BIS’s dismissal of an appeal by a Belgian businessman and his company is procedurally narrow, but its compliance lesson is broader: an expired, non-renewed temporary denial order cannot be used as a vehicle for collateral relief under EAR § 766.24, even where the respondent disputes the factual basis for the original order. The decision also underscores the separate legal effect of BIS tools. A temporary denial order may lapse, but later Entity List restrictions, OFAC sanctions and criminal proceedings can continue to carry the operative compliance risk.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current subscriber, and had an account on our previous site, you already have an account. If you have not yet logged into our new site, click here to reset your password.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
