Sep

22

Al-Mashan’s Long Road to the BIS Denied Parties List


Posted by at 3:01 pm on September 22, 2006
Category: BIS

Uncooled Infrared CameraOn September 18, BIS entered an order against Mohammad al-Mashan and and order against the Mohammad al-Mashan Group denying both of them export privileges for ten years. The Mohammed al-Mashan Group is a Kuwait-based exporter of molds made from recycled plastics.

The denial arises from allegations that on two occasions al-Mashan and his company, both located in Kuwait, transferred an uncooled infrared camera to an individual in the U.A.E. in violation of the conditions of the BIS export license under which the camera had been shipped to al-Mashan and the al-Mashan Group. That license had a condition prohibiting re-transfer or export of the item without a further license from BIS.

The extended time line of this proceeding is interesting. The re-exports in question occurred in October 1999 and February 2000. The charging letter didn’t issue until October 25, 2004. A default judgment on the charging letter was not issued by the ALJ until August 30, 2006. The denial order was signed on September 18. As of today, however, BIS has yet to add al-Mashan and the al-Mashan Group to the Denied Parties list.

Some of the delay was consumed by the three unsuccessful attempts by BIS to mail the charging letter to al-Mashan in Kuwait. Still it seems that if al-Mashan were truly of significant concern to BIS the agency could have been more diligent.

The failure to add al-Mashan and the al-Mashan group to the Denied Party list is equally baffling. When OFAC announces a new SDN, that entity is usually added immediately to the SDN list. Given the BIS delay in adding parties to the Denied Parties list, exporters should probably also check the list of recent orders found in the BIS Electronic Reading Room as well as the Denied Parties list.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


One Comment:


BIS has yet to explain from whence comes its statutory authority to impose denial orders given that, to the extent export controls are authorized at all, they are authorized only under IEEPA, and IEEPA provides only for civil penalties and criminal fines and/or incarceration (which are subject to the federal sentencing guidelines). The Administrative Procedures Act provides that an agency may not impose penalties unless authorized by law. Clearly, denial orders are not authorized.

Comment by Mike Deal on October 9th, 2006 @ 7:59 pm