ExportLawBlog » 2009

Archive for November, 2009

Nov

30

Update to 11/25/09 Post

Posted by Clif Burns at 5:38 pm on November 30, 2009

Category: General

The previous post, dated November 25, quoted an article in Crain’s Chicago Business in which an export attorney was quoted as saying:

â€œAt the very least, you should have your freight forwarder check compliance, so if they identify a problem, they can stop the order before it ships.â€

I said in that post that, knowing what I did about the law firm in question, I was “absolutely certain” that the lawyer was misquoted or the statement was taken completely out of context. The attorney involved has since spoken with me and confirmed that I was right and that the article misquoted the lawyer.

Significantly, during the interview the lawyer had become concerned that the reporter was not understanding what was being said and asked to review any attributed quotations prior to publication, a request that the reporter did not honor. Another reason, of course, not to believe everything you read in a newspaper or magazine. Blogs, on the other hand, can always be trusted completely.

Permalink

Comments (2)

Nov

25

Worst. Advice. Ever.

Posted by Clif Burns at 11:10 am on November 25, 2009

Category: General

Prison Cell The title of this post is not really meant to be hyperbole. The advice given in Crain’s Chicago Business in an article titled “Liars and terrorists and drug traffickers, oh my!” is without doubt the single worst piece of advice on export law that I’ve ever seen dispensed by anyone:

Further complicating matters, export control laws are regularly updated, and it’s up to business owners to stay current. That isn’t always easy. But a good place to start, experts say, is with â€¦ a freight forwarder who is regularly dealing with shipping and tariff restrictions.

To begin with, as regular readers know, the defense of “my freight forwarder did it” is the export law equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.” It’s not going to keep you from doing detention. Worse, many freight forwarders have no working knowledge of export laws and little interest in complying because DDTC and BIS usually whack the exporter not the freight forwarder in these matters.

On top of everything else, a lawyer was misquoted by the reporter.

“It’s a labor-intensive process,” says â€¦ [the] managing partner of â€¦ [a] law firm specializing in international trade law. “At the very least, you should have your freight forwarder check compliance, so if they identify a problem, they can stop the order before it ships.”

I know attorneys at the law firm in question. They are all smart people. They have people just as knowledgeable about export law as anyone else in the export bar. I am absolutely certain that the partner in question was misquoted or the statement was taken completely out of context by the reporter. (11/30 UPDATE: The attorney in question has contacted me to confirm that the quotation was inaccurate and that the reporter, although she promised to allow the attorney to review the article in question before it went to print, did not do so. Again, I absolutely believe that the attorney was misquoted and never would have said what the reporter claimed.)

Here’s some better advice: ask a Ouija Board your export compliance questions before submitting them to your freight forwarder.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Export Law Blog will be back to a regular schedule on Monday.

UPDATE (Early Thanksgiving Morning): I should add one qualification, based on a few comments this post has received from esteemed readers who work for freight forwarders. There is, of course, an irrebuttable presumption that any freight forwarder who is a reader of this blog would be an excellent source of export compliance information. 🙂

Permalink

Comments (6)

Nov

23

Monsieur Monsieur Cops Cops Plea Plea

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:58 pm on November 23, 2009

ABOVE: M. Jacques
Monsieur

Monsieur Jacques Monsieur, international arms dealer and man of mystery who, I previously reported, once tried to excuse his arms dealing by claiming to be working for U.S. and French intelligence services, pleaded guilty today in a federal court in Mobile to charges that he had illegally attempted to export aircraft parts to Iran. Amazingly neither the CIA nor it’s French counterpart the DST rode into the courtroom at the last minute to save Mr. Monsieur.

According to an article in the Mobile Press Register, the plea agreement offers Monsieur a chance to reduce his penalty by providing helpful information in his own case and others. It may well be the case that the U.S. is more interested in Monsieur’s Iranian contacts than in Monsieur himself.

In my original post on Monsieur Monsieur, I expressed more than a small amount of skepticism that Monsieur would, during the middle of a deal to export jet engines from New York to Iran, casually show up in New York where he could be, and was, arrested by U.S. officials. A commenter on my original post says that “a little birdie” told him that Monsieur was nabbed in Panama by U.S. officials then taken to New York for his arrest, a credible, if still unverified, story.

Permalink

Comments (2)

Nov

19

Boon and Bane

Posted by Clif Burns at 7:57 pm on November 19, 2009

Category: BIS

Mr. Chip Wash Minnesota-based FSI International, a manufacturer of semiconductor wafer cleaning products, voluntarily disclosed to the Bureau of Industry and Security (â€œBISâ€) that it had exported fluoropolymer-coated pumps and valves classified under ECCN 2B350 without first obtaining an export license from BIS. Last month, FSI entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which it agreed to pay $400,000 in fines. The exports in question consisted of 66 shipments valued at around $265,000. (I didn’t actually add up the amounts in the schedule of exports but did a rough estimate.)

Those are the facts, but I think that my speculation about what happened here offers a valuable compliance lesson, one that suggests that BIS’s “Interpretation 2” is both a boon and a bane to exporters. The equipment produced by FSI is designed to clean semiconductor materials at various stages in the manufacture of those materials into integrated circuits. Because the FSI equipment doesn’t make the semiconductor wafers or etch or imprint the patterns into them, FSI’s equipment does not appear to be controlled by ECCN 3B001, the most likely classification for such equipment. The exports in question — fluoropolymer-coated valves and pumps — were likely parts and components of FSI’s cleaning equipment which FSI was exporting to its customers to maintain or to repair the equipment.

By now you should see where I’m going with this. Interpretation 2, which is set forth in EAR Â§ 770.2(b), is what you might call BIS’s “no-see-through” rule. It states that parts integrated into equipment do not require licenses for export as long as the parts are “normal and usual” components of the equipment and have not been incorporated into the equipment for the purpose of evading the rules. But, and it’s an important “but,” if the parts are exported when not incorporated into the equipment, whether as spares, replacements, or otherwise, they may require a license depending on the ECCN of the part and its destination.

The lesson here is that although Interpretation 2 makes the classification of an item easier and permits its export even when it has export-controlled parts (the boon), Interpretation 2 also means that spare parts may still have to be classified before they are exported for maintenance or repair purposes (the bane). It seems likely that FSI had determined that its cleaning equipment was EAR99 and never thought about separately classifying its parts. Even if equipment has an ECCN other than EAR99, the reasons for control for the equipment’s ECCN may be different from those for the ECCNs for the parts, meaning that export licenses are required for both but possibly for different countries.

Permalink

Comments (2)

Nov

18

Wednesday Export Law Grab Bag

Posted by Clif Burns at 8:38 pm on November 18, 2009

Category: Cuba Sanctions • Iran Sanctions

No big news today, so it’s time for another Export Law Blog grab bag:

Failed state Solomon Islands wanted Iran to pay for transportation of Solomon Islands students to Cuba to attend medical school. Australia-based ANZ Bank refused to transfer $100,000 from Iran to pay for the transportation. The Solomon Islands High Commissioner to Australia complained that the banks actions weren’t based on international sanctions. The bank responded that it simply doesn’t engage in financial transactions involving Iran or Cuba. Presumably ANZ doesn’t want to cough up another $5.75 million fine to OFAC. Sometimes OFAC can successfully use fear as a means of asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction
Looks like that Iranian communications satellite that’s been kicking around for a while is going to remain earthbound for the forseeable future. The Russians sat on the satellite since 2005, leading the Iranians to claim that Italy would be launching it “soon.” Carlo Gavazzi Space said today that an Italian launch of the satellite wasn’t likely to happen since there were no launch platforms in Italy, that the satellite is currently in Italy and that no export license had been requested or would be requested for the satellite to be exported to another country for launch.
The Miami Herald published a bipartisan letter on Tuesday from Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Howard Berman urging an end to the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba, noting that Cuba was the only country in the world to which Americans couldn’t travel and that the ban had prevented contact between “Cubans and ordinary Americans, who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear.” The ink on the Miami Herald letter was hardly dry before JosÃ© R. CÃ¡rdenas at Foreign Policy shot back, arguing that there was no reason to end the hugely successful travel ban and taking a swipe at ordinary Americans, who he claimed wouldn’t be ambassadors for democratic values but just a few more drunks on the beaches in Cuba.