Dec

2

We’re From the USDA and We’re Not Here to Help You (UPDATED)


Posted by at 11:59 pm on December 2, 2015
Category: OFACTSRAUSDA

USDA by Dlz28 via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Department_of_Agriculture,_Jamie_L._Whitten_Federal_Building,_Washington_DC_(12_June_2007).JPG [Public Domain]Today’s post, brought to you by the United States Department of Agriculture, is yet another entry into the long and sad cavalcade of administrative incompetence that makes the life of exporters harder than it should be. If you have recently tried to export an “agricultural commodity” under the provisions of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”) you may have run into this problem. This would include trying to export an item relying on the general license in section 560.530 of the Iran Transactions and Sanctions Regulations which permits export of “agricultural commodities” without a specific license.

The first question is whether the item you want to export, say a container of wood clothes hangers, is an “agricultural commodity.” TSRA covers “agricultural commodities” which the statute defines as follows:

The term “agricultural commodity” has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).”

Cool, that’s helpful. Let’s see how section 5602 the Agricultural Trade Act defines “agricultural commodity.” So, here’s that definition

The term “agricultural commodity” means any agricultural commodity, food, feed, fiber, or livestock (including livestock as it is defined in section 1471(2) of this title and insects), and any product thereof.

Awesome:  an ” ‘agricultural commodity’ means any agricultural commodity.” Your Congress at work. That’s why we pay them their salary and send them to DC to be wined and dined by lobbyists in expensive steakhouses.

Fortunately, OFAC’s TSRA application instructions tells you that you can figure out what is an agricultural commodity by going to www.fas.usda.gov and consulting a “list of agricultural commodities that qualify for export under the TSRA program.”

Now, if you actually believe that and go to the site mentioned looking for the list, no matter how well-honed your search skills are, no matter how strong the Google Force is with you, you will not find that list. It’s nowhere to be found. Of course, you might even remember having seen that list before, and you would be right.

What’s happened here is that some web geek at the USDA convinced the agency that it needed to redesign its website so, I suppose, it looks good on an iPhone or includes the latest CSS geegaw. And in this ridiculous process, no one at the USDA actually tried to figure out whether the new site was actually useful or retained vital information. Nope, looks good, they declared, and headed off to their cars or to Metro to start the long commute home to Virginia.

As a special service to our readers, and brought to you by the magic of the Internet Wayback Machine, here is a link to that list. We have uploaded the list to our server, so that it will remain available for your reading and licensing pleasure. And, yes, those wooden clothes hangers are agricultural commodities.

UPDATE:  An alert reader has more of the Google Force with him than I do and managed to locate the elusive agricultural commodities list on the Department of Agriculture’s website. It’s here.  You’d think that OFAC would say more in its application instructions that the list can be found somewhere on www.fas.usda.gov, but, of course, you’d be wrong.

Permalink Comments Off on We’re From the USDA and We’re Not Here to Help You (UPDATED)



Copyright © 2015 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

24

Egyptair Shot Down by BIS for Sudan Airways Lease


Posted by at 9:58 pm on November 24, 2015
Category: Sudan

Tasty Meal on Sudan Air via http://www.sudanair.com/uploads/photos/97226DSC00043.JPG [Fair Use]
ABOVE: A Tasty Meal on
Sudan Air


Today the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) announced that Egyptair has agreed to pay a penalty of $140,000 to settle charges that Egyptair leased two Boeing 737-566 commercial aircraft to Sudan Airways.  The penalty is payable in four equal installments every three months starting on February 1, 2016. The Settlement Agreement further provides that should Egyptair not make any of these payments in a timely fashion, BIS can enter a one-year export denial order. Since such an order, which would forbid any U.S. person to export any item to the airline, would be a one-year kiss of death, it seems likely that Egyptair will make each $35,000 payment in a timely fashion.

It was hardly a secret that Egyptair had leased these aircraft to Sudan Airways. BIS hardly had to use its secret decoder rings and shoe phones to uncover the deal. It was publicly reported in various aviation databases such as this one here. The highly public nature of the transaction also suggests that Egyptair thought the lease was permissible and simply was unaware of the meglomaniacal position of BIS and the U.S. government that the U.S. has jurisdiction over anyone anywhere in the world who touches any item that was ever in the United States.

One more thing: Sudan Airways is on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, so it should not be too long before OFAC chimes in and gets more cash from Egyptair for leasing these aircraft not just to Sudan but to an SDN in Sudan.

Permalink Comments Off on Egyptair Shot Down by BIS for Sudan Airways Lease



Copyright © 2015 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

19

BIS Imposes Controls on High-Tech Cloaking Material


Posted by at 7:57 pm on November 19, 2015
Category: BIS

XBS Epoxy System Demo via http://www.spacephotonics.com/Coating_Glob-top_Cavity_Fill_X-Ray_Blocking_Anti-Tamper_Material.php [Fair Use]On Monday, BIS announced in an “interim final” rule (a top contender for the best oxymoronic regulatory phrase ever) imposing export controls on Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak as well as on tarnhelms, the predecessor technology to the invisibility cloak.   Actually, the control, which was effective immediately upon publication, was placed on a high-tech equivalent of those two items, namely, XBS epoxy systems.

The website of Space Photonics, which is the apparent developer of this technology, explains the technology.  According to that website, XBS epoxy systems are

proven effective in obfuscation of critical technology components against X-Ray and Terahertz Microscopy imaging attempts … developed to conceal critical components from adversaries.

The picture on the left is a visual demonstration of the technology.

One interesting issue of an immediately effective “interim final” rule is a simple commercial issue. Suppose one of the systems was in transit on the date of publication. If it crossed the U.S. border after the rule was published, did the exporter violate the law? The rule has no grandfathering or savings provision, so the apparent answer would be that the exporter did violate the law and could be subject to civil penalties. It seems doubtful that BIS would fine someone in that situation, but it’s hard to see why the immediately effective rule did not address this issue rather than throw any such exporters on the presumed mercy of BIS.

Because it is an “interim not-yet-final but almost and pretty much but not quite final rule,” BIS will permit comments on the rule until January 15, 2016, after which BIS will presumably issue the “final and we really mean final this time final” rule.

Permalink Comments Off on BIS Imposes Controls on High-Tech Cloaking Material



Copyright © 2015 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

17

OFAC Debuts New Game Show: Guess That Violation, or Wheel of Misfortune


Posted by at 7:27 pm on November 17, 2015
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Havana by Bryan Ledgard [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/nhf28N [cropped]The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has made sort of a name for itself by issuing cryptic penalty announcements where it is a considerable challenge to figure out what went on and why the unfortunate company that has been whacked with an “agreed” fine got itself tangled up with OFAC in the first place. But the recent penalty slapped on Gil Tours Travel for some vague violation of the Cuba sanctions takes the cake or, I suppose, el pastel.

According to the penalty announcement, Gil was being fined because “dealt in property in which Cuba or Cuban nationals had an interest, by providing Cuba travel-related services involving 191 individuals, without authorization from OFAC,” which is pretty much like saying Gil broke the rules when it broke the rules. But here’s the kicker. In discussing aggravating factors, OFAC says this:

Gil Travel had some awareness that it was providing Cuba-related travel services, and that its conduct could be in violation of the CACR [Cuban Assets Control Regulations]

Say what? It had “some awareness” that it was providing Cuba-related travel service and that this “could” be in violation of the rules? What on earth does that mean? How can you not know whether you are providing Cuba-related services? Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not rule violations. It’s a binary thing: you either are or are not providing those services and, if you are, you know it. Don’t count on any clarification from OFAC to help anyone figure out what happened here.

Apparently the owner of Gil Tours told (subscription required) Law360 sort of what was going on, although his explanation is not a model of clarity either.

Gil’s president and CEO Igal Hami told Law360 on Wednesday by email that … its only involvement with the trips under investigation was in referring nonprofit agencies that had OFAC licenses to arrange Cuban travel to another tour operator that also had a license.

So, apparently (if this is true), OFAC thinks you violate the CACR if you refer someone to a licensed tour operator unless you have a license to make that referral. In other words, if I included a link here to a licensed provider of people-to-people tours to Cuba, I would be breaking OFAC rules because I don’t have a license to make that referral. No wonder OFAC didn’t want to let on what happened here.

(I’m really, really, really hoping someone at OFAC clicked the link above to see if I had committed this violation. Explanation here.)

 

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2015 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

11

Banks’ Fear of OFAC Blocks Travel to Cuba


Posted by at 9:15 pm on November 11, 2015
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

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

With the corpses of banks skewered by OFAC strewn around everywhere you look, it is not altogether surprising that banks are terrified of the agency and are scared to death that the slightest misstep might bring the wrath of the agency down upon them. The latest instance of acute ofacaphobia, reported here in an excellent Miami Herald article, involves banks in a panic that travelers to Cuba on one of the general licenses might be fibbing and might really be going to Cuba to drink mojitos in Old Havana and hang out on the beach.

Before travelers can arrive in Cuba, the airline or charter company needs to pay $194 per passenger for landing fees and mandatory health insurance. According to the article, now that passengers self-certify their eligibility under the twelve categories covered by the general license for travel, banks are trying to verify that these self-certifications are accurate, asking for itineraries and other information to assure themselves that they won’t be the next cow in the OFAC abbatoir.

Meanwhile, analysts said perhaps the biggest reason banks are wary of Cuba business are the huge — and recent — fines aimed at banks that have done business with sanctioned countries. Just last month, France’s Crédit Agricole bank paid nearly $800,000 [sic – $800,000,000] to U.S. state and federal agencies to settle allegations it tried to hide or obscure references to transactions involving U.S.-sanctioned nations, including Cuba.

The result has been that travelers arrive at the airport only to learn that they aren’t going to Cuba, that the flight has been cancelled, and that they have to go home because necessary fees had not been transferred by the U.S. banks. Apparently they are so irritated that charter companies have gone to the airport with “police escorts” to deliver the bad news.

This should come as no surprise to OFAC. And there is a simple solution: issue guidance to the banks that they can rely on the traveler’s self-certification of their eligibility under the general license. If Justin Whiteshoes says he’s going to Cuba on a people-to-people tour and is, in fact, going on a bar-to-bar tour, it is going to be Justin Whiteshoes who gets whacked and not the bank that wired his $194 fee to Cuba.

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2015 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


« Previous posts | Next posts »