ExportLawBlog » 2015

Archive for May, 2015

May

7

When Economists Write Regs, Everybody Loses

Posted by Clif Burns at 9:38 pm on May 7, 2015

Category: General

Brian Moyer via http://www.bea.gov/about/images/moyer-brian.png [Public Domain]
ABOVE: Dr. Brian Moyer,
BEA Director

Are you an individual residing in the United States? Do you have no ownership interest in any foreign enterprise? Have you filed yet a Form BE-10 with the Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”) informing them that you don’t have any ownership interest in any foreign business? No, you haven’t? Well if you don’t file that form with the BEA by May 29, 2015, you can be fined $10,000. You’re welcome.

So get to it and get that BE-10 Claim for Not Filing filed. You can file it electronically here. Oh, and where else but in DC would you have to file a claim for not filing?

Now, it may not actually be the case that you have to file, but that is not what BEA’s regulations say. They say clearly that you have to file. The relevant section is 15 C.F.R. Â§ 801.8, which establishes the mandatory filing requirement for U.S. persons with respect to their interests, or lack thereof, in foreign business enterprises. It says this:

(a) Response required. A response is required from persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroadâ€”2014, contained herein, whether or not they are contacted by BEA. â€¦

(b) Who must report. (1) A BE-10 report is required of any U.S. person that had a foreign affiliateâ€”that is, that had direct or indirect ownership or control of at least 10 percent of the voting stock of an incorporated foreign business enterprise, or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise, including a branchâ€”at any time during the U.S. person’s 2014 fiscal year.

(2) If the U.S. person had no foreign affiliates during its 2014 fiscal year, a â€œBE-10 Claim for Not Filingâ€ must be filed by the due date of the survey.

This couldn’t be much clearer, could it? Everyone must file who is required to report, even if they are not contacted by BEA. And section (b) which defines “who must report” includes in subsection (2) U.S. persons without foreign affiliates and therefore must file a BE-10 Claim for Not Filing.

It is possible, indeed quite likely, that what BEA meant to say, but could not manage to actually say, is that the BE-10 Claim for Not Filing only must be filed by persons contacted by BEA to file and who did not have a 10 percent or greater interest in a foreign enterprise. So even though section (b) purports to define “who must report” that definition only means to cover people described in (b)(1) — who have a 10 percent interest — and not those described in (b)(2) who don’t.

First moral of the story: Economists shouldn’t write regulations and lawyers shouldn’t run the economy

Second moral of the story: If you are a U.S. person (business or individual) and you do have an 10 percent in a foreign enterprise, you have to file a BE-10 by May 29, 2015, something which I suspect many companies don’t know right now

Permalink

Comments (2)

May

6

On a Slow Boat to Cuba

Posted by Clif Burns at 8:48 pm on May 6, 2015

Cuba Capitole by y.becart(Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoh_59/13697566663 Yesterday, the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued “guidance” on the new Cuba travel regulations. In fact, the “guidance” says little that isn’t already in the regulations, but it does serve as a reminder of at least one of the quirks in the Cuba sanctions that persists despite recent reforms.

In particular, the guidance points out that the regulations only provide for the transport of authorized travel between the United States by aircraft. No cruises allowed, unless the boat gets a specific license to provide service to Cuba for persons authorized to go to Cuba.

Now let’s dive down the rabbit hole into the “Wonderland” of export control, where if OFAC and the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) “had a world of [their] own, everything would be nonsense.”

You might think that once the boat got a license to provide service to Cuba, that would be the end of it, right?

(“‘You don’t know much,’ said the Duchess, ‘And that’s a fact.'”)

No, because OFAC licenses providing the travel service to Cuba and BIS licenses the export of the boat to Cuba.

(“At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'”)

And, yes, once the boat crosses into Cuban waters, you’ve “exported” the boat to Cuba, even if the boat turns around and heads straight back for the United States.

(“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean â€” neither more nor less.'”)

If travel is provided by an airplane “of U.S. registry operating under an Air Carrier Operating Certificate” instead of a boat, then the short little foray into Cuban territory is covered by License Exception AVS, and no license is required.

(“When I used to read fairy-tales, I fancied that kind of thing never happened, and now here I am in the middle of one!”)

So what is the difference, for any conceivable policy purposes, between an airplane and a boat?

(“The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, ‘Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'”)

All I can figure, is that a boat is more comfortable and has better food than the coach cabin of an airplane and the U.S. doesn’t want to make it all that easy to get to Cuba.

(“No, I give it up,â€ Alice replied: â€œWhatâ€™s the answer?â€ â€œI havenâ€™t the slightest idea,â€ said the Hatter.)

Permalink

Comments (2)

May

5

Export Control Reform Comes to USML Category XII

Posted by Clif Burns at 11:25 pm on May 5, 2015

Category: BIS • DDTC • Night Vision

AN/PSQ-20 Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (ENVG) by Program Executive Office Soldier [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0) and/or Public Domain (work of government employee)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/16086876469 [cropped] Well, who would have thought? Contrary to broad expectations that export control reform would never in a million years come to Category XII, which contains tactical gamestoppers such as night vision and laser designators and markers, export control reform came today to Category XII in the form of proposed rules. The BIS proposed rules are here; the DDTC proposed rules are here.

While it may be surprising that Category XII is being reformed, it is not so surprising that the new “positive” list of items controlled in the new proposed Category XII has expanded considerably, growing from less than a page in the Code of Federal Regulations to five densely packed pages in the Federal Register. And what is and isn’t on this extensive new list will be the subject, I assume, of extensive industry comments due, by the way, on July 6, 2015.

Because of the much-publicized interagency squabbling between BIS and DDTC over which agency license which night vision system, a quick look at the new provisions relating to night vision is instructive. Obviously, the new rules do not simply cover infrared focal plan array detectors (“IRFPAs”) and image intensification tubes (“IITs”) designed for military use but instead cover IITs and IRFPAs with specified peak response levels. IITs meeting the peak response rate for IITs must have either second or third generation photocathodes. Interestingly, the definition of second and third generation photocathodes is completely different in the proposed rules from the definition given in the current USML, reinforcing the general conception that nobody really knows what the difference is between second and third generation night vision beyond the obvious: third is better than second.

A note to be included to subparagraph (c), which covers night vision, in Category XII appears to maintain, more or less, the current principle, at least for certain components, that when they are incorporated into commercial systems, the commercial system is not subject to ITAR controls, but the parts in question will be subject to ITAR controls if exported separately from the commercial system. However, a new qualification to this principle, that is not currently expressed in Category XII, is added: for this rule to apply, the component must not be removable from the system “without destruction or damage to the [component] or render [sic] the item inoperable.” What the practical impact of this new qualification will be is hard to predict, but my guess is that it may gut the exception and expand control over commercial system given that I can’t imagine many situations where the item can’t be removed without destroying it. But I’ll defer to any engineers who may know better whether this is the case or not.

Permalink

Comments Off