Comments on: BIS Order Strands Spanish Flight Crews in Syria http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/528 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Kelly Yip http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-52466 Kelly Yip Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:10:38 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=528#comment-52466 Kudos on this piece. I am one who try to keep abreast of compliance news such as this and it passed me by! Fascinating case and I thank you for your efforts in bringing it to our attention. Regards, Kelly Yip Kudos on this piece. I am one who try to keep abreast of compliance news such as this and it passed me by!
Fascinating case and I thank you for your efforts in bringing it to our attention.

Regards,
Kelly Yip

]]> By: Hillbilly http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-51643 Hillbilly Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:10:45 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=528#comment-51643 BIS no longer has statutory authority to issue temporary denial orders. That authority was a specific authority of the long-gone Export Administration Act. There is no comparable authority under IEEPA 50 USC 1705. Under the APA, an agency can only impose sanctions authorized by law. BIS no longer has statutory authority to issue temporary denial orders. That authority was a specific authority of the long-gone Export Administration Act. There is no comparable authority under IEEPA 50 USC 1705. Under the APA, an agency can only impose sanctions authorized by law.

]]> By: Fred Martin http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-51475 Fred Martin Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:26:54 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=528#comment-51475 Good one, Clif. I particularly liked the twist at the end. Now, I betcha there will be a backstairs deal to get the second aircraft out of the UK and back to Spain. I just haven't quite figured out which channel they will use. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out. Good one, Clif. I particularly liked the twist at the end. Now, I betcha there will be a backstairs deal to get the second aircraft out of the UK and back to Spain. I just haven’t quite figured out which channel they will use. I’ll be interested to see how this one plays out.

]]> By: John Q. Citizen http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-51254 John Q. Citizen Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:51:08 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=528#comment-51254 So an otherwise law-abiding Spanish company is in ruins because BIS decides to play hardball. I'm sure the company's investors, employees and their families are thrilled to know that America is protecting the world. It would be easier to justify BIS's bulldog approach if this involved highly-sensitve items controlled for NS, NP or MT. But wouldn't this airplane be considered AT-controlled civil aircraft under 9A991, 9D991 & 9E991? Hardly a security risk. The de minimis for E1 countries is 10% controlled U.S. content, but I wonder what the actual percentage of controlled U.S. content was? More backstory on how this came to the attention of BIS would be interesting. Anyway. . .this is just further evidence of the ridiculousness and arrogance of our extraterritorial export controls. Not only does it cause compliance headaches for global firms (U.S. or otherwise), I have never seen convincing evidence that such controls are effective. If our WA/AG/MT/CWC/NSG partners don't feel the need to implement similar controls, why must we feel compelled to continue this policy? I have the same issue with many aspects of our 1970s-vintage antiboycott laws. We expect other countries to respect our unilateral boycott of Cuba, but God forbid if a Pakistani customer has the gall to ask a U.S. company to respect its boycott of India. So an otherwise law-abiding Spanish company is in ruins because BIS decides to play hardball. I’m sure the company’s investors, employees and their families are thrilled to know that America is protecting the world. It would be easier to justify BIS’s bulldog approach if this involved highly-sensitve items controlled for NS, NP or MT. But wouldn’t this airplane be considered AT-controlled civil aircraft under 9A991, 9D991 & 9E991? Hardly a security risk. The de minimis for E1 countries is 10% controlled U.S. content, but I wonder what the actual percentage of controlled U.S. content was? More backstory on how this came to the attention of BIS would be interesting. Anyway. . .this is just further evidence of the ridiculousness and arrogance of our extraterritorial export controls. Not only does it cause compliance headaches for global firms (U.S. or otherwise), I have never seen convincing evidence that such controls are effective. If our WA/AG/MT/CWC/NSG partners don’t feel the need to implement similar controls, why must we feel compelled to continue this policy? I have the same issue with many aspects of our 1970s-vintage antiboycott laws. We expect other countries to respect our unilateral boycott of Cuba, but God forbid if a Pakistani customer has the gall to ask a U.S. company to respect its boycott of India.

]]>