Archive for the ‘BIS’ Category


Oct

4

Kurds and Whey?


Posted by at 11:24 pm on October 4, 2012
Category: BISIran Sanctions

MGN WheyI know you will all sleep safer once I tell you about the recent consent agreement entered into between the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) and Muscle Gauge Nutrition as well as a related agreement between BIS and and one of the owners of Muscle Gauge Nutrition. The company agreed to pay BIS a civil penalty of $62,500 in connection with an attempted export to Iran valued at $93,000. The owner, Robert Reed, agreed to an individual civil penalty in the amount of $22,000.

Did MGN and Reed ship centrifuges or accelerometers or other controlled items that might assist the Iranians in their production of nuclear weapons? No, they shipped — are you sitting down? — whey supplements for bodybuilders. Apparently you need people with really strong biceps to crank up those centrifuges to enrich uranium. That’s a little known fact that you first heard here. In fact, whey protein is arguably much more important to Iran’s efforts at nuclear proliferation than nail polish.

Of course, to put this whopping fine in further context, the whey supplements would have been eligible for a license under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. Worse yet, the attempted exports occurred on June 30, 2011, yet in less than three months, under amendments adopted by OFAC to its rules effective October 12, 2011, these exports, as food products, would not have even required a license at all!

The fine probably can be seen, in addition to a valiant effort to protect our national security interest against Iranian bodybuilders, as a penalty imposed to punish the Company for being stupid and for making BIS mad. According to the charging documents linked above, the unfortunate incident started when MGN shipped to its freight forwarder the sales invoice for the order which showed the “bill to” party as a customer in Iran and the “ship to” party as a transportation logistics company in the UAE. The freight forwarder, which remarkably enough was paying attention here, noted the “bill to” customer and asked MGN for a license. MGN responded not by applying for the easily obtainable license but by telling the freight forwarder that the “bill to” was just a typo and that the UAE company should have been the “bill to” party as well. Accordingly, MGN supplied a new “corrected” invoice. The freight forwarder then apparently dropped the dime on MGN because the shipment was seized before it could add any muscle mass to any Iranians.

The owner, Robert Reed, was subject to an individual penalty because, according to the charging documents, he told a BIS agent investigating the shipment that the shipment was really intended to go to the UAE and not to Iran. That was probably a bad idea given that BIS apparently had unearthed an email (indeed had probably been given that email by the Company itself) from the company’s sales manager to Reed explicitly stating that the end user was in Iran. Oops.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

5

What an Uncool Thing To Do!


Posted by at 6:58 pm on September 5, 2012
Category: BISCCLDDTCUSML

Sonel Uncooled Thermal ImagerAccording to an article last week in Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pentagon is seeking to add uncooled thermal imaging devices to the United States Munitions List. Putting that technology on the USML, as opposed to the Commerce Control List administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), would require licenses for all exports of such technology and would prohibit exports to countries, such as China, subject to U.S. arms embargos.

Thermal imaging devices typically have to be cooled to prevent them from being “blinded” by their own internal circuitry. This results in more expensive devices as well as devices that need to warm up (or more accurately cool down) before they can function. Uncooled thermal imaging, while offering lower resolution under current technology than cooled thermal sensors, are less expensive and easier to operate. Uncooled thermal imaging has a number of non-military applications, such as collision-avoidance cameras used in new automobiles and investigation of heat leaks in homes. A contractor investigating leaks from exterior walls into my house used one. (Useless application: the camera viewfinder showed thermal paw prints left by my dog several minutes earlier!)

As the Bloomberg article points out, uncooled thermal imaging devices are produced by companies outside the United States, including Ulis in France; SemiConductor Devices in Israel; NEC Avio Infrared Technologies Co. in Japan; and Zhejiang Dali Technology Co. in China. The uncooled thermal imaging camera used by my contractor was made by Sonel in Poland (a similar model of which is pictured at right.)

The proposal to add uncooled thermal imaging to the USML is currently undergoing interagency review. A revised USML including that technology could appear as early as this month according to an anonymous DOD source cited by the Bloomberg Businessweek report.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

28

What A Difference A Word Makes


Posted by at 6:34 pm on August 28, 2012
Category: Anti-BoycottBIS

Polk Audio HQ
ABOVE: Polk Audio HQ

Here’s the thing: you can save yourself money if you read this blog. You can certainly avoid paying money to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”) at the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) if you read this blog. Polk Audio could have saved itself the $8,000 penalty, announced here, that it paid OAC if it had read this blog.

The OAC is a vestigial appendage over at BIS which arguably had no further right to exist after the expiration and non-renewal of the Export Administration Act. It is doubtful that the President can rely on any emergency to justify resurrecting OAC from the dead by an executive order under IEEPA as each president has done since the EAA expired. Accordingly, OAC keeps a low profile and never fines anyone enough to make it financially worthwhile for an exporter to pop into court and challenge its statutory authority. And, it seems that OAC fines exporters for one simple, but obscure, violation over and over and over. We have reported on this many times, including here and here.

The grave sin at issue involves certifications that ships are entitled to enter certain ports. Some Arab League countries don’t permit ships to enter their ports if the ship has previously entered a port in Israel. The thing is there are exceptions from the non-compliance and reporting requirements precisely for such certifications. Under Supplement 1 to the antiboycott rules:

the owner, charterer, or master of a vessel may certify that the vessel is “eligible” or “otherwise eligible” to enter into the ports of a boycotting country in conformity with its laws and regulations.

And under section 760.5(a)(5)(viii) of the antiboycott rules, an exporter need not report:

A request to supply a certificate by the owner, master, charterer, or any employee thereof, that a vessel, aircraft, truck or any other mode of transportation is eligible, otherwise eligible, permitted, or allowed to enter, or not restricted from entering, a particular port, country, or group of countries pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations of that port, country, or group of countries.

The catch here is that only an owner, master or charterer of the vessel may supply that information. An agent of the owner, master or charterer may not supply that information and a request that an agent supply that information (even if it is ultimately supplied by the owner, master, or charterer) must be reported.

Polk was charged with two violations. The first involved Polk itself certifying, as agent for the carrier, that a vessel was allowed to enter the “ports of Arab States/Oman.” The second involved receiving, and not reporting, a letter of credit that demanded a certification from the “owners, agents or master” that the vessel was allowed to enter the “ports of Arab States/Oman.” Once again, an exporter got in trouble for not knowing that the agent couldn’t supply the information and that a request for an agent to supply the information was reportable.

This is just about all that OAC nails people for anymore, so repeat after me: “Agents can’t certify that ships are allowed to enter Arab Ports.” Now say that to everyone in your company. If everybody gets this message, the folks at OAC will have nothing left to do but play Words With Friends and update their Facebook pages.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

14

Another Exporter Trips over the Entity List


Posted by at 6:10 pm on August 14, 2012
Category: BIS

Global Metcorp, LondonTwo weeks ago I reported on a settlement agreement between two shipping companies and the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) with respect to unlicensed exports of scrap steel to People Steel Mill, a company in Pakistan on BIS’s Entity List. I noted at that time that the identity of the exporter had not been revealed. Now it has: the exporter was the New Jersey office of London-based Global Metcorp.

The settlement documents for Global Metcorp list a July 2010 attempted export worth $212,613.10 that served as the basis for the previously mentioned settlement with the two shipping companies. In addition, it lists an unlicensed export of $77,718.55 worth of scrap steel in May 2010 which was presumably handled by other shipping companies, about whom we may hear further from BIS in future settlement papers.

Under the settlement agreement with Global Metcorp, the company agreed to pay $50,000 of which $40,000 was suspended, with the remaining $10,000 being paid in four equal monthly installments. And (surprise, surprise!) the company agreed that its president would go to drunk exporting school, er, would complete an export compliance training program within twelve months.

As with the related case against the shipping companies, this is a case of stupidity rather than malfeasance. Many exporters think that as long as they are exporting something innocuous like scrap steel or Kewpie dolls, they don’t need to worry about silly things like licenses and lists and all that. And frankly part of the problem here is that BIS spends more time fining exporters than educating them. Perhaps with all the money that BIS collects in these enforcement actions it might run a public service announcement on cable every now and then. Just a thought.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

30

Check The List Or Go To School


Posted by at 6:03 pm on July 30, 2012
Category: BIS

Peoples Steel MillKesco Shipping Corporation and Multi-Link Container Line, a freight forwarder and a shipping line respectively, have agreed to pay $28,000 to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) to settle charges that they aided an unlicensed export of scrap steel, classified as EAR99, to Peoples Steel Mill in Karachi, Pakistan. Peoples is on the BIS Entity List, and a license is required for all exports of EAR99 items to Peoples (although there is a presumption of approval for all such license requests). Peoples Steel Mill was part of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons network in Pakistan, and they are still paying the price.

The settlement papers do not reveal the identity of the exporter or the fate awaiting the exporter as the principal culprit in this matter. But this is not a case simply of vicarious liability since it appears that both Kesco and Multi-Link knew where the shipment was headed and simply failed to check the Entity List. Where the Internet puts that list just a few keystrokes away for anyone with a connected computer, it is hard to get all misty-eyed for Kesco and Multi-Link here.

As we noted in a previous post, recent settlement agreements have started to contain a requirement that offenders go to the export equivalent of drunk driving school. In this agreement, both companies are obligated to have an officer or export compliance manager undergo export training within one year of the agreement. One wonders whether soon the training will require the compulsory viewing of the export version of Signal 30, complete with gruesome photographs of the aftermath of export derelictions.

Permalink Comments Off on Check The List Or Go To School

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)