Customs destroy illegally imported LR Defender

David Harris

Expedition Leader
I'm just a simple country lawyer. When the CBP guy says it's about safety, I tend to take him at his word. And he did say it was about safety. A lot.

Click here for information from CBP on how to import your new foreign-built truck into the United States. Pay the 25% import tax and make sure that it is compliant with all the safety and emission regs of the last forty years and you're good to go.

These folks did this to get around the 25% tax. Yes, they broke the law. The law is dumb. CBP made this out to be a safety issue. It is not. And it is an insult for them to say that it is.

B
Crap. Now I'm involved in that flame war.

You really need to go do some serious research into this before you make any more completely erroneous statements about the importation laws. This has been discussed many times on here with input from actual importers of Land Rovers who know their stuff as well as anyone.
 

Bennettbf

Observer
I don't think you're really listening. He's not saying the vin swap was about safety. They're two seperate issues, the vin swap being a MAJOR no no...

That Cato article is interesting but I think we all know the 25 year rule and the import tax is really about protecting domestic manufacturers. There is nothing new there. However, that article is really about foreign manufactures importing NEW vehicles into the U.S. and trying to skirt taxes. It assumes intrinsically that the new vehicles being imported are already DOT\EPA, and Ralph Nadar approved. It really isn't written from the average Joe trying to import a 20 year old vehicle point of view.

If you're saying that the CBP guy wasn't saying it was about safety, I have to disagree with you. It seemed to be the only issue that CBP they were going on about - which was intellectually dishonest.

Is somebody here who knows a great deal more about Land Rovers going to post with a straight face that a 2007 Rover is safer than a 1970s vintage Rover? I would be very surprised to learn that.

Our government posted a propaganda video. In that propaganda video they showed a vehicle being destroyed. They told us that it was about safety. That's a load of hooey. If they'd had posted the video and said, "Hey, look - Joe Schmo attempted tax fraud against the United States. He was busted, his vehicle seized in accordance with the law, and it was destroyed in accordance with the law", I'd have no problem with that. Instead, they chose this load of hooey.

In the 1960s, when that tariff was instituted, perhaps there was a reason behind it. Maybe the old Toyota and VW trucks were unsafe - hell, I've read some stories about new Mahindra trucks at speed being very unstable. So maybe there's something to that. But I can't imagine an argument that starts and ends with a 2007 Rover being too unsafe for America's highways.

B
 

EricWS

Observer
You really need to go do some serious research into this before you make any more completely erroneous statements about the importation laws. This has been discussed many times on here with input from actual importers of Land Rovers who know their stuff as well as anyone.

+2. Add to the fact that the US gov't is just enforcing it's own safety laws. If a car does not meet the rules and regs required to import a car, to the US gov't it's unsafe. It's not that difficult. Whether or not it is actually an "unsafe" vehicle is just semantics and a straw man arguement.
 

Mack73

Adventurer
If a car does not meet the rules and regs required to import a car, to the US gov't it's unsafe.

No. If the car does not meet the rules and regs required to import a car, to the US gov't its ILLEGAL. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

David Harris

Expedition Leader
No. If the car does not meet the rules and regs required to import a car, to the US gov't its ILLEGAL. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some of those rules and regs do have to do with proper safety equipment for the year of the vehicle. For example, crash beams in the doors, which the Defender doesn't have, etc. That's one of the reasons they haven't been sold here in recent years. Other aspects of the regulations have to do with the engines which have not been approved under EPA standards.
 

I Leak Oil

Expedition Leader
If you're saying that the CBP guy wasn't saying it was about safety, I have to disagree with you.

That isn't what I said at all, I don't think ANYONE has said that. The dude in the video clearly indicates it's about safety. I think everyone in this thread agrees the safety reason in this particular case is horsecrap.

Again, I don't think you're listening to what others are trying to get across.
 

haven

Expedition Leader
It's not hard to figure out. If you break the rules for importing a vehicle, the vehicle will be confiscated, and may be destroyed.

For your reading pleasure, I merged this thread and the two existing threads on this subject into one thread.
 

I Leak Oil

Expedition Leader
Thanks Chip, now I can go back to having a more productive conversation with my empty milk glass that is sitting next to me!
 

overlander

Expedition Leader
I think I qualify for PTSD after seeing these repeated threads everywhere on multiple forums. I'm already in counceling from defendersource.com postings on this topic.

I'm going to call this the highlander thread. In the end, there will only be one. It has been foretold.
 

DividingCreek

Explorer
I'm just a simple country lawyer. When the CBP guy says it's about safety, I tend to take him at his word. And he did say it was about safety. A lot.

Click here for information from CBP on how to import your new foreign-built truck into the United States. Pay the 25% import tax and make sure that it is compliant with all the safety and emission regs of the last forty years and you're good to go.

These folks did this to get around the 25% tax. Yes, they broke the law. The law is dumb. CBP made this out to be a safety issue. It is not. And it is an insult for them to say that it is.

B
Crap. Now I'm involved in that flame war.

Not sure why, but I'll respond. Some posts are so inane that they elicit a response as your posts clearly have.

First you state the importer/owner attempted to avoid a 25% tax. Nothing could be further from reality. These guys would happily pay a 25% tax if they could have a new (far safer)defender which is legally impossible as Rover refuses to install airbags in them for obvious reasons- ie the vehicles intended use by the majority of purchasers around the world. For this reason no defender made after the end of the 1997 model year can be imported into the US (ie when airbags became mandatory). Import duty on a used vehicle beyond a certain age is 2.5% not 25. IE duty on a $4Ok truck is only $1000. None of this has anything to due with collecting tax revenue.

Second the trucks being imported are for the most part 25yrs old which by our laws are EPA and DOT exempt. Customs is seizing trucks for things like safer doors, updated seat belts, rear disc brake conversions from drums, updated safer seats, updated safer glass etc. They can legally deny entry to any truck that has had any of the above upgrades, and do @ DOT's insistence as that is the letter of the law. Many new owners who unwittingly purchase trucks with these modifications that have been made over the past three decades have no idea they are breaking the law by attempting to import trucks with these minimal modifications that make their trucks considerably safer then an all original 25-30 year old 110. In many instances the original part supercedes in the parts manuals to the newer improved part. EPA similarly has the power to refuse entry to a truck that left the factory as a 2.5 liter diesel and enters as a 2.5 liter diesel if the original 30 year old engine threw a rod @ some point and was replaced with what is now a 21 year old 2.5 liter land rover diesel with the primary difference being that the injectors fire directly into the combustion chamber resulting in far better emissions and higher fuel economy. That's right, a 21yr old land rover diesel engine that bolts right up with zero modification in place of a 25 yr old land rover diesel engine that burns cleaner is illegal.

Third- you believe that the truck pictured in the video which clearly had a 1989 vintage engine, a 1984 registration, 1988 vintage doors, early 90's vintage roof, and a mixture of parts of other vintages was crushed because it was unsafe and that it was crushed because it was a new truck trying to avoid a 25% tariff ( the newest Defender that can be imported into the US is a 1997 manufactured before mid August of that model year). Which do you actually believe ? I ask because you contradict yourself. I cant figure out if you are a hypocrite or simply playing protagonist. Last I checked "simple country lawyers" have access to the same internet, periodicals, govt regulations etc that those in major metropolitan areas have access to, so country doesn't connote misinformed.

You aren't seeing the big picture if you believe this was a safety or tax issue.

Since you can't/haven't figured it out on your own, I'll explain it for you. Jaguar Land Rover North America is very much involved in these seizures. Customs inspects each truck upon arrival into the US. They take pictures of all aspects of the vehicle and send these pictures to EPA/DOT and Land Rover North America. Land Rover North America has designated employee's who pour over these photographs and point out each and every upgrade made to the antique vehicle. DOT then takes this list of modifications and decides whether or not to instruct Customs to deny entry.
Why you ask would a manufacturer go to such lengths to try to squash enthusiasts importing a product line that they as a manufacturer have decided to ignore in the worlds largest and most affluent marketplace ? Because of the prices these trucks are bringing and the perceived market segment loss they are experiencing. Wake up and smell, or better yet, drink the coffee......

So the cliff notes version is this hasn't a damn thing to do with the general populace's safety nor does it have to do with tax revenue on individual imports. What its all about is that a major automotive manufacturer is pissed and is waist deep with assets dedicated to helping our government enforce the absolute letter of the law to this specific model of their own product.
 
Last edited:

David Harris

Expedition Leader
Wow. Look at all these LR Defenders for sale that are less than 25 years of age. I guess CBP is completely lax on enforcement

You do know that you could buy new Defenders here from 1994-97, didn't you? These are all Defenders which were imported here by the manufacturer when new and sold here as new vehicles at a Land Rover dealership. Therefore they always have been legal here in the U.S.
 

matthewp

Combat Truck Monkey
You do know that you could buy new Defenders here from 1994-97, didn't you? These are all Defenders which were imported here by the manufacturer when new and sold here as new vehicles at a Land Rover dealership. Therefore they always have been legal here in the U.S.

You really do have to stop throwing logic and fact into this argument!:coffeedrink:
 

EricWS

Observer
Some of those rules and regs do have to do with proper safety equipment for the year of the vehicle. For example, crash beams in the doors, which the Defender doesn't have, etc. That's one of the reasons they haven't been sold here in recent years. Other aspects of the regulations have to do with the engines which have not been approved under EPA standards.

Exactly. All of those issues are fairly well known. Point was why bother arguing semantics? The truck was destroyed by a government agency for not being safe by the giovernment's own definition.
 

EricWS

Observer
No. If the car does not meet the rules and regs required to import a car, to the US gov't its ILLEGAL. Nothing more, nothing less.

Uh huh, that's obvious enough to go unsaid. A point was made about safety, not legality. CPB could have easily used that as a reason as well. And then the circular arguement would be it's legal in Europe....

Who cares. CPB didn't like it, crushed it, and has a legal standing for doing so. Arguing about it is whether or not it actually is safe. legal elsewhere, etc. is a pointless excercise.

These posts and arguements have been around, what, at least 10 years? What hasn't been discussed before ad naueseum?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,674
Messages
2,888,752
Members
226,864
Latest member
Nowhereman
Top