Archive for the ‘Cuba Sanctions’ Category


Nov

2

Well That Didn’t Take Long, Did It?


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:58 pm on November 2, 2011
Category: BISCuba Sanctions

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
ABOVE: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

On October 19 this blog reported on a hearing held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with respect to efforts that the U.S. government and U.S. companies are taking to respond to and mitigate potential ecological disasters that might stem from planned exploratory drilling by non-U.S. companies in Cuban territorial waters. The chairs in the hearing room had barely cooled off before Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, fired off a letter to the Obama administration criticizing any efforts by the federal government to minimize the impact of the Cuban drilling on the ecology of nearby U.S. coastal waters. Because the drilling is going to occur in all events, complaining about damage containment on U.S. shores seems to be a classic case of cutting off our own nose to spite Cuba’s face.

Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen’s tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee has, sadly, not caused her to learn much about U.S. export laws, as we’ve noted before, and this letter on Cuban drilling continues to demonstrate her confusion about applicable export and sanctions laws. For starters, the Chairwoman seems to believe that the lapsed Export Administration Act is still in force when she demands an investigation by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) as to whether use of a Chinese-built rig in the drilling violates the “Export Administration Act.”

The de minimis rule also appears to have confused Ros-Lehtinen:

We are concerned by reports that the Scarabeo 9 may have been designed specifically to avoid U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. While the EAA and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) generally prohibit virtually all exports and reexports of U.S.-origin goods, software and technology to Cuba, we need clarity on how the Administration is applying the sanctions and EAR to foreign produced items incorporating 10 percent or less controlled U.S. content

That is not a difficult question to answer: the sanctions and the EAR do not apply to restrict export to Cuba of foreign-produced items incorporating 10 percent or less controlled U.S. content. There’s no need to write a letter to President Obama to get that answer; it’s clearly stated in the EAR.

But the Chairwoman saves the best for last:

The Export Administration Regulations clearly state that the only items allowed to be exported to Cuba are donations of medical equipment, agricultural exports, and telecommunications equipment. Thus, even if the de minimis rule does not [sic] apply, the broader prohibitions against exports to Cuba must still be enforced.

Where exactly to start with this? Section 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR permits many more exports other than the three mentioned by Ros-Lehtinen, including medicine, computers, disk drives, digital cameras, televisions, radio receivers, recording devices, baggage, gifts, humanitarian donations, aircraft on temporary sojourn, spare parts for foreign-made equipment and much more. More importantly, any listing of permissible exports in section 746.2(a)(1) does not overrule the explicit provisions of the de minimis rule found in section 734.4 of the EAR which specifically permits re-exports to Cuba of items with 10 percent or less U.S.-origin controlled content.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share



Oct

19

Would U.S. Export Laws Hinder Efforts To Mitigate Cuban Oil Spills?


Posted by Clif Burns at 7:38 pm on October 19, 2011
Category: BISCuba SanctionsOFAC

Offshore Oil PlatformThe Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing yesterday, reported here by the Oil & Gas Journal, on the possible impact of exploratory oil drilling by non-U.S. companies in Cuban territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Michael R. Bromwich, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) tried to assure the Committee that U.S. companies could respond quickly to an oil spill in Cuban waters notwithstanding the U.S. embargo on Cuba.

He said that the US Departments of Commerce and the Treasury have a long-standing practice of providing licenses to address environmental challenges in Cuban waters, and that DOC’s Bureau of Industry and Security has issued a number of them for booms, skimmers, dispersants, pumps, and other equipment and supplies to minimize environmental damage from a spill. “I believe the Commerce and Treasury departments would move quickly to approve more licenses if needed,” he said.

Not all witnesses before the Committee shared Bromwich’s rosy view of our ability to respond to a Cuban spill:

Paul A. Schuler, president of Clean Caribbean & Americas, an international spill response cooperative operating in the region, said only three US companies have such licenses that must be renewed every 1-2 years. “It needs to be handled in advance, and not as an ad hoc action as part of a response to an oil spill,” Schuler said. “Others would have to go through the entire licensing process, and my experience has been that it has not been quick.”

I suspect that exporters with experience obtaining licenses from BIS and OFAC might also share Schuler’s scepticism about whether the agencies could move quickly on licenses by U.S. companies to provide clean-up services in Cuban waters (which would require an OFAC license) and export equipment to be used in that clean-up effort (which would require a BIS license).

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Aug

29

The Spy Who (Never) Loved Me


Posted by Clif Burns at 7:33 pm on August 29, 2011
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC


ABOVE: Juan Pablo Roque (left)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (right)


A jilted wife, a Cuban spy, and OFAC: how could this blog ignore a story involving all three at once? Last week a federal district judge in Miami ruled that Ana Margarita Martinez could not garnish money owed by U.S. companies providing licensed travel to Cuba to satisfy a $27.2 million judgment she obtained in 2001 against Cuba.

The circumstances of Ms. Martinez’s lawsuit against Cuba are detailed in this article, which, although it appeared in Time magazine, contains salacious details that we are unable to repeat on a family blog like this one. In brief, Martinez married a “hunky, sensitive” man named Juan Pablo Roque, described as looking “more like Richard Gere than Richard Gere does,” whatever that means (and I think you know). As it turns out, Roque was a Cuban spy sent to the United States to infiltrate Brothers to the Rescue. He secretly returned to Cuba just before the Castro government shot down the Brothers to the Rescue airplane. When questioned in a television interview about what he missed that he left behind in the United States, Roque calmly responded “My Jeep,” with nary a mention of Ms. Martinez. A lawsuit followed and in 2001, a sympathetic judge awarded Ms. Martinez a $27.2 million judgment against Cuba for its complicity in Roque’s torture and “battery” of Ms. Martinez. The judgment was awarded under now-repealed section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C § 1602, et seq., which permitted money awards for torture against foreign states designated as state sponsors of terrorism, as is the case for Cuba.

Ms. Martinez attempted to satisfy the judgment in a state court garnishment action against licensed Cuba travel companies seeking payment of the sums owed by those companies to Cuba for landing fees and other airport services and charges. That action was moved to federal court where a magistrate’s report issued in June recommended quashing the writs of garnishment. Last week the federal district court judge adopted the report and issued an order granting the garnishee defendants summary judgment on their motion to quash the writs.

The magistrate noted that section 515.201(b)(1) of the Cuban Asset Control Regulations prohibited all dealings in or transfers by a U.S. person of property in which a Cuban national has an interest unless an OFAC license is obtained. He further noted that section 515.310 defined transfer to include judicial levies and garnishment. Since Ms. Martinez had neither applied for or obtained an OFAC license permitting the garnishment of these sums, the Magistrate’s report recommended that the writs of garnishment be quashed.

The wrinkle in the case is the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1610 note, which says that “blocked assets” of terrorist may be subject to garnishment to satisfy judgments obtained under section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, the magistrate ruled that since the payments by the travel companies to Cuba were licensed by OFAC, they were not “blocked assets” under that provision.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share



Aug

3

German Store Selling Cuban Rum Online Cut Off By PayPal


Posted by Clif Burns at 7:41 pm on August 3, 2011
Category: Cuba SanctionsForeign Countermeasures

Havana Club Rum PosterAccording to an article dated August 1 in the online edition of German newspaper Die Welt, the U.S. Internet payment company PayPal closed the account of a German website that had been selling Cuban rum among other alcohol and alcohol-related products. PayPal spokesman Christoph Hausel was quoted as saying the company, as a U.S. company, could not process payments for Cuban origin products.

Mr. Hausel is right. Section 515.204 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations prohibit any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in any transaction relating to any product outside the United States which is of Cuban origin.

But that’s not the end of the story here. E.U. Council Regulation No. 2271/96 makes it illegal for any company in the European Union to comply with the U.S. embargo on Cuba. PayPal operates in Europe through a Luxembourg-based banking entity. If that entity had any role in freezing the German company’s funds, it might be in violation of the E.U. Regulations, thereby putting PayPal, as it were, between a rock and a rum place. Not surprisingly, the German website owner is threatening a lawsuit against the Luxembourg entity.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Aug

2

United Flight Makes Unexpected Landing in Cuba


Posted by Clif Burns at 8:05 pm on August 2, 2011
Category: Cuba SanctionsGeneral

Jose Marti Airport International TerminalA United Flight from Dulles Airport in Washington, DC, on its way to Cancun, Mexico, over the weekend was diverted for an emergency landing after the crew became concerned about an odd odor on the flight. The closest airport at the time of the diversion was the Jose Marti airport in Cuba

Readers of this blog might recall an earlier post where a fishing boat wandered into Cuban territorial waters and got whacked by BIS with a fine for the illegal export (albeit temporary) of the boat to Cuba. Is United going to get a nastygram for BIS over this emergency landing in Cuba?

This is where license exception AVS, which is set forth in section 7540.15 of the Export Administration Regulations, comes in. That exception gives certain aircraft special exemptions from certain export requirements.

Section 740.15(a)(2)(i) deals with U.S. registered aircraft operating under an Air Carrier Operating Certificate, Commercial Operating Certificate, or Air Taxi Operating Certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. This section would cover the United flight. All remaining U.S. registered aircraft are covered under Section 740.15(a)(2)(ii). Under the first of these exceptions, no license is required for the “export” of the aircraft from the United States when it flies to foreign countries, as long as certain conditions are met that qualify it as a temporary sojourn. Under the second category for all other U.S. registered aircraft, there is an explicit provision prohibiting the use of the exception for flights to Cuba. So although a United pilot could divert his aircraft to Cuba under this exception, Joe Pilot in a private plane could not make an emergency landing at Jose Marti in Cuba no matter what he smelled in the aircraft. Section 740.15(a)(5) says that the exception can’t be used for exports or re-exports to Cuba or other Group E countries, but I am assuming that this is just an inartful way of repeating that trips to Cuba must be temporary sojourns meeting the other requirements of section 740.15.

Even if the emergency landing in Cuba did not violate BIS’s rules, United’s headaches may not be over. The Cuba sanctions regulations of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) prohibit “the receipt of goods or services in Cuba, even if provided free-of-charge by the Government of Cuba or a national of Cuba.” It seems hard, if not impossible, to land in Cuba without receiving services, even if just the clearance to land, from Jose Marti airport. And I don’t see an exception in the OFAC regulations for an emergency landing. I’m sure Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Bob Menendez and the other Cuba hawks on the Hill are having major conniption fits over this and dashing off letters to OFAC calling for the death penalty for everyone involved in this unplanned trip to Cuba.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share