May

27

Universal Jurisdiction: Export Denial Order Edition


Posted by at 8:07 pm on May 27, 2014
Category: BISSyria

Aramex Employee via http://www.aramex.com/content/uploads/109/243/46240/MainBanner_EXP.jpg [Fair Use]BIS recently announced a consent agreement with Aramex Emirates under which Aramex agreed to cough up $125,000 in connection with its export of network equipment from the U.A.E. to Syria. Of course, for the few of us remaining that do not believe that the U.S. Government can exercise jurisdiction over everyone anywhere in the world whenever it wants, the interesting question is this: why did a company in the U.A.E. get tangled up over a shipment from the U.A.E. to Syria that was legal under U.A.E. law?

At issue were network devices and software classified as ECCN 5A002 and 5D002. In the Order, BIS then has this to say:

Under the widely-known U.S. trade embargo against Syria, no item subject to the Regulations may be exported or re-exported to Syria without a Department of Commerce license, with the exceptions of certain medicines and food, as set forth at all times pertinent hereto in General Order No. 2.

General Order No. 2 notes that the prohibitions of the embargo on Syria are described in section 746.9 of the EAR, which indeed prohibits all exports and re-exports except “food and medicine” by everyone in the universe. (Don’t get confused by section 742.9 which describes another set of restrictions on Syria which would permit exports of certain EAR99 items but which have been superseded by 746.9 and is just kept in the EAR to confuse ordinary people and to keep lawyers employed.)

So, even though the EAR says that foreign persons can’t re-export items from their own country to Syria, why would anyone pay any attention to this, particularly where the export was not illegal under the laws of their own country? An attempt by the U.S. to extradite someone for such an export might not be entertained by his local courts simply because the U.S. asserts that the item originally came from the United States.

BIS’s hammer here is more likely the export denial order. Even if it has no criminal jurisdiction and no ability to enforce or collect administrative fines in such cases, it does have the power to impose an export denial order which would forbid persons within its jurisdiction from exporting anything to Aramex. That might deliver a significant economic blow to a freight forwarder and logistics provider like Aramex. In that case a $125,000 fine might appear to be a good deal.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


This is how it works: the US can’t impose their laws abroad (unless maybe in the case of Ian Norris who was extradited to the US from the UK for price Fixing), but they just blacklist the Party and cut if off from the US market…..

Comment by Martin on May 28th, 2014 @ 2:26 am

The fine was probably cheaper than paying a Washington law firm to contest a denial order.

That said, I note that the Export Administration Act expired over a dozen years ago, and the supposed standby authority, IEEPA (50 USC 1705), does not actually authorize imposition of a denial order as a penalty for violation of regulations issued under IEEPA. OFAC has never issued a denial order or even a TDO for a violation of its regulations issued under the authority of IEEPA.

Issuance of a denial order as a sanction for a violation of the EAR is contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act Section 558 (5 USC 558)because it is not authorized by statute:

“(b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.”

Arguably, the foreign forwarder here could be added to the SDN List by OFAC just on general principle or no principle at all (which is how OFAC usually works), but not as a sanction for violating regulations supposedly issued under the authority of IEEPA.

Fining a foreign party for activity perfectly legal in its own country under threat of a denial order for which there is no statutory authority seems a lot like blackmail.

Comment by Hillbilly on May 29th, 2014 @ 1:53 pm