Author Archive


Nov

13

Nightmare on Compliance Street, Directed by BIS


Posted by at 11:32 pm on November 13, 2007
Category: BIS

Do Your Files Look Like This?If any company considering its first export transaction actually read and tried to understand the recordkeeping requirements of Part 762 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), it is unlikely that anything would ever be exported from the United States. And although enforcement actions by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) which promulgated and enforces these regulations are rare, they are not non-existent as Hardinge, Inc., the New York-based manufacturer of milling, grinding, turning and workholding machinery learned the hard way. Well, not that hard. The company signed at the beginning of the month a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which it agreed to pay BIS $3,000 for failure to keep records relating to its export of “metalworking and/or machine tools” to Israel. There was no allegation by BIS that the exported equipment was subject to any licensing requirements.

The recordkeeping requirements of Part 762 are, to say the least, extensive. Section 762.2 states:

The records required to be retained under this part 762 include the following:
(1) Export control documents, as defined in part 772 of the EAR;
(2) Memoranda;
(3) Notes;
(4) Correspondence;
(5) Contracts;
(6) Invitations to bid;
(7) Books of account;
(8) Financial records;

Just let that sink in for a moment. Let’s say one of your company’s salespersons receives a call from an overseas customer and he jots down on a piece of paper “Company X wants us to quote prices to export three cases of peanut butter to the U.K.” If you ship the peanut butter, but don’t retain the original of that note, you’ve broken the rule.

The rule does permit copies to be retained under section 762.5 but only if you comply with an onerous set of restrictions relating to the copies, including making a copy of the “obverse and reverse”* sides of paper documents. You also have to keep a record of “where, when, by whom, and on what equipment” the document was copied. You don’t have to be a management consultant to figure out that this is simply not going to happen.

Section 762.4
describes a number of documents exempted from the broad recordkeeping requirements of section 762.2. But these exemptions don’t include the note I described or other “notes” or “memoranda” regarding the transaction.

Of course, the charging documents and the Settlement Agreement don’t tell the whole story. It’s doubtful that it was just a salesman’s note that was involved. Still, the BIS requirements are extremely broad and quite easy for even a legitimately concerned and compliant exporter to trip over.


*”Obverse” and “reverse” are terms that are normally applied to coins and paper currency. The corresponding words for book pages, prints and drawings are “recto” and “verso.” And the words used by ordinary people who haven’t spent three years in law school or too much time in government agencies are, of course, simply “front” and “back.”

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

9

Federal Judge Tosses Export Prosecution After Trial


Posted by at 12:52 pm on November 9, 2007
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Blackhawk HelicopterU.S. District Court Judge Inge P. Johnson, after a seven day bench trial, recently dismissed six felony charges against Alexander Latifi, a defense contractor from Huntsville, Alabama. The judge ruled that the prosecution failed to carry its burden of proof. Based on news accounts of the decision, it is likely that the judge’s decision was swayed by the revelation that the prosecution’s chief witness, a former employee of Latifi named Elizabeth Lemay, pleaded guilty to embezzling money from Latifi and admitted on the stand that before she left Latifi’s company she sabotaged company computers and destroyed the purchase order system.

Latifi’s company Axion had been awarded a contract by Sikorsky to produce a bifilar weight assembly which is used in a rotor in the steering system of the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. According to a report in the Huntsville News, Lemay testified that Lafiti needed to find a supplier for tungsten used in the weight assembly.

Eventually, Latifi contacted a man in California named Ming Hwong, the representative of a Chinese tungsten supplier, ECO-Tungsten, Lemay testified. Latifi and Ming Hwong traded numerous correspondence by e-mail and telephone, she said.

Then, an ECO-Tungsten representative named Ding Dong, entered the picture via e-mail and by telephone, Lemay testified. Eventually, Latifi ordered her to send technical drawings of the bifilar weight assembly to Ding Dong at ECO-Tungsten in China.

The defense claimed that Latifi never directed Lemay to send the drawings at issue and sought to impeach her testimony:

Latifi’s lawyer, Henry Froshin of Birmingham, engaged Lemay in a heated cross-examination about why she was lying about his client.

“Were you trying to cover up your own forgery and theft?” he asked.

“No,” she said.

According to Froshin and court records, Lemay pleaded guilty in 2005 to forging 15 Axion company checks totaling $12,730. Latifi fired Lemay on February 2004. A Madison County judge suspended a three-year prison sentence and placed her on probation for four years.

While she was stealing Axion’s money, Lemay was feeding information to federal agents, Froshin said.

She admitted that she did not tell federal agents about the theft. She also said she neglected to tell the grand jury.

And with those admissions I think we can safely say that Lemay and the prosecution’s case crashed and burned.

Defense counsel also told the Huntsville News that they opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial because Latifi was born in Iran and, given the current state of relations between the United States and Iran, might not be favorably viewed by a jury.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

7

Better Late Than Never


Posted by at 6:30 pm on November 7, 2007
Category: General

Village in Southern SudanLast week, on October 31, the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a final rule amending the Sudanese Sanctions to permit exports to the semi-autonomous region of Southern Sudan. These rules implemented Executive Order 13412 issued by the White House on October 13, 2006 which exempted Southern Sudan from the sanctions imposed on Sudan by Executive Order 13067.

Apparently because OFAC’s regulations weren’t revised for almost a year after Executive Order 13412 lifted the export ban for Southern Sudan, OFAC’s staff was insisting that licenses were still required for transactions in Southern Sudan and either weren’t granting them or were granting them after long delays. According to this wire report yesterday from Reuters:

Until now U.S. organisations have still had to go through long procedures with OFAC to get around the 1997 order. “To get an exemption from the comprehensive sanctions imposed in November 1997 was virtually impossible,” added Sudan specialist Eric Reeves, who has been trying to set up schools in the south despite “extremely onerous” regulations. “In some fundamental sense only now have sanctions really been lifted on the south,” Reeves added. …

“It should have been clear from day one that the south would be exempted from the sanctions,” said Sudan expert John Prendergast, currently with the Enough Project. He said the period of confusion arose from what he called U.S. government ineptness.

An interesting anomaly persists in the new regulations. The amended regulations of added a new subsection (g) to the list of exempt transactions in 31 C.F.R. § 538.12 (formerly § 538.11). Subsection (g)(1) exempts transactions in the “Specified Areas of Sudan” which are defined to include large parts of Southern Sudan. However, section (g)(2) says that the exemption in (g)(1) doesn’t apply to food, medicine and medical devices. Apparently, as I read this, you could ship a ton of bricks to Southern Sudan without a license to Sudan, but to send food and life-saving medicines you still need to undergo the delay and expense of a license. That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, but I haven’t gone back to see if there is some legislative justification for this in either the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, which governs exports of agricultural products, medicine and medical devices, or in the initial legislation which led to Executive Order 13067.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

7

Microwave Power Modules Added to CCL


Posted by at 12:43 am on
Category: BISDDTC

Microwave Power ModulesAlmost a year after the last plenary of the Wassenaar Arrangement approved and adopted changes to the Wassenaar List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) yesterday released a final rule implementing those changes on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”). A number of changes have been made, including the addition of some items that were not previously on that list. The list of changes is too long (and in some case too tedious) to fully detail in a blog post, but I did want to discuss briefly the addition of microwave power modules to the CCL which appears to be yet another item which could pose overlapping export control jurisdiction between BIS and the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”)

Microwave power modules are a recent technology that combines solid-state and vacuum electronics to provide highly efficient and powerful amplifiers with very low signal-to-noise ratio and extremely compact size. MPMs are also known for their rapid turn-on times. These properties have made them attractive for use in military applications such as radar, communications, and unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”). In particular, MPMs have been used in the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs for both satellite and line-of-sight communications to and from the remote pilot. Commercial uses for MPMs include civilian satellite communications, wireless communications, and high power RF sources for laboratory use

The new ECCN for MPMs is 3A001.b.9. The controls on the new ECCN are NS2 and AT controls. The NS2 controls mean that licenses will be required for all countries other than those classified on those in Country Group A:1 on the Country List. License requests to any country other than one in Country Group D:1 will be subject to a general policy of approval unless there is evidence of a possibility of diversion to a country in Country Group D:1. License requests for a country in Country Group D:1 are subject to a case-by-case examination and will be approved if BIS determines that the item will not be used for military purposes. AT controls mean that license requests for exports or re-exports to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria are subject to a general policy of denial.

ECCN 3A001.b.9 sets forth certain performance requirements for an MPM to be covered. These include the unit’s turn-on time, the size of the unit as a function of its output power, and a measure relating to the unit’s instantaneous bandwidth.

A large number of MPMs are explicitly identified by their manufacturers as designed for military use, in which case they are covered under Category XI (Military Electronics) of the United States Munitions List (“USML”) or possibly Category XV (Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment). Interestingly, the related controls section of ECCN 3A001 only references, and excludes, MPMs covered under Category XV. This leads, of course, to an interesting question of overlapping or conflicting jurisdiction.

Consider, for example, an MPM designed for a military terrestrial communication system which therefore is covered by USML Category XI(a)(4)(iii). If that MPM meets or exceeds the performance characteristics of ECCN 3A001.b.9, then it would also be covered by that ECCN because only items covered by USML Category XV are excluded from the ECCN. Do you file a commodity jurisdiction request for that MPM? Or should you simply file for export licenses from both BIS and DDTC? Given the length of time it takes for a commodity jurisdiction request to be decided, the answer, of course, is to file for licenses from both agencies. To avoid this result, BIS should add to the “related controls” section of ECCN 3A001 an exclusion for MPMs covered by USML Category XI.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

2

There’s No Place Like Home


Posted by at 8:53 am on November 2, 2007
Category: General

AstroScope 9350XLA criminal complaint was filed yesterday in federal court in Newark against Xu Bing, a Chinese national and resident of Nanjing, for attempted export of night vision equipment to China. Not surprisingly, the arrest was the result of a sting operation, one in which the undercover agents actually lured Mr. Xu to the United States.

The story told by the criminal complaint starts when someone named “Sherley” from the Everbright Science & Technology Company, Ltd. in Nanjing contacted an undercover operation indicating an interest in purchasing an AstroScope 9350XL Gen 3 image intensified designed for use with Canon XL-series videocameras. Sherley indicated that a previous exporter had applied for a license to ship the 9350XL to Everbright but nonetheless asked the undercover company to arrange export of the equipment to China.

Thereafter an elaborate dance between the undercover agents and Sherley appears to have commenced. Although Sherley’s original plan was to have the undercover company ship the equipment to China, she ultimately told the undercover company that that Everbright was willing to pre-pay for the equipment and take delivery in the United States. The undercovers kept Shirley interested, even though they were obviously refusing to ship the equipment. How they accomplished this feat isn’t revealed in the complaint.

Finally, Everbright prepaid for the equipment and Mr. Xu flew to the United States to pick it up. While meeting with the undercover agents, Mr. Xu admitted that he knew that the night vision equipment couldn’t be legally shipped to the United States. The next thing he knew he was being read his Miranda rights and wishing, no doubt, that he’d stayed at home in Nanjing.

Permalink Comments Off on There’s No Place Like Home

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)