Russia Sanctions Update

Sep 8, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

The 14 entities subject to this general license requirement are:

  • Private Joint-Stock Company Mako Holding
  • Airfix Aviation Oy
  • IPP Oil Products (Cyprus) Limited
  • Set Petrochemicals Oy
  • Southeast Trading Oy
  • Southport Management Services Limited
  • Open Joint Stock Company Kontsern Izhmash
  • Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod JSC
  • State Enterprise Evpatoria Sea Commercial Port
  • State Enterprise Feodosia Sea Trading Port
  • State Shipping Company Kerch Sea Ferry
  • State Enterprise Kerch Sea Commercial Port
  • State Enterprise Sevastopol Sea Trading Port
  • State Enterprise Yalta Sea Trading Port

The other 15 entities added to the Entity List are identified as subsidiaries of Rosneft, which is already subject to BIS export restrictions and OFAC sectoral sanctions. For these 15 entities, the BIS listing imposes a license requirement for exports or re-exports of U.S.-origin items subject to the EAR for uses that correspond with activities barred under U.S. sectoral sanctions in accordance with Executive Order 13662. Specifically, BIS now imposes a license requirement for the export, re-export or transfer (in-country) to these companies of all items subject to the EAR when the exporter knows or is unable to determine whether the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian Deepwater, Arctic offshore locations, or shale formations in Russia.

The 15 entities subject to this license requirement are:

  • CJSC Vankorneft
  • Neft-Aktiv LLC
  • OJSC Achinsk Refinery
  • OJSC Angarsk Petrochemical Company
  • OJSC Kuybyshev Refinery
  • OJSC Novokuybyshev Refinery
  • OJSC Orenburgneft
  • OJSC RN Holding
  • OJSC Samotlorneftegaz
  • OJSC Syzran Refinery
  • PJSC Verkhnechonskneftegaz
  • Rosneft Trade Limited
  • Rosneft Trading S.A.
  • RN-Komsomolsky Refinery LLC
  • RN-Yuganskneftegaz LLC

B. State Department Places Sanctions on Russian Defense Companies

In addition to the Commerce Department’s action, on September 2, 2015 the U.S. Department of State published a notice in the Federal Register identifying 23 companies based in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates that are now subject to sanctions under Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (the “Act”), including a number of Russian defense sector companies. The Act is designed to penalize entities and individuals that deal in goods, services or technology with Iran, North Korea or Syria, which are subject to multilateral missile and weapons of mass destruction export control trade restrictions. 

Among others affected, this action adds to the list of targeted companies the Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport, as well as four Russian defense industry enterprises: Instrument Design Bureau (KBP) Tula, Joint Stock Company Katod, JSC Mic NPO Mashinostroyenia and Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) MiG. Based on this listing, which has a two-year duration subject to extension, U.S. government agencies are generally barred from:

  • procuring or entering into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from listed entities
  • providing assistance to or permitting participation of listed entities in projects subject to any U.S. government assistance program
  • sales or authorization for sale to the listed parties of items subject the U.S. Munitions List, as well as defense articles, defense services or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act (and terminating any such services)
  • approval or provision of export licenses in connection with the listed entities for items subject to control under the U.S. Export Administration Act and the Export Administration Regulations (and suspending existing licenses).

In initial response to these measures, Russia’s Foreign Ministry (the “Ministry”) described these sanctions, together with the new Entity List restrictions imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department on September 2, as tools designed “to punish” Russia for pursuing its national interest and for its involvement in Crimea. The Ministry further indicated that Russia is considering a possible response with still unspecified possible retaliatory measures.

C. EU to Extend Russia-Related Sanctions

On September 2, 2015, EU ambassadors agreed to extend for an additional six months the asset freeze and travel bans directed at Russian and Ukrainian persons and entities deemed to be involved in action against Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The EU sanctions, which have the stated purpose of putting economic pressure on Moscow to implement the Minsk ceasefire agreement with Ukraine by the end of the year, are otherwise due to expire on September 15. Formal EU action extending the sanctions restrictions to March 2016 is expected shortly, by or before that date. 

D. Additional Information

For more information regarding the 29 entities added to the BIS Entity List, see the Final Rule here.

For more information on the State Department sanctions, see the Federal Register Notice here  and news coverage here and here.

For additional information on the anticipated extension of EU Russia-related sanctions, see news coverage here and here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.