U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

Sometimes it is beneficial for an exporter to voluntarily self-disclose its export violations to the U.S. Government.  Maybe an exportation of an item occurred without first obtaining the necessary license, or maybe the item was shipped to a company overseas other than allowed in a license. Both situations are violations of the Export Administration Regulations, and both violations could result in $250,000 penalties against the exporter. By voluntarily self-disclosing the violation, the exporter would reduce, and might even eliminate, such a penalty.

For a suspected violation of 15 CFR 764.2 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) enforced by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, an exporter may submit a voluntary self-disclosure (popularly known as a “VSD”) to the Office of Export Enforcement of BIS at its Washington, D.C. headquarters office.  The contents of what must be included in a VSD are established in 15 CFR 764.5.

Procedurally, once a properly filed VSD is received by the BIS, it is investigated by a Special Agent from the Office of Export Enforcement. If a penalty or other sanction is contemplated, the case is referred to an attorney with the Office of Chief Counsel of BIS.  The BIS attorney will contact the exporter’s attorney, eventually resulting in a written Settlement Agreement between the exporter and the BIS.  Negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement is critical.

The Obama Administration is actively pursuing export control reforms. Importantly, Kevin Wolf, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration, on November 9, 2010, at […]

Lesson of the day –  Don’t make an intentionally false or misleading statement to the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)! Carol Wilkins apparently did, and will now pay $15,000 to the BIS. Important to note is that this export manager was fined individually. RF Micro Devices, Inc., the company Carol worked for, was fined $190,000 separate and apart from Carol.

From at least 2002-2003, a responsibility of Carol’s was export control compliance for RF Micro Devices, Inc. The company had exported spread-spectrum modems which are properly classified as ECCN 5A001 to China.  Yet, the company did not obtain the required license from the BIS.

The BIS Charging Letter discussed Ms. Wilkins’ false or misleading statement to the BIS. During the course of a BIS investigation, she allegedly told a BIS Special Agent that all product classifications were confirmed by an outside consultant to be EAR99 (no export license required). Apparently the consultant disagreed, and even kept the documentation in which the consultant had specifically advised Carol that the items were not EAR99.  Carol might not have realized how resourceful the BIS Agents could be as she may not have realized that BIS Agents would confirm her statements to them by doublechecking with the consultant. Even I was always taught “trust but verify”.  BIS is no different in this case.

Whenever you are going to be interviewed by a Special Agent of BIS or any other Federal law enforcement agency, always remember two things: (1) tell the truth, and (2) seek the advice of […]