Speaking as somebody that has been through not only the certification process for products that we manufacture and market, but also as someone who has been through the mill when prosecuted for non compliance under the EMC directive, I think i'm fairly well positioned in saying that:

Many people attach the CE mark without testing correctly or even understanding exactly what directives apply. They "get way with it" because they are not challenged.

You do need to test and you do need to understand which directives apply. You are accountable ( not the company, but the signatory on the compliance statement).

If you are supplying to a gov't agency or any client likely to carry out due dilligence, i.e any one that specifically asks for CE, be sure to ensure that you have thourougly researched the relevent directives.

(The same applies to RoHS)

I dont have it to hand, but if you PM me i'll point you to two excellent books that will spell it out for you. And if you like to call me, i'll explain what happenms when OfCom get wind of a non compliant product, via the local trading standards officer or by Govt agency.

Rememebr that in the UK failure to comply is a criminal office, with a penalty that can include not only a fine but also imprisonment.

A two year battle resulted in my name being cleared, the company receiving a fine and 15000 GBP in costs.

And that was related to failure to comply with the legislation on a product that was exempt form CE, under Functionality, use and End User.

There is also a case in the UK where a company building home PC's for retail sale, used all CE marked parts, but failed to test the fully built product. They assumed that by using CE marked parts they could CE mark the final product, without further testing. WRONG, resulted in 3 MONTHS prison sentence for the company director and a big fine.


My advice, dont take advise from non qualified peers, anecdotal evidence is no defence. If it all goes pear shaped, the court will not accept "so and so on the forum said it would be OK"

BUT, you are in the USA, yes? So the importer is the responsible party, and thats your client
------------------------------o0o---------------------------------
I just deleted a whole load of advsie that i'm pretty sure is correct, but i'm not qualified to give. (legal stuff, that i learned during our prosecution)

PM me or call me if you wish.


BTW, I learned so much during our prosecution, that ending up with a clear name and paying 15000 GBP, was actually well worth the money (when viewed in commercial terms), made loads of really good contacts, including those on the presecution team, who i'm still in touch with. Even went for a drink with one of them after the case.