Imported goods UKBF international negotiation recycling dangerous goods *THIS IMAGE IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY In this feature Averting a chainsaw massacre Preventing 1,000 dangerous tools from reaching EU consumers presented a significant challenge for Kent Trading Standards officers, as Lisa-Anne Judd recounts D ealing with the import of chainsaws may be routine for many trading standards departments. However, when UK Border Force (UKBF) ofcers at Folkestone stopped a consignment of chainsaws at the end of June, it was a completely new challenge for ofcers at Kent Trading Standards (Kent TS). For me, it was not just the rst chainsaw case Id dealt with but, as a trainee trading standards ofcer (TSO), it was the very rst customs case Id taken on. EXPERT OPINION After conversations with the HSE, the test report we received showed that, although the product had been tested to EN ISO 11681-1: Portable chainsaw safety requirements and testing Part 1: Chainsaws for forest service, it had not been tested to Clause 4.5.2, the nonmanual chain break test, with the accompanying paperwork stating Stopped on entry that this test was non-applicable. Over the weekend, UKBF had informed the Kent TS out-ofHowever, this clause is a hours ofcer that it had stopped a lorry on entry into the UK, mandatory test within the on the basis that the products it contained looked of a poor standard. If not carried out, quality, and their packaging contained no English instructions. the product cannot conform Although the documentation accompanying the chainsaws to the standard, which the manufacturer of our chainsaws gave a UK address, UKBF investigations discovered that the claimed they were. whole consignment was due to be re-exported from the UK It was also identified that back into mainland Europe. Further cause for concern was the chainsaws were missing raised by a packing note accompanying the chainsaws on their declarations of conformity journey, stating that each box containing two chainsaws for outdoor noise and cost the importer US$3.90. exhaust emissions. The address on the paperwork listed an Ipswich-based This information gave us importer but, following further investigation, it transpired that grounds to suspect that the although the registered address of the company was in the UK, products waiting at Folkestone the company was being run from the USA and there was no were unsafe, so the remaining physical company presence in the UK. 499 boxes were seized. Furthermore, the directors rst language was Polish, which meant that any contact we had with him had to be followed up in writing to help with his understanding of the matter. After contacting the company, we were provided with documentation Further contact was made with the director of the import company primarily via email to accommodate time differences between the UK and the US explaining that expert testing had deemed the product to be unsafe, and detailing why it had failed. We also explained that we were looking to have the goods handed over to us so we could destroy them, ensuring that they would not make their way back onto the market. We considered having the goods seized under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 Accreditation and Market Surveillance, which relates to the marketing of products. A letter to the importer was drafted which explained this and the fact the importer would have to cover the financial cost of destroying the chainsaws. On reflection, we realised that asking the importer to do this may create a barrier between the two parties, with the potential to increase the costs incurred by both parties. So, to ensure a quick and efficient resolution, and mindful of the language barrier between us and the importer, a decision was taken that all further enforcement action would be taken under The General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Unsafe goods were successfully kept from the market and recycled relating to the goods, including a technical le and an (unsigned) declaration of conformity for the Directive 2006/42/EC on Machinery. We were told that the goods had been purchased in China and came into the UK via Hamburg, but were destined for an address in Poland. We decided we needed to examine the products to gain a better understanding of the issues and, after liaising with the importers agent in Folkestone, visited the site where the lorry had been stopped. There we found the lorry contained two models of chainsaws, so I seized a sample of each for further examination. For specialist local chainsaw knowledge, we contacted Suffolk Trading Standards and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), whose staff were keen to help our enquiries. Because of the Polish connection, the HSE warned its counterpart in Poland about the shipment, in a bid to stop other potentially unsafe consignments of these products entering the country. Ports project test funding We were able to secure funding from the National Trading Standards Board Ports Project to cover professional testing costs, so I sent off one of the chainsaw samples to see if it met international safety standard EN ISO 11681-1. The report showed that the equipment failed in a number of ways: Clause 5.2 indicated that the distance between the body and handle of the chainsaw was not large enough for the equipment to be gripped by a gloved hand; and Clause 5.11: Engine Stopping Device, found that the kill-switch did not cut the engine instantly. Instead, it took between three and ve seconds for the engine to stop, which was considered too long. When the importer eventually handed over the goods to Kent TS, we had to face our next challenge: to nd a way to have all the chainsaws destroyed. Help was at hand. After reading a press release we put out, a local charity Demelza Hospice Care for Children contacted the ofce saying it would be willing to take the chainsaws, dismantle them and recycle the components to raise funds for the charity. To date, Demelza has earned 1,100 from its recycling efforts, and the case has generated much media interest for both Kent TS and Demelza. One local newspaper ran the story under the headline: Kent Chainsaw Massacre narrowly averted! Although this was an expensive mistake to make for the importer, it proved to be not only a fundraising opportunity for a local charity, but also a valuable learning curve for Kent TS. For me, too, it was certainly a memorable rst customs case to take on, providing plenty of opportunities to learn new skills and liaise with a number of different external agencies. It was also satisfying on a personal level because, although at times I felt completely out of my depth, I managed to work the case through to a conclusion that protected consumers by ensuring unsafe goods did not nd their way onto the market. NEGOTIATING WITH THE IMPORTER Credits Published Lisa-Anne Judd is a trading standards Tuesday 27 January, 2015 ofcer for Kent Trading Standards. Images: Katarzyna Mazurowska / Shutterstock To share this page, click on in the toolbar