http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/185 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 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/185/comment-page-1#comment-2730 Clif Burns Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:25:41 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/185#comment-2730 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. :) 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.

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/185/comment-page-1#comment-2729 Mike Deal Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:29:56 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/185#comment-2729 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. 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.

]]>