Comments on: BIS Assesses Maximum Possible Fine Against Exporter http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1344 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: exporter http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1344/comment-page-1#comment-92762 exporter Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:57:29 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1344#comment-92762 wow this is great, specially after our president made mention of how important was for the USA industry to begin exporting again, this sure looks like an encouragement for any USA base company. Maybe purchasing overseas does not look so bad after all, specially when these type of fines are being impose for simple magnifiers. It remains me of the airport security, they spend all resources searching a 90 year old person in a well chair, way to go BIS, keep makings us proud and looking good world wide. Just a simple exporter wow this is great, specially after our president made mention of how important was for the USA industry to begin exporting again, this sure looks like an encouragement for any USA base company. Maybe purchasing overseas does not look so bad after all, specially when these type of fines are being impose for simple magnifiers. It remains me of the airport security, they spend all resources searching a 90 year old person in a well chair, way to go BIS, keep makings us proud and looking good world wide.

Just a simple exporter

]]> By: Hillbilly http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1344/comment-page-1#comment-92752 Hillbilly Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:32:43 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1344#comment-92752 There is also the little problem that at the time of the events in question, which is to say most of the last 20 years, the EAA was expired and IEEPA contains no authority for use of a Denial Order against a US person as a sanction for violating the EAR. And the problem with that is that the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 558(b), prohibits agencies from imposing sanctions with statutory authority. The is no "foreign affairs function exclusion" to 5 USC 558, and OFAC, for whom IEEPA was drafted, has never purported to have the authorituy to impose denial orders against US persons as a sanction for violating OFAC regs. There is also the little problem that at the time of the events in question, which is to say most of the last 20 years, the EAA was expired and IEEPA contains no authority for use of a Denial Order against a US person as a sanction for violating the EAR. And the problem with that is that the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 558(b), prohibits agencies from imposing sanctions with statutory authority. The is no “foreign affairs function exclusion” to 5 USC 558, and OFAC, for whom IEEPA was drafted, has never purported to have the authorituy to impose denial orders against US persons as a sanction for violating OFAC regs.

]]> By: John Johnson http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1344/comment-page-1#comment-92751 John Johnson Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:59:33 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1344#comment-92751 So, if BIS isn't saying why they got out the big stick and the reason isn't in the charging documents, but is in the more closely held prosecution agreement, and SAC agreed to pay the fine as outlined in the DPA, then the punishment must fit the crime, and seemingly all parties are content that the details are not getting much of a public airing. Not being familiar with the legal vehicles involved, is this parallel to organs such as the Secret Court, where national security issues are discussed en camera in order to protect associated data such as sources and methods intelligence? So, if BIS isn’t saying why they got out the big stick and the reason isn’t in the charging documents, but is in the more closely held prosecution agreement, and SAC agreed to pay the fine as outlined in the DPA, then the punishment must fit the crime, and seemingly all parties are content that the details are not getting much of a public airing. Not being familiar with the legal vehicles involved, is this parallel to organs such as the Secret Court, where national security issues are discussed en camera in order to protect associated data such as sources and methods intelligence?

]]>