Archive for the ‘BIS’ Category


Apr

13

Closed for the Weekend


Posted by at 7:48 pm on April 13, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Bladerunner 51“Hillbilly,” a regular reader and commenter here, brought to my attention news reports last week, like this one, that indicated that the Bladerunner 51, a high-speed boat that holds the speed record for circumnavigating Great Britain, is now in the hands of the Iranian Navy. Regular readers may recall a post on this blog in January 2009 about a Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”) issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) which attempted to block the transfer of the craft by a South African company, Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd. BIS believed that Icarus was planning to load the Bladerunner 51 onto an Iranian merchant shipping vessel and send it to the Tadbir Sanaat Sharif Technology Development Center in Tehran. Thereafter it was feared that the boat would be transferred to the Iranian Navy, which would try to use the boat as an attack craft.

When I first wrote about the TDO, I expressed some scepticism about its effectiveness. Certainly the two Iranian entities named in the order would simply ignore it, and there was no obvious reason that the South African party would obey it. Now, however, it appears that the TDO had another purpose, at least according to this article in the Washington Post:

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security asked South African authorities to block the transfer. It voiced concern that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards intended to use the boat as a “fast attack craft.” The bureau noted that similar vessels had been armed with “torpedoes, rocket launchers and anti-ship missiles.”

Nonetheless, the loading went ahead because, according to one source, no one saw the U.S. notice sent by fax on a weekend.

So, if this report is to be believed, the TDO was designed not as much to deter Icarus but to prompt the South African government to take action and prevent the loading of the Bladerunner 51 onto the Iranian merchant vessel. That plan failed because BIS sent the TDO on a weekend, when the South African government was, not surprisingly, closed.

Another interesting factoid is that the U.S. also had a plan for special forces to intercept the Iranian merchant vessel carrying the Bladerunner 51. That plan was called off, no doubt because of the concern that the Bladerunner, as then configured, was not subject to the arms embargo set forth in paragraph 5 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

7

BIS Sets New Record for Detail in a Charging Letter


Posted by at 8:57 pm on April 7, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Cooling TowersAqua Loop Cooling Towers, a California-based supplier of cooling equipment to power plants, recently agreed to a ten-year denial order and a $100,000 fine to settle charges by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) arising out of charges of illegal exports of, and a conspiracy to export, EAR99 goods to Iran. The items involved were filament winding machines and rolls of hog hair filter media. (For those perplexed about exports of hog products to a Muslim country, hog hair filters are not made from hog hair, at least they aren’t anymore.)

More interesting than the charges themselves and the agreed settlement is the unusual amount of detail that BIS put into the charging letter and the associated documents. Typically a charging letter says, for each count, that on A date B company violated C rule by exporting item D, classified as ECCN 0X000, to country Y. Each count rarely exceeds a short paragraph. In this instance, the Charging Letter, while many pages short of the length of, say, Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu, is quite detailed and, certainly, a step in the right direction. Greater detail in charging letters provides more notice to the export community as to how BIS interprets its own regulations.

The charging letter tells a story of a contact made by Parto Abgardan, a Tehran-based manufacturer of cooling towers, with Aqua Loop to procure items for shipment to Tehran. The president of Aqua Loop replied that he was “more than happy if I can be of assistance on your purchase of filament winding machines.” Upon contacting a distributor of those items, the Aqua Loop president reported back:

I should emphasize that I found this lady a bit reluctant on the subject of export the unit [sic] to Iran, but she sound [sic] OK to work with us, if we do not mention any thing [sic] about Iran.

Later Aqua Loop’s president reported that the only way he could get the items to Iran was through a Gulf state:

I am trying to find a way to send the components that I promised to you. Unfortunately after many unsuccesssful [sic]attempts, I came to a conclusion that the only was to open this channel is what you were thinking, and if I understood correctly, you are going to have some kind of agent or office in one of the Gulf countries. I tell you this that I would have no problem getting a container to my place and loading to a steam ship toward Dubai. . . . Many shipping companies express that you shouldn’t have any major problem getting the goods to Tehran from Dubai

Finally, the charging letter notes that Aqua Loop’s president had told a BIS special agent that he was aware that it was illegal to ship goods to Iran through third countries, noting that the practice was called “diversion.” Not surprisingly, the Aqua Loop president agreed individually to a ten-year denial order and a $100,000 penalty suspended for ten years provided that no export violations were committed by him during that period.

If you clicked on the link earlier in this post to Parto Abgardan’s website (which appears only to work in Internet Explorer and not to work in either Firefox or Chrome), you may have noticed something interesting. Abgardan claims to have a “sister factory in the USA.” Here’s a screen grab (with highlighting added by me) showing that claim.

Screen Grab

And on its website Abgardan gives as its U.S contact information the same address, telephone number and fax number as shown on Aqua Loop’s contact page. Here’s another screen grab if your browser doesn’t like Abgardan’s website:

Screen Grab

I would have thought they would have changed that by now.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

5

BIS Eats, Shoots, and Leaves


Posted by at 9:36 pm on April 5, 2010
Category: BIS

Chashman Nuclear Plant
ABOVE: Chashma Nuclear Plant


Louisiana-based DeepSouth Hardware Solutions, an aftermarket provider of parts for power plant control systems, agreed to pay a $32,000 fine to settle charges by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) that DeepSouth had shipped automatic control instruments classified as ECCN 1B999 to a company on BIS’s Entity List. The problem, however, is that the entity involved isn’t clearly on the Entity List.

Specifically, the Charging Letter stated:

On or about July 27, 2007, Deepsouth engaged in conduct prohibited by the Regulations when it exported parts . . . classified under Export Control Classification Number 1B999 to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission’s Chashma Nuclear Power Plant, an entity on the Entity List set forth in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations, without . . . Department of Commerce licenses.

Let’s take a look at the Entity List and see if we can find Chashma Nuclear Power Plant anywhere on the list. Here is the entry for the PAEC to which BIS is presumably referring:

BIS Entity List Entry

Nope, not there. We’ve got the National Development Complex (and its nuclear power plants) and the Pakistan Institute for Nuclear Science and Technology. And given that the list refers to the “following subordinate entities,” the plain meaning would be that NDC and PINSTECH are the only subordinate entities of the PAEC on the list.

Or maybe not. If you put a period after NDC and then remove the indentation of the line starting with “nuclear power plants,” the entity listing takes on a new meaning and now would be read as the NDC, PINSTECH and any PAEC nuclear power plants, a reading that would include Chashma. As BIS noted in the Charging letter:

The Chashma Nuclear Power Plant was identified on the order form it submitted to Deepsouth as an entity affiliated with the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.

If BIS is going to fine exporters for lack of care in exporting, then BIS needs to take appropriate care with its own lists and rules and write them using standard English punctuation that would avoid this sort of needless ambiguity. Punctuation is not an optional affectation of the literate elite but rather is an integral part of written English that changes the meaning of what is written. As the title of this post shows, take out the two commas and BIS might be the name of a panda instead of someone who dines, fires a gun, and makes a hasty exit.

Permalink Comments Off on BIS Eats, Shoots, and Leaves

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

31

BIS Imposes Export Controls on “Naughty” Screening Machines


Posted by at 8:22 pm on March 31, 2010
Category: BIS

MIllimeter Wave ScanMillimeter wave technology brings to life, after a fashion, the dream of many a teenage boy to buy special X-ray glasses that would see through clothing. Pictures of a typical millimeter wave scan illustrate this post on the right, appropriately pixellated, of course, to spare the delicate sensibilities of our gentle readers. An explanation of the technology can be found here.

On March 25, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a final rule restricting exports of “concealed object detection equipment” using millimeter wave technology. The new rule applies regional stability controls, and specifically column 2 of those controls, to export of these devices. This means that exports of these devices to such non-NATO destinations as Barbados, Costa Rica, South Africa, Switzerland, and Senegal will require BIS licenses. Certain countries controlled for RS-2 reasons are spared the licensing lash. These countries are Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Israel, Malta, Mexico, Singapore and Sweden. For those countries, license applications to government end-users will be subject to a presumption of approval. Licenses to other RS-2 destinations will be considered favorably on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, the reason for controlling the exports of millimeter wave scanning machines and technology is presumably to try to keep the machines out of the hands of people who could use the machines or technology to develop counter-measures. The problem with this argument is that terrorists have already developed a simple method of defeating these machines, which involves, gruesomely enough, the placement of explosive devices in internal cavities. The counterbalancing factor to imposing these controls is that making it more difficult for foreign airports to obtain these devices could endanger the lives of Americans travelling through those airports. Almost every popular Caribbean destination requires a license for exports of these machines.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

25

Freight Forwarder Agrees to $20k Export Penalty


Posted by at 9:10 pm on March 25, 2010
Category: BIS

Stack Sizer Screening MachineThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently released documents related to its settlement with Buffalo-based G&W International Forwarders of charges that G&W aided and abetted the export of a stack sizer screening machine (classified as EAR99) to a company on BIS’s Entity List. Specifically, the item was exported to India Rare Earth, Ltd. Rare Earth’s entry on the Entity List indicates that EAR99 items exported to Rare Earth require a BIS license and that there is a “presumption of approval” for license requests for EAR99 items. In other words, nobody in this transaction bothered to take the five minutes required to screen the name of the shipment’s recipient. G&W agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty in five equal monthly installments and to conduct an internal audit of its compliance procedures.

There is no record that the exporter has been charged in connection with the export in question. (The likely identity of the exporter can be easily discovered by Googling “Stack Sizer Screening Machine” and then remembering that G&W is located in Buffalo, New York.) What follows is, admittedly, rank speculation on my part, but it seems to me not unlikely that the exporter voluntarily disclosed the violation to BIS and then identified G&W as the freight forwarder. This case should serve as a further reminder to freight forwarders that the days where some thought that they could get away with a lackadaisical attitude to export compliance are over.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)