The reason your Columbia shirt has a tiny pocket near your waistline (2019)

Of course the circumvention of the &quot;chicken tax&quot; is probably the most well-known example of tariff engineering:<p>&gt; Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as &quot;passenger vehicles&quot; by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts. The vehicles are exported from Turkey on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks at WWL&#x27;s Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. facility by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat belts. The removed parts are not shipped back to Turkey for reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio. The process exploits the loophole in the customs definition of a light truck; as cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of those items automatically qualifies the vehicle as a &quot;passenger vehicle&quot; and exempts the vehicle from &quot;light truck&quot; status. The process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saves thousands in taxes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated that between 2002 and 2018 the practice saved Ford $250 million in tariffs.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_tariff" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_...</a>

&gt; certain women’s garments with “pockets below the waist” get lower duty rates than those without. Because of that, a number of the women’s shirts Columbia Sportswear makes are intentionally designed with tiny pockets near the waistline, which lowers the cost of importing them.

I work in a different industry (but still manufacturing) and it&#x27;s mind boggling how much brain power and employee time is devoted to &quot;correctly&quot; interacting with the customs and importing system. I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if 30% to 40% of the total man hours at some companies are spent directly or indirectly related to the HTS system. This includes products built in North America - you still need to do a huge amount of accounting to show that you&#x27;re meeting [one of the] the definition[s] of substantial transformation.<p>I can&#x27;t really frame this as a global criticism either, the system has clearly evolved around the fact that importers of cheap overseas goods are constantly trying to game the rules to pay lower tariffs than competitors (see Ford with the Transit Connect).<p>The most frustrating part is political, and two parts:<p>* US politics have destabilized so much in the last decade that the rules are constantly changing, exceptions being granted and taken away, etc. This has dramatically increased the amount of brain share devoted to tariff engineering rather than product engineering.<p>* The tariff exclusion process (especially the recent Section 301 tariffs) is heavily lobbyist based. Small players are basically crushed while larger competitors are granted exclusions.

A bit related: In the early aughts we bought a Porsche 911, which had a ridiculously tiny back seat. According to the dealer, it existed because two-seaters were considered sports cars and were therefore costlier to ensure.<p>Worked out perfectly for us because our children were young, we lived at the beach, and driving them to school on the freeway was an absolute blast.

Even better is the shoes (like chucks) that have fuzzy soles to be classified as slippers.

This is the kind of stuff that goes on for decades without anyone batting an eye at it. I welcome the Department of Government Efficiency if it can read an article like this and take action on it to generate revenue that was accounted for in revenue projections and forgotten about when it came time to collect.

Does anyone have a picture of the pocket? The item linked from the article no longer exists.

Reminds me of the “Blues Smoke Detector” on Nathan For You: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8Nhn5n3eyhY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8Nhn5n3eyhY</a>

Government regulations are always going to be far behind clever people. It is better to reduce government regulations and use the courts to stop abuses.

This is stupid. The law shouldn’t be written in such a way that companies can exploit silly loopholes, nor should it be written in such a way that is so invasive to normal business operations.