Archive for July, 2009


Jul

8

BIS Order Strands Spanish Flight Crews in Syria


Posted by at 2:27 pm on July 8, 2009
Category: BISSyria

Orionair BAe 146-300
ABOVE: Orionair BAe 146-300

Back in May, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a Temporary Denial Order against Spanish airline Orionair in connection with a pending export of two aircraft owned by Orionair to Syrian airline Syrian Pearl. An article that appeared on June 26 in Madrid-based Spanish-language daily CincoDías provides some interesting background surrounding the TDO and its effects. (Yes, I know that the article is almost two weeks old, but it’s harder to find things in the foreign language press. And none of this has yet been reported in the U.S. press.)

According to the article, Orionair had bought two BAe 146-300 aircraft to add to its one-aircraft fleet. The company basically chartered its aircraft for sporting events. After the increase in the cost of fuel, the company began to face financial difficulties and sought to alleviate them by entering into a wet-lease agreement with Syrian Pearl. Under a wet lease agreement, the leasing company (here, Orionair) provides the aircraft, flight crew, maintenance and insurance and the lessee (in this case, Syrian Pearl) pays for fuel, airport fees and the like as well as for an hourly fee for the operation of the aircraft. The aircraft subject to a wet lease is flown under the lessee’s flight numbers and the craft is painted with the lessee’s insignia. In return, Syrian Pearl agreed to guarantee 6,000 hours for the two aircraft as well as to pay the fees for the re-fitting of the aircraft.

The premiere flight under the Agreement took place on May 4 between Damascus and Aleppo. But only two days before, two U.S government officials, presumably from BIS, were in Orion’s offices in Madrid advising the company that its arrangement with Syrian Pearl required permission from Washington, D.C. because the aircraft had more than 10 percent U.S. origin parts and components. The Orion officials were unimpressed, noting that the BAe aircraft were made in England, that the aircraft were being leased and not sold, and that Spain was friends with Syria. Orion also consulted with the Spanish government officials who seemed to doubt that the U.S. would force the issue. Wrong.

BIS apparently went straight to BAe and informed the company that it would be issuing a Temporary Denial Order against Orionair. As a result, BAe immediately told Orionair, even before the TDO was signed or published, that it was not continuing the modifications of the aircraft and that, moreover, the aircraft would have to remain in the United Kingdom. When the TDO was published on May 7, Orionair attempted to invoke its force majeure clause with Syrian Pearl to excuse its anticipated inability to perform any further under the wet lease. Syria was not, so to speak, amused and seized the other of the two aircraft, which was in Syria at the time. The Syrians also detained, for good measure, Orionair flight crews and employees in Damascus, although they have just recently been allowed to return to Spain.

Orionair now doesn’t have either of the two BAe aircraft, is facing a lawsuit from Syrian Pearl for breach of contract, and will probably soon be receiving charging letters from BIS seeking fines and, probably, worse. Syria’s embassy in Madrid is not commenting, characterizing the dispute as “private.”

I can’t imagine that the Spanish Government is happy about all this. Just to understand the reason why the Spanish might be annoyed, suppose that the Spanish government covertly sent over two government law enforcement officials to advise a U.S. company on U.S. soil that it couldn’t complete a transaction with Mexico without the permission of the Spanish government. Imagine further that when the U.S. company declined to obtain such permission, the Spanish government encouraged a company in the U.K. to detain the property of the U.S. company that it had been servicing under contract. Do you think that the U.S. government would sit idly by and do nothing? I don’t. We would be squawking about sovereign rights, territorial inviolability, secondary boycotts, WTO obligations, extraterritorial application of Spanish law and would be threatening some kind of retaliation, including burning copies of Don Quixote in mass bonfires, pouring Rioja down the gutter, and renaming Paella as “Freedom Chicken and Rice.”

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

3

The Man from Del Monte, He Says “Yes!”


Posted by at 12:54 pm on July 3, 2009
Category: Iran SanctionsOFACTSRA

Peaches 'n FlagsLast week, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its slip opinion in Del Monte Fresh Produce Company v. United States. The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed a case filed by Del Monte against the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) alleging that OFAC was taking too long to process a license application Del Monte had filed to export agricultural commodities to Iran.

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”), 22 U.S.C. §§ 7201-7211, authorizes exports of agricultural products, medicine and medical devices to sanctioned countries such as Iran. Section 906 of TSRA provided that the licenses for exports to Iran were to be no more restrictive than license exceptions for agricultural products administered by the Deparment of Commerce. Pursuant to that section, OFAC published an interim rule that followed Commerce’s “nine-day” rule and which provided, in effect that licenses to Iran would be granted if no objections had been received from the State Department within nine days of the referral of the application to State and if the application was otherwise in conformity with OFAC’s rules. In March 2007, OFAC issued a policy statement that it would no longer comply with the 9-day rule.

Del Monte’s application to export agricultural products to Iran was filed with OFAC on August 8, 2007, and referred by OFAC to State on August 17. On September 13, State replied that it had no objection. After the OFAC Help Desk advised Del Monte on November 27 that the application was still pending, Del Monte filed suit the following day, November 28, in federal district court. On November 29, Del Monte filed a motion for preliminary injunction, the court scheduled a status conference and OFAC granted Del Monte’s license, which it appears had been signed on November 23, i.e., before Del Monte had filed suit. Because OFAC had issued the license, the District Court dismissed the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction as moot.

In the opinion released by the Court of Appeals, the court ruled that the district court had jurisdiction over the otherwise moot claim under the exception for claims “capable of repetition but evading review.” As a result, the decision is instructive more on arcane issues of federal jurisdiction than it is on anything else.

But since the case was remanded for further proceedings before the district court, the district court will now be forced to confront several issues of immense interest to exporters. First, how long does OFAC have to act on a TSRA application under the terms of section 906 of TSRA? Must the agency act within 9 days of referral to State if State raises no objections and the license is otherwise grantable? Or could the agency, by its action in March 2007, defer action on applications for a much longer period? If the District Court reinstates the nine day rule, can OFAC effectively avoid it by waiting for long periods before referring the license application to State?

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

1

Tillery Trickery Docked . . .


Posted by at 8:05 pm on July 1, 2009
Category: General

Treasury Department . . . to the tune of $6,600. In the civil penalties information released today by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the agency reported that Willbros, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling services company, paid $6,600 to settle charges that the company

through a former Senior Vice President, willfully violated the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (the “Regulations”) when it entered into a contract to bid on an oil development project in Sudan, despite its knowledge that such activities violated the Regulations, by facilitating the export of goods, technology or services to Sudan and evading the prohibitions set forth in the Regulations.

A Willbros SEC filing provides a little more detail on the alleged violation:

Acts carried out by Mr. [James] Tillery and others acting under his direction with respect to a bid for work in Sudan may constitute facilitation efforts prohibited by U.S. law, a violation of U.S. trade sanctions and the unauthorized export of technical information.

In December 2008, Tillery was indicted for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with bribes paid to officials of Ecuador and Nigeria to retain business with the state-owned oil companies in those countries. Tillery remains at large. Willbros itself paid $22 million dollars to settle criminal charges in connection with these bribes.

The OFAC description of the violation is that Tillery “entered into a contract to bid” on the Sudanese oil project. There is no claim that Willbros actually bid on, or even worked on, the Sudanese oil project, which makes it somewhat unclear as to how the regulations were violated. If I agree with a friend to take a trip to Cuba, I haven’t violated the Cuba sanctions until I actually take the trip.

But, of course, there’s always the issue of facilitation, and OFAC claims that this contract somehow facilitated a violation whether or not a bid was ever made. If I don’t go to Cuba but my friend later does, then the facilitation argument, in its broadest since, is that I facilitated that violation by proposing the trip. (Hemingway might also, if he were still around, be guilty of facilitation by writing books that indirectly encourage his fans to visit his home and drinking haunts in Havana.)

And although this may all seem a stretch, it is consistent with OFAC’s broad concept of facilitation in which the butterfly that flaps its wings in Western Africa arguably facilitates the hurricane that a month later slams into the Atlantic coast of Florida.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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