Jun

25

Statutes of Limitations Easily Circumvented by BIS


Posted by at 11:04 pm on June 25, 2007
Category: BIS

Diaphragm PumpBIS recently released a Charging Letter, Settlement Agreement and Order pursuant to which pump maker Graco agreed to pay $97,000 to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) to settle fifteen alleged violations of the Export Administration Regulations. The violations involved direct shipment of diaphragm pumps to locations requiring licenses as well as shipment of the pumps to distributors with knowledge that the distributor would reship the pumps without a license to destinations requiring a license.

The Settlement Agreement and the Order were dated June 22, 2007. The earliest violation occurred in 1999 and the latest violation in February 2002. All fifteen violations, accordingly, fell outside the relevant five-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

So why, some of you might ask, would Graco agree to pay a $97,000 to BIS even though BIS would have no power to collect the fine in federal court? Simple. Graco agreed to pay the amount to avoid denial of export privileges which is not subject to the statute of limitations. The bottom line for exporters is that the threat of denial of export privileges can be used to obtain a fine from exporters that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


2 Comments:


The FOIA reading room doesn’t indicate when Graco was notified, but the inclusion of a proposed charging letter rather than an actual charging letter indicates that this case was settled before a charging letter was issued. If so, the respondent may have simply waived the SoL in order to keep negotiations in play rather than have a charging letter issued.

Comment by Mike Deal on June 27th, 2007 @ 3:29 pm

That’s certainly possible, Mike, although I would be surprised if they have been negotiating this since 2004 when the SoL would have run on the 1999 violations. Besides I was counting on you not to make this point but to point out the denial of export privileges isn’t permitted under IEPPA. 🙂

Comment by Clif Burns on June 27th, 2007 @ 4:25 pm