An Post returning packages from outside the EU-See 1st post

Ok, I think I've fallen foul of all this.

Was waiting in something from Ebay UK - a tracksuit top - and Ebay now arranges postage, VAT, Duty etc.

Just checked An Post tracking there after seeing this thread and it says - 2nd Spetember received Dublin Mail Centre. Then 10th We could not deliver your post. We wil try return it to sender. Athlone Mail Centre

So that's pretty much customs I'd guess? So now what, wait for seller to get in touch and see what went wrong?

How do you know AN post didn't communicate the required information to their customers(overseas Postal operators) and that the overseas operators ignored them and sent forward packages with the wrong details anyway..

The carbon foot print of sending small packages/parcels and other volumetric cargo back to origin is neglible as it makes space of belly cargo space that would likely otherwise be empty anyway..

The solution, and what people in this thread should be pushing for is to "swim with the tide" and work with what An Post are trying to achieve rather than just complaining or wasting their time.. The more people push back on overseas sellers and highlight to them that the non-delivery is in fact their issue and that they need to follow up/put pressure on the local postal carriers to fix the issue, the quicker it gets resolved.. Complaining to An Post customer service or paying sellers to re-post something that they never delivered in the first place will achieve nothing.. Political pressure is unlikely to either, as I would imagine An Post have a solid business case for how they are handling this one

Yes most likely.. but the alternative is a broken Postal system that will be over whelmed with parcels missing information.. That or hiring large numbers of staff to deal with the admin nightmare, which would not be viable and certainly not for €3.50 a pop

This is the point. We don't know what's happened here. The communications from An Post are laconic and uninsightful. If we are expected to be the agents of change then arm us accordingly with clear expectations as to what we should be doing and the absolute basic baby steps to be able to articulate to merchants what they need to be doing in full knowledge that there will be significant language barriers. An Post could hold their hands up, acknowledge the difficulty, express empathy, ask us to row in with them if this is what they want. This is a matter of public interest as opposed to seeking business sensitive knowledge from a private company in a competitive sector. This needs to be discussed more openly.

The average parcel is about 1kg or 1.5kg, so essentially meaningless in any fuel burn calculation for a modern aircraft.. The aircraft is still going to fly whether and Post have 100kgs or 1000kgs of mail to load on board.. You could just as equally argue brining a packed lunch onboard instead of waiting till you arrive to eat is bad for the environment..

So in this discussion the carbon footprint isn't really a factor..

Andrew, are you privy to the volumes being sent back? How do you know it's of negligible quantity? Are the parcels being returned at the rate in which they're being marked for return or is the pile stacking?

Meaningless on the aircraft maybe but transporting them to/from the airport, to/from the sorting offices multiple times, to/from customs etc. adds up.

Didnt they already cause upset with their post pointing at small UK businesses not knowing how to mark packages or something?

Edit with link

https://twitter.com/LullabyLaneBaby/status/1435623274684338176?s=20

That's is such a nonsense:

Internet shoppers are hardly the best placed group to take the moral high ground on the environment.

Cool. We'll not consider the environmental impact of any other action because people shop online. Do you have any particular dog in this fight or any undeclared vested interest?

Explain to me the difference in carbon footprint between me buying something online and me driving to the shop to buy the same thing, and none of these nonsense 'studies', which are the new economics.

I don't like the suggestion of putting the pressure on the senders. It's sounds like advising people on how to avoid angering an abusive partner. "I don't know what is setting him off, but just avoid angering him and we will be okay. It's not his fault, you just didn't make it the way he likes it. I don't know how he likes it, but you must be doing it wrong..."

It also doesn't make sense for us to put pressure on senders. An Post need to clarify what exactly is going wrong. No vague comments about electronic data or wrong labels, I want it spelled out what exactly the error looks like. Nothing seems to have changed with regards to sending to other EU countries. While An Post's advise to us is vague, senders don't get any advice! just a sticker saying rejected or requires CN23 (when it doesn't). That CN23 debacle is interesting too, it feels like An Post are upgrading to a new label processing system before the rest of the world.

Other countries don't seem to be rejecting mail at the same rate (if at all) like Ireland. The VAT regulation might be new, but the process isn't. If anything, this could be an indication of how lacks Ireland was when processing VAT and imports before the new regulations were introduced.

I said in an earlier page, I had four packages from the same sender sent within the same month (August). This month they arrived into Ireland. Week after week, I saw three of the packages be returned. But the fourth package arrived yesterday just fine, I was emailed to pay fees and I promptly did, regardless of my fear of the package still being returned after being paid (I hope the abusive partner analogy is sinking in). It's already been suggested that the electronic data must have been correct on that one. I doubt that in the space of four weeks, the sender or Japan Post had an epiphany and filled in that data correctly but not for the others.

I also mentioned in an earlier page that I emailed an international mail forwarding service in Japan. Even they have noticed Ireland is the problem country.

There are some people coming in here defending An Post, and I wonder if you are reading the previous posts. This isn't a case of inexperienced senders making glaring obvious mistakes (if only it was, then senders wouldn't repeat the error while attempting to resend the package).

Regarding your last paragraph, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what onus exists on the exporter. Is it up to the courier/postal carrier to complete the electronic CN22/CN23 and provide the TARIC? Is the onus on the exporter to ensure the carrier/courier is familiar with these things? Or does a person walk into the post office and say "CN22 please" and ensure they put the TARIC code in? What are the parties of sender and receiver exactly supposed to do on a step by step basis? I've seen multiple people ask on this thread where can they find a CN22, how to input an electronic CN22, or what they're supposed to tell the exporter and I don't know if I am missing something but I've not noticed this explained clearly.