<?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: Worst. Advice. Ever.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981</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</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-92004</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-92004</guid>
		<description>Jim, as I said, no *(direct) offense ;).  I&#039;m confident that you, and your team do an awesome job...and you&#039;re diligent, and knowledgeable.  But quite frankly, its ultimately &quot;our&quot; (USPPI) job to do this work and have a firm understanding of what we are doing.  If you&#039;d like to ask your shipper/FF to &quot;confirm&quot;, fine. sure.  But, if we have folks out there &quot;picking up the phone&quot; as a first step in classifying their product/comm. (or advice to do so) then holy cow, we got troubles -- and much deserved ones.    In the end tho, don&#039;t take it too personal, just painting with a broad brush here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim, as I said, no *(direct) offense <img src='http://www.exportlawblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> .  I&#8217;m confident that you, and your team do an awesome job&#8230;and you&#8217;re diligent, and knowledgeable.  But quite frankly, its ultimately &#8220;our&#8221; (USPPI) job to do this work and have a firm understanding of what we are doing.  If you&#8217;d like to ask your shipper/FF to &#8220;confirm&#8221;, fine. sure.  But, if we have folks out there &#8220;picking up the phone&#8221; as a first step in classifying their product/comm. (or advice to do so) then holy cow, we got troubles &#8212; and much deserved ones.    In the end tho, don&#8217;t take it too personal, just painting with a broad brush here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Dickeson</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-91987</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Dickeson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-91987</guid>
		<description>Oof!  Ouch!  Cliff, Mike, be gentle.  I’m the corporate compliance manager for a freight forwarder.

OK, I’ll admit that our industry doesn’t have a good reputation.  When I came to this company (after working as a consultant, a computer company before that, and branch level freight forwarding before that), I hit the ceiling upon learning that our system default was EAR99/NLR.  No, that should be what you’re left with after exhausting the alternatives!  But I’ve made substantial improvements through formalized training and informal dialogue.  I have my little champions out there as supervisors in our field offices that have become my eyes and ears.  They’re learning, and they’re not afraid to come to me with questions when something smells a little fishy.

On the other hand, we have our share of shipper customers that certainly do not appreciate my medicine.  It’s none of my business, or no other freight forwarder questions this.  OK, fine, just have one of your corporate officers put that in writing.  I don’t look good in orange jumpsuits.

Shippers?  Forwarders?  My departed grandfather had something on his wall that has stuck with me for years: 

  There’s good enough in the worst of us,
  And bad enough in the best of us,
  That it behooves the most of us 
  To talk about the rest of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oof!  Ouch!  Cliff, Mike, be gentle.  I’m the corporate compliance manager for a freight forwarder.</p>
<p>OK, I’ll admit that our industry doesn’t have a good reputation.  When I came to this company (after working as a consultant, a computer company before that, and branch level freight forwarding before that), I hit the ceiling upon learning that our system default was EAR99/NLR.  No, that should be what you’re left with after exhausting the alternatives!  But I’ve made substantial improvements through formalized training and informal dialogue.  I have my little champions out there as supervisors in our field offices that have become my eyes and ears.  They’re learning, and they’re not afraid to come to me with questions when something smells a little fishy.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we have our share of shipper customers that certainly do not appreciate my medicine.  It’s none of my business, or no other freight forwarder questions this.  OK, fine, just have one of your corporate officers put that in writing.  I don’t look good in orange jumpsuits.</p>
<p>Shippers?  Forwarders?  My departed grandfather had something on his wall that has stuck with me for years: </p>
<p>  There’s good enough in the worst of us,<br />
  And bad enough in the best of us,<br />
  That it behooves the most of us<br />
  To talk about the rest of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LaurenM</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-91985</link>
		<dc:creator>LaurenM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-91985</guid>
		<description>Great article - and good points, Clif! I would just say that these days some freight forwarders do keep on top of this and if you KNOW your freight forwarder has a means to keep up-to-date on international trade regulations then yes, they would be a good person to talk to. However not all of them have this capability! Maybe it&#039;s something more should look into!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article &#8211; and good points, Clif! I would just say that these days some freight forwarders do keep on top of this and if you KNOW your freight forwarder has a means to keep up-to-date on international trade regulations then yes, they would be a good person to talk to. However not all of them have this capability! Maybe it&#8217;s something more should look into!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hillbilly</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-91982</link>
		<dc:creator>Hillbilly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-91982</guid>
		<description>As both an enforcement type and when in private practice, I lost count of how many violations, both technical and serious substantive violations, were the product of bad advice or nonfeasance from forwarders. Worse yet, forwarders are the first to rat out their customers to the government and then point the finger at said customers, usually whining that the customer didn&#039;t give them sufficient information - never mind the forwarder rarely asks for additional information or tests what the customer gives them.  In one case, a big name forwarder did a classification for $100, which turned out to be incorrect, for which the government sought a seven figure civil penalty for years of shipments under a &quot;false&quot; classification.

There is a disconnect between forwarders marketing people and their operations people.  Most forwarders&#039; marketeers solicit business on the representation that the customer can rely on the forwarder as a one-stop-shop for all their international trade needs.  Most forwarders&#039; operations are actually high volume paper (or electron) pushing operations who hire low-wage folks with the barest education to fill out templates without any real understanding of the substantive terms.  The advice they render is rarely documented in writing, and even when in writing (like a quick email) rarely accompanied by any reasoned rationale with citations to authority - an essential component of a good faith mistake defense.  And when their low cost approach inevitably results in problems, rather than going back to the customer and doing a joint voluntary disclosure, most forwarders will drop a dime on their customer to keep from paying out anything themselves.

Some forwarders will, after the marketeers rope in the customer, ask customers to sign documents accepting all liability and/or warning the customer that the customer is responsible for regulatory compliance.  Customers should paid heed and guard themselves accordingly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As both an enforcement type and when in private practice, I lost count of how many violations, both technical and serious substantive violations, were the product of bad advice or nonfeasance from forwarders. Worse yet, forwarders are the first to rat out their customers to the government and then point the finger at said customers, usually whining that the customer didn&#8217;t give them sufficient information &#8211; never mind the forwarder rarely asks for additional information or tests what the customer gives them.  In one case, a big name forwarder did a classification for $100, which turned out to be incorrect, for which the government sought a seven figure civil penalty for years of shipments under a &#8220;false&#8221; classification.</p>
<p>There is a disconnect between forwarders marketing people and their operations people.  Most forwarders&#8217; marketeers solicit business on the representation that the customer can rely on the forwarder as a one-stop-shop for all their international trade needs.  Most forwarders&#8217; operations are actually high volume paper (or electron) pushing operations who hire low-wage folks with the barest education to fill out templates without any real understanding of the substantive terms.  The advice they render is rarely documented in writing, and even when in writing (like a quick email) rarely accompanied by any reasoned rationale with citations to authority &#8211; an essential component of a good faith mistake defense.  And when their low cost approach inevitably results in problems, rather than going back to the customer and doing a joint voluntary disclosure, most forwarders will drop a dime on their customer to keep from paying out anything themselves.</p>
<p>Some forwarders will, after the marketeers rope in the customer, ask customers to sign documents accepting all liability and/or warning the customer that the customer is responsible for regulatory compliance.  Customers should paid heed and guard themselves accordingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-91979</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-91979</guid>
		<description>Cliff, great article, enjoyed the humor.  Although, it is scary to find &quot;how many sources&quot; actually do in fact encourage users to &quot;contact their freight forwarder...

See CISCO http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/global_export_trade/general_export/contract_compliance.html  

&quot;Cisco encourages customers to contact their local freight forwarder, consultant, or an attorney with knowledge of international export requirements.&quot; 

Yikes.  Unless your getting weight requirements, transportation plans, packing details, etc...Like you, I&#039;d recommend leaving the FF out of the call tree (no offense against my FF friends).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cliff, great article, enjoyed the humor.  Although, it is scary to find &#8220;how many sources&#8221; actually do in fact encourage users to &#8220;contact their freight forwarder&#8230;</p>
<p>See CISCO <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/global_export_trade/general_export/contract_compliance.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/global_export_trade/general_export/contract_compliance.html</a>  </p>
<p>&#8220;Cisco encourages customers to contact their local freight forwarder, consultant, or an attorney with knowledge of international export requirements.&#8221; </p>
<p>Yikes.  Unless your getting weight requirements, transportation plans, packing details, etc&#8230;Like you, I&#8217;d recommend leaving the FF out of the call tree (no offense against my FF friends).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jairo</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/981/comment-page-1#comment-91978</link>
		<dc:creator>Jairo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=981#comment-91978</guid>
		<description>Cliff: Easy on us. I recognize a high percentage of forwarders do not know or do not care about Export Compliance or Itar, Bis, Ofac, DDTC, ICE, CBP or the alphabet soup. But, unfortunately, for the USPPI (here we go again) the FF is the first point of contact and any wrong advise given could lead to serious problems with the US Government. What could the USPPI do? Contact a law firm? 

The only way I can see to change the state of things in the export community is to spread the word that export is not a game, that training is very important and there are blogs like Cliff&#039;s that help you laugh at yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cliff: Easy on us. I recognize a high percentage of forwarders do not know or do not care about Export Compliance or Itar, Bis, Ofac, DDTC, ICE, CBP or the alphabet soup. But, unfortunately, for the USPPI (here we go again) the FF is the first point of contact and any wrong advise given could lead to serious problems with the US Government. What could the USPPI do? Contact a law firm? </p>
<p>The only way I can see to change the state of things in the export community is to spread the word that export is not a game, that training is very important and there are blogs like Cliff&#8217;s that help you laugh at yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

