Smuggled HCFC-22 foils ban on the refrigerant in the US

An article in the New York Times (September 9,2012) describes the smuggling into the US of HCFC-22, a refrigerant that the US has banned due to its link to global warming. As production of the product gets phased out, its prices increased in the US from $55 a canister to $140 a canister. But the refrigerant remained in abundant supply globally, thus providing an incentive to smugglers. It was either imported illegally from China, or imported by being falsely claimed to be recycled material from Wales, or re-imported back from shipments sent from the US to Mexico. How should enforcement of banned products be enforced in the US if the ban is not coordinated globally? Will monetary penalties charged to illegal providers increase or decrease the incentive for smugglers ? Should customers pay these penalties or distributors or manufacturers ? If manufacturers design products with the flexibility to fill refrigerant later, will such designs increase the opportunity to cheat and should they too be banned ?

About aviyer2010

This entry was posted in Global Contexts, Operations Management, Service Operations, Supply Chain Issues, Sustainability and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s