Ed. Note: if you’re new to TURBOFAC, please take note that the text string filtration function generally shouldn’t be used for terms such as “ordinarily resident,” “causing” or “new debt”. For research on the meaning of words and phrases such as those, i.e. terms central to the key legal issues in sanctions law that appear on a cross-programmatic basis, you’re typically better off locating and checking the appropriate box in the “Key Legal Issues” search category, which will limit the results to those that have been manually assessed as being relevant for the interpretation of the terms at issue.
Try typing your search term (“ordinarily resident,” “new debt,” or something else) in the “Find a Search Filter” box at the top of the page, and the corresponding “Key Legal Issues” check box will pop up instantly, if one exists. Once you check the box (e.g. “new debt,” with ~55 results), you can always use the text string filtration function to further refine your search (e.g. by typing “invoice” and narrowing the ~55 results to ~10).
Note in addition that the same applies to text string searches such as “14071” (if you’re looking for items related to EO 14071). By typing “14071” in the “Find a Search Filter” field up top, you will be able to instantly narrow the results down to items manually assessed as relating to EO 14071. Ditto terms such as “515.204” or “Iran General License G” (try the “Discrete Legal Provision” search category).
Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] with any questions on search results and efficiency.
Please click "Apply Text String Filters" again after clicking the "Close" button immediately below.
1) In United States v. Three Burmese Statues a federal district court upholds the government's seizure and civil forfeiture of three original statutes imported by a U.S. person from Thailand. The statutes were products of Burma. The Burmese Sanctions Regulations, as they existed just prior to the importation, can be found at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2006-title31-vol3/xml/CFR-2006-title31-vol3-part537.xml. Burma was, at the time, subject to a comprehensive import ban that covered all articles of Burmese origin, with very limited exceptions.
The case is notable for the fact that, throughout the proceedings, neither CBP, the DOJ, the claimant (whose property was confiscated) or the court realized that the importation of the statutes was generally licensed by 537.515, which provided that "importation of information or informational materials that are products of Burma and all transactions directly incident to such importation are...