Archive for the ‘BIS’ Category


Oct

17

Look, Ma, No Export License!


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:40 pm on October 17, 2012
Category: BIS

Sodium FluorideAccording to settlement documents released by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), New Jersey based Phibrochem agreed to pay $31,000 to settle charges that it exported $14,000 worth of sodium fluoride to Mexico without a license. Sodium fluoride, which is classified as ECCN 1C350, can be used to produce methylphosphonyl difluoride which, in turn, is used to produce the nerve gas sarin.

The first reaction you might have to this case is to wonder whether Phibrochem was even aware of the license requirement. After all, sodium fluoride is everywhere. It’s in tap water for Pete’s sake. The charging documents, however, make clear that this wasn’t an innocent mistake by noting that Phibrochem had previously obtained a license to ship sodium fluoride to the same end user in Mexico.

And your next thought may well be, forget TSA requirements, do I need a license to take a tube of Crest on my next trip to Europe? Do I have to buy some strange brand of toothpaste called Odol-med3 in Berlin to avoid being arrested when I board my flight at Dulles? Thanks to note 2.b, your Crest is safe:

A license is not required under this ECCN for a mixture, when the controlled chemical in the mixture is a normal ingredient in consumer goods packaged for retail sale for personal use.

Whew.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Oct

16

Could Satellites Finally Spin out of the ITAR Orbit?


Posted by Clif Burns at 8:48 pm on October 16, 2012
Category: Arms ExportBISCCLUSML

satelliteAccording to this article in Aviation Week, one aspect of export reform has at least some chance of eeking through the lame duck Congress that will convene after the upcoming elections. The locus of this hope is bipartisan language in the House version of the defense authorization bill that would permit the President to move commercial satellites from the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. One effect of such a change is that commercial satellites, which can’t be exported to China while listed on the USML, could be exported to China pursuant to a license from the Department of Commerce once moved to the CCL.

The Senate version of the defense authorization bill does not contain that language but there appears to be some possibility, according to a Senate Democratic aide, that the Senate, in order to get the bill passed, will consider a pre-conferenced version of the bill with the House language included. A Republican Senate staffer has suggested that Senate Republicans would not oppose such an approach.

UPDATE: A reader sent me a copy of the language from the House version of the NDAA.  That language, which can be found in section 1241, as currently written, would prohibit Commerce from granting licenses for the export of any “commercial satellite or related component or technology” to China.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Oct

4

Kurds and Whey?


Posted by Clif Burns at 11:24 pm on October 4, 2012
Category: BISIran Sanctions

MGN WheyI know you will all sleep safer once I tell you about the recent consent agreement entered into between the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) and Muscle Gauge Nutrition as well as a related agreement between BIS and and one of the owners of Muscle Gauge Nutrition. The company agreed to pay BIS a civil penalty of $62,500 in connection with an attempted export to Iran valued at $93,000. The owner, Robert Reed, agreed to an individual civil penalty in the amount of $22,000.

Did MGN and Reed ship centrifuges or accelerometers or other controlled items that might assist the Iranians in their production of nuclear weapons? No, they shipped — are you sitting down? — whey supplements for bodybuilders. Apparently you need people with really strong biceps to crank up those centrifuges to enrich uranium. That’s a little known fact that you first heard here. In fact, whey protein is arguably much more important to Iran’s efforts at nuclear proliferation than nail polish.

Of course, to put this whopping fine in further context, the whey supplements would have been eligible for a license under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. Worse yet, the attempted exports occurred on June 30, 2011, yet in less than three months, under amendments adopted by OFAC to its rules effective October 12, 2011, these exports, as food products, would not have even required a license at all!

The fine probably can be seen, in addition to a valiant effort to protect our national security interest against Iranian bodybuilders, as a penalty imposed to punish the Company for being stupid and for making BIS mad. According to the charging documents linked above, the unfortunate incident started when MGN shipped to its freight forwarder the sales invoice for the order which showed the “bill to” party as a customer in Iran and the “ship to” party as a transportation logistics company in the UAE. The freight forwarder, which remarkably enough was paying attention here, noted the “bill to” customer and asked MGN for a license. MGN responded not by applying for the easily obtainable license but by telling the freight forwarder that the “bill to” was just a typo and that the UAE company should have been the “bill to” party as well. Accordingly, MGN supplied a new “corrected” invoice. The freight forwarder then apparently dropped the dime on MGN because the shipment was seized before it could add any muscle mass to any Iranians.

The owner, Robert Reed, was subject to an individual penalty because, according to the charging documents, he told a BIS agent investigating the shipment that the shipment was really intended to go to the UAE and not to Iran. That was probably a bad idea given that BIS apparently had unearthed an email (indeed had probably been given that email by the Company itself) from the company’s sales manager to Reed explicitly stating that the end user was in Iran. Oops.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share



Sep

5

What an Uncool Thing To Do!


Posted by Clif Burns at 6:58 pm on September 5, 2012
Category: BISCCLDDTCUSML

Sonel Uncooled Thermal ImagerAccording to an article last week in Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pentagon is seeking to add uncooled thermal imaging devices to the United States Munitions List. Putting that technology on the USML, as opposed to the Commerce Control List administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), would require licenses for all exports of such technology and would prohibit exports to countries, such as China, subject to U.S. arms embargos.

Thermal imaging devices typically have to be cooled to prevent them from being “blinded” by their own internal circuitry. This results in more expensive devices as well as devices that need to warm up (or more accurately cool down) before they can function. Uncooled thermal imaging, while offering lower resolution under current technology than cooled thermal sensors, are less expensive and easier to operate. Uncooled thermal imaging has a number of non-military applications, such as collision-avoidance cameras used in new automobiles and investigation of heat leaks in homes. A contractor investigating leaks from exterior walls into my house used one. (Useless application: the camera viewfinder showed thermal paw prints left by my dog several minutes earlier!)

As the Bloomberg article points out, uncooled thermal imaging devices are produced by companies outside the United States, including Ulis in France; SemiConductor Devices in Israel; NEC Avio Infrared Technologies Co. in Japan; and Zhejiang Dali Technology Co. in China. The uncooled thermal imaging camera used by my contractor was made by Sonel in Poland (a similar model of which is pictured at right.)

The proposal to add uncooled thermal imaging to the USML is currently undergoing interagency review. A revised USML including that technology could appear as early as this month according to an anonymous DOD source cited by the Bloomberg Businessweek report.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share



Aug

28

What A Difference A Word Makes


Posted by Clif Burns 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