<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Riot Helmet Shipper Complains about BIS Settlement Agreement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/396/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/396</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/396/comment-page-1#comment-20559</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=396#comment-20559</guid>
		<description>Given that the helmuts were going to Venezuela, it does make you wonder why BIS didn&#039;t squeeze a little harder.  Loss of license FMC license is not one of the statutory penalties:  It would require a full hearing by the FMC, and its not at all clear that a violation of the EAR is a lawful grounds for revocation of an FMC license (there are plenty of forwarders with priors out there). Whereas, if the EAA was still in force, BIS could have issued a valid denial order after an ALJ hearing that would have had the same effect. If the Export Administration Act is ever re-enacted, it might be a good idea to include loss of other federal licenses as added penalties.  Nothing like thinning the herd to keep things competitive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that the helmuts were going to Venezuela, it does make you wonder why BIS didn&#8217;t squeeze a little harder.  Loss of license FMC license is not one of the statutory penalties:  It would require a full hearing by the FMC, and its not at all clear that a violation of the EAR is a lawful grounds for revocation of an FMC license (there are plenty of forwarders with priors out there). Whereas, if the EAA was still in force, BIS could have issued a valid denial order after an ALJ hearing that would have had the same effect. If the Export Administration Act is ever re-enacted, it might be a good idea to include loss of other federal licenses as added penalties.  Nothing like thinning the herd to keep things competitive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jean Poole</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/396/comment-page-1#comment-20556</link>
		<dc:creator>Jean Poole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=396#comment-20556</guid>
		<description>I hope she does quit the biz.  She should have had all her FMC licences revoked for Gross Stupidity as part of her &quot;settlement&quot;.   I can understand some n00b untrained floorling screwing up but an NVO owner?  Come on!  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope she does quit the biz.  She should have had all her FMC licences revoked for Gross Stupidity as part of her &#8220;settlement&#8221;.   I can understand some n00b untrained floorling screwing up but an NVO owner?  Come on!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

