←back to thread

639 points CTOSian | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
InitialLastName ◴[] No.45029930[source]
This whole tariff circus boils down to regulatory capture by manufacturers at the 10+-figure market cap scale. Olimex (and other small and medium businesses) can't reasonably be expected to calculate the exact material composition of their products (much less their suppliers' products); the only people who can are on the scale of Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and Google whose volumes can amortize the cost of doing so on a per-product basis (and who have probably already done that analysis as part of their process control).
replies(5): >>45029951 #>>45030069 #>>45030327 #>>45030606 #>>45031917 #
chrisco255 ◴[] No.45030606[source]
If only people had access to spreadsheet software and affordable desktop computers, they could easily do these calculations.
replies(2): >>45030720 #>>45030927 #
general1726 ◴[] No.45030720[source]
You know that you can't do it on your own, but you need to have certification for that?

> U.S. customs is demanding a Certificate of Analysis (which could cost thousands of dollars and to determine what exact amount of Aluminum, Copper and Steel are in the product), otherwise they assume the entire PCB consists of copper, aluminum, and steel, and charge a 100% tariff on the whole product.

replies(1): >>45031448 #
chrisco255 ◴[] No.45031448[source]
You can self certify unless it's a highly regulated import like pharma, food, or medical equipment.
replies(1): >>45031764 #
crote ◴[] No.45031764[source]
Self-certification generally doesn't mean simply saying "trust us, we won't lie to you". They still expect you to be able to hand over a bunch of laboratory reports proving that you have actually tested your stuff.

The main difference is that with self-certification they will accept reports from your own in-house laboratory, rather than demanding reports from an independent pre-vetted testing lab.

Same with paperwork: you can make your own rather than having it made by an independent auditor - but you better still be able to back it up!

replies(1): >>45032142 #
1. dgfitz ◴[] No.45032142{3}[source]
This seems… quite reasonable.