Mr.
Karl Spilhaus, President
6
Beacon Street, Suite 1125
Boston,
MA 02108
December 20, 2002
Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission
Room H-159
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20580
Textile
Corporate Leniency Comments
I write on behalf of the
Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute (CCMI), a not-for-profit trade
association incorporated in the state of New York. CCMI is made up of the most experienced luxury fiber manufacturers
in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.
CCMI supports leniency in
cases of self-reported minor and inadvertent violations of the Textile or Wool
Rules. We believe that such policy coupled with better enforcement of more
serious violators would help increase overall compliance with the rules. We do,
however, see serious problems with certain aspects of the proposed policy as
published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2002. We cannot support this
specific policy unless the provisions noted below are addressed in such a way
that the statutory mandate to protect consumers from textile labeling fraud is
satisfied.
--We believe that a large
percentage of the cases where the fiber content is not listed in order of
prominence are intentional. We particularly see this form of fraud committed by
entities trying to deceive consumers as to the prominence of cashmere or other
luxury fiber in a garment. The law requiring listing of fibers in order of
prominence is, we believe, an important consumer protection. We do not believe
that this sort of mislabeling should be eligible for leniency under the
proposed policy.
--We believe many companies
deliberately attempt to mislead consumers as to the country of origin of a
garment by circumventing the requirement that the country of origin be
permanently sewn into the neck of the garment. We do not believe that this sort
of mislabeling should be eligible for leniency under the proposed policy.
--The Textile Act has a
specific provision for tolerance of slight misstatement of fiber content. That
statutory allowance is three percent. We reject the Commission's proposal to
allow greater tolerance than that written into the law. If Congress had wanted
to give the Commission that authority it would have written it into the law. We
have found numerous cases of garments purporting to contain significant amounts
of cashmere or other luxury fibers but which, in fact contained none or only
trace amounts of those fibers. Especially in the case of luxury fibers, we
believe that even "minor" deviations from the stated amount harm the
consumer who has made a purchasing decision based on the purported fiber
content.
--We are troubled by item
number six in the proposed Textile Corporate Leniency Policy ("The
violations do not cause significant injury to consumers"). We find this
subjective criterion confusing on the face, and, in light of the examples we
point out above, contrary, in practice, to Congress's intent in passing the
Textile and Wool Acts to protect consumers.
Further, we strongly urge
the Commission not to extend this policy to catalog sales unless the policy is
first redrafted to reflect the even higher level of consumer protection
required in the case of paper or computer catalog sales where, as the
merchandise cannot be seen or touched, the vendor's representation is all that
the consumer has to rely on in making the purchasing decision.
Sincerely,
Karl
Spilhaus
President
KS/jl