Jun

5

Coming Soon to an Entity List Near You: Suspects!


Posted by at 6:02 pm on June 5, 2007
Category: BIS

Shady CharacterThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) released today a notice of a proposed rule that would expand the reasons that a company could be placed on BIS’s Entity List. A license is required for exports of all items subject to the EAR, including EAR99 items, to persons or companies listed on the Entity List.

The new reasons for designation on an entity list include acts supporting terrorism, acts that enhance the military (or terrorist) capabilities of governments that are designated as state supporters of terrorism, dealing in conventional weapons in a manner deemed contrary to the interests of the United States, and failing to cooperate in an end-use verification by BIS. All of these seem to be perfectly sound reasons for adding a person or company to the Entity List. But, a fifth reason for inclusion was, shall we say, just a little bit broader and a just a little bit more puzzling:

Engaging in conduct that poses a risk of violating the EAR and raises sufficient concern that BIS believes that prior review of exports or reexports involving the party and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denial enhances BIS’s ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

Before you get too worked up about this, we should note that BIS specifically notes that none of these new reasons, including this last reason, can be used to put a U.S. person on the Entity List.

Still there is some cause for concern. BIS doesn’t provide any clues as to what kind of conduct “poses a risk of violating the EAR.” Is having a subsidiary in a sanctioned country, such as Iran, conduct that poses such a risk? Would a foreign company that speaks out against BIS export controls be engaging in such conduct? It’s impossible to tell.

Of course, from a compliance viewpoint, a U.S. exporter that checks the Entity List has no increased risk from this proposed rule because the export requires a license only after the suspected EAR violator is added to the list.

Comments on the proposed rule are due on or before August 6, 2007.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


5 Comments:


This has U.A.E. and a few other of the usual suspects written all over it. I suspect that this may be an alternative to creating a new country group for “high risk” countries, so that instead of incurring the diplomatic wrath of important “allies” (we do have bases there that are essential to operation in Iraq and the Gulf) by declaring the whole country as risks, BIS will simply expand the Entities list to include suspect trading companies in those countries, without having to go to the trouble of issuing a charging letter and getting an ALJ’s recommended decision before putting them on the DPL. BIS knows that it is on thin ice by issuing denial orders when IEEPA doesn’t include denial orders in the sanctions authorized in Section 1705; but, there is an argument that placing individual entities on an entity list is authorized under IEEPA 1702(a), at least as much authorized as the SDNL.

Comment by Mike Deal on June 6th, 2007 @ 12:06 pm

From a compliance perspective, I would much rather see an expanded entity list than have to deal with multiple general orders that we have to screen against.

Comment by RS on June 6th, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

RS, I certainly agree that this approach is much easier from a compliance perspective.

Comment by Clif Burns on June 6th, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

This proposed rule definitely broadens the scope of applying license restrictions to specific entities in lieu of the application of a Country Group C route. It does seem to give the BIS carte blanche in their reasoning for placing a new entity on the list. But, from a compliance standpoint – yes, this is seamless to virtually any process.

Comment by Ladyx on June 6th, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

I’ve got to agree with Ladyx, that as a compliance professional this will be seamless and much less painful than a Country Group C. The criteria does seem a bit nebulous on how an entity gets on the list or taken off of it.

Call me cynical, but remind me again where Halliburton relocated to… hmmm.

Comment by Cynical on June 6th, 2007 @ 7:19 pm