Export Conviction Upheld

Compliance people all understand that export controls law is almost impossibly complicated. It is hard to image a more complicated set of laws, especially when criminal enforcement is involved. But, is the law so complicated that it is unconstitutionally vague? That is the question the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed in United States v. Zhi Yong Guo.

Just or background, for a criminal law to be enforceable, it must be written in a way that allows people to understand what is illegal and to adjust their behavior accordingly. When the speed limit is set at 55 MPH, we all know what is expected. If, however, the speed limit we written as "Travel as fast as is appropriate given the circumstances described in a chart published in the official regulations and assuming the Governor has not let his executive order expire," would you know how fast to go?

The Defendant in this case conspired with others to export FLIR thermal cameras to China without the required licenses. FLIR cameras are prized by the military, security services, industry, and cryptozoologists for their ability to image people, animals, and blobsquatches in the dark. Because of their obvious value to people who do not have the best interests of the United States at heart, the Commerce Department controls their export to much of the world. So, next time you mount a Yeren hunt, be sure to get a license to export the FLIR cameras.

In this case, the defendant argued that the export controls laws are too vague to be constitutional. The Ninth Circuit discovered what compliance people have always known: it is damned complicated but not impossible to figure out. So, the Court upheld the conviction. While I have no sympathy for the defendant based upon his bad acts, I do have some sympathy for his criminal defense lawyer. Apparently, he got so frustrated trying to figure out the Commerce Control List that he threw up his hands and said, "This can't be constitutional."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry -

The Constitution is not so complex a document as to be considered incomprehensible. This is the argument that is invariably made by those who want to do things that fall outside the four corners of the document, as amended. Back in the day, it was taught as part of the typical high school civics curriculum - and the kids GOT IT!

Any time a lawyer throws his hands in the air and says "...it's so incomprehensible that it MUST be unconstitutional..." (s)he is admitting that the Constitution does not support the client's case, so (s)he is giving up.

Isn't that what we call inadequate (or possibly ignorant)counsel?

There are entire branches of government whose constitutionality is questionable at best, but that's a story for another time, and perhaps subject to some interpretation.

Your faithful Customs retiree
Mar 19, 2011, 8:06:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more