Archive for the ‘OFAC’ Category


Nov

3

Tidewater Sanctions Force Exporters to Play a Guessing Game


Posted by at 11:33 pm on November 3, 2011
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Bandar Abbas Port, Iran
ABOVE: Bandar Abbas Port, Iran

I had an inquiry recently to list all of the Iranian ports managed by Tidewater Middle East which was recently placed on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the “SDN List”) by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). U.S. exporters legally shipping items such as food to Iran under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”) need to know this because, as a result of the recent sanctions, such licensed shipments cannot go through ports managed by Tidewater. Only TSRA exports licensed prior to June 23, 2011, could transit those ports pursuant to a general license that expired on August 23, 2011.

OFAC, when announcing the sanctions, provided the a list of Tidewater ports affected by the sanctions not in the SDN list itself but in a separate press release:

  • Bandar Abbas (Shahid Rajaee Container Terminal)
  • Bandar Imam Khomeini Grain Terminal
  • Bandar Anzali
  • Khorramshahr Port (one terminal)
  • Assaluyeh Port
  • Aprin Port
  • Amir Abad Port Complex

The southern ports of Bushehr and Chabahar do not appear to be operated by Tidewater currently and, in theory, could be used for TSRA exports. I did, however, find other evidence, such as this, that suggested that Tidewater also operated at those two ports.

Interestingly, however, the Tidewater website appears to have disabled the pages that specify which ports it operates. The menu link for “Ports and Terminals Mng” is, oddly, dead and does not supply a list of ports operated by Tidewater. Presumably the only reason Tidewater would kill that link is to make compliance with the OFAC sanctions more difficult.

Frankly, there is no reason why the SDN list should name Tidewater only and not the specific ports that are sanctioned. Leaving such uncertainty with respect to available ports for TSRA exports improperly interferes with Congress’s direction in TSRA that OFAC was to permit exports of agricultural products, medicine and medical devices to Iran.

UPDATE (11-4-11):An alert reader (Bradley Allen at ATTUS Technologies) found an earlier version of the Tidewater site on the Wayback Machine before Tidewater scrubbed the names of the ports it operated. Click on the tabbed link for “Port and Terminals Mng” and you’ll get, in this older version, a list of Tidewater’s ports. This confirms that one of Tidewater’s responses to the U.S. sanctions was to try to obscure and conceal which ports it operated.

Permalink Comments Off on Tidewater Sanctions Force Exporters to Play a Guessing Game

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

19

Would U.S. Export Laws Hinder Efforts To Mitigate Cuban Oil Spills?


Posted by at 7:38 pm on October 19, 2011
Category: BISCuba SanctionsOFAC

Offshore Oil PlatformThe Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing yesterday, reported here by the Oil & Gas Journal, on the possible impact of exploratory oil drilling by non-U.S. companies in Cuban territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Michael R. Bromwich, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) tried to assure the Committee that U.S. companies could respond quickly to an oil spill in Cuban waters notwithstanding the U.S. embargo on Cuba.

He said that the US Departments of Commerce and the Treasury have a long-standing practice of providing licenses to address environmental challenges in Cuban waters, and that DOC’s Bureau of Industry and Security has issued a number of them for booms, skimmers, dispersants, pumps, and other equipment and supplies to minimize environmental damage from a spill. “I believe the Commerce and Treasury departments would move quickly to approve more licenses if needed,” he said.

Not all witnesses before the Committee shared Bromwich’s rosy view of our ability to respond to a Cuban spill:

Paul A. Schuler, president of Clean Caribbean & Americas, an international spill response cooperative operating in the region, said only three US companies have such licenses that must be renewed every 1-2 years. “It needs to be handled in advance, and not as an ad hoc action as part of a response to an oil spill,” Schuler said. “Others would have to go through the entire licensing process, and my experience has been that it has not been quick.”

I suspect that exporters with experience obtaining licenses from BIS and OFAC might also share Schuler’s scepticism about whether the agencies could move quickly on licenses by U.S. companies to provide clean-up services in Cuban waters (which would require an OFAC license) and export equipment to be used in that clean-up effort (which would require a BIS license).

Permalink Comments Off on Would U.S. Export Laws Hinder Efforts To Mitigate Cuban Oil Spills?

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

11

General License To Be Issued by OFAC for Food Exports to Iran and Sudan


Posted by at 8:52 pm on October 11, 2011
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

FoodA Federal Register notice is scheduled to be published tomorrow in which the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announces the issuance of a general license for the export of food to Iran and Sudan. Previously, although the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”) authorized the export of agricultural products, medicine and medical devices to Iran and Sudan, those exports required specific one-year licenses from OFAC. The general license does not cover sales to military or law enforcement purchasers.

The general license specifically covers “food” which is a subset of agricultural products. The new rules will define food as

items that are intended to be consumed by and provide nutrition to humans or animals … ,
including vitamins and minerals, food additives and supplements, and bottled drinking water, and seeds that germinate into items that are intended to be consumed by and provide nutrition to humans or animals.

Items that are agricultural products but not food will still require licenses.

The rules make some specific exceptions to the definition of food, including, not surprisingly, castor beans. Thriller enthusiasts and news junkies will understand this exception: castor beans are used to manufacture the highly powerful poison ricin (although Iran can easily grow castor beans or import them from other countries other than the United States.) Also excluded are Rosary/Jequirity peas, the source of ricin’s more potent cousin abrin, which although more powerful than ricin is not known, according to the CDC, to have been weaponized or used in terrorist attacks.

My favorite part of the new rule is the exclusion of alcoholic beverages from the general license for Iran. I have not figured out whether this exclusion is made from ignorance, Puritanism or a desire by OFAC to enforce Islamic law. It should probably come as no surprise to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Iran or Islam that alcoholic beverages are illegal in Iran and that people trying to import them into Iran are subject to being shot or sentenced to prison.

UPDATE: This post has been updated to correct a mistake I made in reading the new rule which does in fact permit export under general license of food to the Government of Iran and to purchasers outside Iran for export to Iran. My apologies for any confusion.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

5

Just Because It’s Not Double Jeopardy Doesn’t Mean It’s Fair


Posted by at 9:15 pm on October 5, 2011
Category: BISIran SanctionsOFAC

Flowserve HQ
ABOVE: Flowserve HQ

The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) announced on Monday that Texas-based manufacturer Flowserve agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle charges that the company and its foreign affiliates to settle BIS’s allegation of 288 violations of the Export Administration Regulations, including exports of items to Iran, Syria and other sanctioned countries. What makes this a particularly hard kick in the nether regions by BIS is that Flowserve voluntarily disclosed these violations. I suppose this is considered leniency by BIS because it could have fined Flowserve $72 million dollars.

The BIS settlement with Flowserve GB Ltd. (“Flowserve UK”), Flowserve’s British subsidiary, which is one of the dozen Flowserve settlements posted by BIS on its electronic FOIA page, is particularly instructive. Two of the counts against Flowserve GB relate to Flowserve products which Flowserve UK ordered from the U.S. and then transshipped to Iran:

Pursuant to Section 560.204 of the [Iranian Transaction Regulations], maintained by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), an export to a third country intended for transshipment to Iran is a transaction subject to the ITR and requires OFAC authorization. Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the [Export Administration] Regulations, no person may engage in the exportation of an item subject to both the Regulations and the ITR without authorization from OFAC. No OFAC authorization was obtained for the exports described herein. In so doing, Flowserve UK committed two violations of section 764.2(b) of the Regulations.

The problem with this, at least in terms of simple fairness, is that OFAC, which administers the ITR had already extracted a fine from Flowserve for this very violation of OFAC’s own regulations. When Congress upped the possible fines for export violations to $250,000, it is quite clear that it had no idea that the export agencies would engage in such piling on and that neither of the agencies made clear to Congress that they intended to engage in such behavior.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

28

A Question of Control


Posted by at 8:00 pm on September 28, 2011
Category: OFAC

Oh, no!!!One more point should be made about the Al Haramain case that I discussed yesterday. And this point should strike fear in the heart of all but the most foolhardy.

In holding that OFAC had sufficient evidence to designate the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (“AHIF”) as a specially designated global terrorist and block all its funds and assets, the Ninth Circuit said this:

Al-Buthe is a designated person. Al-Buthe exercises control over AHIF-Oregon because he is on its board of directors. EO 13,224 authorizes the designation of an entity that is controlled by a designated person. EO 13,224, § 1(c). It is, therefore, a valid reason to designate AHIF-Oregon based on Al-Buthe’s control. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports this reason.

Say what? Al-Buthe exercises control over AHIF because he is on the Board?? It will certainly come as a surprise to many directors (and, no doubt, their boards) that they single-handedly control the boards on which they serve.

Where I wonder does this end? Can OFAC designate an employee of a company and then hold that the company is an SDN because that employee “controls” the Company?

There appears to be other evidence that OFAC relied upon, particularly with respect to an alleged link of AHIF to Chechnyan terrorism, but the court’s language set forth above is both troubling and counter-intuitive.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)