Ditto, I always select USPS from the States and have never been ripped off doing that, and the service isn't too bad either, just a bit slower.
Likewise. My experience has been that EMS and USPS are frequently the least likely to attract extra fees, or even attract duty and VAT at all. UPS, FedEx etc will pretty much always charge a fee plus duty and VAT, and I'm of the view that it is a deliberate policy to increase their profits.
I'm interested by what morphix has posted. AFAICS from a cursory look there is no law that gives these companies any lawful right to charge for paying duty and VAT on your behalf, other than normal contract law. As morphix correctly points out, in the majority of cases you will have made no contract with them, either explicit of implicit, therefore you only need to pay these charges if you have agreed to in advance. In the case of FedEx (and maybe others who habitually give no warning of impending charges) then you are under no obligation to pay their "handling fee" at all. You are also under no legal obligation to tell them in advance that you will not pay their handling fee, again as you have no contract with them.
To have a contract with anyone under the law of England and Wales you need three things between the parties, an offer, the acceptance of that offer and the exchange of a consideration. It doesn't need to be in writing, but all three of the above conditions need to be satisfied for any contract to be legally binding. In this case there is no offer from the courier, and unless you agree with their request there is no acceptance, so even though there is the exchange of a consideration (they have performed a service on your behalf by paying the duty and VAT) then no contract exists.
The courier company could argue that, by accepting delivery from them, you have agreed to their terms and conditions, which will almost certainly include mention of the fees for customs clearance. However, for that argument to stand up legally, the courier company would have to provide evidence that:
1) You were aware in advance that they were the courier company delivering the package.
2) That it is reasonable to assume that a person who is not a customer of their company should know and understand the terms and conditions that they use.
I believe that either of these tests could easily fail in court, especially for someone who does not regularly receive packages from overseas. Many people receiving deliveries are unaware of the identity of the courier company delivering the item, and also the reasonableness test would be likely to fail, in that most people (and this is that good old "man on the Clapham omnibus" legal test) would probably think it unreasonable that the recipient of a package from an unknown courier should be aware, in advance, of the detailed terms and conditions of that courier as they relate to making charges for customs clearance.
The flip side is that if you regularly receive packages from couriers who charge fees, then the courts may well take the view that a contract does exist, in that you could be viewed as having been aware that the offer was implicit (as part of the Ts & Cs) in the use of that courier and that your receipt of the package constituted acceptance on your part of that offer.
