Archive for the ‘DDTC’ Category


Apr

13

White House May Take Cuba off Terrorism List


Posted by at 8:35 pm on April 13, 2015
Category: BISCuba SanctionsDDTC

Cuba - Havana - Car by Didier Baertschiger [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/didierbaertschiger/11785935544[cropped]

There have been news reports suggesting that Obama is contemplating, as part of the thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations, to remove Cuba from the list of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. Beyond the symbolic significant of such a move, what would be the real consequences?

Of course, one consequence of being on the list is that, under section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2780, any country put on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is automatically subject to an arms embargo. Of course, even if Cuba is removed from the list, I would not count on arms shipments from the U.S. to Havana in the foreseeable future.

Second, section 6(j) of the defunct Export Administration Act, 50 App § 2405, requires a license for exports to state sponsors if the export could make a “significant contribution to the military potential of such country” or if it could “enhance the ability of such country to support acts of international terrorism.” And, in those instances, Congress must be given notice of such exports thirty days in advance. Of course, the Export Administration Act is no longer in force and is only even in the appendix to Title 50 of the U.S.C. because the President breathes life into it every year using the superpowers bestowed on him by the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act. So the White House could end any license requirement for Cuba and end the notification requirement using the same superpowers that resurrected those provisions in the first place.

You might also think that removing Cuba from the list might make it easier to ship agricultural products, medicine and medical devices to Cuba under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. After all, the Act, in section 7205, imposes a license requirement for shipping those goods to a sanctioned country if that country is also on the state sponsor of terrorism list. However, that section specifically identifies Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and imposes the license requirement on exports of agricultural products, medicines and medical products to Cuba. So, removing Cuba from the terrorism list will not eliminate the need for exporters to Cuba to continue to file the export notifications required to utilize License Exception AGR for TSRA exports to Cuba.

Permalink Comments (0)

Bookmark and Share



Apr

8

Customs Seizes $40 Worth of Ammunition; Breaks Arm Patting Own Back


Posted by at 8:25 pm on April 8, 2015
Category: DDTCITAR

Ammo Seized by Customs via http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2015-04-07-000000/cbp-seizes-ammo-slated-export [Public Domain - Work of Federal Employee]
ABOVE: Ammo Seized by CPB


It must be a slow day at CPB. They find and seize two 50-round boxes of ammo in a container of household goods on their way to Honduras and then issue a press release congratulating themselves on saving the United States from imminent destruction and doom. CPB Houston Port Director Dave Fluty could scarcely restrain himself:

These types of seizures represent our vigilance and commitment to protecting our nation by enforcing the laws and regulations on behalf of many other federal agencies.

Because, obviously, these 100 bullets would wind up in the hands of Honduran criminals who would sneak back into the United States with them and wreak havoc.

What makes the hoopla over 100 rounds of ammo even more interesting is that CPB gets the law wrong:

Permanent or temporary export of ammunition via shipping container requires the exporter to register with Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls who [sic] has published a [sic] guidelines for firearms exports.

No, no and no. Section 122.1(a) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations requires registration by any person “who engages … in the business of … exporting defense articles.” Section 123.17(e) permits the export without a license of up to 1,000 cartridges for nonautomatic firearms without a license provided that the cartridges are “for personal use and not for resale.” To say that this exception for limited ammunition exports for personal use can only be used by individuals who register as a business is not only wrong but absurd.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Mar

10

Maryland Pizza Shop Owner Pleads to Export Charges


Posted by at 11:06 pm on March 10, 2015
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesDDTC

Da Dan Xia Weapons Cache by Colombia Prosecutor's Office [Fair Use]The owner of a Jerry’s Subs and Pizza franchise in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, pleaded guilty to shipping various rifles and rifle parts, including magazines, receivers, and sights, to Pakistan without the required license from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. According to the DOJ press release announcing the plea deal, Kamran Malik, the defendant, shipped the goods in packages with false return addresses and false descriptions of the contents. There is no indication as to  the intended recipients of the firearms and parts in Pakistan. As part of the plea deal, the Government has agreed to argue for a reduction in the offense level from 26 to 23, which would reduce the maximum penalty from 78 to 57 months.

Something else is going on here. There is also a sealed plea agreement supplement. That normally means that the defendant will be a cooperating witness and that the sealed supplement contains a cooperation agreement.  The purpose of sealing that information is to protect the cooperating defendant. Of course, since such supplements pretty much signal that the defendant is going to cooperate with the government, that purpose is largely lost. I suspect this means that the recipients of the items in Pakistan are of more than passing interest to the United States Government.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Mar

4

Law Firm Sues DDTC over Application of Brokering Rules to Legal Advice


Posted by at 9:58 pm on March 4, 2015
Category: DDTCPart 129

State Department by Josh [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncindc/2838284991 [cropped]On March 3, 2015, a small DC law firm filed a complaint against the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief prohibiting DDTC from applying its brokering rules to the provision of specified types of legal advice. This blog previously has discussed the potential application of part 129 brokering rules to the activities of lawyers on behalf of their clients. As we stated, the broad language of part 129 always arguably covered legal work on behalf of clients, but no lawyers ever registered as brokers and DDTC never complained. When DDTC amended the brokering rules, it arguably then explicitly decided to start covering legal services. The interim rule does exempt legal advice, specifically noting, in the Federal Register notice at least, that legal advice about export compliance was within the exemption. The situation was then muddied when DDTC published FAQs on the brokering rules which said that common legal services, namely, “structuring a transaction” involving defense articles or negotiating contract terms involving defense articles was outside the scope of the exemption.

The plaintiff in the recently filed lawsuit optimistically (and some might say foolhardily) requested from DDTC an advisory opinion stating that certain legal services, such as advising on the structure of transactions involving defense articles and drafting contracts for the sale of defense articles, were outside the scope of Part 129. Not surprisingly, the request for an advisory opinion languished at DDTC for months, despite the plaintiff’s repeated communications with DDTC asking them to act on the advisory opinion request. Finally, according to the complaint, and eleven months after the request was made, a DDTC official called plaintiff and said the rules did not cover the activities specified in the request, and plaintiff, based on those representations, agreed to withdraw the request.

Seven months later, on February 24, 2015, in a plot twist worthy of Franz Kafka, the same DDTC official sent a letter to plaintiff and, incredibly, retracted the previously provided advice:

Please be advised that your letter of August 29, 2013 and our conversation which took place on July 3, 2014, lacked sufficient detail for the Department to make an official determination as to whether the activities discussed constituted brokering activities.

The official asked the plaintiff to submit another advisory opinion request. The understandably frustrated plaintiff filed a lawsuit instead.

There are, of course, a number of problems with applying Part 129 to legal services beyond the provision of legal advice on export compliance. To begin with, lawyers will need prior permission from the State Department under section 129.4 before becoming involved in transactions involving specified defense articles such as night vision equipment. Worse, section 122.5 would require lawyers to make all records relating to these transactions available to DDTC and law enforcement in violation of attorney-client privilege.

The good news, of course, is that DDTC’s bizarre volte-face on the applicability of Part 129 to legal services is unlikely to be favorably viewed by the court and means, I think, that the initial advantage in this lawsuit is with the plaintiff.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Mar

3

Might As Well Be Hung for a Sheep as a Lamb


Posted by at 9:58 pm on March 3, 2015
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDDTCTechnical Data Export

Mozaffar Khazaee [Credit: Essex County Mug Shot Catalog]
ABOVE: Mozaffar Khazaee


On February 25, Mozaffar Khazaee, a former employee of various defense contractors, pleaded guilty to illegal export of ITAR-controlled technical data to Iran. The case started with an audacious shipment from Connecticut to a freight forwarder in Long Beach, California, by Khazaee of 44 boxes labelled as household goods that, in fact, contained numerous manuals and other technical documents relating to the F35 Joint Strike Fighter and military jet engines. The boxes were intended for ultimate shipment to Iran. Further investigation revealed that these documents had been taken by Khazaee from defense contractors for which he worked and that taking these documents violated the contractors’ rules requiring return of all documents at the end of employment. Khazaee was initially arrested for charges, set forth in the criminal complaint, of illegally transporting stolen property across state lines.

Khazaee’s ultimate plea was for violation of the Arms Export Control Act. The superseding information that served as the basis for the plea, however, alleged the export of only one document (out of the 44 boxes of documents) which was asserted to contain controlled technical data designated under Category XIX(g) of the United States Munitions List.

Two things stand out about this case. First, the superseding information charged, and Khazaee pleaded guilty to, export of the document and not attempted export of the document. The problem is the document was seized in Long Beach and never left the country. Section 120.17 of the ITAR defines export as “taking a defense article out of the United States.” No matter what your feelings may be about Long Beach, California, it is definitively still in the United States last time I checked. There is some evidence that the boxes may have been loaded onto the Panamanian-flagged NYK Libra. But given the definition of United States in section 120.13, it is hard to argue that the document left the United States until the NYK Libra did.

The second thing of interest were statements made by Khazaee, and cited in the superseding information, to potential employers in Iran that his job advancement in the United States had been hindered by his Iranian nationality even though he was an American citizen.

Even though working industry being very exciting, with best pay salary and high-tech events, my original nationality being Iranian (which I am very proud of), has caused me tremendous issue and hindrances towards my progress and goals. I can’t make any publication in current job (everything is very proprietary and restricted, mostly military projects), I was rejected to participate in the new advance engine program (this is beyond F135 engine, it’s called AETD), purely based on my original nationality. This is the primary … reason for my consideration to move to Iran.

Obviously one wrong does not justify another. However, discrimination against a U.S. citizen based on his national origin,if this is what occurred here, is a violation of federal law. And given the unhealthy obsession of the DoD and DDTC on national origin, at least with respect to dual and third-country nationals, it seems at least possible that this may have occurred. It may well be that the best way to encourage loyalty among American citizens is to treat them all equally without respect to where they were born.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share