THE EDITOR, Sir:
REFERENCE IS made to the editorial of Tuesday, August 12, 2003, captioned 'Enforce the Laws'. The third paragraph says: "Last week the police in St. James stirred themselves to investigate the alleged illegal use of Bob Marley's image on souvenir items in the in-bond trade".
I state herewith that my association has thoroughly investigated the incident and categorically state that the persons who were charged are NOT in-bond merchants as they are not one of the 49 operators licensed as In-bond Merchants as required under the Customs Act of 1987. Nor are the alleged violators of the Copyright and Trademark Act members of the In-Bond Association or even operating stores that could be mistaken for an In-Bond store.
The way I understand it, the alleged merchants are operators of Souvenir Stores who sell casual items to the tourist or local trade. There are about 300 such stores in the five major resort areas including Kingston. Besides the legal distinction between an 'In-Bond Store' and a 'Souvenir Shop' there is a world of difference between the inventory carried by both. It is obvious, therefore, that your reporters are not informed about the In-Bond trade nor took the pains to determine the difference of pivotal elements of the Tourist Industry.
You should also be informed that In-Bond merchants are specifically licensed by the Customs Act of 1978 to sell ONLY designated items such as high-level jewellery and ceramics that are imported and registered under bond for resale to visitors. In-Bond merchants are not authorised to sell locally made goods within the same facility such as 'Tee Shirts' which would have been the item that carried the likeness of Bob Marley.
Moreover, In-Bond Stores are required by law to maintain prescribed 'In Bond Ledgers' that record goods sold. Tee Shirts, even those imported, is not one of the prescribed items. The Ledgers are monitored and periodically inspected by Custom Officers at random to ensure compliance. Indeed, I know of no recent case where a licensed In-Bond merchant has been found to be in breach of the customs or commercial infraction of any kind including the violation of the Copyright and Trademark Act.
Finally, it is not also in the commercial interest of bona fide in-bond merchants to depreciate the exquisite display of high-level brand-name jewellery or watch by hanging cheap items such as "Tee Shirts" in the same facility. Here again, your reporter does not understand the expensive layout that is placed in an in-bond store. Each In-Bond merchant is also licensed, inspected and vigorously monitored by the suppliers of the brand-name items the in-bond merchant sells. The retailing agreement prohibits the In-Bond Merchant from selling a wide variety of cheaper items even if imported under bond. Indeed, because of their vested interest, the suppliers have even greater interest in ensuring that the image of items costing thousands of US dollars each image is not devalued by the collateral display of "Tee Shirts".
In-Bond merchants pay high licensing fees to the government because they are an exclusive merchandising group who must maintain a high level of integrity with the international customers we serve. In doing so, we cannot afford, for instance, for the story published to become believed by the operators of the cruise lines, for example.
In view of the injustice and defamation meted out by your editorial I am requesting an appropriate retraction of the part of your editorial that identifies the perpetrators as "In Bond" merchants.
I am, etc.,
KUMAR J. SUJANANI
Ocho Rios
