Comments on: The Sweet Power of Music http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:43:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Cowboy http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10133 Cowboy Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:09:44 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10133 OFAC's blessing is not required for personal travel to Iran (or to North Korea, Syria, or Sudan, for that matter. However, and OFAC license is required for travel to Cuba, and most licenses are issued for family visits and those are limited to once every 3 years--no exceptions, even for humanitarian reasons (such as illness or death of a parent or child). Individuals traveling to Iran may engage in transactions ordinarily incident to travel and maintenance, and may carry or send unlimited personal remittances. The case of the Fulbright scholar undoubtedly was complicated by the fact that the travel to Iran was for longer-term, educational study where the individual reasonably would be expected to engage in transactions outside the scope permitted for unlicensed personal travel. OFAC’s blessing is not required for personal travel to Iran (or to North Korea, Syria, or Sudan, for that matter. However, and OFAC license is required for travel to Cuba, and most licenses are issued for family visits and those are limited to once every 3 years–no exceptions, even for humanitarian reasons (such as illness or death of a parent or child).

Individuals traveling to Iran may engage in transactions ordinarily incident to travel and maintenance, and may carry or send unlimited personal remittances. The case of the Fulbright scholar undoubtedly was complicated by the fact that the travel to Iran was for longer-term, educational study where the individual reasonably would be expected to engage in transactions outside the scope permitted for unlicensed personal travel.

]]> By: John Liebman http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10126 John Liebman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:30:25 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10126 Worse yet, I had a case a couple of years ago involving a grad student who had received a Fulbright to study ethnomusicology in Iran, but the DOS would not release the funds until OFAC had licensed the grantee to study in Iran. Really!!! It took 9 months to resolve; OFAC finally relented when the grantee agreed not to take a laptop. The digital camera was okay, though. No one at OFAC seemed the least bit bothered by the fact that U.S. people travel to Iran all the time without OFAC's blessing - cameras, laptops, and God knows what else in tow. No liquor, of course, but that's the Iranian's problem. Worse yet, I had a case a couple of years ago involving a grad student who had received a Fulbright to study ethnomusicology in Iran, but the DOS would not release the funds until OFAC had licensed the grantee to study in Iran. Really!!! It took 9 months to resolve; OFAC finally relented when the grantee agreed not to take a laptop. The digital camera was okay, though. No one at OFAC seemed the least bit bothered by the fact that U.S. people travel to Iran all the time without OFAC’s blessing - cameras, laptops, and God knows what else in tow. No liquor, of course, but that’s the Iranian’s problem.

]]> By: Cowboy http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10123 Cowboy Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:48:17 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10123 Does anyone here appreciate the sheer idiocy of this whole matter? At a time when our country faces serious terrorist and proliferation threats, government agencies are wasting their (and our) resources regulating trade in carpets and miniature musical instruments. Surely there must be a better way to implement export controls and sanctions … a way that focuses scarce agency (i.e., taxpayer) resources on regulating important threats? When will OFAC and others wake up to the fact that stories like this one only serve convince the average American that agency bureaucrats (and their camp followers) are all idiots or fat cats? Does anyone here appreciate the sheer idiocy of this whole matter? At a time when our country faces serious terrorist and proliferation threats, government agencies are wasting their (and our) resources regulating trade in carpets and miniature musical instruments. Surely there must be a better way to implement export controls and sanctions … a way that focuses scarce agency (i.e., taxpayer) resources on regulating important threats? When will OFAC and others wake up to the fact that stories like this one only serve convince the average American that agency bureaucrats (and their camp followers) are all idiots or fat cats?

]]> By: Jairo http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10118 Jairo Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:16:53 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10118 There is a saying: "The Law is peasants". Years ago I cleared through CBP, Wilfredo Lam's "La Mañana Verde" (Cuban Painter) coming from Switzerland, for a private exposition in Palm Beach. After few letters and phone calls from Sotheby's the entry was cleared, Non-ABI of course, because the system would not allow the code "CU" on the entry, then delivered under intense security to the Gallery. I am pretty sure OFAC would have exercised discretion to release the painting in case one CBP officer had stopped. There is a saying: “The Law is peasants”. Years ago I cleared through CBP, Wilfredo Lam’s “La Mañana Verde” (Cuban Painter) coming from Switzerland, for a private exposition in Palm Beach. After few letters and phone calls from Sotheby’s the entry was cleared, Non-ABI of course, because the system would not allow the code “CU” on the entry, then delivered under intense security to the Gallery. I am pretty sure OFAC would have exercised discretion to release the painting in case one CBP officer had stopped.

]]> By: Mike Deal http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10117 Mike Deal Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:06:04 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/327#comment-10117 First, it should be noted that said lawyer is a former Dept. of Justice Internal Security section prosecutor who did a fair number of embargo cases, so perhaps OFAC was kindly disposed. Second, while OFAC's regulations'may not contemplate that the information exclusion would cover musical instruments, a look at the conference report for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1994, which includes the Free Trade in Ideas Act, suggests that Congress may well have contemplated that cultural items were excluded from OFAC's reach. In addition to the text of the present statutory exclusion from TWEA and IEEPA for information, the FTIA includes a sense of the Congress resolution that the President should never use the powers granted under not only IEEPA and TWEA, but also the United Nations Participation Act (which the 9th Circuit cited, instead of IEEPA, as the source of the statutory authority for the Iraq travel ban) for the purpose of prohibiting cultural exchanges. Clearly, in passing the FTIA, Congress intended that economic sanctions be used for economic coercion, not cultural isolation. OFAC still perversely persists in treating IEEPA as an unfettered wholesale abdication of the plenary Constitutional authority of Congress to regulate trade, which is big city words that mean that OFAC just doesn't give a darn about what the law actually says. First, it should be noted that said lawyer is a former Dept. of Justice Internal Security section prosecutor who did a fair number of embargo cases, so perhaps OFAC was kindly disposed. Second, while OFAC’s regulations’may not contemplate that the information exclusion would cover musical instruments, a look at the conference report for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1994, which includes the Free Trade in Ideas Act, suggests that Congress may well have contemplated that cultural items were excluded from OFAC’s reach. In addition to the text of the present statutory exclusion from TWEA and IEEPA for information, the FTIA includes a sense of the Congress resolution that the President should never use the powers granted under not only IEEPA and TWEA, but also the United Nations Participation Act (which the 9th Circuit cited, instead of IEEPA, as the source of the statutory authority for the Iraq travel ban) for the purpose of prohibiting cultural exchanges. Clearly, in passing the FTIA, Congress intended that economic sanctions be used for economic coercion, not cultural isolation. OFAC still perversely persists in treating IEEPA as an unfettered wholesale abdication of the plenary Constitutional authority of Congress to regulate trade, which is big city words that mean that OFAC just doesn’t give a darn about what the law actually says.

]]>