OFAC, PanAm Seed Co. Settle for $4.3 Million in Iran Sanctions Case
The Office of Foreign Assets Control and PanAmerican Seed Company entered into a $4.3 million civil settlement, after OFAC alleged the firm violated the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations by indirectly exporting flower and other seeds 48 times to two Iranian distributors from May 2009 to March 2012, the agency said (here). PanAm Seed didn’t voluntarily disclose the alleged violations, which specifically involved seed shipments to consignees based in two third-countries in Europe or the Middle East, as well as arrangements made by PanAm customers for re-exportation of the seeds to Iran, the agency said. OFAC deemed the case to be egregious. High- and mid-level personnel of PanAm Seed and/or its parent company Ball Horticultural were aware of U.S. sanctions applying to Iran and the requirement to get a specific OFAC license to export the seeds, OFAC said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The agency held as aggravating factors PanAm Seed managers’ prior knowledge, the company’s “engaging in, and systematically obfuscating” conduct it knew to be banned, ignoring OFAC compliance responsibilities, initial provision of “inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete” information for the investigation, and the fact that Ball Horticultural is a sophisticated, international corporation. But OFAC also found as mitigating factors the facts that the seeds were likely eligible for a license under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, and that PanAm took the subsequent remedial steps of stopping all exports to Iran, initiating a compliance program, and training companies on OFAC sanctions; and that PanAm was eligible for a “first offense” mitigation of 25 percent of the fine because it had not received a penalty notice or finding of violation from the agency in the five years before the May 2009 start date of the violations.