar Threads

  1. Shipping Perfume
    By david in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 17th February 2014, 09:13 PM
  2. No Shipping Perfume from US to military bases??
    By Elf in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 28th February 2013, 06:52 AM
  3. Shipping a perfume bottle with bulb atomizer
    By Jane Daly in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2nd September 2009, 02:39 PM
  4. Perfume came - naturally - from Paris... (shipping Q)
    By FroFro in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3rd December 2008, 12:37 AM
  5. Shipping Perfume
    By sakecat22 in forum Just Starting Out
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 21st April 2008, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •