Comments on: BIS Goes After Shipping Clerk

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:01:45 +0000

Stephanie, if Mr. Ji was VP at UTI, then that would, of course, make BIS’s case stronger. But I can’t find any evidence that he was a VP. There is no mention that he held that capacity in the charging documents against him. You say that a quick review of the UTI case would reveal that but I can’t find Ji’s name in the UTI decision that I linked. I confirmed that using the search function of Acrobat, which doesn’t find Ji’s name there either.

I’m not saying that you might not be right. I do make mistakes. (Gasp!) But could you share with us more specifically where you found your evidence that Mr. Ji was a VP of UTI?

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:46:09 +0000

Although the detailed discussion above was interesting and entertaining, a quick review of the UTI case would indicate Mr Ji was VP at UTI … so I guess he was a bit more than a clerk.

By: Reverend Jaxon

Reverend Jaxon — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:11:05 +0000

We train our shipping clerks that they are personally liable for shipping items that go contrary to their training when a license is required.

Good for BIS!

By: hln

hln — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:15:23 +0000

I’ve been writing export software for about 7 years now. In regards to US regulations and documentation, I find it absolutely amazing that often I know far more about processes and requirements than the people who will be creating the documents using the software.

hln

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:18:26 +0000

Agreed, Ladyx. That is also a possible explanation here as well. But, we’ll never know with any certainty what exactly happened.

By: Ladyx

Ladyx — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:13:50 +0000

Unfortunately, I believe that there may be many “shipping” clerks out there who have some basic knowledge of the EAR and are not supported by management. In fear of losing their employment, these shipping clerks just “do as they are told”. My advice to those shipping clerks – get another job, as you are on the hook for signing the export documents.

ps/ Good detective work – imagine that, being debarred from commenting…gotta love it!

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:13:33 +0000

Charles, you both misspell my name and misconstrue my comments. And, readers, we've caught a sock puppet. It would appear that "Charles" and "Slinger" are one and the same person, since Charles/Slinger share the exact same IP address in Dallas/Fort Worth. Oh, and Charles/Slinger's employer is a pump and valve manufacturer which also just happens to be in Dallas/Fort Worth (well Irving, to be precise), which we also know from the IP Address of an earlier comment left while on his work computer. Since Charles is Slinger and vice versa, this explains, of course, why "Charles" comes rushing to Slinger's defense:

I believe Slinger’s comments are well founded. The lead-in to Charges 1-8 does state “with knowledge” as he/she argues.

The "he/she" bit is especially disingenuous. This sort of dishonesty is reason to be banned from commenting. Buh-bye.

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:43:38 +0000

Cliff:

Your outside lawyer bias betrays you! Such a conclusion is not “surprising” at all. My personal experience at 6 companies is that shipping clerks at MANY companies have been trained and have access to company export matrices that provide all the essential ingredients to determine necessary export requirements.

I don’t believe that anyone is assuming that the agency is infallible. But unlike you, I am unwilling to assume the opposite (and what you seem to be inferring), that BIS is a bunch of buffoons who are using boilerplate charging documents and that the “with knowledge” charge was not supported.

Perhaps, BIS refrained from providing further details at the requeest of the company or the employee.

You ask us to assume and conclude, as Mr. Deal often does, that, in the absence of 100% of the facts, that the agency is acting in an unconstitutional manner, is incompetent, has no supporting evidence, etc. Quite an extreme position, and one that is not supported by the facts of this case (even with the limited record we have).

As an example, you have a very detailed statement of facts (accepted by the company and the government) in the ITT case. What would you offer us from the ITT case?

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:28 +0000

BIS may have had supporting facts for its charge. And it may not have had supporting facts. I don’t proceed from the assumption that the agency is infallible. It is certainly possible that BIS’s notion of the evidence supporting knowledge by the clerk might not withstand scrutiny.

If it did have evidence for the somewhat surprising conclusion that a shipping clerk had knowledge that the item he was shipping required a license, it didn’t share those facts. BIS would do itself and the export community a favor by providing more transparency into its processes, particularly in a case like this where the notion that a shipping clerk might also be a student of the CCL isn’t immediately obvious.

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:09:19 +0000

Gentlemen:

Perhaps someone should look at the charging letter. I believe Slinger’s comments are well founded. The lead-in to Charges 1-8 does state “with knowledge” as he/she argues.

Cliff, are you suggesting that BIS charged “with knowledge” but actually did not have supporting facts? If they had no such facts, why would they bring that charge?