Author Archive


Apr

16

BIS Announces New Penalty Policies


Posted by at 7:00 pm on April 16, 2007
Category: BIS

Darryl JacksonThe remarks of Assistant Secretary Darryl Jackson of the Bureau of Industry and Security at the West Coast update conference in March were just posted on the BIS website. Most of the remarks were predictable big-stick waving from BIS with threats of increased enforcement and enhanced penalties.

But these remarks were somewhat more conciliatory:

I am very pleased today to announce publicly for the first time that BIS will shortly implement refined practices for the charging and settlement of administrative enforcement cases brought under the new PATRIOT Act provisions. . . . As you will hear in more detail from the Enforcement Panel, in cases to which the higher penalties apply that settle before issuance of a charging letter, BIS will only charge the most serious violation per transaction.

We have complained before (see here for example) about BIS’s tendency to charge single transactions as multiple violations in order to increase penalties imposed upon those making voluntary disclosures. Assistant Secretary’s remarks suggest that BIS may be retreating from that policy.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

12

Mak Prosecutors Come to Their Senses on Public Domain Issues


Posted by at 7:36 pm on April 12, 2007
Category: General

White FlagYesterday the U.S. Attorney’s office prosecuting the export case against Chi Mak came to it’s senses and reversed the position it had taken on exports of public domain data to China. Josh Gerstein has the details in his excellent article in the New York Sun.

As we’ve reported before, the prosecution in the Mak trial tried to claim that the ITAR forbids export of public domain data on military items to China. The prosecution also argued that the State Department “certification” that the documents in question were “technical data” under the ITAR was a conclusive and unreviewable determination that they were not public domain. We explained here, here and here, why these arguments were wrong.

What’s interesting here is that the prosecution changed course apparently as a result of our critical posts on the government’s positions and Josh Gerstein’s excellent reporting on the issues we raised. When we started this blog, our hope was to provide an informative and entertaining take on export law for other professionals in the filed. We didn’t really expect that we would have the impact that we did on a high-profile case.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

11

The OFAC-tory Cents for April 2007


Posted by at 5:14 pm on April 11, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Treasury on the MoneyLast week OFAC released its typically opaque monthly report on recently imposed civil penalties. This report reveals that, once again, the full force of the Federal government was brought to bear on two hapless web surfers who bought some Cuban stogies over the Internet. We understand that a spokesman for Fidel Castro said that this OFAC action was the final straw and that Castro was, at last, going to resign and go into alcohol rehab, claiming that it was a serious drinking problem that caused him to become a communist dictator in the first place.

A.N. Deringer, the freight-forwarding company, was fined $700 for helping somebody or other export something or other to Iran.

The Kinecta Federal Credit Union coughed up $3,102 for initiating a funds transfer to a Cuban national. In case you haven’t heard of Kinecta, which started out as the Hughes Aircraft Employees Federal Credit Union, here’s an interesting little quote I found on Kinecta’s website from the its founder:

I went to Mr. Hughes’ office in Hollywood and talked to his secretary Nadine. I gave her all the facts and Mr. Hughes said, ‘Sure. Start the Credit Union. Just keep my name clean. I don’t want anything funny going on.’ I said, you can be sure of that. And Hughes Credit Union was born.

It’s a good thing Howard Hughes is no longer around to hear about this!

Finally a more substantial fine of $66,547.31 (every penny counts!) was imposed on G.E. subsidiary Datex-Ohmeda for shipments of medical equipment through Dubai to Iran made by its former subsidiary Spacelabs Medical . This enforcement action arose from a voluntary disclosure, no doubt one that was insisted on by OSI Systems when it bought Spacelabs from Datex-Ohmeda in 2004. Datex-Ohmeda was forced to spin-off Spacelabs as a condition to GE’s acquisition of Datex-Ohmeda’s parent company. It’s reasonable to suppose that Spacelabs’ Iranian problem was caught by a sharp-eyed lawyer for OSI (not me) during due diligence and that, as a result, OSI required the disclosure and required Datex-Ohmeda to pay any fine.

Oddly this is yet another recent case where medical equipment — which is of course eligible for a license to Iran under TSRA — is shipped without a license. It seems to me a heckuvalot easier just to get the license in the first place rather than go through the whole rigmarole of transshipping the goods through Dubai. What is going on here? Are there a large number of exporters that simply do not know about TSRA?

Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

10

Note So Fast There


Posted by at 4:04 pm on April 10, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Intel i960 MicroprocessorSteve Clemons, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and a popular blogger who blogs at The Washington Note, has announced that he will soon be starting The Havana Note. He bills this new blog as a “new resource for those interested in yet another dimension of US foreign policy as well as evolving political realities in Cuba.” We certainly look forward to Clemons’s insights in this area, but regret to, er, note that he appears to have already gotten himself caught up in the byzantine complexities of the Cuba Sanctions Regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (“OFAC”).

In his announcement, Clemons says that The Havana Note will publish blog posts by Abel Prieto, Cuba’s Minister of Culture, whom Clemons recently met during a trip to Cuba:

[Prieto] said that he had thought of launching his own blog. He said he doodles all the time and might want to post some of these doodles with a few lines now and then. . . . But as i thought about it, the chances of Abel Prieto actually starting a blog . . . are pretty low. But. . .that said, Abel Prieto ought to send some doodles and commentary our way — to test the waters of blogging — and we’d be happy to post those as his original expression (allowed actually under the rules of the Treasury Department’s OFAC restrictions) on The Havana Note (and HuffPost!)

Clemons might want to go back and read the regulations a bit more carefully if he thinks that he and The Huffington Post can post Prieto’s doodles and commentary without risking a nastygram from the Cuba police at OFAC.

Clemons apparently got the idea that he could be the blogospheric amanuensis for Prieto from the General License for Publishing Activities which OFAC released back in 2004. The purpose of that General License was to get rid of the much-maligned “camera-ready” rule. Under the “camera-ready” rule, articles from authors in sanctioned countries could be published under the information exception only if they supplied “camera ready” copy to the publisher. Typesetting and editing the article were deemed to be services that the publisher couldn’t render under that exception. Under the General License, publishers may engage in “all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing” of manuscripts, books and newspapers in paper and electronic form.”

Unfortunately for Clemons’s plans there is a significant exception. Under section 515.577(a) of the Cuba Sanctions Regulations, this license doesn’t apply if the author is “any person occupying the positions identified in [section] 515.570(a)(3).” And the Minister of Culture is one of the positions identified in section 515.570(a)(3).

Oops.

Regular readers know that we oppose all unilateral sanctions programs, including the U.S. embargo on Cuba. So we are not agreeing with the policy that forbids Clemons to publish Prieto’s thoughts on his new blog. We also think that significant First Amendment interests are implicated by applying OFAC’s rules to prevent such publication. But that being said, I’d be surprised if OFAC doesn’t put up a fight to stop Clemons from printing Prieto.

Permalink Comments Off on Note So Fast There

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

9

Close Enough for Government Work


Posted by at 3:03 pm on April 9, 2007
Category: BISCriminal PenaltiesDDTC

Intel i960 MicroprocessorThey say that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It also, however, counts in indictments, and the recent Sudarshan indictment, which we reported last week, is a case in point. That indictment is only half right, but that would be enough, if a jury buys it, to send Mr. Sudarshan to jail.

The half of the indictment that appears right is pretty straightforward. The indictment alleges that Mr. Sudarshan, through Singapore-based Cirrus Electronics took orders for electronic components from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (“VSSC”) and Bharat Dynamics, Ltd (“BDL”) both Indian-government related companies on the Entity List. Sudarshan would then use a U.S. subsidiary of Cirrus to source these parts from U.S. vendors. The U.S. subsidiary would then ship the components to Cirrus in Singapore which would then ship the components to VSSC and BDL without obtaining the licenses required by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) for exports to parties on the Entity List.

When the U.S. vendors requested end-use statements for the parts being sold to Cirrus, Sudarshan would lie to them and claim that the parts were destined for the Navy Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory in Kochi, India. If the allegations are proven, Mr. Sudarshan, who was arrested two weeks ago in South Carolina, may have to delay his return trip to Singapore for a good deal longer than he expected.

The second half of the indictment alleges that Sudarshan exported defense articles without the necessary license from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), and it’s here that the indictment appears to start getting things wrong. The indictment alleges that Sudarshan obtained and exported without DDTC authorization Intel i960 microprocessors, which the indictment alleges is an item on the United States Munitions List. Additionally, the indictment singles out exports by Sudarshan of M39014/01-1284, M39014/01-1299, M39014/01-1317, M39014/01-1535, and M39014/01-1553 capacitors, which it also alleges were USML items. Neither seems to be the case.

The Intel i960 processor was popular in the 1990s. Only one flavor of the chip, the i960MX, was specifically designed or configured for military use. The indictment, however, doesn’t allege that the i960MX chip was involved and refers only to the i960. Moreover, the i960MX was apparently no longer even in production during the time frame covered by the indictment.

The i960 chip itself is a microprocessor that can be used in a wide variety of applications and is, according to Intel, “a time-proven and excellent choice for local and wide-area networking, telecom and imaging applications.” It is also used in slot machines, not normally considered a military application.

Sudarshan obtained the i960 chips from a vendor in Newburyport, Massachusetts, which produced these chips under license from Intel. The vendor also apparently did not believe that the i960 chip that it was selling to Sudarshan was USML. According to the indictment:

SUDARSHAN falsely assured representatives of the vendor in Newburyport, Massachusetts, that the i960 microprocessors were going to remain in Singapore for use in a joint Government of India project with Lockheed Martin, when, in fact, Cirrus Singapore was going to re-export the i960 microprocessors to ADE [the Aeronautical Development Establishment] in India for use in the navigation and weapons guidance systems of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft.

Thus, it was clear to the vendor that the i960 was being exported by Cirrus to ADE and yet it did not insist that Sudarshan obtain a DDTC license for that export.

The capacitors identified by the indictment as exported without the necessary DDTC license are widely available “off-the-shelf” components, as a simple Google search demonstrates. There is no indication that they were specifically designed or configured for military use, making any claim that they are USML more than a little untenable.

It appears that the government’s theory is that these items were USML because they were being shipped to India for use with the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. That, however, has never been enough to turn a commercially-available, off-the-shelf item into a defense item on the USML.

Perhaps DDTC should start doing export training for Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share


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