Author Archive


Jan

12

Hey Big Brother


Posted by at 10:18 pm on January 12, 2011
Category: BISChinaForeign Export ControlsWassenaar

Johan Gadolin
ABOVE: Johan Gadolin,
discoverer of yttrium


China Daily is a great source of unintentional humor, and I really wish I had more time to peruse it. I did stumble across a recent opinion piece in China Daily on the rare earth export issue and, not surprisingly, there is much to snicker about in it, unless, of course, your business depends on the availabilities of the lanthanides, known to us non-technical sorts as the rare earth elements.

China initially justified its restrictions on exports of the lanthanides as a measure to encourage companies using lanthanides to relocate to China. Article XI of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs generally prohibits export quotas unless they fall within the exceptions set forth in Section 2 of Article XI or Article XX. Not surprisingly, efforts to distort international trade by forcing companies to relocate to the country imposing the quota is not within the exceptions set forth in GATT.

Somewhat later China began to cite the environmental impact of rare earth mining as a justification for the quotas. That argument was easily dismissed as a transparent ruse because China imposed no restrictions on rare earth mining for domestic use, no matter how loudly they complained the foreign exports of rare earths were killing Chinese workers.

Now, the article referenced by this post attempts to concoct another justification for its export quotas: national security. The article starts with a slam at the Wassenaar Arrangement which it claims is some kind of anti-socialist conspiracy by capitalist Western nations and a broad-based justification for China to impose any export controls it can dream up:

Export regulation was originally introduced for security issues. After World War II, the United States and other countries established the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) against socialist countries; its successor, in effect today, is the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

In recent years the restrictions have become ever tighter. On June 19, 2007, the US Ministry [sic] of Commerce listed more than 2,500 kinds of technologies, devices, and materials banned [sic] for export to China.

Those familiar with the 2007 rule cited by China Daily, may wonder where the author came up with the idea that 2,500 kinds of technologies were banned for export. The rule imposed certain new license requirements for dual use items destined for use by the Chinese military but did not ban those exports. There were bans on items controlled for nuclear proliferation, missile technology, or chemical and biological warfare that would contribute to major Chinese weapons systems, but the 2,500 number is more than a little high as an estimate of the number of technologies involved.

More importantly, China’s claim that these restrictions are premised on national security would be more convincing if it had been its initial justification. And, of course, the Wassenaar list, which represents not a capitalist conspiracy but a multilateral consensus of strategic goods that require export controls, would permit China to exert export controls on the items on that list, items that don’t include the lanthanides.

Permalink Comments Off on Hey Big Brother

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

10

More Tiers Are Shed Over Answered Prayers


Posted by at 7:14 pm on January 10, 2011
Category: BISExport Control Proposals

Kevin Wolf
ABOVE: Kevin Wolf


Today’s edition of the Washington Tariff & Trade Letter has an article (paid subscription required) quoting Kevin Wolf at the Bureau of Industry and Security as to the impact that foreign availability will have on the classification of dual use items in the export reform process.

“To be clear, availability will not be the determining factor in any particular decision,” he said. Rather, “it will be factored in as part of the government’s ultimate decision about how to tier items.”

Even though foreign availability will be one factor in the decision as to what tier the item would classified in, Wolf stressed that the ultimate decision would not overturn existing statutory and multilateral control obligations:

The only caveat to this, again, to the extent not otherwise inconsistent with existing statutory obligations or multilateral obligations, that’s a standing rule in this entire effort. We’re not trying to undo or unwind existing multilateral obligations or statutory obligations

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

6

Sixth Circuit Dismisses Professor Roth’s Appeal


Posted by at 8:45 pm on January 6, 2011
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Professor John Roth
ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth


On Wednesday, January 5, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal of Professor J. Reece Roth, a professor emeritus at the University of Tennessee who had been convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”). The conviction was based on, among other things, Professor Roth permitting access by a foreign graduate student to technical data relating to an Air Force military drone project.

Professor Roth argued in his appeal that the technical data was not export-controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations because the next phase of the project involved testing his research on commercial aircraft. The Sixth Circuit dismissed this by noting that the project ultimately contemplated a military application of the research.

In reaching this result, the Sixth Circuit cited the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir. 2009). That decision held that although the AECA banned judicial review of a decision to place a category of items on the United States Munitions List {“USML”), it did not prohibit judicial review of the question as to whether a particular item fell within a category of items designated by the USML.

In addition, Roth argued that the lower court’s jury instruction on the “wilfulness” standard required for a conviction under the AECA was incorrect. According to Roth, the court should have given the jury an instruction that he could only be convicted if he was aware that the controlled technology was on the USML. The Sixth Circuit rejected this contention and held that the lower court properly instructed the jury that Roth could be convicted simply if he was aware that his conduct was unlawful. Although the Eight Circuit in United States v. Gregg, 829 F.2d 1430, 1437 & n.14 (8th Cir. 1987) appeared to hold that the defendant needed to be aware that the exported item was on the USML, the Sixth Circuit followed the looser rules of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Circuits which only require that the defendant knew that the export was unlawful.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

5

Census Blog Miffs Export Rules


Posted by at 5:15 pm on January 5, 2011
Category: DDTCITAR

Census Jobs AvailableThis may look like U.S. Government blog week on ExportLawBlog, but it’s purely a coincidence. Yesterday we highlighted the Treasury blog and today the subject is the U.S. Census blog with the somewhat enigmatic title of Global Reach. Because not much was popping in the Census world — something I imagine is more or less always the case — the industrious bloggers at Census thought that they would educate their readers about the mysteries of defense exports and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations with a post* titled “Understanding Basic Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) License Requirements.”

As you continue to file shipments against your DDTC license, your license will become ‘decremented’ with each additional filing. This simply means that your license balance will decrease by the value of each accepted shipment. When the license balance is fully exhausted, an informational message will be sent stating:

176 DDTC LIC NOW EXHAUSTED:

At this time, your company must apply for an amendment to add more value onto the license or apply for a new license.

Um, no. There is so much wrong with the statement quoted above, it’s hard to know where to start. But I’ll start with the statement that decrementing means decreasing the balance by the “value” of each accepted shipment. Decrementing reduces the remaining quantity and the remaining value, not just the remaining value. If you are entitled to export 5 widgets with a value of $50 and you export 5 with a value of $35, the quantity on your license is decremented to zero and the license is kaput. You can’t export $15 more of widgets. You’re done.

Second, you can’t amend a license to increase quantity or value. Section 123.25(c) of the ITAR makes that perfectly clear as to increases in licensed quantities. You need a new license for the additional quantities. This notice posted on the DDTC website indicates that a new license is needed to add additional value to the license.

Here’s an idea: in the unlikely event that DDTC ever starts a blog, it should agree that it won’t post anything on the procedures for challenging population estimates if Census agrees not to post anything ever again on the ITAR.


*The original post disappeared from the Census blog a little while ago, apparently after Census received one or more emails pointing out the howler in the post. Of course, thanks to the miracle of the Google cache, nothing ever really dies on the Internet, and the link to the Census post above is a link to it in the Google cache. In case that ever disappears, here is a pdf version of the post for posterity.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

4

OFAC Uses Blog to Respond to NYT Critique


Posted by at 8:43 pm on January 4, 2011
Category: OFAC

Cupcake of Mass DestructionThe Treasury Department has a blog. Who knew? Well, if you look at it, you’ll understand the reason why no one knew. One reason might be today’s post reporting the exciting news that the tax filing season has just started. Or the recent post titled “Holiday Cheer in Kabul.” No, seriously. That’s the actual title. Apparently, Treasury doesn’t know that Afghanistan is a Muslim country and that Christmas isn’t celebrated there.

But the real reason for my bringing the Treasury blog, scintillatingly titled “Treasury Notes,” to your attention is that the newly-minted blog was used by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to respond to the preposterous article recently published in the New York Times assailing OFAC for licensing exports of cake sprinkles and popcorn to Iran. The blog post from OFAC stated, quite correctly, that OFAC has no discretion under TSRA to refuse to license agricultural products, medicine and medical devices to Iran on the grounds that they aren’t humanitarian relief items.

Apparently, this post was also sent to the New York Times as a letter to the editor. Shockingly, the newspaper hasn’t gotten around to publishing it.

Of course, blog entries from OFAC would be particularly welcome if they were used to provide guidance to exporters in difficult and confusing areas. I scanned the few articles that have been posted so far and, sadly, did not see anything of that nature. If OFAC is only going to use the blog to respond to criticisms of the agency, well, I’m not going to bookmark it and neither should you. But the blog is in its relative infancy, so I will withhold judgment. And if I do discover any helpful posts from OFAC on it, you’ll hear about it here first.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)