PRINT
Case No. CU-77186
Ben H. Flowe, Jr., Esq.
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, L.L.P.
1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036-4798
Dear Mr. Flowe:
This is in response to your correspondence of December 13, 2006 and February 1, 2008 on behalf of Philips Electronics North America, Inc. (“PENAC”), a U.S. corporation, and Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. (“PMSN”), a Dutch company, requesting OF AC’s guidance on whether non-U.S. employees and non-U.S. contractors of PENAC and PMSN can service certain medical equipment in Venezuela.
You state in your letters that the medical equipment at issue includes U.S. origin medical equipment that was sold and exported to the [***] pursuant to ten contracts between [***] and PMSN. In an August 31, 2006 letter to OFAC, PENAC stated that these ten contracts were negotiated, at least in...
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
The two guidance letters at issue arise from the same general set of transactions. In the first letter, the applicants (a U.S. company and a non-U.S. company not subject to 515.329 of the CACR) ask about whether they can “service certain medical equipment in Venezuela”. OFAC recounts that the medical equipment at issue was exported to Venezuela pursuant to underlying contracts in which Cuba had an interest and which were negotiated in part by a U.S. person (evidently in violation of the CACR and likely the subject of Philips Electronics of North America Corporation).
OFAC determines that the “servicing of medical equipment in Venezuela, including the U.S. origin medical equipment, sold and exported to [***] pursuant to...