Dec
04

Freight Forwarders: Export Cops or Counselors?

Posted by Clif Burns at 6:24 pm on December 4, 2007
Category: BIS, OFAC

Proclad PipelinesThere has been some discussion here at Export Law Blog about the proper role of freight forwarding companies in export enforcement. If a customer of a freight forwarder proffers a package addressed to Iran without an OFAC license, should the freight forwarder decline the package and tell the customer that shipments to Iran must be licensed? Or should the freight forwarder accept the package and call the authorities? The recent settlement agreement entered into between Kuwaiti-owned Proclad International Pipelines and the Bureau of Industry and Security shows, I think, a freight forwarder that struck exactly the right balance.

At issue were attempted exports by Proclad of nickel alloy pipes classified as EAR99 to Iran without a license. The company attempted to export the pipes to Iran by transshipping them through the UAE. In the recitation of the various counts with which Proclad was charged is this interesting language:

Proclad altered markings for use on the crates of nickel alloy pipes that it was attempting to export to Iran. The altered markings were provided to the U.s. manufacturers in lieu of markings previously provided indicating that pipes were being exported to Iran. Proclad altered the markings to conceal the true ultimate destination of the items after it had been informed by a freight forwarder of the applicable licensing requirements during a previous attempt to export the pipes to Iran.

What apparently happened was that once the freight forwarder said the pipes couldn’t be shipped to Iran, Proclad simply slapped on new labels saying that the pipes were going to the UAE. I suspect the freight forwarder then called the authorities.

The freight forwarder did the right thing by initially telling the exporter that exports to Iran required licenses. Clearly any exporter that hands documents to the freight forwarder showing Iran as the ultimate destination is clueless about U.S. law. Proclad Pipelines is located in Scotland, so it’s a reasonable assumption that they may not have been familiar with U.S. export restrictions.

But what initially might be seen as an innocent mistake quickly became an illegal undertaking when Proclad decided that the appropriate response wasn’t to decline to export items to Iran but to pretend to export the Iranian-bound goods elsewhere. And a freight forwarder who saw that a package previously bound for Iran now had on shipping labels for the UAE would have to be well-aware that the exporter was attempting some shenanigans. And that, in my view, fully-justified the freight forwarder ratting out Proclad.

Permalink

5 Comments »

  • Great post, Clif! I’m going to include a link to it on my website as I often get questions as to what level of knowledge triggers an affirmative action by a freight forwarder or exporter. This case illustrates the issue nicely.

    Thanks again,
    Jennifer

    Comment by Jennifer Kessinger — December 4, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
  • Interesting to see that the list of Proclad companies includes ‘Proclad International Forging Ltd’

    Comment by Keith OLeary — December 5, 2007 @ 5:07 am
  • But Clif, EU Regulation 2271/96 prohibits compliance with the US extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the UK House of Lords report last summer the UK Protection of Trading Interst Act goes even further. Proclad, a Scottish company, is clearly covered by both, and the embargoes of both Cuba and Iran are identified in the Annex to EU 2271/96.

    The freight forwarder ought to be looking over its shoulders for the shadow of Proclad’s solicitors invoking the clawback provisions.

    Comment by Mike Deal — December 5, 2007 @ 11:15 am
  • Dear Mike,TheANNEX to EU Regulation 2271/96 does not
    contain the Iran embargo but only the “Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996″ However, the Cuba embargo 31 CFR 515 is covered.This is where US subsidiaries
    in Europe are usually in a dilemma
    when they introduce one to one their US compliance systems.

    Comment by bernhard herkert — December 7, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
  • While Executive Order 12959 was issued prior to ILSA, Executive Order 13059 followed ILSA, and expanded the sanctions in conformity with ILSA. ILSA itself referred to and ratified existing controls, thus ILSA arguably incorporates and expands the Iranian Transaction Regulations by reference.

    Comment by Mike Deal — December 7, 2007 @ 2:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, so your comment will not immediately appear, but will appear later after I've approved it. Although I will never disclose your email address to anyone, comments with fake or non-functioning email addresses are not approved. And, of course, spam comments with links to pornography and pharmaceutical sites aren't approved either.