eBay

winepress780 · ‎01-30-2016

I am so frustrated with eBay's GSP so here are some of my frustrations.

Most sellers either have never heard of it or don't know much about it

Some don't know how to find the "option" to turn it off. Most also don't even realize it is enabled on their auctions and what that really means. The majority of things I buy from eBay are one-offs from sellers that don't have huge volumes. The GSP is a waste of my time because I have to explain to the seller and ask them if they would ship direct. In almost all cases these are sellers who would otherwise be glad to ship direct to you if you asked them but can't because eBay has auto-magically enrolled them into the GSP. I've even come across a seller who said "no problem if you bid on it and win I'll ship to you directly" and then I have to explain how with the GSP that is not possible. In the odd case I get the sense that the seller thinks eBay knows what's best for them and so clearly it's GSP all the way for them even if they don't know anything about it. The GSP is a convoluted and expensive system that sellers don't understand.

The GSP can't stand on its own merits
The option "Offer the Global Shipping Program" would be more appropriately called "Force the Global Shipping Program." It is not an offer it is a permanent binding to auctions once someone places a bid or if it is a BIN auction. If it were an offer they would provide the buyer a choice (the seller still having complete control) to choose the GSP as an alternate shipping method. But no informed buyers who know anything about their local customs or how the system works would choose it. So the program has to be forced onto auctions with sellers usually unaware that eBay has auto-magically enrolled them. With a non-GSP auction the seller and buyer can agree on a shipping method and the seller can even adjust the invoice after the auction has been once. Trying to race to both explain and get the seller to remove GSP before the first bid is a barrier to buying and with a BIN it is a lost sale.

Practically useless tracking system
The tracking number eBay provides is not a real tracking number with a real carrier. I cannot go for example to the Royal Mail or DHL websites and enter it in and track my shipment. Both Royal Mail and DHL Global (not DHL Express) hand off to Canada Post and in the case of DHL they even provide the Canada Post tracking number. With GSP the tracking number is nonsense. I've been pointed to some random websites that look like they have been put together by some 5 year kid that say my package is on some flight #. Great and it stays on that plane for a week and half? Royal Mail and DHL (both Express and Global) provide real tracking. GSP tracking is a total joke and is more expensive compared to at least Royal Mail tracking services.

Privacy and opening packages
The CBSA has the right to open everything. Of the few hundred packages I've received abroad, less than a handful have been opened by the CBSA. However, with the GSP Pitney Bowes has opened everything (3 or so packages) of mine and I've heard they open everything to check the contents and potentially repackage. And they put their GSP sticker on it. This makes me angry because as a commercial entity Pitney Bowes (just like eBay) can define whatever privacy policy suits them. The CBSA is a part of the Canadian government and their privacy polices are defined as such. Further unless the seller includes the eBay invoice in it, the CBSA has no reference to the actual auction or my eBay username or phone number. What's one more commercial company collecting information about you and your purchases? Well that argument is a slippery slope and I have an issue with it because Pitney Bowes and the GSP are not necessary.

Get a refund for Pitney Bowes import charges?
I have filled out casual refund requests many times with the CBSA and gotten refunds everytime. All you have to do is provide your invoice and supporting documentation and I go a step further and provide references to the CBSA tariff schedule document. The refund cheque usually arrives in the mail about three weeks later. And there is a real number you can actually call and talk to a real person at the CBSA if needed. With Pitney Bowes you cannot contest import charges because you don't need know how the item was classified and I've heard you can't even contact them. I've only heard horror stories from people trying to get refunds from Pitney Bowes for things like damaged goods or having to send an item back.

Can't combine shipping
There is no technical or business reason for this. It's not hard it's Pitney Bowes software running on eBay's servers surely they are integrated enough by now that this would be easy to do.

The GSP is an automated system based on an incredibly outdated Canada customs regime
I really hope the U.S. increases their de minimus to $800 U.S. because that will really make Canada's $20 CDN de minimus a joke worldwide and an impediment to international trade. I'm hoping this will result in the U.S. government putting even more pressure on the Canadian government. A $20 CDN de minimus is a waste of government money and diverts resources away from important things such stopping illegal goods, counterfeit goods, and other criminal activities. And what is eBay doing here, first they suggest it should be $200 then they backtrack a year or so later and say it should be $80? To me this is indicative that eBay has no idea of the impact of this value and is just grasping at straws trying to see if something will stick.

Further 18% duty on most clothes and shoes is insanity; who manufacturers for example shoes anymore in Canada? $20 CDN and 18% duty is the law, fine OK, but when customs is a hit-and-miss in Canada I'm going to go through the CBSA not Pitney Bowes. In the past I have received many packages worth hundreds (and one even nearly $1000) pass through the CBSA with no fees whatsoever. The fact that it is usually a hit-and-miss with Canada customs is strong evidence that the system and de minimus value doesn't work.

The GSP plays on ignorance and fear
Postal systems such as Royal Mail, USPS, and Canada Post have been in place for hundreds of years. eBay's GSP does not solve any postal issues. Mail still has the potential to go "lost." Contrary to what eBay's GSP implies, it's not that hard for a seller to offer an international tracked and signed service. That is what the post office is for and they will give you the form to fill out. Understandably that importing or shipping certain things may have special regulations or restrictions (like lithium batteries), but for buyers that know what they want and know their local customs laws this is neither complicated nor an issue.

In terms of postage costs it can vary but again for buyers that know what they want and have some experience it is very simple to sort out. I always make sure to cover my seller's costs. It's fine if a seller has fears about shipping things outside based on their past experiences but I'm not talking about these sellers. For a lot of the sellers I've bought from the sale is a one-off and most of them have not shipped outside before. In all the years I've been on eBay with different accounts I've been ripped off 4 times (in addition to one lost in the mail) and all these cases were very clear cut ripoffs so it goes both ways it isn't just buyers ripping off sellers. I appreciate that it is a bit more work for a seller to ship outside their country and if the seller is nice enough I just let it go because I only spend as much as I'm willing to lose anyway.

lucitabby · ‎01-30-2016

Yes but you should post this on the ebay.com boards so the USA sellers see it.

You are preaching to the choir here on the eBay.ca member forums.

pjcdn2005 · ‎01-31-2016

Well written and I agree with much of what you said. I do want to mention that to receive combined shipping with the gsp you have to use the cart and the shipping and import charges will automatically be adjusted.

marnotom! · ‎01-31-2016

@winepress780 wrote:

The GSP is an automated system based on an incredibly outdated Canada customs regime
I really hope the U.S. increases their de minimus to $800 U.S. because that will really make Canada's $20 CDN de minimus a joke worldwide and an impediment to international trade. I'm hoping this will result in the U.S. government putting even more pressure on the Canadian government. A $20 CDN de minimus is a waste of government money and diverts resources away from important things such stopping illegal goods, counterfeit goods, and other criminal activities. And what is eBay doing here, first they suggest it should be $200 then they backtrack a year or so later and say it should be $80? To me this is indicative that eBay has no idea of the impact of this value and is just grasping at straws trying to see if something will stick.

You might find this article interesting:

http://blog.taxjar.com/use-tax-definition/

arnym35 · ‎04-22-2016

@marnotom!

The "Use tax" is defined for items sold and shipped within the same country like USA without charging a buyer an appropriate tax. But it has nothing to do with international trade and relevant "duties and taxes" assumed due in the country of destination. AFAIK, no-one in the US can demand from seller to pay locally to a US State or IRS the "use tax" for items shipped abroad, and there are no export tariffs (for majority of consumer products or at all).

In fact, I doubt that Ebay USA transfers all money collected as "duties and taxes" straight to foreign governments. The reason is, in some countries like Canada local tariff and duty free threshold is so outdated, the government allows local Customs and Post to charge it selectively based on for example Canada 's obligations on duty free harmonized with USA tariffs under NAFTA , and also making sure the duty collected is higher than the cost of collecting it through all delivery chain, including higher rate of refund processing and returns. This results in actual duty free threshold being in practice mostly harmonized with USA, when Canada Post is the carrier. But when private companies like Ebay are middleman hiring contractors like Pitney Bows and those hiring subcontractors like CanPar, they charge fully the "outdated" fees from the buyer, and then may or may not transfer to foreign state full or part of that fee matching local practices of Canada Post.

How do we know that fees from absurd thresholds we pay taxes from on Ebay are in fact transferred in full to Canada Revenue Agency? If Government of Canada elected to not enforce these thresholds at home due to them being obsolete and costly to enforce, the chance they will demand to enforce the same thresholds from sellers abroad and sue sellers like Ebay for non-collecting them is none, because Ebay lawyers would say: "you don't comply with these thresholds at home, why do you ask us to comply with them abroad? Its unfair!"

You would be surprised to learn, Pitney Bows do not collect these charges, and neither knows what was changed. They're collected solely by Ebay. And we simply don't know, what share of that revenue is actually transfered to Canada, and what is pocketed by Ebay.

pierrelebel · ‎04-22-2016

' what is pocketed by Ebay.'

Your post assumes eBay is a crook, stealing from our government.

As such, if you really believe it, why do you do business here? Why deal with a crook?

If I know someone is a crook (stealing from the government) I do not do business with them. Why do you?

Reality is simple: consumption taxes are collected by Pitney-Bowes (a public company with capitalization in excess of US$4,000,000,000), paid through PayPal and remitted by PB or its agent to the Canadian government. End of story.

All those conspiracy theories are plain nonsense.

maggiebvintage2010 · ‎04-22-2016

Do you have any factual examples to back up your assertions in paragraphs #2-4?

What does this mean? - "The reason is, in some countries like Canada local tariff and duty free threshold is so outdated, the government allows local Customs and Post to charge it selectively based on for example Canada 's obligations on duty free harmonized with USA tariffs under NAFTA , and also making sure the duty collected is higher than the cost of collecting it through all delivery chain, including higher rate of refund processing and returns."

marnotom! · ‎04-22-2016

@arnym35 wrote:

@marnotom!

The "Use tax" is defined for items sold and shipped within the same country like USA without charging a buyer an appropriate tax. But it has nothing to do with international trade and relevant "duties and taxes" assumed due in the country of destination. AFAIK, no-one in the US can demand from seller to pay locally to a US State or IRS the "use tax" for items shipped abroad, and there are no export tariffs (for majority of consumer products or at all).

"Use tax" in the United States applies to out of state purchases, which means it applies to purchases made from vendors originating outside of the country as well.

Yes, the collection mechanism of those taxes is different because these are state taxes, not federal ones like the GST/HST. That's not really my point, though.

@arnym35 wrote:

You would be surprised to learn, Pitney Bows do not collect these charges, and neither knows what was changed. They're collected solely by Ebay. And we simply don't know, what share of that revenue is actually transfered to Canada, and what is pocketed by Ebay.

I'm not surprised in the least. I read the GSP terms and conditions for buyers a while back and those T&C do state that Pitney Bowes acts as an agent for the importer of an item forwarded through the program. This means that part of what PB is actually charging in the "import charges" is a reimbursement of taxes (and duties) that PB is on record as paying to the feds.

I don't believe eBay collects or pockets anything in a GSP sale with the possible exception of a small "referral fee".

marnotom! · ‎04-22-2016

@maggiebvintage2010 wrote:

What does this mean? - "The reason is, in some countries like Canada local tariff and duty free threshold is so outdated, the government allows local Customs and Post to charge it selectively based on for example Canada 's obligations on duty free harmonized with USA tariffs under NAFTA , and also making sure the duty collected is higher than the cost of collecting it through all delivery chain, including higher rate of refund processing and returns."

I think more simply stated, it just means that the duty/tax-free threshold for a "casual postal import" is so low that Canada Border Services hasn't seen much point in assessing and charging for taxes/duty owed for low-ticket items for several years now.

I do have to wonder what the poster feels an acceptable threshold would be, though. Right now, I'm looking at getting a part for my refrigerator. Why should purchasing it through my local appliance parts dealer see me hit with a charge for taxes, while buying it by mail from a seller outside of Canada not see a potential tax charge?

femmefan1946 · ‎04-23-2016

That's the first reason I've seen for raising the duty-free limit I've seen that actually benefits the Canadian retailer.

Raising the limit would make it worth while buying from the local guy, who pays local business taxes and employs local workers, because the smaller difference in import fees would balance out the wait for the purchase, and the possiblity of getting the wrong or non-functional part.

marnotom! · ‎04-23-2016

@femmefan1946 wrote:

That's the first reason I've seen for raising the duty-free limit I've seen that actually benefits the Canadian retailer.

Raising the limit would make it worth while buying from the local guy, who pays local business taxes and employs local workers, because the smaller difference in import fees would balance out the wait for the purchase, and the possibility of getting the wrong or non-functional part.

Would you be able to elaborate on this, FF? I'm not sure I'm on your wavelength.

Presently, a purchase from a local retailer results in the consumer paying GST/HST/PST on their purchase as well as one ordered by mail (or similar carrier) from the States, at least in theory. The retailer pays those taxes on the same item but can (usually) claim Input Tax Credits and similar (for provinces with PST) on the item sold to the consumer.

With a higher tax/duty-free limit, the scenario with the local retailer is the same except that the retailer may not need to claim ITC on the resold item. With a higher tax/duty free limit, the consumer would still be paying taxes on the item from the local retailer (although the purchase price could be a little lower depending on how the retailer accounts for taxes in their mark-up) but not from the item ordered by mail from the U S of A. However, the consumer would definitely not be paying tax/duty on a mail-order (or equivalent) item originating from outside of Canada.

pierrelebel · ‎04-23-2016

"With a higher tax/duty-free limit, the scenario with the local retailer is the same "

Not quite.

Multiply that one transaction by one million (one for every thirty-six persons in Canada)

This means that retailers lose one million transactions. It also means a lot of Canadian workers employed by retailers would lose their jobs.

Why? So a few Canadians can shop online from the USA to avoid paying consumption taxes?

Where do the hundreds of millions - sorry billions - raised through GST/HSP go to? Education? Health care? Seniors assistance?

If the taxes are not raised on those imported products who will pay the taxes? They have to come from somewhere.

Minimizing taxes paid by Canadian consumers through higher exemptions may sound like a good idea for buyers but.... when you think about it... is it?

I say no.

marnotom! · ‎04-23-2016

@pierrelebel wrote:

Not quite.

The more work I put into tightening and clarifying my writing, the more my posts seem to be getting misunderstood.

Changing the tax/duty-free limit on casual postal imports will not have any bearing on consumers having to pay GST/HST/PST on a purchase from a local retailer. I was comparing the present tax/duty-free limit on casual postal imports versus a higher tax/duty-free limit on same and how this would affect the price paid for local purchases, which would be pretty much nil.

For what it's worth, I ordered my refrigerator part from my local appliance parts supply and repair shop today. In addition to supporting local business, the promised turnaround time was much faster than if I'd ordered the part online.

00nevermind00 · ‎04-23-2016

@pierrelebel wrote:
"With a higher tax/duty-free limit, the scenario with the local retailer is the same "

Not quite.

Multiply that one transaction by one million (one for every thirty-six persons in Canada)

This means that retailers lose one million transactions. It also means a lot of Canadian workers employed by retailers would lose their jobs.

Why? So a few Canadians can shop online from the USA to avoid paying consumption taxes?

Where do the hundreds of millions - sorry billions - raised through GST/HSP go to? Education? Health care? Seniors assistance?

If the taxes are not raised on those imported products who will pay the taxes? They have to come from somewhere.

Minimizing taxes paid by Canadian consumers through higher exemptions may sound like a good idea for buyers but.... when you think about it... is it?

I say no.

As someone who spent many years in the retail business, I see your point. However, the $20 limit is so ludicrously low that it is unenforceable. The backlog would simply be horrendous, not to mention that the customs agents also have other duties to fulfill besides assessing packages for taxes.

While looking for something to reply to another post in this thread, I found this article, which you may find of interest. It dates back to the fall of 2014, but I think that the points made are still valid.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canadians-are-burdened-with-antiquated-customes-paperwo...

pierrelebel · ‎04-23-2016

"the $20 limit is so ludicrously low that it is unenforceable."

Yes, enforcement or lack thereof is a problem.

marnotom! · ‎04-24-2016

@00nevermind00 wrote:

While looking for something to reply to another post in this thread, I found this article, which you may find of interest. It dates back to the fall of 2014, but I think that the points made are still valid.

Did you notice who wrote the article?

billybishop72 · ‎04-24-2016

"the $20 limit is so ludicrously low that it is unenforceable."

Yes, enforcement or lack thereof is a problem.

__________________________________________________________

...actually, lack of enforcement has never been a problem.... 😉

I nominate the first message in this thread as 'Post of The Year'...

pierrelebel · ‎04-24-2016

"...lack of enforcement has never been a problem..."

It depends on your perspective. As a Canadian taxpayer I have to pay more taxes to make up for the tens of millions of dollars of consumption taxes (GST/HST) not collected at time of Customs clearance.

As a buyer importing an item on which taxes are not collected, one avoids paying a few dollars.

I would much prefer the rules being the same and enforced the same way for all Canadians.

billybishop72 · ‎04-24-2016

Wow, Pierre...I didn't realize you personally 'make up for the tens of millions of dollars of consumption taxes'...You need a better tax accountant.... 🙂