http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/78 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:54:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/78#comment-455 ExportLawBlog » The Boycott Woes of Cairo Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:36:57 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/78#comment-455 [...] This is not unlike BIS’s penalizing a freight forwarder for a prohibited boycott term buried in the shipping documents, which we have complained about before. EAR § 760.1(e)(3) makes clear that intent is required for each anti-boycott violation and not merely the intent to perform the act that constituted the violation but also the “intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.” Since the Bank likely did not read the entire commercial invoice, it almost certainly didn’t have the requisite intent. Nor does there seem to be any sound policy basis to force banks to read every word of all customer export documents to ferret out anti-boycott violations. Permalink No Comments [...] [...] This is not unlike BIS’s penalizing a freight forwarder for a prohibited boycott term buried in the shipping documents, which we have complained about before. EAR § 760.1(e)(3) makes clear that intent is required for each anti-boycott violation and not merely the intent to perform the act that constituted the violation but also the “intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.” Since the Bank likely did not read the entire commercial invoice, it almost certainly didn’t have the requisite intent. Nor does there seem to be any sound policy basis to force banks to read every word of all customer export documents to ferret out anti-boycott violations. Permalink No Comments [...]

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/78#comment-248 Mike Deal Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:31:45 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/78#comment-248 The information furnishing regulations have no statutory authority under IEEPA because 50 USC 1702(b) expressly excludes from the delegation of power to the President the authority to regulate information unless it is controlled under Section 5 of the EAA or anti-proliferation or antiterrorist provisions of Section 6. There is no carve-out for Section 8, the anti-boycott section. Beyond that, 1st Amendment protection for commercial speech is far broader now that it was when the 8th Circuit decided, wrongly, the Trane case (no other circuit has opined). For BIS to continue to assert authority over furnishing information is actionable fraud. The information furnishing regulations have no statutory authority under IEEPA because 50 USC 1702(b) expressly excludes from the delegation of power to the President the authority to regulate information unless it is controlled under Section 5 of the EAA or anti-proliferation or antiterrorist provisions of Section 6. There is no carve-out for Section 8, the anti-boycott section. Beyond that, 1st Amendment protection for commercial speech is far broader now that it was when the 8th Circuit decided, wrongly, the Trane case (no other circuit has opined). For BIS to continue to assert authority over furnishing information is actionable fraud.

]]>