Archive for the ‘OFAC’ Category

Mar

24

Question of the Day

Posted by at 11:24 pm on March 24, 2016
Category: Iran Sanctions • OFAC
Cyan Headquarters via Google Maps [Fair Use]
ABOVE: Cyan Headquarters

Today’s question is this: say you are a UK-based company that manufactures a product with U.S.-origin content which you want to sell to Iran? How do you do it?

According to this article, you sell the stuff to Iran through your subsidiary in India. Yes, seriously, that’s the answer that was given:

Cyan was also required to check if an export license would be required to export its products from both the UK and the US, since there is an element of its product that originates in the US. “UKTI (UK Trade & Investment) was very helpful in assisting us and confirming that no license would be required if we ship our products from our subsidiary in India …,” explains John [Cronin, Chairman of Cyan].

Oh dear. Let’s hope that’s a misquote or a misunderstanding. If you are a foreign person with a product with U.S. origin content, section 560.205 of the Iran Transactions and Sanctions Regulations quite clearly state the circumstances in which that product can be sold to Iran. That export is permissible only if the U.S. content has been “substantially transformed” into a new product or if all such content which would require a license from the United States constitutes less than 10 percent of the total value of the foreign product.

It does not say that the foreign person can, as the article suggests the Cyan chairman says, sell the product with U.S. content to Iran if you simply try to sell it through another non-U.S. subsidiary in India or elsewhere. I suspect that, as European companies rush to exploit the Iran market after Implementation Day, this will not be the first possible misunderstanding of the scope of the remaining U.S. rules and when they apply. (I am, of course, assuming that Cyan, in fact, determined the exceptions in section 560.205 applied and that Cronin was either misquoted or misunderstood the actual reason his exports to Iran passed the test.)

Photo Credit:Cyan Headquarters via Google Maps [Fair Use]

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Mar

17

Fat Man Sanctioned over Little Boy

Posted by at 11:16 pm on March 17, 2016
Category: BIS • North Korea Sanctions • OFAC

Fat Man and Little Boy via KCNA [Fair Use]Yesterday, the White House released an Executive Order ramping up U.S. sanctions on North Korea as a result of a recent ballistic missile test by the Norks and, it can be reasonably assumed, as a result of the Fat Man‘s recent claim to have his own Little Boy (or is it vice versa?). The new sanctions impose a complete ban on all exports of goods and services to North Korea, and as usual, with any executive order that gets drafted over at OFAC, the order, whether due to sloppy drafting or purposeful ambiguity, raises more questions than it answers.

Here’s the relevant provision that needs to be parsed:

Sec. 3. (a) The following are prohibited:

(i) the exportation or reexportation, direct or indirect, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods,
services, or technology to North Korea;

…

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order or pursuant to the export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Prior to this order licenses have been required by the Bureau of Industry and Security for all items subject to the EAR other than food or medicine. BIS would license, on a case-by-case basis, EAR99 items (other than luxury goods) to North Korea. Items on the Commerce Control List subject to NP or MT controls are subject to a presumption of denial.

The new provision, due to the “notwithstanding” clause of subsection (b), appears to invalidate all existing specific licenses for exports to North Korea. Whether this Order changes the existing policy of BIS for future licenses is unclear and depends on what is meant by “export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce,” which is anybody’s guess. What is clear is that items not subject to the EAR, which previously could be exported to North Korea, cannot now be exported to the North Korea by U.S. persons unless such items are transshipped through the United States and a license is obtained from BIS or an OFAC license is obtained if the items are not shipped back to the United States first.

At the same time as the Executive Order, OFAC issued nine new general licenses, such as General License No. 7 which authorizes mail and telecommunications services to North Korea. Other general licenses permit most of the usual exceptions to bans on exports of services such as emergency medical services, legal services, intellectual property services, and personal financial remittances. Oddly, the normal exception for services related to Internet-based communications is not included. So, you can send snail mail to the Norks but sending email is not allowed.

One nagging question is whether the travel and information exceptions in the Berman Amendment remain in place. Neither OFAC’s existing North Korea regulations nor the order contain a travel exemption, such as the one contained in section 560.210(d) of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. Nor does the order or those regulations contain an exemption for informational materials such as is found in section 542.211(b) of the Syria Sanctions Regulations.

Both the travel and informational material exceptions in the Berman Amendment may not be applicable because the Berman Amendment only applies to actions taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). This latest executive order relies not only on IEEPA but also on the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-122). Whether or not section 3 of the new order is authorized by the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act is not clear.  If section 3 is authorized under that statute, services related to travel to North Korea and the provision of informational services to North Korea would not be permitted unless OFAC specifically authorizes such services in its regulations or provides for specific licenses which, so far, it has not done.

Photo Credit: KCNA

Permalink Comments Off on Fat Man Sanctioned over Little Boy

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Mar

16

The Mojito, Er, The Dog Ate My People-to-People Records

Posted by at 10:49 pm on March 16, 2016
Category: Cuba Sanctions • OFAC

Mojito by Sami Keinänen [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/4GyGSs [cropped]Today, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to, among other things, expand the general licenses authorizing travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba. Under the new amendments, U.S. citizens can travel to Cuba under the people-to-people general license without doing so under the auspices of a sponsoring organization. As long as the individual arranges for himself or herself a “full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba,” the trip is authorized under the general license for educational activities in section 515.565. The amended rules still exclude travel that is “primarily tourist-oriented” but eliminates the exclusion for “self-directed educational activities that are intended only for personal enrichment.”

A new example tries to grapple with the distinction between a trip that is primarily tourist-oriented and a permitted self-directed activity that involves a meaningful exchange with individual Cubans:

An individual plans to travel to Cuba to rent a bicycle to explore the streets of Havana, engage in brief exchanges with Shopkeepers while making purchases, and have casual conversations with waiters at restaurants and hotel staff. None of these activities are educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba, and the traveler’s trip does not qualify for the general license.

In that case, go directly to OFAC jail; do not pass go. As you might imagine, it may be difficult for individuals, anxious to swill down a few mojitos in Old Havana before there is a Starbucks on every corner and an Olive Garden in every storefront, to grasp the difference between a meaningful exchange and a pub crawl. The checks and balances of a sponsoring organization will be absent.

Worse yet, consider this: under the rules for the people-to-people license, the individual will need to “retain records sufficient to demonstrate” a “full-time schedule of activities” that result in a meaningful interaction with Cubans (other than waiters, bartenders and hotel staff). Forgive my cynicism (or not), but a large number of individuals engaged in self-directed people-to-people (other than waiters, bartenders and shopkeepers) travel are not going to have a clue as to how to do this. Unless this is intended to be a requirement that is never enforced and a concealed license for tourism in Cuba, this is not going to end well for many people relying on this self-directed license. Don’t get me wrong, as you can imagine, I’m all for unfettered travel to Cuba. But I really don’t relish the possibility that, 18 months from now, I’ll be getting calls to help out a friend whose kids went to Cuba and thought that their Instagram account qualified as adequate documentation of their self-directed people-to-people trip to Cuba.

Photo Credit: Mojito by Sami Keinänen [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/4GyGSs [cropped]

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Mar

11

End Book Publisher Illiteracy on Cuba Sanctions

Posted by at 10:39 am on March 11, 2016
Category: Cuba Sanctions • OFAC

Poro en el mercado de libros usados by Javier Ignacio Acuña Ditzel [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/5xQkWj [cropped]A group of publishers have just petitioned the White House to “End the Book Embargo Against Cuba.” Say what? It’s illegal to send books to Cuba or import books from Cuba? Not so much. Due to the information exception in the Berman amendment, the import of books from, and the export of books to, Cuba is permitted and may not be forbidden by OFAC. But you would never know that from the petition.

Of course, what’s really going on here is that the information exception, as narrowly construed by OFAC, is defined to include only information and books already in existence. You can import Che Guevara’s El Diario del Che en Bolivia from Cuba and export Henry James’s What Maisie Knew to Cuba because both works are already in existence. What you can’t do is pay an author in Cuba to write a book for you and edit it for publication, which is, I suppose, what the publishers, however inartfully, are getting at.

The publishers do have an excellent argument to make, and it is somewhat baffling that they did not make it directly. Under the recent amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, movie, television and record companies are allowed to go hog-wild in Cuba, hiring Cubans to work on “filming or production of media programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and the creation of artworks in Cuba,” leaving book publishers behind in the dust. That, simply put, does not make an ounce of sense. I suspect that given that many publishers also have interest in music and movie production, they aren’t anxious to complain openly about differential treatment of movies, music and books.

Photo Credit: Poro en el mercado de libros usados by Javier Ignacio Acuña Ditzel [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/5xQkWj [cropped]

Permalink Comments Off on End Book Publisher Illiteracy on Cuba Sanctions

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
Mar

9

As Epsilon Lay Dying

Posted by at 11:04 pm on March 9, 2016
Category: Iran Sanctions • OFAC

Soundstream Audio Car http://www.soundstream.com/images/intl-team/pic/england/england/images/new/UK%20(1).jpg [Fair Use - Soundstream is Epsilon sub]We have followed the saga of Epsilon Electronics extensively, beginning with the The Auto Sound and the OFAC Fury Part I and Part II and ending most recently with Epsilon, Epsilon. Well, it seems that the story may be drawing to a close. On Monday, a federal district court granted OFAC summary judgment on its motion to dismiss Epsilon Electronics complaint challenging the $4.073 million dollar fine imposed on Epsilon by OFAC. The opinion can be viewed and downloaded here.

The court considered each of Epsilon’s arguments and easily dispatched all of them, only barely concealing its opinion that Epsilon’s arguments were largely frivolous. We discussed our own view of Epsilon’s arguments, particularly its bizarre claim that the fine violated the U.S. Constitution’s Excessive Fines clause, in The Auto Sound and the OFAC Fury Part II. The court, not surprisingly, held that the Excessive Fines clause did not preclude the $4 million fine given that Epsilon sold $3.4 million in goods to Iran and given that this fine was only one-third of the statutory maximum.

Epsilon’s due process claim fared no better with the court.   The court paid particular attention to what was, perhaps, Epsilon’s gravest error in its dealing with OFAC, one we noted in Epsilon, Epsilon, our third post on this case.  Two separate subpoenas, the court noted, provided Epsilon with adequate notice of OFAC’s investigation.   The court went on:

Almost two years later, on May 6, 2014, OFAC issued its pre-penalty notice, which informed the plaintiff that it had 30 days to provide a written response to the pre-penalty notice. … The plaintiff provided a two-page response to the pre-penalty
notice on June 6, 2014 … . This series of events shows that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to respond to OFAC’s inquiries into its dealings with Asra International and to OFAC’s detailed pre-penalty notice. Procedural due process demands nothing more.

The court’s reference to the “detailed” pre-penalty notice and the plaintiff’s “two-page” response make clear that the court had little patience for a due process claim once Epsilon had squandered its opportunity to provide an adequate response to the pre-penalty notice.

Finally, the court dismissed Epsilon’s arguments that its sales to Iran were permissible under the “inventory exception” embodied in OFAC’s “Guidance on Transshipments to Iran.” According to the court, the guidance does not permit sales into non-U.S inventory outside Iran where the U.S. exporter has “reason to know” that the goods were ultimately destined to Iran. The court cited, as we have, the distributor’s website as ample evidence that Epsilon had reason to know that its distributor was dealing principally, if not exclusively, with Iran.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2016 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »