<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Al-Mashan&#8217;s Long Road to the BIS Denied Parties List</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/22/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/22</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/22#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/22#comment-24</guid>
		<description>BIS has yet to explain from whence comes its statutory authority to impose denial orders given that, to the extent export controls are authorized at all, they are authorized only under IEEPA, and IEEPA provides only for civil penalties and criminal fines and/or incarceration (which are subject to the federal sentencing guidelines). The Administrative Procedures Act provides that an agency may not impose penalties unless authorized by law.  Clearly, denial orders are not authorized.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BIS has yet to explain from whence comes its statutory authority to impose denial orders given that, to the extent export controls are authorized at all, they are authorized only under IEEPA, and IEEPA provides only for civil penalties and criminal fines and/or incarceration (which are subject to the federal sentencing guidelines). The Administrative Procedures Act provides that an agency may not impose penalties unless authorized by law.  Clearly, denial orders are not authorized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
