Jul

10

BIS Fine for Littelfuse Not So Littel


Posted by at 5:25 pm on July 10, 2007
Category: BIS

Programmable Logic DeviceLittelfuse, an Illinois-based manufacturer and seller of fuses and electronic components, filed a voluntary disclosure with the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and for its efforts got whacked with a $221,000 fine. The details can be found in yet another inexplicably large (and slow to download) file posted on the BIS website.

According to the proposed charging letter, Littelfuse engaged in exports of ceramic yarn classified under ECCN 1C010.c. Sixty two of the exports were without required licenses; others were eligible for the LVS license exception but in those cases Littelfuse failed to file four required semiannual reports for those exports. Littelfuse was charged with violating section 764.2(a) of the EAR with respect to the unlicensed exports, rather than under section 764.2(e) which requires knowledge of the violation. The failure to file the semiannual reports was charged under section 764.2(i).

As is normally the case, the charging documents provide little helpful detail as to what actually happened in this case, but it’s easy to make an educated guess. It appears that small quantities of ceramic yarn are used in certain fuse applications. In particular, Littelfuse’s U.S. Patent No. 4,409,729 explains the use of the ceramic yarn produced by 3M and known as Nextel 312 to form the core of a slow-blowing fuse. Such ceramic yarn is designed to tolerate high temperatures (naturally), and thus falls under ECCN 1C010.c which covers inorganic filamentary materials with a specific modulus exceeding 2.54 x 106 m and a melting, softening, decomposition or sublimation point exceeding 1,649 °C. A previously-reported settlement agreement entered into between BIS and Hexcel Corporation affirms that Nextel 312 is classified under ECCN 1C010.c.

With that background in mind, the $221,000 fine does seem somewhat excessive. To begin with, it seems likely that Littelfuse didn’t realize that Nextel 312 was export-controlled and that using it as a fuse core would subject that fuse to export controls as well. When it did discover that, it acted like a good citizen and told BIS about the problem. Beyond that mitigating factor, it seems clear that only small amounts of the ceramic yarn were exported. This is relevant because the reason that such fibers and materials is controlled is their usefulness in creating surface materials for missiles and space vehicles. It would certainly take many, many more than 67 fuses with ceramic yarn cores to permit the fabrication of surface materials for space vehicles and missiles.

Of course, defenders of BIS here will be quick with the usual refrain: “we could have fined Littelfuse $3 trillion*, so they should be happy it was only $221,000.” But if the BIS truly wants to encourage people to make voluntarily disclosures, it is more persuasive to point to the fine itself, rather than to a larger fine that the company might have paid in the uncertain event that BIS discovered the violation.

___________

*$3 trillion is a rhetorical exaggeration. Littlefuse’s actual liability would have been $737,000 calculated at $11,000 for each of the 67 violations charged.
< /br>
Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


5 Comments:


Lets be candid: BIS OEE has lost its compass since Mark Menefee retired and a Customs SAIC, who unlike Mark is not even a lawyer, was brought in to replace him.

Comment by Mike Deal on July 11th, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

[…] So let’s recap the latest two enforcement actions by BIS. On the one hand, we have a company that voluntarily discloses exports of ceramic yarn in amounts too small to be of use in military or space applications which is fined $225,000. On the other hand, we have a lawyer who gets caught red-handed attempting to export armored vehicles to a country with an ongoing insurrection in its oil-producing regions and who is fined $2,500. What are we missing here? (WARNING: The BIS file linked in this post, although only 11 pages, is extremely large. The lengthy download of the file may freeze or crash your browser.) < /br> Permalink No Comments […]

Comment by ExportLawBlog » Georgia Lawyer Fined For Attempted Export of Armored Vehicles to Nigeria on July 11th, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

Speaking as a former Customs Chief of Fines & Penalties–and not a lawyer–I don’t think one needs to be a lawyer to apply common sense, justice and fairness. I must note that the training of a special agent is probably not conducive to the weighing of the facts in assessing penalty matters. It is obvious that the penalty assessed Littlefuse in a voluntary disclousure is grossly out of proportion, particularly when compared to that assessed to a lawyer who attempted to export armourd cars to a war zone and did NOT voluntarily disclose the violation. The system is broken.

Comment by Ron Edelstein on July 13th, 2007 @ 11:07 am

Mike – OEE special agents don’t set the penalties; they are based on work-ups by Office of Chief Counsel (attorneys), reviewed by the Administrative Case Review Board (ACRB)(whose chair and 3 of 4 members are attorneys), and issued by the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement (an attorney). Don’t blame the special agents, they simply develop the facts that the attorneys base their penalty actions on. And for your information I retired from OEE over 3 months ago – the penalties you are referring to here and elsewhere were issued by BIS after my watch ended. Ed, I think you have a valid observation regarding the disparity between the voluntary disclosure penalty here and the non-disclosure armored car case – if BIS would explain how it constructs its penalties it would go a long way to a better understanding of what may be broken, where.

Comment by Mike Turner on July 16th, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

I want to add that in my dealings with Mike Turner at OEE, I found him to be reasonable, even though there were some things that, naturally, we disagreed on. One thing that we both strongly agreed on, however, was the point made by Mike in his comment above: more transparency from BIS on how penalties are decided upon would benefit both BIS and the export community.

Comment by Clif Burns on July 16th, 2007 @ 5:42 pm