The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a press release today announcing a consent decree between the agency and Ericsson de Panama S.A. in Panama City, Panama. Under the consent decree, Ericsson’s Panamanian subsidiary agreed to pay $1.753 million to settle charges that it violated the U.S. embargo on Cuba. BIS’s press release alleges that Ericsson de Panama imported mobile telephones from Cuba into Panama for repair. The company is then alleged to have re-packaged the telephones to conceal their Cuban origin. The phones were sent to the United States for repair and then returned by the company to Cuba once the repaired phones had been received back from the United States. The press release noted that the company avoided criminal prosecution, notwithstanding the “egregious” nature of the violations, because the matter had been voluntarily disclosed and the company had cooperated with the agency’s investigation.

The agency could assert jurisdiction over a Panamanian company here because the Panamanian company imported and exported the Cuban phones from and to the United States. This is different from situations, such as we discussed in our last post where none of the activity at issue occurred in or had any nexus with the United States.

Of even more significant interest, the press release indicates that the agency required, and the company consented to, a “company-wide export audit conducted by an independent third party of all transactions connected with Cuban customers.” Unlike other cases where BIS has permitted part of the fine to be allocated to compliance costs, it appears that in this case the cost of the audit will be a cost to the company above and beyond the hefty monetary fine exacted by BIS.

Finally, it should be noted that the items involved here are personal communications devices that since 2009 have been eligible for export and re-export to Cuba. However, the exports in questions occurred between 2004 and 2007, before the new rules were in effect. The new rules also apply only to donated mobile phones, and it seems doubtful that all the phones involved in this case had been donated to people in Cuba.

ABOVE: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

---

On October 19 this blog reported on a hearing held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with respect to efforts that the U.S. government and U.S. companies are taking to respond to and mitigate potential ecological disasters that might stem from planned exploratory drilling by non-U.S. companies in Cuban territorial waters. The chairs in the hearing room had barely cooled off before Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, fired off a letter to the Obama administration criticizing any efforts by the federal government to minimize the impact of the Cuban drilling on the ecology of nearby U.S. coastal waters. Because the drilling is going to occur in all events, complaining about damage containment on U.S. shores seems to be a classic case of cutting off our own nose to spite Cuba’s face.

Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen’s tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee has, sadly, not caused her to learn much about U.S. export laws, as we’ve noted before, and this letter on Cuban drilling continues to demonstrate her confusion about applicable export and sanctions laws. For starters, the Chairwoman seems to believe that the lapsed Export Administration Act is still in force when she demands an investigation by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) as to whether use of a Chinese-built rig in the drilling violates the “Export Administration Act.”

The de minimis rule also appears to have confused Ros-Lehtinen:

We are concerned by reports that the Scarabeo 9 may have been designed specifically to avoid U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. While the EAA and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) generally prohibit virtually all exports and reexports of U.S.-origin goods, software and technology to Cuba, we need clarity on how the Administration is applying the sanctions and EAR to foreign produced items incorporating 10 percent or less controlled U.S. content

That is not a difficult question to answer: the sanctions and the EAR do not apply to restrict export to Cuba of foreign-produced items incorporating 10 percent or less controlled U.S. content. There’s no need to write a letter to President Obama to get that answer; it’s clearly stated in the EAR.

But the Chairwoman saves the best for last:

The Export Administration Regulations clearly state that the only items allowed to be exported to Cuba are donations of medical equipment, agricultural exports, and telecommunications equipment. Thus, even if the de minimis rule does not [sic] apply, the broader prohibitions against exports to Cuba must still be enforced.

Where exactly to start with this? Section 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR permits many more exports other than the three mentioned by Ros-Lehtinen, including medicine, computers, disk drives, digital cameras, televisions, radio receivers, recording devices, baggage, gifts, humanitarian donations, aircraft on temporary sojourn, spare parts for foreign-made equipment and much more. More importantly, any listing of permissible exports in section 746.2(a)(1) does not overrule the explicit provisions of the de minimis rule found in section 734.4 of the EAR which specifically permits re-exports to Cuba of items with 10 percent or less U.S.-origin controlled content.