this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025

241 points (99.6% liked)

Not The Onion

18468 readers

525 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

241

Gotta catch ’em all: Man under Customs probe for not declaring over $30k of Pokemon cards at airport (www.straitstimes.com)

submitted 1 week ago by thecaptaintrout@lemmy.zip to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/50962591

The Singapore Customs is investigating a case where a man entering Singapore did not declare that he was in possession of assorted Pokemon trading cards worth more than $30,000 in total.

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not that he's not reselling them, but paying a 9% tax for every single item you posses beyond $500 in value every time you cross the border is just absurd. Remind me to never take my laptop, phone, or a decent camera anywhere near Singapore.

All that aside, I thought the idea of customs and import duties was versus new items, not things that can be picked-up at a second-hand store or pawn shop. If he provided itemized receipts, would they even believe him if the prices weren't high-enough? ... or were "too old"?

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 35 points 1 week ago

I got a couple kidneys that are gonna ding me here.

Seriously, though, people regularly travel with luggage and watches and shoes worth more than $500. How are Pokemon cards any different?

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

paying a 9% tax for every single item you posses beyond $500 in value every time you cross the border is just absurd.

It would be if that were the case. What makes you think it is?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Probably the wording in the article that seems to say exactly that?

The Singapore Government’s Factually website states that all goods brought into Singapore are subject to goods and services tax, currently pegged at 9 per cent. However, travellers are granted GST import relief based on the duration of their trip.

Those who have been overseas for 48 hours or more are entitled to GST relief of up to $500. For trips under 48 hours, the value is capped at $100. The GST rate is currently pegged at 9 per cent.

These amounts apply to the total value of goods bought overseas, excluding liquor and tobacco. Any value above the relief limit is taxable, and travellers are required to declare it upon or prior to arrival.

Singapore work permit, employment pass, student pass, dependent pass or long-term pass holders, as well as crew, are not entitled to GST import relief.

The term goods isn't specified, but could easily be interpreted to mean absolutely anything they want potentially.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That seems fairly standard with most countries having something similar. From the SG govt website,

If you are a bona fide traveller (excluding holders of work permits, employment passes, student passes, dependent passes or long-term passes), you will be given GST relief on new articles, souvenirs, gifts and food preparations that you bring into Singapore which are for your personal use. The relief does not apply to intoxicating liquor and tobacco, as well as goods imported for commercial purposes.

I'm guessing this guy fell afoul of the 'commercial purposes' clause.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The word "new" makes this a very different rule.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I see what you're saying, but this is one of those things that the news article author (not the law) probably didn't notice because it just seems like such common knowledge. Used items are considered personal use items and would never be considered for taxing, only new items would be taxable.

Unless, of course, you're carrying 30k worth of pokemon cards.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's also interesting that the set of cards is considered a single item, unless again the rules as cited are still too arbitrarily worded.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The govt site does not say anything about single items, only the generic term 'goods' is used

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

i haven't looked closely, but i can see them applying the tax to the sum value of all goods brought in.

[–] Mondoshawan@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

These amounts apply to the total value of goods bought overseas, excluding liquor and tobacco. Any value above the relief limit is taxable, and travellers are required to declare it upon or prior to arrival.

Doesn't apply to everything you possess and traveled to and from with, only that which you've bought overseas and brought home

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read the article.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Article could be better written. The govt site is clear it's about new items.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

Thus the confusion in my first comment. Governments play at least as fast and loose with their own rules as this dude did, and you're right, its stupid the article doesn't mention it at all.

[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 week ago

Meanwhile billionaires dont pay shit.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

assorted Pokemon trading cards worth more than $30,000 in total

That's like, a single shiny Charizard according according to some kid I went to elementary school with like 3 decades ago...

[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Holy shit, $30,000 three decades ago is worth $63,774.80 today. Hope that kid held onto it. He'd be set for life.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago

That value is aftermarket resale. The cost of the cards is about 3.50, this seems bullshit, unless they guy had them insured.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago

Interesting. Apparently their status changed from collectibles to priceless antiques.