4 ms·

Summary: >Korea only acknowledges test results from the US-based BACL through an agreement with the United States

by passerby1 5y ago

passerby1 5y ago
It's interesting though how come the certs were fake ones. Is it possible the US lab outsourced the whole process?
- ZoF 5y ago
  It's in the article, the revoked approvals were not for 'fake' certificates, they were for valid certs from Chinese Bay Area Compliance Laboratories(BACL) offices. It's unclear the cause of this, one might infer it was US pressure to adhere to the agreement after finding non-compliance, alternatively it could be internally originated investigation.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    The reports were claimed to be from the US office but the the testing was done in China. So they were a kind of fake.
    - ratsmack 5y ago
      There's a big difference between fake and non-compliance with a specific countries laws.
      - antonzabirko 5y ago
        You realize that the Chinese ones are going to be much less stringent? Meaning that claiming it's to the level of the US reqs is misleading and basically faking the cert.
        hmry 5y ago
        > the Chinese ones are going to be much less stringent Hmm, what makes you think that? I didn't see any indication in the article that the Chinese branch was not testing to the standards of US certification.
        esyir 5y ago
        Because Chinese specs are notorious on letting irregularities slide. This is well known at this point. Your "hmm, why would you ever think that" is pretty sus.
      - 1ris 5y ago
        A certificate like this is a lot about trust. If the very first thing that it states, where the test have been conducted, you can't trust the rest, i.e. if the tests have been performed at all, or within the specification.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        Is there? The only fundemental difference is intent. The KCC said they did not make a determination of intent because it is irrelevant to the law that is being applied.
    - chmod775 5y ago
      > So they were a kind of fake. They were not. Not even "kind of". For them to be fake they'd need to be made out as something they are not[1]. The companies who acquired those certificates just weren't aware that certificates from that particular branch weren't permissible under SK rules - likely not even authorities in SK were aware until they had a closer look. As an analogy, a driver's license from one country may not allow you to drive a car in another, but that doesn't mean it's a fake license. [1] Edit: Some outlets claim there were fabricated test records, if that is true and not just journalists writing whatever, then they would be indeed fake.
  - extropy 5y ago
    Not even that, the certs where from California offices, just that the testing work was carried out in a China branch office. IMO this is a somewhat grey area. Not familiar with regulations around testing labs, but om the surface looks like an innocent cost optimization that someone decided to put some pressure on.
- bobthebuilders 5y ago
  Yes, read TFA
rguiscard 5y ago
Is it a monopoly in certification? Can South Korea certificate its own equipments?
- marcinzm 5y ago
  It's most likely much cheaper for companies to certify once for US+Korea than to have to do so separately for US and Korea. Given that Korea is a smaller nation it's a win for them in terms of imports.
- kijin 5y ago
  The language is a bit misleading. Korea acknowledges test results from dozens of domestic and foreign labs. Labs already certified by the US, Canada, or EU are covered by a blanket agreement with the respective jurisdictions, and BACL is one of them. This helps reduce friction when importing/exporting from/to these regions. But the blanket agreement doesn't cover China-based subsidiaries of US-based labs.
- unishark 5y ago
  Korea can accept whatever certifications it wants. This is Korea refusing to accept the test results performed at the China offices of a US company. "Korea only acknowledges test results from the US-based BACL through an agreement with the United States, and does not recognize tests by the organization’s Chinese offices, the ministry said."

Summary: >Korea only acknowledges test results from the US-based BACL through an agreement with the United States

passerby1 5y ago

It's interesting though how come the certs were fake ones. Is it possible the US lab outsourced the whole process?

ZoF 5y ago
It's in the article, the revoked approvals were not for 'fake' certificates, they were for valid certs from Chinese Bay Area Compliance Laboratories(BACL) offices. It's unclear the cause of this, one might infer it was US pressure to adhere to the agreement after finding non-compliance, alternatively it could be internally originated investigation.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  The reports were claimed to be from the US office but the the testing was done in China. So they were a kind of fake.
  - ratsmack 5y ago
    There's a big difference between fake and non-compliance with a specific countries laws.
    - antonzabirko 5y ago
      You realize that the Chinese ones are going to be much less stringent? Meaning that claiming it's to the level of the US reqs is misleading and basically faking the cert.
      - hmry 5y ago
        > the Chinese ones are going to be much less stringent Hmm, what makes you think that? I didn't see any indication in the article that the Chinese branch was not testing to the standards of US certification.
        esyir 5y ago
        Because Chinese specs are notorious on letting irregularities slide. This is well known at this point. Your "hmm, why would you ever think that" is pretty sus.
    - 1ris 5y ago
      A certificate like this is a lot about trust. If the very first thing that it states, where the test have been conducted, you can't trust the rest, i.e. if the tests have been performed at all, or within the specification.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      Is there? The only fundemental difference is intent. The KCC said they did not make a determination of intent because it is irrelevant to the law that is being applied.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    > So they were a kind of fake. They were not. Not even "kind of". For them to be fake they'd need to be made out as something they are not[1]. The companies who acquired those certificates just weren't aware that certificates from that particular branch weren't permissible under SK rules - likely not even authorities in SK were aware until they had a closer look. As an analogy, a driver's license from one country may not allow you to drive a car in another, but that doesn't mean it's a fake license. [1] Edit: Some outlets claim there were fabricated test records, if that is true and not just journalists writing whatever, then they would be indeed fake.
- extropy 5y ago
  Not even that, the certs where from California offices, just that the testing work was carried out in a China branch office. IMO this is a somewhat grey area. Not familiar with regulations around testing labs, but om the surface looks like an innocent cost optimization that someone decided to put some pressure on.
bobthebuilders 5y ago
Yes, read TFA

rguiscard 5y ago

Is it a monopoly in certification? Can South Korea certificate its own equipments?

marcinzm 5y ago
It's most likely much cheaper for companies to certify once for US+Korea than to have to do so separately for US and Korea. Given that Korea is a smaller nation it's a win for them in terms of imports.
kijin 5y ago
The language is a bit misleading. Korea acknowledges test results from dozens of domestic and foreign labs. Labs already certified by the US, Canada, or EU are covered by a blanket agreement with the respective jurisdictions, and BACL is one of them. This helps reduce friction when importing/exporting from/to these regions. But the blanket agreement doesn't cover China-based subsidiaries of US-based labs.
unishark 5y ago
Korea can accept whatever certifications it wants. This is Korea refusing to accept the test results performed at the China offices of a US company. "Korea only acknowledges test results from the US-based BACL through an agreement with the United States, and does not recognize tests by the organization’s Chinese offices, the ministry said."