Archive for June, 2009


Jun

8

Alphabet Soup


Posted by at 12:47 pm on June 8, 2009
Category: General

An alert reader from the U.K. pointed this out:

BERR (“Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform”) which houses the United Kingdom’s Export Control Office has changed its name to BIS (“Department for Business Innovations and Skills”). I can’t imagine that our own BIS (“Bureau of Industry and Security”) is very happy about this foreign incursion on its export control brand. Perhaps this will prompt the U.S. BIS to go back to its original name — BXA, or the Bureau of Export Administration. Or better yet: “CSI:Exports”

Then again tit-for-tat is always fun so we could rename BIS as the Export Control Office and the Department of Commerce could be come the Department of Business, Enterprise, Recovery and Reinvestment (“BERR”). Then 10 Downing Street could paint itself white and Pennsylvania Avenue could be renamed Downing Street. By the time it was all over, Parliament and Congress would shift names, and we could trade the Washington Monument for the Tower of London. Such fun, as long as we don’t have to trade anything for the Millennium Wheel.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

4

eBay Auction Supplied Military Parts to Iranian Air Force


Posted by at 4:51 pm on June 4, 2009
Category: General

Iranian F-14A press release from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (U.K.) supplied some further and very interesting details relating to the conviction of three UK residents (including two Iranians granted political asylum) for the attempted export to Iran of oxygen cylinders used in fighter jets. This story was first reported here on April 29 as the three men went to trial. All three men were convicted and sentenced to serve, respectively, five years, 30 months, and 30 months, in jail.

Of particular interest is the source of the oxygen cylinders: the defendants bought them on eBay. The decision by the three defendants to use eBay was quite canny and illustrates how the US export control system is vulnerable when military parts are sold by unsophisticated and inexperienced sellers using the auction site. While many established manufacturers and distributors have had the “know-your-customer” mantra drilled into their heads by now, such niceties are probably unheard of by, and unknown to, eBay sellers, often working out of their garages and basements. The only questions such sellers are likely to have about their buyers is how quickly they can pay. The eBay seller in this question didn’t pause long enough to realize that the purchase by an Iranian in the U.K of military parts might be problematic.

The press release also notes that in cases of prior exports of military goods to Iran by the trio, more sophisticated businesses which weren’t selling their good through eBay had indicated that they needed export licenses to ship the goods to the U.K. In those instances, the three men would pretend that their actual customer was in the United States and asked the businesses to ship the goods to an address in Florida where, of course, the three men would then have the goods transshipped to themselves in the UK. This wasn’t just a red flag, it was a red banner the size of a football field, and the U.S. businesses never should have shipped the items to the Florida address.

In all events, the eBay connection in this case should serve as a wake-up call to the Pentagon as to the many problems in its current program of military surplus sales to the general public. Sales to casual sellers who then plan on disposing of these goods over eBay is equivalent to the Pentagon selling them to a store with window signs saying “Iranians Welcome,” “Free Shipping to Tehran” and “Get Your F-14 Parts Here!”

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

3

Metal Forging Company Agrees to Fine for Titanium Exports (UPDATED)


Posted by at 4:42 pm on June 3, 2009
Category: General

titanium_billetsFirth Rixson Monroe, a specialty metals forger, recently agreed to pay $85,000 to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) to settle charges that the company exported, on three occasions, 1,055 pounds of 6-2-4-2 titanium alloy billets worth about $35,000 to the People’s Republic of China. The company voluntarily disclosed these three exports to BIS.

The 6-2-4-2 titanium alloy can be used in aerospace and missile applications requiring an alloy capable of resisting high temperatures and maintaining high tensile strength. The “6-2-4-2” designation used here with titanium is shorthand for Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo and signifies the other metals used in the alloy, specifically aluminum (6%), tin (2%), zirconium (4%) and molybdenum (2%). This alloy is classified under ECCN 1C202 because it exhibits an ultimate tensile strength of 900 MPa at 20° and because, apparently, the billets had an outside diameter in excess of 75 millimeters. (Tensile strength specifications for 6-2-4-2 titanium, and other titanium alloys, can be found here.)

The alloy designation for the titanium billets seemed to cause considerable confusion for the enforcement staff. The order interpreted it to mean that 6,242 billets had been exported. The charging letter turned 6-2-4-2 into 6,242 pounds of titanium. Only the settlement agreement got it right. The charging letter also stated that the exports went to Chile. The agency’s confusion over the destination of the exports in the charging letter somehow seems more understandable than the agency’s confusion about the standard practices by the engineering community for designating particular alloys of titanium. The 6-2-4-2 designation was, after all, what allows the conclusion that the alloy was indeed covered by ECCN 1C202.

UPDATE: BIS has removed the settlement documents to which I linked in this post, presumably to correct the errors that I pointed out or that they learned from other sources.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

2

It Wasn’t Me, I Swear


Posted by at 6:52 pm on June 2, 2009
Category: Economic Sanctions

Windows Live MessengerComputerworld posted a story today on Microsoft and the other Internet heavy hitters Google and Yahoo! shutting down instant messaging services to countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, i.e., Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Sudan and Iran. (I reported the Microsoft story last week). In the course of the Computerworld article, the reporter interviewed an unnamed lawyer who allegedly “advises companies on OFAC compliance” and who gave some advice that frankly I think is questionable. The lawyer said that

while offering communications services such as IM to sanctioned countries such as Iran or Cuba is not restricted by OFAC, offering software is. That’s because software, even free apps downloadable from the Internet, are considered exportable goods, and thus can be banned by OFAC, according to the lawyer, who requested anonymity.

By that reasoning, Web-based e-mail such as gMail or Windows Live HotMail can’t be banned by OFAC, he said. Nor would pure cloud-based services such as Salesforce.com or those hosted by Amazon.com’s EC2 be affected by the ban.

However, Windows Live Messenger, which relies on a user download, can be, he said.

Er, no. I am really hoping that the reporter misunderstood the lawyer, who I assure you wasn’t me, and that a lawyer who is advising people on OFAC matters didn’t really say that. For starters, and this is on the first page of OFAC for Dummies, the sanctions regulation for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria, forbid the exports of both goods and services. So the dichotomy between the two drawn by the lawyer requesting anonymity is flat out wrong.

The issue in looking at the provision of Internet content and services to sanctioned countries, then, isn’t whether goods or services are exported but is whether what is being exported to the sanctioned country is subject to an exception in the regulations. As to software, the question is whether such software is exempt as informational materials, both under OFAC rules as well as the rules of the Bureau of Industry and Security, which also forbid exports to these countries. Although perhaps not consistent with the Berman Amendment which required export agencies to exempt informational materials, computer software (other than uncompiled source code) has not been treated as informational material by OFAC or BIS. Exports of software to sanctioned countries have also served as the basis for criminal prosecutions.

The provision of internet services to sanctioned countries would also be prohibited unless covered by a specific exemption or general license. The sanctions regulations do exempt “telecommunication services,” but that exemption is narrowly construed to cover traditional communication by telephone and not other means of communication. An OFAC guidance regarding the provision of internet connectivity to Iran makes clear that such activity required a specific license. The same logic would apply to the provision of email and IM services.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

1

E.U. Adopts Export and Brokering Regulations


Posted by at 6:46 pm on June 1, 2009
Category: EU

EU FlagThe E.U. has issued a Council Regulation establishing a community-wide framework for export controls on dual-use items, including controls on brokering. The regulation adopts the international controls required by the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), the Australia Group and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in a list set forth in Annex I. Export licenses will be required for exports out of the E.U. of items on that list and for certain intra-community exports of items listed on Annex I but also set forth in Annex IV.

National authorities will be in charge of granting such license, which may include not only “individual” transaction-specific licenses but also global licenses and general licenses. Global licenses are given to one exporter and authorize the export of one category of items to multiple end-users and/or countries. General licenses are essentially license exemptions for certain products and certain destinations or end-users. The regulation also includes a “Community General Export Authorization” covering items listed in Annex II and which may exported to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the U.S.

Of particular interest are the brokering provisions. These provisions control the brokering of dual-use items which is a more expansive control than imposed by the United States which does not have laws or regulations relating to the brokerage of dual-use items. U.S. brokering regulations apply only to defense articles and services. The regulation’s definition of brokerage is also broader than the definition of brokering in the the International Traffic in Arms Regulations adopted by the U.S. Under the EU definition brokering is simply the purchase and sale, or the negotiation for the purchase and sale, of dual use items from one third country to another. It does not exclude, as does the U.S. definition, activities performed by employees or other parties not acting as agents. The EU regulation also covers uncompensated activity whereas the U.S. regulations require that the agent be compensated in order to fall within the definition.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)