zW2Ig~~60_7.JPG "brandeentertainment"){kind=avatar}
http://www.dutycalculator.com/Hscodes/hs-code-for-fabric-italian/
15.5% duty (in addition to taxes)
Now, I specifically used the term "Italian Fabric" based on your earlier post.
Even if the seller showed USA as country of origin but the description showed "Italian fabric" I suspect whoever calculated the duty decided 15.5% was the correct assessment.
Unfortunately, the online free duty calculator only gives you 3 free visits before you need to pay for the service.
Duty rates (other than from the USA) are complicated, more so when textile is involved, as sometimes the rate depends on the nature of the finished product, sometimes the content (type of fabric). And the rules change constantly.
If one could use unlimited time to narrow down exactly what the product is, it would be a fun thing to do. However, whoever has to asses the correct rate of duty (if applicable) must rely on the very limited information supplied by the seller and/or a visible inspection of the item.
I vaguely remember the "good old days" back in the 60's when I was involved daily with import and duty rate calculations. Some stuff is weird. For example, most imports used in schools were exempt of duty if purchased directly by a school board or through a supplier with a certificate of purchase from the school board. However, if a third party purchased the goods for eventual resale to the school board, duty had to be paid. Same item - same end user - different rates depending how the transaction was constructed.
It is a bit like the nonsense with HST/GST. If you buy one donut at Tim Hortons, you pay HST; if you buy a dozen you do not (exempt as grocery item!). Logical? When dealing with taxes, you can expect anything but logic!
"that was before the GST, so = completely tax free"
You really think so?
The government fooled you. The price included 12% FST (federal sales tax). The manufacturer sales tax was hidden from the consumers. It also applied to all taxable imports based on the import cost (FOB before shipping).
That was one of the big battles in 1990 to have the GST visible or hidden?
Mulroney eventually decided to let each merchant decide. You may recall those blue signs at the checkout. They stated whether the 7% GST was included or extra.
Most large retailers decided to charge extra except Woolco who absorbed the tax in the price. Four years later Woolco was out of business, selling its location to WalMart.
"That manufacturer's sales tax was applied to a "wholesale " price"
That was the unfairness of the old federal (or Manufacturer) Sales Tax (FST).
It applied on the selling price of the Canadian manufacturer or the purchase price of the importer. The end result was that more tax dollars were in fact paid by the Canadian manufacturer than the same item manufactured overseas since the Canadian manufacturer had to pay FST on his overhead factors and profit (included in the selling price) while the importer was paying FST based on the purchase price in the country of origin (before shipping charge).
GST changed that since the tax - at a lower rate - is paid by the final consumer.
"I don't recall any federal politician explaining the situation as succinctly as you just have. "
Back in the late 80's, I had recently sold our distribution business and, having time to spare, was working with a firm of CAs doing bookkeeping and tax preparation for small businesses. Under their umbrella I joined the Canadian Tax Foundation who was involved at the time in developing what would eventually become the GST. I attended several meetings and work sessions giving me some insight into how the tax was born.
My best recollection - that was twenty-five years ago - were two important discussions:
1) should the tax be hidden from the consumers like the old FST was and like the VAT in Europe where consumers pay the sticker price while the merchants do the tax bookkeeping or should the new tax be visible. The political decision was to let consumers see the tax.
2) on the basis of having a new national consumption tax which would be "revenue neutral" at the beginning, should the rate be relatively high like the old FST (12%) by having many exemptions, be lower at 9% (that is the original rate for GST before the political decision was made to go at 7%) or - my personal preference - have a very low rate (2% for example) with no exception whatsoever (that meant taxing milk, basic food, rent, prescriptions, etc...). The advantage of a low rate: easy to administer and eliminating the incentives to cheat (black market and underground economy). However, politicians made the decision. They did not have the stomach for it.
Boy oh boy, that was a trip back memory lane....
Some background found on the Internet:
"In 1989, the Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney proposed the creation of a national sales tax of 9%. At this time, every province in Canada except Alberta already had its own provincial sales tax imposed at the retail level."
The Liberal-dominated Senate refused to pass the tax into law. In an unprecedented move to break the deadlock, Mulroney used a little-known constitutional provision to increase the number of senators by eight temporarily, thus giving the Progressive Conservatives a majority in the upper chamber. In response, the Opposition launched a filibuster and further delayed the legislation.
Despite the tax being lowered to 7% by the time it became enacted, it remained controversial. What the tax covered also caused anger. The Government defended the tax as a replacement for a tax unseen by consumers because it was placed on manufacturers, and in the long run it was posited that removing the MST would make Canada more competitive. Once the MST was replaced with the GST prices did not initially fall by the level some thought appropriate immediately; however, proponents have argued that in Canada's market economy the MST's replacement could only be expected to influence prices over time and not on a stroke.
Despite the opposition, the tax came into force on January 1, 1991.
