Thanks for the feedback so far people.
Jeff I have talked to the person and he is supposed to be in contact with you very shortly, if he has not already. PM me if possible,if you haven't heard from him by the end of the weekend.
Marisa, obviously this sounds screwy. But your comparison doesn't fit the situation. As mentioned these goods were not sent out with his consent, but in the eyes of the law, he is the recipient (who had not provided importers documents), and the exporter failed to send any form of exporter's document. If there is a name on a parcel, who do you think becomes the prime suspect? The customs people don't know or care how the stuff is paid for. For all they care, it could have been a gift. There concern is to make sure the paperwork is in order and that the laws are adhered to. In this case it appears that you are guilty, until you can prove your innocence and that is where it gets tricky. I could send you illegal drugs, put a fake name on the parcel as the sender and who do you think they are going to investigate? The person that sent it or the real person who gets the parcel?
The interesting part is why the shipper would send out the goods before getting paid for them. I dealt extensively in Ebay sales of antiques a few years back, with most of the sales going to the States. And never once, did I ship anything without payment received first.
Darren179, providing proof of anything, obviously is going to be difficult, as this is under investigation and the only paper he has received was a seizure notice received in the mail and a visit from the Wildlife officer. He is not searching monetary help. The purpose is to find other avenues, agencies or organizations that may assist him in clearing his name. I do not doubt his innocence, otherwise I would not have posted this thread.
Tara, as mentioned the info was provided to the "breeder" so that the cost and logistics could be worked out and reported back to him. It was the breeder who took the initiative to ship these animals based on that info.
He has been encouraged to file a report with his member of parliament and has since done so. I have no reason to believe that he is not being honest in his representation of the situation. He has been very accomodating with the Fish and Wildlife people to date and his head is still spinning over this situation. But despite this he is still liable to the fines as informed to him by the officer. Like it or not, that appears to be the law.
Oh btw, apparently, on a lighter note, the turtles are live and healthy.
Likewise I hope that all of this is worked out.
Last edited by jwsporty; 12-12-03 at 07:12 AM..