On Monday we complained about a broken link at the BIS website to its report of a settlement agreement entered into by Olympiad Line LLC, a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (“NVOCC”). The link had been broken for almost a month. Today the link was at last fixed, so we want to thank the diligent BIS employee who dropped by the site, saw our report, and fixed the link. In fact, we want to thank BIS for fixing the link even if we had nothing to do with it.

According to the fixed link, Olympiad was charged with exporting canning machinery to Iran without a license. As an NVOCC, Olympiad consolidated the shipment with cargo from other shippers and arranged for the consolidated shipment to be shipped by another carrier’s vessel. As a result of the shipment of the canning machinery to Iran, the Company agreed to a fine of $14,000.

The Company’s explanation for the illegal export was, well, a bit lame:

One of Olympiad’s co-owners informed BIS that he was aware of the embargo against Iran but that he forwarded the items anyway because the shipping company accepted the shipment.

I suppose this was a candid admission by the company of its erroneous assumption that if the ultimate shipping company accepted the cargo, the legality of the cargo’s destination was the other company’s problem.

Although only one export was involved, BIS claimed two separate violations, which explains why the agency sought a fine in excess of the $11,000 statutory limit. The first violation alleged was a violation of section 764.2(b) of the EAR by aiding and abetting the shipper in the illegal violation. The second violation alleged was a violation of section 764.2(e) by exporting with knowledge of the violation.

This piling on of violations on one export is somewhat arbitrary since BIS could also have charged, but did not charge, Olympiad with an illegal export in violation of 764.2(a), conspiracy in violation of section 764.2(c) and possession with intent to export in violation of 764.2(f), all from this one export. Call us literal-minded, but it seems to us that one export should simply be one violation.

Permalink


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