Archive for the ‘Anti-Boycott’ Category


Apr

14

No Cuban-Americans Allowed


Posted by at 10:10 pm on April 14, 2016
Category: Anti-BoycottBISCuba Sanctions

Fathom Cruise Ship via https://www.fathom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Adonia-500x325.jpg [Fair Use]

On Tuesday of this week two Cuban-born residents of Florida filed a lawsuit against Carnival cruise lines and its subsidiary Fathom Travel for violating their civil rights by refusing to book passage for them on a cruise ship from Miami to Cuba. The companies based the decision on the plaintiffs’ national origin: both were born in Cuba and Cuba currently prohibits anyone born in Cuba from traveling to Cuba from the United States (or anywhere else) by boat. Persons of Cuban origin may only travel to Cuba by air. (If you wonder about the reason behind this policy, it’s obviously because you are unaware that Castro’s slogan “Socialismo o Muerte!” was originally simply “Viaje Aéreo o Muerte!“)

As the ruckus commenced in Little Havana in Miami, the cruise line defended its actions by arguing that it was only complying with Cuban law. Delving into the intricacies of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on national origin, is a bit out of the scope of this blog, but not completely. The Department of Transportation, in a somewhat similar recent situation, held that Kuwait Airways violated 49 U.S.C. § 41310 when it refused to book a ticket for an Israeli wishing to travel between New York and London. The airline’s argument that Kuwait law forbade it from selling tickets to Israeli passport did not overcome the prohibition of § 41310 against “unreasonable discrimination” given that the passenger was traveling not to Kuwait, but to London where it would be legal for him to disembark the plane. The fact that the Kuwait case did not involve travel to a place where disembarkation was forbidden effectively distinguishes this case from the one against Carnival.

More interestingly, and more within the scope of this blog, the Department of Transportation further based its action on the antiboycott provisions in the Export Administration Regulations. Section 760.2(b) of the EAR prohibits U.S. companies from discriminating against anyone based on national origin “with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.”

So, are Carnival and Fathom violating these regulations by refusing to book travel for Cubans wishing to take boats to Cuba? Although the antiboycott regulations go into excruciating detail on many of its definitions and prohibitions, nowhere do they bother to define or to elucidate the meaning of “unsanctioned foreign boycotts” even though nothing in these rules is violated unless somehow related to an unsanctioned foreign boycott. That leaves open the question whether Cuba’s law prohibiting Cuban-born persons from traveling to Cuba by boat from any country in the world is an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The EAR gives as an example of prohibited discrimination an agreement by a U.S. company to comply with a boycotting country’s local law forbidding employment persons of a certain religious faith in projects in that country. This would be a violation, the example states, because the majority of the citizens of the boycotted country are of the prohibited faith. On the other hand, the next example says that an agreement to comply with a local law of that country not to employ women would not violate the antiboycott provisions because it would not be “boycott-based.” This suggests, at least to me, that the Cuban restriction is not a foreign boycott. The restriction is only on Cuban-born persons and the only place with a majority of citizens born in Cuba is, obviously, Cuba. I’m not sure anyone, even Cuba, can boycott itself.

 

Photo Credit: Fathom Cruise Ship via Fathom [Fair Use]

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

13

It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again All Over Again


Posted by at 11:50 am on October 13, 2014
Category: Anti-BoycottBIS

McWane Pipes via http://www.mcwanepipe.com/upl/images/homepage/51269ef106307116cac-a9f28ef2.jpg [Fair Use]The best job at the Bureau of Industry and Security is, without question, working at the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) because all their cases are pretty much the exact same thing, leaving plenty of time to finish the daily crossword puzzle and read the sports pages. If you don’t believe me that they are all the same, just look at the latest enforcement action from OAC against McWane International, an Alabama company that manufacturers water pipes. McWane agreed to a $7,000 fine for providing a certificate that a ship was “allowed by Arab authorities to call at Arabian ports” and failing to report documentary requirements in a letter of credit for a certificate from the “owner, carrier or captain of the vessel or their agent” that the ship could call in Arab ports.

Regular readers of this blog, which obviously did not include anyone at McWane, will immediately see the problems with these certifications. Under BIS rules such certifications can only be made by the “owner, charterer, or master” of the ship. It can’t be made by McWane (which was none of the above) or by an “agent” of the “owner, charterer, or master.” We’ve talked about this identical issue at length here and here.

Fortunately the fine is only $7,000, well below an amount that might lead anyone to challenge the dubious statutory authority of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance to even exist. Disagreements over the antiboycott provisions in the Export Administration Act were one of the reasons that the act lapsed. Whether in that context the existence of the Arab boycott is a national emergency authorizing the President to extend the antiboycott provisions under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) is highly questionable.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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

Dec

5

It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again


Posted by at 5:00 pm on December 5, 2013
Category: Anti-Boycott

TMX Shipping [Source: Google Maps]
ABOVE: TMX Shipping Office


Here’s the thing: you can save yourself money if you read this blog. You can certainly avoid paying money to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) at the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) if you read this blog. TMX Shipping could have saved itself the $36,800 penalty, announced here, that it paid OAC if it had read this blog.

The OAC is a vestigial appendage over at BIS which arguably had no further right to exist after the expiration and non-renewal of the Export Administration Act. It is doubtful that the President can rely on any emergency to justify resurrecting OAC from the dead by an executive order under IEEPA as each president has done since the EAA expired. Accordingly, OAC keeps a low profile and never fines anyone enough to make it financially worthwhile for an exporter to pop into court and challenge its statutory authority. And, it seems that OAC fines exporters for one simple, but obscure, violation over and over and over. We have reported on this many times, including here and here.

The grave sin at issue involves certifications that ships are entitled to enter certain ports. Some Arab League countries don’t permit ships to enter their ports if the ship has previously entered a port in Israel. The thing is there are exceptions from the non-compliance and reporting requirements precisely for such certifications. Under Supplement 1 to the antiboycott rules:

the owner, charterer, or master of a vessel may certify that the vessel is “eligible” or “otherwise eligible” to enter into the ports of a boycotting country in conformity with its laws and regulations.

And under section 760.5(a)(5)(viii) of the antiboycott rules, an exporter need not report:

A request to supply a certificate by the owner, master, charterer, or any employee thereof, that a vessel, aircraft, truck or any other mode of transportation is eligible, otherwise eligible, permitted, or allowed to enter, or not restricted from entering, a particular port, country, or group of countries pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of that port, country, or group of countries.

The catch here is that only an owner, master or charterer of the vessel may supply that information. An agent of the owner, master or charterer may not supply that information and a request that an agent supply that information (even if it is ultimately supplied by the owner, master, or charterer) must be reported.

TMX Shipping was charged with two violations. The first involved TMX itself certifying, as a freight forwarder, on four occassions that a vessel was allowed to enter the ports of Kuwait, the ports of Bahrain, all Arab Ports, and the “port of destination.” The second involved receiving, and not reporting, eleven letters of credit that demanded a certification from the “captain, owner or agent” (or similar language) that the vessel was allowed to enter various ports of boycotting countries. Once again, the company got in trouble for not knowing that a freight forwarder couldn’t supply the information and that a request for an agent of the ship owner to supply the information was reportable.

This is just about all that OAC nails people for anymore, so repeat after me: “Agents can’t certify that ships are allowed to enter Arab Ports.” Now say that to everyone in your company. If everybody gets this message, the folks at OAC will have nothing left to do but play Words With Friends and update their Facebook pages.

And just to make my point that this vessel certification anti-boycott issue is one that occurs over and over again, you may have the feeling that you read this post already. And you have: this is an exact copy of a post that appeared on August 28, 2012 with the exception of the paragraph above in italics where the facts surrounding the identical Polk Audio violation described in the 2012 post have been changed to the facts surrounding the TMX Shipping violation recently reported by OAC. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (and again). “Agents and freight forwarders cannot certify that ships are allowed to enter boycotting Arab ports; only the owner, charterer or master can.” Here’s an idea: at this year’s holiday party, don’t give anyone a drink unless they first memorize and repeat that sentence to the bartender, okay?

UPDATE: My colleague Stan Marcuss astutely pointed out that while BIS provides that under its rules the “owner, charterer or master” of a vessel may certify that a vessel is eligible to enter into the port of a boycotting country, such a certification might in fact violate IRS rules under Section 999 of the Internal Revenue Code. (See Guideline M-10 of the IRS’s guidelines relating to international boycotts.)  In those cases, companies making the certification permitted by BIS might be deprived of certain tax benefits under IRS rules.  So remember this: just because one agency says you may do something does not mean another agency might not punish you for doing it.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

28

What A Difference A Word Makes


Posted by at 6:34 pm on August 28, 2012
Category: Anti-BoycottBIS

Polk Audio HQ
ABOVE: Polk Audio HQ

Here’s the thing: you can save yourself money if you read this blog. You can certainly avoid paying money to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) at the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) if you read this blog. Polk Audio could have saved itself the $8,000 penalty, announced here, that it paid OAC if it had read this blog.

The OAC is a vestigial appendage over at BIS which arguably had no further right to exist after the expiration and non-renewal of the Export Administration Act. It is doubtful that the President can rely on any emergency to justify resurrecting OAC from the dead by an executive order under IEEPA as each president has done since the EAA expired. Accordingly, OAC keeps a low profile and never fines anyone enough to make it financially worthwhile for an exporter to pop into court and challenge its statutory authority. And, it seems that OAC fines exporters for one simple, but obscure, violation over and over and over. We have reported on this many times, including here and here.

The grave sin at issue involves certifications that ships are entitled to enter certain ports. Some Arab League countries don’t permit ships to enter their ports if the ship has previously entered a port in Israel. The thing is there are exceptions from the non-compliance and reporting requirements precisely for such certifications. Under Supplement 1 to the antiboycott rules:

the owner, charterer, or master of a vessel may certify that the vessel is “eligible” or “otherwise eligible” to enter into the ports of a boycotting country in conformity with its laws and regulations.

And under section 760.5(a)(5)(viii) of the antiboycott rules, an exporter need not report:

A request to supply a certificate by the owner, master, charterer, or any employee thereof, that a vessel, aircraft, truck or any other mode of transportation is eligible, otherwise eligible, permitted, or allowed to enter, or not restricted from entering, a particular port, country, or group of countries pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of that port, country, or group of countries.

The catch here is that only an owner, master or charterer of the vessel may supply that information. An agent of the owner, master or charterer may not supply that information and a request that an agent supply that information (even if it is ultimately supplied by the owner, master, or charterer) must be reported.

Polk was charged with two violations. The first involved Polk itself certifying, as agent for the carrier, that a vessel was allowed to enter the “ports of Arab States/Oman.” The second involved receiving, and not reporting, a letter of credit that demanded a certification from the “owners, agents or master” that the vessel was allowed to enter the “ports of Arab States/Oman.” Once again, an exporter got in trouble for not knowing that the agent couldn’t supply the information and that a request for an agent to supply the information was reportable.

This is just about all that OAC nails people for anymore, so repeat after me: “Agents can’t certify that ships are allowed to enter Arab Ports.” Now say that to everyone in your company. If everybody gets this message, the folks at OAC will have nothing left to do but play Words With Friends and update their Facebook pages.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

May

17

One Word Costs a Company $19,800


Posted by at 8:36 pm on May 17, 2010
Category: Anti-Boycott

Arab PortUnited Source One, Inc., a Maryland-based food logistics company specializing in food shipments to restaurants in the Middle East, agreed in March to pay a $19,800 penalty to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) for violating BIS’s anti-boycott regulations. The company was charged with failing to report five boycott-related requests, all more or less similar to this request to provide:

[a] [c]ertificate issued by the owners, agents or master of the vessel carrying the goods stating that the vessel carrying the goods is allowed to enter the Arab port as per laws and regulations of such states.

Seasoned readers of this blog who read this post back in 2008 will immediately recognize the problem — the word “agent.” As we noted in that post, under Supplement 1 to the antiboycott rules:

the owner, charterer, or master of a vessel may certify that the vessel is “eligible” or “otherwise eligible” to enter into the ports of a boycotting country in conformity with its laws and regulations.

This would prevent a certification from an agent, but since United Source One isn’t accused with complying with the boycott, it is clear that the certificate must have come, if actually supplied, from the owner, charterer or master of the vessel.

But even if United Source One didn’t provide prohibited boycott information, these is still the question as to whether the request was reportable. Under section 760.5(a)(5)(viii) of the antiboycott rules, an exporter need not report:

A request to supply a certificate by the owner, master, charterer, or any employee thereof, that a vessel, aircraft, truck or any other mode of transportation is eligible, otherwise eligible, permitted, or allowed to enter, or not restricted from entering, a particular port, country, or group of countries pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of that port, country, or group of countries.

Since the request went beyond a certificate by the owner, master, charterer, or any employee and permitted a certification from the agent. The operative logic here (and I use the word “logic” very loosely here) is that if the agent makes the certification this is not a certification that the agent is complying with the laws of the country involved but is instead a certification that the agent isn’t doing business with anyone subject to the boycott.

Don’t try to spend too much time trying to make sense of this distinction unless you want to risk having your brain explode.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)