BIS Publishes Case Briefs on Export Violations Leading to Convictions

March 13, 2026 by Leave a comment

Do you ever wonder whether anyone gets prosecuted for export violations? Well, now you can read about who is getting prosecuted for export crimes and what the sentences tend to be! The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Export Enforcement, publishes a book entitled Don’t Let This Happen to You, which provides case briefs on criminal prosecutions related to violations of U.S. export control law.

The are multiple cases described that involve aircraft parts. Here is a summary of few of them:

  • Stefan Gillier was sentenced to 84 months in prison, three years of probation, $3,509,916 in restitution and an $800 special assessment after he was found in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain aircraft parts from Honeywell and export them through Turkey to Iran.
  • Joyce Eliabachus was sentenced to 18 months in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. She pled guilty to allegations that she conspired smuggle over $2 million worth of aircraft components from her NJ company to Iran, through intermediaries in the UAE and Turkey.
  • David Levick was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to 24 months in prison, 12 months of supervised release, a $199,227 forfeiture, a $400 special assessment, and deportation upon completion of his sentence. He pled guilty to a scheme in which he would order aircraft parts from the United States to his business in Australia and ship them to the Malaysian facilities of an Iranian buyer, from where they would make their way to Iran.
  • Erdal Akova was sentenced to 36 months in prison and a $200 special assessment for a scheme involving the shipment of military-grade epoxy (through his facility in Turkey) for use on aircraft in Iran.
  • First Call International agreed to a civil penalty of $439,992 for shipments using the STA license exception when it was not applicable. The exports included shipments of defense aircraft through Australia (to make it seem like STA applied) when the ultimate consignee was actually in Malaysia.
  • Brothers Issam and Usama Hamade were sentenced to 26 months and 42 months respectively, as well as $100 special assessments, post-incarceration deportation, and ten-year post-conviction denial orders. They were convicted of exporting inertial measurement units, digital compasses, a high-performance jet engine, and various other aircraft parts and avionics. They falsely claimed the goods were destined for South Africa when they were actually being shipped to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  • William Vanmanen was sentenced to 30 months in prison and 24 months of supervised release for a scheme involving false documentation, false designation of value, and exporting aircraft parts to Hong Kong without the required licenses.
  • Ali, Marjan and Arash Caby were sentenced two years, one year and one day, and two years in prison, respectively. Other elements of the sentences included supervised release, criminal fines and forfeiture. The three plead guilty to selling aircraft parts to Syrian Arab Airlines.
  • Muhammad Mohsin Raja was sentenced to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release after he was found guilty of transmitting payments in connection with the purchase of aircraft antenna for a denied entity in Pakistan.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Potential New Tariff Regime Affecting Goods of Chinese Origin: We Need Your Import Data

March 4, 2026 by Leave a comment

If your company buys goods that are products of China, then you need to pay careful attention to the government’s latest investigation.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has opened a new factfinding investigation.  The investigation is examining the impact of revoking normal trade relations treatment for China. This woudl dramatically increase the tariffs paid by U.S. importers who are importing Chinese-origin goods. For the ASA Community, this could affect aircraft parts but it could also affect raw materials imported and used to produce aircraft parts in the United States.

Removing Normal Trade Relations (NTR)

“Normal trade relations” is the term of art that describes the trade relationship between the United States and its trading partners. This is also called “most-favored nation” status in the World Trade Organization (WTO) context.

There are currently four countries that do not have normal trade relations with the United States: Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and Russia.  Those four countries pay much higher base tariffs.  Currently, the United States imports relatively little from these four jurisdictions.   For example, in 2025 the U.S. imported $3.8 billion in goods from Russia, and in 2024 the U.S. imported $3.0 billion in goods from Russia.

Compare this to imports from China: In 2024 the United States imported $438.7 billion in goods from China.  That volume slipped to just $308.4 billion in 2025 due to US-China trade disputes, but that is still a very large volume of imports.  The slippage from 2024 to 2025 shows that duty rates can have significant impact on import volumes.

The People’s Republic of China was granted normal trade relations status in February 1980, pursuant to title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.).  In 2001, Public Law 106–286 (114 Stat. 880) was passed to make permanent the People’s Republic of China’s normal trade relations status.

The normal trade relations status made merchandise from the People’s Republic of China eligible for the duties set forth in column 1 of the HTSUS.  Column 2 is the column reserved for the four countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations with the United States.  For each tariff code, the column 2 duties are typically much higher.

The Effect of Removing NTR

If the United States revokes normal trade relations from China, then imports originating from China would be subject to the “column 2” duties.  China would become the fifth country added to the column list.

Column two of the HTSUS has higher duty rates, but what does that really mean?  Aircraft parts under HTSUS heading 8807 typically enjoy a zero percent base rate, but under column two they would be subject to a 27.5% duty rate.  Steel cotter pins are typically subject to a 3.8% duty rate but under column two they are subject to a 45% duty rate.  Aircraft jet engine parts are often admitted under a zero percent base rate, but under column two they would be subject to a 35% duty rate.  As you can see, moving China to column two dramatically increases the import duties that U.S. importers will pay.

Why Is This Happening?

In September, the House Appropriations Committee published a report that asked the USITC to investigate removing normal trade relations status from China.

Trade Enforcement Analysis.–The Committee directs the ITC to complete, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, an investigation and prospective economic analysis of revoking permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment of all products of the PRC on the U.S. economy, U.S. industry, and product sourcing over a six-year period. The ITC is further directed to provide this report to the Committee within 30 days of completion. The report should include the results of the ITC’s investigation and analysis including detailed information, to the extent practicable, on U.S. trade, production, and prices in the industries that would be directly and most affected by the imposition of rates of duty in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (19 U.S.C. 1202) on products from China. The report should also examine an alternative scenario where Congress revokes PNTR with a five-year phase-in of tariffs on a subset of national security products.

There is also a strong likelihood that this investigation is being pursued to strengthen the Administration’s bargaining position in negotiations with China. We want to provide data to the US government and protect the traditional aviation carve-outs without weakening either side’s bargaining position.

We Need Your Help

Here’s where you come in.  As an industry, we need to compile data to show what the effect of this sort of change would be on American businesses.  We know that some of our members are sourcing Chinese origin materials as raw materials or subcomponents to their aircraft parts.  It is important that we let the government know how this will affect our industry, so they can make an informed decision.

History also shows us that when the United States imposes sanctions that affect another country, like China, the other country may impose sanctions on goods from the United States.  This means that a trade war can adversely affect aircraft parts both on the supply side and on the international sales side.

Please let ASA know:

  • What volume of Chinese origin supply/materials are you sourcing?
  • What is the annual dollar value of Chinese origin supply/materials that are you sourcing?
  • What sorts materials are you sourcing from China?

We will need to file our responses with the government by 5:15 p.m. Eastern Time, on Monday, April 13, 2026, so we ask that members of ASA submit their data to ASA by Wednesday, April 1, 2026 so we can assemble it into an industry report.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Court Directs IEEPA Tariffs to be Refunded

March 4, 2026 by Leave a comment

The Supreme Court recently issued their opinion that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal, and they remanded the matter back to the Court of International Trade for remedies.

The Court of International Trade issued their own tariff order today.

The judge determined he has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matter, and directs CBP to:

  • liquidate all unliquidated entries entered subject to IEEPA duties without regard to IEEPA duties;
  • reliquidate, without regard to IEEPA duties, entries already liquidated for which liquidation is not final.

This means that if your import was not yet liquidated, then when it is liquidated, it will be charged without regard to the IEEPA tariff and if that money was collected then it should be refunded. It is possible that CBP may require some action on the part of the importer in order to execute this process (although they should not) so watch carefully for more updates.

The ruling also directs that if your import was not yet liquidated, then when it is liquidated, it will be charged without regard to the IEEPA tariff and if that money was collected then it should be refunded.

Of course, this could be subject to additional appeals so don’t consider anything final until you get your refund!

Filed under Uncategorized

The Next Round of Tariffs May Exclude Aviation

February 23, 2026 by Leave a comment

Mere hours passed between the Supreme Court ruling that the IEEPA Chapter 99 tariffs were illegal, and the President issuing executive orders establishing the next set of tariff paradigms.

The White House issued an executive order calling for the establishment of new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132). The order demands that the government establish new tariffs setting a 10% duty rate on all foreign goods imported into the United States, starting tomorrow (February 24, 2026). The HTSUS code associated with this new tariff is expected to be 9903.03.01.

There is good news for industry: many aviation parts will be exempt from this new tariff. The exemption will apply to a list of HTSUS tariff codes that are typically associated with aircraft, engines, and their parts. The list is nearly 600 codes long, so it encompasses a significant number of aircraft parts classifications. Always check your HTSUS codes against this list for each import, to assess whether the additional duty applies to your import. The tariff provision that exempts aircraft parts from the new section 122 duty rate is expected to be 9903.03.05.

Section 122 permits the President to use tariffs to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. The United States has the world’s largest negative balance of payments; however, this provision only permits tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. After that the tariffs can only be extended by an act of Congress.

Please note: this blog article is based on the Administration’s executive order. Tariff rules can be (and have been) changed between the executive order that announces them and the formal publication in the Federal Register. So please don’t make any legal moves until you have reviewed the final published language.

UPDATE: the 10% tariff has been established as predicted, and when into effect this morning (Feb 24, 2026).

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Tariffs are Illegal – How Do I get My Refund?

February 20, 2026 by Leave a comment

By now, everyone has seen the headline: Many of the tariffs imposed by the Administration have been declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. The Court ruled that the IEEPA did not support issuing those HTSUS Chapter 99 tariffs. Since it was illegal to collect the tariffs, those that have already been collected likely need to be refunded to those who paid them. Many companies in the ASA community paid tariffs and I am sure that those who paid would like to get refunds if it is possible.

It is possible that the administration may create a streamlined mechanism for seeking/issuing tariff refunds. This article describes processes under current law and regulations. We have reached out to the government to seek advice on streamlined filing for refunds, and to offer assistance in streamlining the refund process.

The first step is to assess which tariffs you paid, and which of those were illegal. Not all tariffs were ruled to be illegal – only certain ones. For example, if you imported a bearing last July, and you paid a 9% duty for that bearing under HTSUS chapter 84 PLUS an additional 20% Chapter 99 tariff based on the fact that the bearing’s origin was from the European Union (total of 29% duty), then it is likely that the 9% duty from the base tariff was legal but the 20% duty could be covered under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

By and large, the illegal tariffs were issued under HTSUS Chapter 99 so if the basis of the duty that you paid was under another HTSUS chapter then it might have been a legal tariff. Also, some of the HTSUS Chapter 99 tariffs (like steel and aluminum) were issued under other justifications (not under the IEEPA) and those would remain unaffected by today’s ruling.

Once you’ve identified duties that you paid that might be covered by the Supreme Court’s ruling, the next step is to assess whether the import has been liquidated or not. The term Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on thing sthat are entered into the United States for consumption. Liquidation usually happens between 300 and 360 days after the import entry (the government aims for an average of 314 days, but our recent assessment found that the average was 330-335 days).

If your import has not yet been liquidated, then you may be able to perform a post-summary correction. Typically this can be accomplished within 300 days of entry but also at least 15 days before liquidation. This is processed through the ACE system. If you discover an error, there is actually a legal obligation to file a correction.

If the 300-day window has passed or the entry has been liquidated, then you can no longer file a post summary correction. Instead, you may be able to file a protest. Protests typically are required to be filed within 180 days of liquidation.

Protests are filed using CBP Form 19. You can file this as a paper form (in which case it must be filed in quadruplicate, and sent to the Port Director) or you can file it online through ACE. If you file a paper copy then we usually advise that you send a fifth copy and a self-addressed stamped envelope in order to get a date-stamped copy back from CBP (as proof of receipt). The filing is considered filed when it is received (not when it is mailed) so make sure it gets to the destination on time!

When you file CBP Form 19, you need to be as specific as you can be. Make sure you provide this information:

  • Identify what is wrong
  • Explain why it is wrong
  • Provide evidence
  • Explain what the corrected entry should be

In the online/electronic form the space to provide this information is small, so don’t be afraid to write up your full argument on a separate document and attach it.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Classifying Inertial Reference Units (IRUs)

February 17, 2026 by Leave a comment

I have been seeing a number of companies having trouble with classifications.  This is the second of what will likely be an occasional series discussing classification.  This blog post will address Inertial Reference Units or IRUs.

Please note that the following analysis is based on the regulations and standards as they are written today.  Export and import law, is subject to change.  This is particularly true of tariffs over the past year.  So you should always verify your classification under the current regulations and standards.

Classification is necessary for both exports and imports.  Exports of civil aircraft parts are typically classified under Export Commodity Classification Numbers or ECCNs.  An exception arises when the goods are controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs).

Export Classification

ECCNs are typically five characters long.  Many civil aircraft parts are characterized under ECCNs like 9A991, but this ONLY applies to civil aircraft parts that are (1) not specified elsewhere and (2) specially designed for civil aircraft.  The first condition is important because some parts (like engines, avionics, etc.) are specified elsewhere and may have different export limits and licensing provisions based on their proper classification.  

In our case, IRUs are typically classified elsewhere.  Even though they may be aircraft parts, when there is a more specific classification, they must rely on the most specific classification.

Many civil aircraft IRUs are classified under ECCN 7A103.  One might be tempted by ECCN 7A003, but the regulations specify that ECCN 7A003 “does not apply to ‘inertial measurement equipment or systems’ which are certified for use on ‘civil aircraft’ by civil aviation authorities of one or more Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States.”

ECCN 7A103 has two primary reasons for control: missile technology (MT) and anti-terrorism (AT). The missile technology reason for control could be an issue for many export destinations, as there is a license obligation associated with most export destinations (currently there are exceptions for Australia, Canada,and the UK). If you plan to rely on a license exception, then please read the regulations carefully as some destinations may be unable to rely on certain license exceptions when exporting articles controlled under ECCN 7A103.

Import Classification

Imported goods are typically classified under harmonized tariff codes from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  These codes can be ten digits long (when you include the statistical reporting number).  There are also a lot more tariff numbers than there are ECCNs, which makes navigating the tariff schedule a little more daunting.  

The United States Government has classified civil aircraft IRUs under HTSUS heading 9014.20.8040 for import purposes. Note that if you click through the link, you will see an outdated number that was assigned; 9014.20.8040 is the modern equivalent tariff number. But that assignment relies on a specific fact pattern: that the IRU (a) is not an optical instrument, (b) does not measure an electrical phenomenon, and (c) is for use in civil aircraft. Other types of inertial measuring device have fallen into other HTSUS classifications (like a Northrupp Grumman IMU that was characterized as 9014.20.20 in the year 2020). So look carefully at the characteristics of your device to ensure it is properly classified under 9014.20.8040.

Proper tariff classification is important because different tariffs have different duty amounts.  9014.20.8040 is specific to aviation use inertial reference units, so classification under 9014.20.8040 currently yields a base duty of zero percent (this may be modified by chapter 99 tariffs).

Past Classification Articles

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Process for OFAC Violations

February 9, 2026 by Leave a comment

OFAC has new standards for filing a voluntary self disclosure!

My law firm has strongly recommended to many clients that there is value in voluntary reporting of export violations to the government, in order to work with the government to solve the immediate issue but also to help the government track trends and provide better compliance support to the industry.

Most voluntary self disclosure (VSD) provisions offer an incentive in the form of a mitigation of penalties. This mitigation is not guaranteed, but we’ve had very good luck in cooperation with the government through VSDs. When we file a VSD on behalf of a client, we typically work with the company on root cause analysis, and corrective actions that are targeted to the root cause. This helps to improve the chances of the corrective action being successful in preventing future recurrence of the underlying issue. It is also important to make sure you are filing your VSD with the right agency, and to recognize that there may be more than one office that needs to receive your VSD (for example some filing issues may also benefit from a Census VSD).

The processes for VSDs are typically ensconced in the regulations, and it is important to pay attention to the regulatory requirements for the VSD processes.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is launching a new online Voluntary Self-Disclosure Portal. This portal provides a streamlined, secure method for submitting voluntary self-disclosures of potential violations of OFAC-administered sanctions programs. By transitioning to this online system, OFAC aims to increase efficiency and transparency for persons submitting information, enabling faster acknowledgment of submissions, clearer communication throughout the review process, and a more user-friendly experience overall. OFAC strongly encourages parties to begin submitting voluntary self-disclosures through the new online portal.

Typically, the initial report needs to be followed by a full narrative that meets the regulatory requirements for final report. If you make an initial report and are not sure what you need in a final report, then you can review the relevant regulations in the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guideline or contact our office for assistance. The Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments is also a useful piece of guidance.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

8130-3 Tags and CM Project Number

January 16, 2026 by Leave a comment

Late in 2025, the FAA issued a significant revision to Order 8130.21 (the instructions for completing 81303 tags). After it was released, ASA pointed out that one of the changes was requirement to list the CM project number on the 8130-3.

The problem with this requirement is that the CM project number is not published on an available database (like DRS.FAA.GOV); nor is it readily available for most projects. For most aircraft parts the CM project number is also different from the production approval number. When a manufacturer has multiple production sites, each site may have a different CM project number. ASA members and their DARs have complained that they are unable to reliably find the CM Project Number for most aircraft parts.

ASA has been in discussions with the FAA about this issue. The FAA recognized the difficulties in finding the CM project number, and yesterday FAA signed a deviation memo that removes this “CM Project Number” requirement as it applies to 8130-3 tags signed at a distributor or other non-PAH location.

The deviation memo is identified as AIR-600-DM46.

The deviation memo is not yet publicly available, but is expected to be made available soon on the FAA’s Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS): https://drs.faa.gov.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

Classifying Fasteners

January 6, 2026 by 1 Comment

I have been seeing a number of companies having trouble with classifications.  This is the first of what will likely be an occasional series discussing classification.  This blog post will address fasteners.

Please note that the following analysis is based on the regulations and standards as they are written today.  Export and import law, is subject to change.  This is particularly true of tariffs over the past year.  So you should always verify your classification under the current regulations and standards.

Classification is necessary for both exports and imports.  Exports of civil aircraft parts are typically classified under Export Commodity Classification Numbers or ECCNs.  An exception arises when the goods are controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs).  

Export Classification

ECCNs are typically five characters long.  Many civil aircraft parts are characterized under ECCN 9A991.  This ECCN applies to civil aircraft parts that are (1) not specified elsewhere and (2) specially designed for civil aircraft.  The first condition is important because some parts (like engines, avionics, etc.) are specified elsewhere and may have different export limits and licensing provisions based on their proper classification.  The second condition is equally important because the term “specially designed” is a legal term of art that has a specific definition under the Commerce Department regulations.  The definition specifically excludes fasteners, so fasteners typically will not be classified under ECCN 9A991.  Instead, they will typically be classified under EAR99.

Import Classification

Imported goods are typically classified under harmonized tariff codes from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  These codes can be ten digits long (when you include the statistical reporting number).  There are also a lot more tariff numbers than there are ECCNs, which makes navigating the tariff schedule a little more daunting.  Classifying fasteners for import can reflect a more complex analysis than what we just had to perform for fastener export classification.  

Normally, fasteners will be classified based on their material.  An article made of iron or steel is typically classified within HTSUS Chapter 73 of the tariff schedule.  This chapter is 45 pages long.  Within the chapter are four-digit headings and the heading 7318 addresses fasteners (made from iron or steel).  If the fastener is a bolt, then bolts made from iron or steel will be classified under 7318.15.20xx.  This classification would also encompass bolts that are imported with their nuts or washers (the nuts and washers do not have to be declared separately).  The final two characters (the “xx” in the example above) are the statistical reporting number and this number will depend on the size and nature of the bolt.  If the bolt had a shank or threads less than 6mm, then the statistical reporting number would be “10” (so the full tariff code would be 7318.15.2010.  If the shank or thread is 6mm or more then the nature of the bolt will drive the statistical reporting number: for example,  a structural bolt is classified under 7318.15.2030.  

But if the same bolt was made from a different material then the importing tariff number could be different. An aluminum bolt would be found on the schedule for aluminum articles (HTSUS Chapter 76).  It would be identified as 7616.10.xxxx.  A threaded bolt with a shank or threads less than 6mm would be identified as 7616.10.7030.   A threaded bolt with a shank or thread diameter of 6mm or more would be classified as 7616.10.9030.

Proper tariff classification is important because different tariffs have different duty amounts.  For example, the 7616.10.7030 bolt would be subject to a 5.5% duty rate when imported into the United States.  The larger diameter 7616.10.9030 bolt would be subject to a 6% duty rate when imported into the United States.  

A common mistake is to classify these sorts of fasteners as aircraft parts under heading 8807, which is a general classification for aircraft parts that do not have a more specific code that describes them.  Heading 8807 doesn’t apply to our fasteners because there are more specific classifications for bolts.  This misclassification violates the import tariff rule that requires assignment of the most specific tariff description.  It also leads to underpaid duties, which can lead to penalties when the underpayment is detected.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Does Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Apply to Aircraft Parts

January 5, 2026 by Leave a comment

The European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) regulations changed for 2026.  Under the old provisions, EU importers were required to keep record and make reports but were not required to pay emissions taxes under the CBAM scheme.  As of January 1, European importers will be paying taxes related to certain materials under the CBAM regulations.

A number of ASA members have already complained that they are being asked questions they cannot answer about the carbon generation associated with the production of aircraft parts that they are exporting to the European Union. These questions could accelerate as EU importers start to collect information related to emissions taxes under CBAM.

Most aircraft parts are NOT subject to CBAM.  This means that for most aircraft parts, the CBAM questions simply do not apply. But there are several caveats to this statement:

  • CBAM applies mostly to basic materials and basic material goods, BUT it also applies to some finished products, such as:
    • Tubes and pipes (CN Headings 7303-7307, 7608-7609)
    • Tanks (CN Headings 7309-7310, 7611-7612)
    • Compressed gas tanks (CN Heading 7311, 7613)
    • Steel or iron fasteners (CN Heading 7318)
    • Aluminum wires (CN Heading 7614).
  • The EU plans to periodically examine the CBAM Regulations and has reserved the right to additional goods and sectors to the coverage of CBAM.

Wondering if your article is subject to CBAM?  Check out CBAM Annexes I and II: they have the lists of all of the CN codes that are currently subject to CBAM.

The philosophy behind CBAM is that EU producers are meeting stringent emissions standards.  Foreign producers may not meet the same stringent emissions standards.  Importers of foreign goods pay an emissions fee to offset the fact that the foreign producer did not have the expenses associated with meeting the stringent EU emissions standards.

CBAM is connected to the European Union Emissions Trading System (EUETS).  Originally, aviation was exempt from the EUETS, but it appears that aviation is now being gradually incorporated into the EUETS.  Thus, aviation parts could be subject to CBAM in the future.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts