Archive for March, 2012


Mar

14

Export Reform on a Slow Boat to China


Posted by at 6:52 pm on March 14, 2012
Category: Arms ExportChinaDDTCExport Reform

Gregory Schulte
ABOVE: Gregory Schulte

The House Armed Services Committee last week held a hearing on whether the Thales sale of an ITAR-free satellite to the Chinese had, in fact, leaked U.S. space technology to the Chinese. During that hearing, Gregory L. Schulte, deputy assistant defense secretary for space policy, tried to allay concerns by the Committee that export reform would be a boon to the Chinese.

And we are not proposing removing the Tiananmen Square sanctions that would remain in place even with export-control reform, meaning that items still on the Munitions List could not be exported to China. And, also meaning, that we would not allow the launch of satellites from Chinese launch vehicles.

He went on to say that although some space items would, as part of export reform, be moved to the less restrictive Commerce Control List, those would only be “space items that are already widely available.” Even then, according to Schulte, such space items that were moved to the CCL would still be subject to strict controls with respect to licensing exports to China.

Permalink Comments Off on Export Reform on a Slow Boat to China

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

13

Does Anything Exported to the UAE Ever Stay There?


Posted by at 10:24 pm on March 13, 2012
Category: BISCriminal PenaltiesSyria

Afton, WyomingAn Afton, Wyoming man, Matt Kallgren, was sentenced, on January 23, 2012, to three years probation with the first four months in home confinement on charges that he exported EAR99 diesel truck parts to Syria. Of course, since criminal penalties weren’t enough in this case, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) piled civil charges on top of the criminal prosecution. Now BIS has announced a settlement of the civil charges pursuant to which Kallgren agreed to a $75,000 penalty and a three-year denial order, both of which were suspended for three years provided that he commits no further export violations and complies with the terms of his criminal sentence.

According to the charging papers, Kallgren was contacted by a Syrian company in 2006 which was seeking to purchase civilian diesel engine parts. When Kallgren attempted to ship the parts, his “normal freight forwarder” (which according to this local newspaper account was UPS) told him that items couldn’t be shipped to Syria. He then used a freight forwarder recommended by the Syrian buyer to ship the parts to Syria by transshipping them through the UAE.

Miraculously Kallgren was subsequently the, er, beneficiary of an “Outreach” visit from Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents who, allegedly, advised him on the U.S. laws prohibiting exports to embargoed destinations. (Another case which shows that the appropriate response to an “Outreach” visit is to call your lawyer.) Kallgren shipped a second order of parts via the UAE to Syria which, in a similarly miraculous fashion, were seized by Customs on their way out of the country. Allegedly, Kallgren doubled down and told Customs that the parts really were destined for the UAE. Really. I promise. Pay no attention to those commercial invoices.

Kallgren’s company Powerline Components, which shares Kallgren’s home address, also agreed to settle separate charges relating to these shipments. Under that settlement, Powerline agreed to a $60,000 fine and a three-year denial order. The denial order, but not the fine, was suspended.

Finally, in what appears to be a related case, R.I.M. Logistics agreed to a $50,000 fine to settle charges that it aided and abetted an export of EAR99 diesel parts to Syria via the UAE. Although that settlement does not mention Kallgren or Powerline, the timing and subject matter strongly suggests that these were the same exports that got Kallgren and Powerline in trouble. Interestingly, there is not a single allegation in the charging letter that it had any knowledge that the export to the UAE was ultimately destined to a customer in Syria. One might suspect that R.I.M. was the freight forwarder recommended by the Syrian customer, in which case R.I.M. might have had knowledge of the ultimate destination of the export. But without making that assumption, and based on the face of the charging documents, R.I.M. was held to be absolutely liable for its customer’s misdeeds whether or not it had any knowledge of them.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

8

No Boats To Cuba


Posted by at 8:38 pm on March 8, 2012
Category: General

Havana HarborThe Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has nixed plans to start passenger ferry between Miami and Havana, Cuba. According to a letter sent to a company requesting such service, OFAC said that, after consulting with the State Department, such service would be “beyond the scope of current policy.”

It’s not clear what it means to say that ferry service is beyond the scope of current policy. Certainly, current policy permits passenger service, although only air carriers are currently licensed to provide service to Cuba. Nor does the Cuban Democracy Act, which imposes restrictions on vessels traveling to and from Cuba, prohibit the authorization of ferry service. It specifically permits such traffic if authorized by OFAC.

So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that only people who can afford air fare should be permitted to travel to Cuba. We wouldn’t want ordinary riffraff to travel to Cuba on a low-cost ferry.

Permalink Comments Off on No Boats To Cuba

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

7

Loose Lips: Do They Sink Ships or Will They Just Annoy OFAC?


Posted by at 8:46 pm on March 7, 2012
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Iranian proliferationTake a gander at this headline of a company press release today:

WWA Group Receives Cautionary Letter from Office of Foreign Assets Control

Yes, that’s right, the WWA Group, a global heavy equipment auctioneer, is trumpeting to the world that it received a “cautionary letter” from OFAC. You’d think that they had received a billion dollar government contract from the Department of Defense but, no, the cause for high fives and a happy dance is a “cautionary letter.” Either WWA Groups thinks it just dodged a bullet (or, perhaps, a thermonuclear device) or it was an extraordinarily slow news day in the WWA Group cubicles in Austin.

Maybe they did dodge a bullet. A statement in the company’s 2007 annual report reveals more about the nature of the company’s brouhaha with OFAC:

The U.S State Department and the U.S. Treasury Department of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) have identified Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism, and forbid the sale of goods or services by U.S. persons or companies to these countries or to agents of the respective governments of these countries.

On April 27, 2007 WWA Group received a “cease and desist” order from OFAC proscribing the sale of equipment or services, or facilitating the sale of equipment or services to persons with registered addresses in Iran, Syria or Sudan. WWA Group has never sold equipment at auction or delivered equipment to countries or to agents of the respective governments of these countries which OFAC has identified as state sponsors of terrorism However, we have in the past sold equipment to private individuals or companies resident in Iran, Sudan or Syria who may have, on their own accord, exported such purchased equipment to their countries of residence.

If WWA Group got just a cautionary letter in such a circumstance, perhaps they do have the right to break out the champagne and alert the press. Because frankly the defense that they sold stuff to Iranians but were shocked, shocked to learn that the equipment wound up in Iran was, frankly, a flea-bitten dog of an argument. Now whether OFAC is happy that WWA Group is telling the whole world it got a pass in this case is a different matter.

[h/t to Michael Mellen, who is in the office next to mine, for sighting this press release.]

Permalink Comments Off on Loose Lips: Do They Sink Ships or Will They Just Annoy OFAC?

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

1

Loose Lips: Do They Sink Ships or Just Annoy DDTC?


Posted by at 6:23 pm on March 1, 2012
Category: DDTCPart 122

Top SecretWe all know about exporters who, having spent the money to register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), can’t resist crowing about it, with some even implying in press releases that registration is a certification from DDTC that the registered exporter has passed some test and is now certified as ITAR-compliant, which, of course, is untrue.

But here’s another response to the giddy euphoria that follows on the heels of a successful registration: post the registration code and the DDTC registration letter on your website! That is exactly what E.R. Precision Optical did. Of course, the folks at E.R. were probably not aware that DDTC says

The code is proprietary to the registrant and should be handled as such. Company registration codes should not be posted online or given out freely to the public.

Of course, that raises the more interesting question: why should this registration number be confidential? It’s not like I can take E.R.’s number from the web and use it to start applying for export licenses in my own name. Further, DDTC spokespeople have said that exporters should make sure that they only deal with registered subcontractors even though DDTC refuses to answer inquiries as to whether particular parties are even registered or not. And arguably using an unregistered manufacturer is a violation of section 127.1(d) of the ITAR.

So how do you find out if someone who manufactures defense articles is registered? The best way is to ask that company for a copy of the registration letter which, of course, the DDTC says is “double secret.*” Otherwise, you just have to take their word for it. At least when companies like E.R. post the registration letter and code online, you can be fairly certain, Photoshop forgeries aside, that they are registered.

[h/t to Chris Adams for pointing out the E.R. website to me.]


*Naughty language alert if you click this link and view the video. May not be safe for certain workplaces.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)