Author Archive

May

8

Man Bites Dog?

Posted by at 8:32 pm on May 8, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

Dräger SafetyWhen companies wind up with products in Iran, they usually claim that they were hoodwinked by their overseas sales reps or agents. In a case involving the German security firm Dräger Safety, the situation appears reversed. According to this article in Deutsche Welle, Dräger’s agent is claiming that he was hoodwinked by the company.

Dräger had been contracted by Italian-based Irasco to build and deliver a security system for an Iranian pipeline. The security system used GE Security’s VisioWave monitoring software. Initially Dräger, apparently concerned the the U.S embargo on exports to Iran, told Irasco that it would have to obtain and install the software on its own and install the software itself in Iran. Irasco made some unsuccessful efforts to obtain the software and then, allegedly, demanded a full test of the system at Dräger’s facility in Lübeck, Germany.

Dräger then tasked Sasan Azodi, its intermediary with Irasco, to obtain the software and ship it to Lübeck. Oddly enough, what happens in Lübeck, doesn’t stay in Lübeck and, for reasons that Dräger can’t fully explain, the software miraculously wound up in Irasco’s hands in Iran. Sometime thereafter, Dräger filed a voluntary disclosure with U.S. government authorities revealing the problem.

Now let the finger-pointing begin. Azodi has this to say:

Azodi acknowledges that he arranged for the delivery of the software, via the US, to Luebeck, but claims he only sent it for test purposes. Upon learning that the software had been delivered to Iran, Azodi said, “that’s when I realized I had probably been conned.”

Dräger, for its part, apparently is trying to blame everything on Azodi and has refused to pay Azodi for the software, which costs approximately $125,000. Azodi has filed lawsuits, in both the United States and Europe, seeking the money that he claims is owed for the software and seeking recovery of the damages caused to his business by the allegation that he violated the Iranian embargo.

Of course, one has to wonder why Azodi didn’t see red flags all over the field when Dräger asked Azodi to purchase and export the expensive GE software to Germany. Why couldn’t Dräger do that itself? Why would it ask its Iranian intermediary to ship the software from the U.S. to Germany?

It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Pass the popcorn, as they say.

Permalink Comments Off on Man Bites Dog?

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
May

1

Give Pearls Away and Rubies

Posted by at 6:10 pm on May 1, 2008
Category: Burma Sanctions • OFAC

Burmese RubiesToday the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) added three Burmese entities to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, i.e., the SDN List. Among the three entities was the Myanmar Gem Enterprise, the state-owned monopoly that is in charge of gem sales in Burma. As you may know, Burmese rubies are especially prized and the sale of these rubies is thought to constitute a significant part of the revenues to the military junta that controls Burma.

Current OFAC regulations forbid the import into the United States of Burmese-origin goods. OFAC, however, refers to U.S. Customs rules for determining whether a good is of Burmese-origin, as can be seen from this OFAC guidance letter on Burmese teak sawn into planks in third countries. Most Burmese rubies are exported in uncut form to Thailand where they are processed and cut for sale to jewelers. In December 2004, Customs ruled that rough rubies mined in Burma that were processed and cut into gemstone rubies in another country underwent a “substantial transformation” and were no longer considered to be of Burmese origin. Notwithstanding this ruling, the 11,000 member association Jewelers of America urges its members not to traffic in blood rubies.

It is not clear that the designation of the Myanmar Gem Enterprise will have any substantial effect. Because the Burmese rubies must be processed in Thailand or elsewhere in order to be imported into the United States, no U.S. persons have any dealings with Myanmar Gem Enterprise but, rather, deal exclusively with companies in Thailand that process and cut the rough stones.

OFAC also designated the Myanmar Pearl Enterprise, hence the opportunity to swipe a line from an A.E. Housman poem as the title of this post.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Apr

30

Engineering Dynamics Agrees to $132,791.39 Penalty for Sales to Iran

Posted by at 5:46 pm on April 30, 2008
Category: BIS • Iran Sanctions

Iranian Offshore Oil RigThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) released yesterday a Settlement Agreement with Engineering Dynamics, Inc., a Louisiana-based company that writes and distributes computer-assisted design software used for the design of oil and gas drilling platforms and rigs. Under the Settlement Agreement, Engineering Dynamics admitted to a one-count charge that it had conspired with an individual in Brazil who would sell the company’s software to customers in Iran. Engineering Dynamics agreed to pay $132,791.39.

As we reported in a prior post, two officers of Engineering Dynamics are currently subject to criminal charges in connection with the same sales of the software to Iran. A copy of the criminal information filed against them can be found here, and it provides considerably more information on what happened than the BIS Settlement Agreement and related materials.

Upon my initial review of the criminal information, I expressed some skepticism in my earlier post that the two individual defendants — and, by extension, the company — should be held liable for the actions of their “distributor” in Brazil. Upon re-reading the criminal information, it seems to me that there is ample evidence here to support a conspiracy charge, at least if the facts alleged in the information are true.

To begin with, the company’s Brazilian distributor was really more a commissioned agent than a distributor, and that is significant. If a U.S. company sells its products to a distributor, who then resells those products without the U.S. company’s knowledge to a proscribed destination, it may be difficult to prove that the U.S. company was aware of the resale. However, in this case the Brazilian agent was paid a commission and then directly remitted the funds back to Engineering Dynamics. Additionally, the criminal information alleges a number of instances of communications between the U.S. company and the Brazilian agent about the customers in Iran.

This is also the second reported case subject to the new $250,000 penalty provision. Interestingly, BIS charged only one violation of the rules — a conspiracy count — even though multiple counts could have been charged for the various shipments to Iran through Brazil. Various BIS officials have said that under the new penalty scheme they will be less likely to pile on counts, and this provides some confirmation of that.

Permalink Comments Off on Engineering Dynamics Agrees to $132,791.39 Penalty for Sales to Iran

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Apr

29

DDTC Announces New License Documentation Requirements

Posted by at 9:26 pm on April 29, 2008
Category: DDTC

shipYesterday the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) announced new documentation requirements for export licenses. Failure to meet this requirement can result in an export license being returned without action although DDTC says that for an “interim” period of unspecified length it will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to return applications not in compliance with these documentary requirements.

  • Purchase orders and invoices support the license application must be with a foreign party not with its U.S. subsidiary. DDTC bases this requirement on the notion that the U.S. subsidiary is a “U.S. person” although why that should prevent the U.S. subsidiary from issuing purchase orders on behalf of its parent is not clear, particularly where the exporter may prefer to have an agreement with a U.S. party rather than a foreign one.
  • The purchase order or similar document must “have an issue date within one year from the date of application submission.” Since documents that are more than one-year-old are still legally binding, this seems, at best, an arbitrary requirement. DDTC gives no reason for this requirement.
  • If the invoice lists the price in a foreign currency, the exchange rate and U.S. dollar conversion for each line item must be annotated on the document. Again, since the license application must provide those figures in dollar amounts, there is no reason why this must be hand-annotated on the documentation. Even so, this shouldn’t pose a huge compliance burden on applicants.
  • The purchase order, invoice, or similar documentation must indicate the ultimate end user of the item.
Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Apr

28

The Sweet Power of Music

Posted by at 8:05 pm on April 28, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions • OFAC

Persian SanturThe Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog had an interesting post last Friday regarding Iranian santurs (a dulcimer-like instrument) that a UCLA professor of ethnomusicology had been importing from Tehran. These instruments had been sailing through customs until last August when somebody in customs woke up and seized the instruments. A curt notice from DHL informed the professor of the seizure and the possibility that the santurs might be destroyed.

So Professor Sadeghi hired a lawyer to free the santurs. The lawyer told the WSJ blog that he “scoured” the Iranian Transactions Regulations for an exception for “dulcimers” — to no avail, of course. I suspect that the lawyer is speaking figuratively here because anyone familiar with the regulations would have known immediately that there were no applicable exceptions that would cover Professor Sadeghi’s santurs.

So, the lawyer did his best to make something up:

In his package, he acknowledged that the dulcimers didn’t have the appropriate licensing from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) but argued that the instruments met the requirements for the regulatory exceptions made for informational materials and gifts.

Er, no. The gift exception provided in section 560.506 of the Iranian Transaction Regulations is limited to gifts valued at less than $100 dollars, and Persian santurs seem to exceed this dollar limit by a considerable amount. And I’m not quite sure how one gives a gift to oneself. Nor is the informational exception applicable. A musical instrument does not fit within the category of items described as informational materials in section 560.315. Frankly, he could just as well have argued that the santur is a carpet covered by section 560.534.

Even the lawyer himself appeared to be a little embarrassed by these arguments and offered an alternative justification:

Furthermore, [he] argued, even if they didn’t meet those exceptions, this was an ideal case for OFAC to exercise its discretion.

Okay, now were talking. And, miraculously enough, he received a letter from OFAC, stating:

Mr. Manoochehr Sadeghi is hereby authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to receive delivery from Iran of four miniature hammered dulcimers (santurs) seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on or about August 30, 2007.

More interesting, it appears that the lawyer, rather than filing a voluntary disclosure, filed something akin to a retroactive license request. If he did file a voluntary disclosure, the WSJ blog doesn’t relate whether OFAC imposed a fine or mitigated the fine completely.

In the end, it appears that two factors were at play in OFAC’s decision. In the past, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has used its discretion to permit exports of musical instruments to Cuba, and so a direct appeal to OFAC’s discretion in this case, without relying on inapplicable regulatory exceptions, was probably the best approach. Additionally, it seems possible that OFAC may have been influenced by Professor Sadeghi’s fame: he performed at the Kennedy Center and received a National Heritage Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »