Jan

9

Understanding the Law You Enforce and Other Minor Details


Posted by at 7:15 pm on January 9, 2012
Category: ICEUSMIL

AD-4N SkyraiderApparently it is not a job requirement at Immigration and Customs Enforcement to have to understand the laws that you are charged with enforcing, as this recent press release from ICE illustrates all too well. The press release announces the forfeiture of a Douglas AD-4N Skyraider and associated parts that were alleged to have been illegally imported into the United States.

Now let’s hear about the case from Special Agent Raymond R. Parmer, Jr., who quickly reveals that he doesn’t understand at least some of the laws that the taxpayers pay him to enforce:

“The Skyraider aircraft, its cannons and parts are all subject to import licensing requirements as ‘defense articles’ under the Arms Export Control Act. Federal law prohibits the importation of defense articles without a license or permit,” said Raymond R. Parmer, Jr., special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in New Orleans. “ICE aggressively investigates these cases in order to deter this type of illegal activity and protect those who abide by our nation’s laws.” Parmer oversees responsibility for the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana.

Er, no. The aircraft and the cannons are subject to import licensing requirements as “defense articles.” The parts, well, not so much. Permanent imports of defense articles into the United States are governed by the United States Munitions Import List, which is a subset of the United States Munitions List. Not everything on the USML requires a license for permanent (as opposed to temporary) import into the United States. And aircraft parts are one of those things.

Aircraft parts are covered by Category VIII(h) of the USML. Now let’s take a look at Category VIII of the USMIL:

NOTE: Category VIII (b) through (j) and Categories IX, X, XI, XII and XIII of ‘‘Munitions List’’ deleted as inapplicable to imports

Oops. Maybe Agent Parmer ought to try actually reading the USMIL before speaking up in a press release about what does and does not require an import license.

Not surprisingly, this is not the first time of which I am aware where ICE agents failed to understand that the USML and the USMIL are not co-extensive. I was involved in a case where my client was being prosecuted for illegal exports that the client was alleged to have made to undercover federal agents. During the course of plea negotiations, an ICE agent came zooming in with an announcement that Customs had seized some military electronics that my client was said to be illegally importing without a license, citing Category XI of the USML. The agent urged additional criminal charges and the end of the plea-bargain discussions. I pointed out to the U.S. Attorney involved that Category XI was not on the USMIL and that permanent imports of military electronics did not require a license. He was sufficiently irate over the ICE agent’s misrepresentation of applicable law that he made the agent personally deliver the improperly seized items to my client at my client’s facility.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


I wish all aircraft parts were covered under category VIII(h). I’ve even had a DDTC licensing officer “correct” a license application and tell me they were Category VIII.

It’s been a significant part of my work with our customers to assure them that we do have a ruling and our part falls under XIII(h).

Comment by LDM on January 9th, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

This reminds me of a case many years ago when U.S. Customs (pre-DHS) seized a shipment of my company’s semiconductor products (SDRAMs) coming from Taiwan to the U.S. The allegation? That XXXXX, Inc. was “illegally importing dumped goods into the United States”.
Facts:
1) there was a PENDING anti-dumping investigation for SRAMs from South Korea. It was still at the ITC to determine if dumping had actually occurred. No dumping had yet been determined and no dumping order was in effect.

2) The offending shipment originated in Taiwan, which was not part of the investigation. In fact, the DIES for the chips were fabed in the United States.

3) The offending shipment was SDRAM, NOT SRAM (a technicality that the Customs agents were unable to distinguish. Note that the seizure was by Customs Special Agents (I’m not using the term “Customs agents” generically here–I’m an old Customs officer myself.)

4) Unless the goods are smuggled, which these were not, there is no authority to seize dumped goods, only to assess dumping duties.

The Customs agents involved were quite belligerent with me when I confronted them–after flying to the port where the seizure occurred. Once I got to some higher level people in the agency and carefully went over the facts of the matter, the shipment was released (though all the chips in that shipment had been static compromised by the process and were useless) and I conducted training in the port about the different classes of semiconductor devices and how they had to be handled.

But I did get most of a week in Honolulu out of it–not ALL of which was spent in the Customhouse.

Regards,
Ron Edelstein

Comment by Ron Edelstein on January 10th, 2012 @ 10:52 pm