Duty, if necessary, is paid by the recipient on arrival. The new American tariffs must be paid before the item is accepted for being sent from the seller. As Milpool has said, this means that, in our case, Canada Post must, through it's agents, take the tariff money before it accepts the package. If the US agent that receives the item judges the item is labelled wrongly then it refuses the package and the Canadian agent (Canada Post) must store it safely it until the problem is solved, which it has no facilities to do.
Therefor the tariff charge must be the highest possible to avoid refusal at the US border.
You don't seem to go beyond the dictionary definition of duty and tariffs without appreciating the practical difference, particularly since the US has decided, uniquely, that the tariffs must be collected in the sending country before the item enters the postal system, regardless of the duty rate. Nor do the documents you quote in any way address the Tariff rates which are independent of duty rates
Have I missed something?
Maybe that you rely a bit heavily on AI generated responses that may not be accurate.
Could you at least mark everything you wuoye from AI as such, please? That way it's clear for all hat we're looking at.
There's a big difference between using something like Google translate and posting the output you get from eg ChatGPT after prompting it with your question. It's clear you're doing the latter. Please make that explicit in your posts.I am not a native English speaker hence I use AI for making technical posts easier to read for everyone.
So lets take the example of a 1000 EUR Rolleiflex made in Germany, imported to the U.S. and walk through the steps of a real-life case. From purchase to declaration etc.
There's a big difference between using something like Google translate and posting the output you get from eg ChatGPT after prompting it with your question. It's clear you're doing the latter. Please make that explicit in your posts.
I am not a native English speaker hence I use AI for making technical posts easier to read for everyone.
Which part (1.-5.) of the longer post is not accurate? Happy to stand corrected. I can edit the post if needed.
@RezaLoghme do you refuse to comply with my request to mark the AI output you've inserted into your posts as such?
For instance, this bit:which detail of them would you like to correct?
There's no support for your (AI's) claim that the second hand camera isn't subject to the default 15% "reciprocal" tariff that's been in effect since August 2025.Under the 2025 rules, postal operators collect U.S. tariffs upfront if a tariff applies.
For a German-made, pre-owned camera, the applicable tariff rate today is 0%.
So the amount collected is 0.
For instance, this bit:
There's no support for your (AI's) claim that the second hand camera isn't subject to the default 15% "reciprocal" tariff that's been in effect since August 2025.
For Pete's sake; you do your own research. Yes, there's a 15% tariff in place; it was introduced as a 20% rate in April and then dropped to 15% after negotiations over summer between the EU and the US. It doesn't distinguish between second hand and new equipment and a Hasselblad camera is not exempt.
No, it's not. It's a fixed rate; any pre-existing tariffs lower than this are automatically raised to be 15%.To be precise, the 15% maximum tariff for EU goods is a cap
No, it's not. It's a fixed rate; any pre-existing tariffs lower than this are automatically raised to be 15%.
Stop posting stuff you've made up or that have been fed to you by dubious sources.
This is getting a bit silly - attacking information sources rather than simply correcting factual errors and providing an official/valid source. Here is the official source.
Quite a bit of it, too. Although it's amusing. We'd learn, for instance, that certain propellers that aren't intended for aircraft are exempt as long as they're targeted for use in aircraft. But of course, we weren't supposed to say anything about things being vague, in flux etc. It's all crystal clear.That would require reading.
That would require reading.
The EU-US reciprocal tariff situation in 2025 involves the U.S. imposing tariffs on EU goods to match EU tariffs, leading to a complex system where most EU products face an
additional 15% U.S. tariff (totaling 15% or more), with certain sectors like cars, aircraft, and pharmaceuticals receiving exemptions or reductions under a negotiated framework agreement, while the EU prepares to respond with its own reciprocal measures to balance trade. Key dates include April 2025 (initial U.S. announcement), August 7, 2025 (U.S. 15% rate effective), and August 21, 2025 (U.S.-EU framework agreement reached).
Key Developments in 2025:
Current Status (as of late 2025):
- Initial U.S. Announcement (April 2025): President Trump announced broad reciprocal tariffs, initially targeting a 10-20% additional duty on EU goods.
- Implementation & Adjustments (August 2025):
- A 15% "all-inclusive" ceiling was set for most EU goods.
- Goods already paying over 15% duty faced no extra charge; those paying less had their duty raised to a combined 15%.
- Tariffs on cars, auto parts, aircraft, and some pharmaceuticals were reduced or eliminated.
- U.S.-EU Framework Agreement (August 21, 2025): A deal was struck to formalize these adjustments, reduce overall trade friction, and outline further steps.
- EU Response (Ongoing): The EU is implementing its own reciprocal tariffs and negotiating further adjustments, with a goal of achieving fair and balanced trade.
In essence, 2025 saw a shift from broad threats to a structured, albeit complex, reciprocal tariff system between the U.S. and EU, aiming for fairer trade through negotiated adjustments.
- U.S. Action: Implementing the framework, applying 15% tariffs on many goods, with specific exemptions (aircraft, pharma) and adjustments for others.
- EU Action: Moving to implement its commitments, including potential reciprocal tariffs on specific U.S. products like timber and certain agricultural goods, while negotiating for broader reductions.
This is getting a bit silly - attacking information sources rather than simply correcting factual errors and providing an official/valid source. Here is the official source. There probably is a similar EU source (there was in July 2025)
Its reassuring that, given what you say, there is a flat 15%.
THen let me correct the 1,-5. steps from above.
I have now changed the details from 0% / exempt to the flat 15% you suggested. Anything else to edit?
Anything else to edit?
I've seen several edits to posts of yours where you've inserted a disclaimer. Thanks for doing that!I would like to check if I am complying with your request.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?