And therein lies the problem (and source of the argument between APHIS and the USPS). It is ridiculous (in English) to use the words "redirect to the addressees, and return to the mail for delivery" after being inspected if the inspectors ARE the true addressees. It is clear that the intent of the rule is that it be done just as the Australians do it: No additional postage charge. But because APHIS wants to insure that all packages that require their inspection always be delivered to them they didn't want the real recipients' address on the outside of the package. Which I bet according to some international postal agreement or treaty is why the USPS is balking at continuing delivery to an addressee that wasn't indicated on the outside of the package from the start. I've actually had a couple of packages that came to me that had both my address and the green and yellow label on the packages. I can't tell for sure, but it appears that the USPS ignored the address on the label and just shipped them directly to me. I think this is what APHIS fears will happen too often if any other address is on the outside of the package. So really it is the USPS's incompetence that APHIS fears, IMO. I suspect that the Australians are much more competent with respect to diverting incoming packages for proper inspections than we are. --Lee Poulsen Pasadena, California, USDA Zone 10a On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Mark Mazer wrote: > Unfortunately, it is quite clear that the ADDRESSEE is the APHIS > station as listed on the face of the green and yellow shipping label > supplied by USDA. Per the permit instructions on the back of the > labels, the CONSIGNEE address is to be placed WITHIN the package. The > postal service has fulfilled it's obligation delivering to APHIS. We > need to arrange with APHIS the final leg of the journey. I repeat, it > seems to me to be prudent to contact the relevant APHIS agent to > coordinate the delivery from APHIS to CONSIGNEE. This may not have > been the intent of the legislation, but it looks like we are stuck > with it for now. > > Mark > >> Article 722.12 says,with reference to packets of seed that has been >> inspected or passed, that it shall be "...redirected to the >> addressees, and >> returrned to the mail for delivery." This is quite clear, has not >> changed >> in recent years. > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >