ExportLawBlog

Archive for the ‘DDTC’ Category

Jun

22

DDTC Solicits Public Comment on New Application System Sight Unseen

Posted by Clif Burns at 8:03 am on June 22, 2016

Category: DDTC

So, I’ve decided to give you the contents of this box over here. Of course, the deal is you must keep the contents whatever they are. So, please tell me what you think about what’s in the box and whether you will like whatever it is. Nope, no peeking. You tell me whether you like what’s in the box and then I’ll give it to you. That way if the box contains an 80-foot Burmese python, you can’t say I didn’t give you a chance to object before saddling you with your new pet.

On Monday, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls did just that when it announced that it is overhauling its export licensing system. No more DSP-5s. No more DSP-83s. Instead, according to the agency

licensing operations will move from the current, largely form-based submissions to an intuitive system which will allow bothÂ industry users and DDTC staff to smoothly and securely navigate the submission and review process.

DDTC is giving the public 60-days to comment on this new system. No details on the system have been provided beyond what’s quoted above. So the box that DDTC is proposing to drop on your doorstep may have a cute puppy inside. Or maybe a hungry python. So, speak up now. Tell us what you think!

Of course, if DDTC revises the utterly ridiculous mess surrounding agreement submissions (where, among other things the transmittal letter is longer than the agreement and where the submission process is described in a constantly changing 223-page document that rivals War and Peace for prolixity and Finnegan’s Wake for obscurity) there will be general rejoicing all around. But there isn’t a scintilla of a suggestion in the notice that this monstrosity is going away.

So, which will it be? Puppy or python?

Permalink

Comments (4)

Jun

8

Cost of Sinning Adjusted for Inflation

Posted by Clif Burns at 7:27 pm on June 8, 2016

Money by Nick Ares [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/55FLSR [cropped and processed] Of course, when it comes to adjusting benefits, the government could care less about the effects of inflation. However, when it comes to putting money in its pocket (as opposed to taking it out of the government till and putting it in yours), well, inflation is, all of a sudden, a huge issue. Just in case you were thinking of committing any export violations, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) wants you to know that your penalty will be adjusted upward, as of August 1, 2016, to reflect inflation since 1985, the year in which the $500,000 per violation penalty was set. This adjustment will apply to all penalties assessed after that date even if the export occurred prior to that date.

So how much is an export violation going to cost now? Well, DDTC consulted the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) which told it, based on price increases, that the multiplier for penalties set in 1985 is 2.1182. This means the new penalty is a whopping $1,094,010 per violation. Evidently, Christmas occurs in August for DDTC this year. Although I’m not clear exactly how OMB computed that multiplier, I can verify that the difference in the Consumer Price Index between 1985 and 2016 is a multiple of around 2.23, so apparently the OMB was in a good mood and cut violators a little slack here.

Of course, for all of you who were checking your cash reserves and contemplating leaving the export business entirely, DDTC was quick to point out, in a statement on its website, that the increase “does not impede the discretion of [DDTC] to assess [penalties] lower than the maximum amount should circumstances warrant.” That’s cold comfort when lower means something lower than a million dollars.

Permalink

Comments (2)

May

23

Vietnam Arms Embargo Lifted (More or Less)

Posted by Clif Burns at 5:07 pm on May 23, 2016

Category: Arms Export • DDTC • Vietnam

Saigon Morin hotel (Hue, Vietnam 2015) by Paul Arps [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/C2rm6w [cropped and color corrected] During a press conference today in Hanoi, President Obama announced the lifting of the arms embargo against Vietnam. Although he stated that the action had nothing to do with China, U.S. officials have noted before that the idea was to help Vietnam counter threats from the PRC in the South China Sea. There has also been speculation that Vietnam would, in return, provide access to Cam Ranh Bay and its deepwater port.

Of course, attentive readers will remember that back in November 2014 the embargo was lifted to permit exports to Vietnam of non-lethal defense articles and lethal weapons “to enhance maritime security capabilities and domain awareness.” Applications for such exports were considered on a case-by-case basis. As a result of today’s action, this limitation on lethal weapon exports to Vietnam has been removed.

DDTC scrambled to get something up on its website, where this notice now appears:

Industry Notice: Change in Policy on Exports of Munitions to Vietnam (05.23.16)

Pursuant to a decision made by the Secretary of State and effective immediately, the Department of State’s policy prohibiting the sale or transfer of lethal weapons to Vietnam, including restrictions on exports to and imports from Vietnam for arms and related materiel, has been terminated. Consequently, in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) will review on case-by-case basis applications for licenses to export or temporarily import defense articles and defense services to or from Vietnam under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). DDTC will soon publish a rule in the Federal Register to implement a conforming change to ITAR Â§126.1.

Since the provisions in section 126.1 refer to a licensing policy, there seems to be no reason why DDTC can’t change the license policy first and clean up the regulations later. After all, the Vietnam subsection of 126.1 starts with “[i]t is the policy of the United States to deny” licenses for exports to Vietnam. So, if an exporter applies for and receives a license, there won’t be any issue of violating the unchanged regulation.

Things, however, are not so simple for the absolute prohibition in section 126.1(b), which provides:

A defense article licensed or otherwise authorized for export, temporary import, reexport, or retransfer under this subchapter may not be shipped on a vessel, aircraft, spacecraft, or other means of conveyance that is owned by, operated by, leased to, or leased from any of the proscribed countries, areas, or other persons referred to in this section.

That prohibition will remain in place, forbidding shipment on Vietnamese vessels of licensed defense articles, until whenever (likely in a few years) DDTC gets around to amending 126.1 to reflect today’s action.

Photo Credit: Saigon Morin hotel (Hue, Vietnam 2015) by Paul Arps [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/C2rm6w [cropped and color corrected]. Copyright Paul Arps 2015.

Permalink

Comments Off

Feb

23

Gun Laundering Scheme Takes Defendant to the Cleaners

Posted by Clif Burns at 7:06 pm on February 23, 2016

Category: Arms Export • Criminal Penalties • DDTC

Washing Machine or your life by Alexander von Halem [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/aeNmsj [cropped] Richmond Attah, a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina, was indicted last week for exporting 27 handguns and 3500 rounds of ammunition without the required license from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The guns and ammo, which were hidden in a washing machine, a dryer and a barrel, were on their way to Ghana before being discovered by U.S. customs officials in Savannah, Georgia.

As readers of this blog undoubtedly know, a criminal export conviction requires proof that the defendant knew that he or she was violating the law in connection with the unlicensed export. Given the confusing welter of applicable regulations, and the uncertain export classification of many items, this can often be a difficult task. The challenge for the defense in this caseÂ will be explaining exactly why, if true, 27 handguns were put into a washer and dryer bound for Ghana and why this is not fairly conclusive proof that Mr. Attah knew that the exports were illegal. Perhaps theÂ explanation will beÂ that the intended recipient demanded that the weapons be “clean” and Mr. Attah did not completely understand what this meant.

Permalink

Comments (1)

Jan

8

Hellfire in Cuba; Brimstone at DDTC

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:04 am on January 8, 2016

Category: Arms Export • Cuba Sanctions • DDTC

Sailor lower [sic] a Hellfire missile into it's case by Official U.S. Navy Page via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/dpaBVh [Public Domain - Work of U.S. Government] Oops. Somebody accidentally sent a Hellfire missile to Cuba, and Cuba doesn’t want to give it back. According to an article (subscription required) in the Wall Street Journal, a Hellfire missile that was legally exported by Lockheed Martin to Rota, SpainÂ for NATO exercises, got sent by a freight forwarder (or spy or crook) to Cuba after the exercises were over instead of back to Lockheed Martin in Florida where it was supposed to go. Apparently the freight forwarder in Madrid, which was supposed to put the missile on a truck headed to Frankfurt where the missile would catch a flight back to Florida put the missile on a truck headed to Charles de Gaulle outside Paris where Air France obligingly put the missile on a flight to Cuba. And now there’s hellfire to pay.

A State Department official interviewed by the Journal said that “many” of the 1500 voluntary disclosures filed each year involved mis-shipments, although the precise number is not tracked. The official added:

Mis-shipments happen all the time because of the amount and volume of the defense trade.

The kicker in all this, however, is this:

If it turns out that the Hellfire was lost because of human error, the criminal probe would end and the State Department would have to determine whether to pursue a settlement with Lockheed Martin over the incident.

This is, of course, completely ridiculous. Granted that there is strict liabilityÂ byÂ the exporter for export violations, that does not mean (in any rational universe outside DC) that Lockheed has committed a violation in the first place if someone other than Lockheed, for whatever reason and without the fault of knowledge of Lockheed, put the defense article on the wrong flight. And particularly where this wasÂ done by Air France, no less, which regularly sends ordinary baggage bound for one place to Tahiti or some other distant former French colony. And let me remind DDTC that this item would have gone out underÂ a DSP-73 on which every single freight forwarder and intermediate consignee who touched the missile was disclosed to and approved by DDTC. Maybe DDTC should be fined for approving the freight forwarder or intermediate consignee responsible for this screw-up.

Permalink

Comments (7)