Refusals to do business.

No United States person may: refuse, knowingly agree to refuse, require any other person to refuse, or knowingly agree to require any other person to refuse, to do business with or in a boycotted country, with any business concern organized under the laws of a boycotted country, with any national or resident of a boycotted country, or with any other person, when such refusal is pursuant to an agreement with the boycotting country, or a requirement of the boycotting country, or a request from or on behalf of the boycotting country.

Generally, a refusal to do business under this section consists of action that excludes a person or country from a transaction for boycott reasons. This includes a situation in which a United States person chooses or selects one person over another on a boycott basis or takes action to carry out another person's boycott-based selection when he knows or has reason to know that the other person's selection is boycott-based.

Refusals to do business which are prohibited by this section include not only specific refusals, but also refusals implied by a course or pattern of conduct. There need not be a specific offer and refusal to constitute a refusal to do business; a refusal may occur when a United States person has a financial or commercial opportunity and declines for boycott reasons to consider or accept it.

A United States person's use of either a boycott-based list of persons with whom he will not deal (a so-called “blacklist”) or a boycott-based list of persons with whom he will deal (a so-called “whitelist”) constitutes a refusal to do business.

An agreement by a United States person to comply generally with the laws of the boycotting country with which it is doing business or an agreement that local laws of the boycotting country shall apply or govern is not, in and of itself, a refusal to do business. Nor, in and of itself, is use of a contractual clause explicitly requiring a person to assume the risk of loss of non-delivery of his products a refusal to do business with any person who will not or cannot comply with such a clause. (But see § 760.4 of this part on “Evasion.”)

If, for boycott reasons, a United States general manager chooses one supplier over another, or enters into a contract with one supplier over another, or advises its client to do so, then the general manager's actions constitute a refusal to do business under this section. However, it is not a refusal to do business under this section for a United States person to provide management, procurement, or other pre-award services for another person so long as the provision of such pre-award services is customary for that firm (or industry of which the firm is a part), without regard to the boycotting or non-boycotting character of the countries in which they are performed, and the United States person, in providing such services, does not act to exclude a person or country from the transaction for boycott reasons, or otherwise take actions that are boycott-based. For example, a United States person under contract to provide general management services in connection with a construction project in a boycotting country may compile lists of qualified bidders for the client if that service is a customary one and if persons who are qualified are not excluded from that list because they are blacklisted.

With respect to post-award services, if a client makes a boycott-based selection, actions taken by the United States general manager or contractor to carry out the client's choice are themselves refusals to do business if the United States contractor knows or has reason to know that the client's choice was boycott-based. (It is irrelevant whether the United States contractor also provided pre-award services.) Such actions include entering into a contract with the selected supplier, notifying the supplier of the client's choice, executing a contract on behalf of the client, arranging for inspection and shipment of the supplier's goods, or taking any other action to effect the client's choice. (But see § 760.3(d) on “Compliance with Unilateral Selection” as it may apply to post-award services.)

An agreement is not a prerequisite to a violation of this section since the prohibition extends to actions taken pursuant not only to agreements but also to requirements of, and requests from or on behalf of, a boycotting country.

Agreements under this section may be either express or implied by a course or pattern of conduct. There need not be a direct request from a boycotting country for action by a United States person to have been taken pursuant to an agreement with or requirement of a boycotting country.

This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States and only when such activities are undertaken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. The mere absence of a business relationship with or in the boycotted country, with any business concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country, with national(s) or resident(s) of the boycotted country, or with any other person does not indicate the existence of the required intent.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which, in a boycott situation, a refusal to do business or an agreement to refuse to do business is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

A, a U.S. manufacturer, receives an order for its products from boycotting country Y. To fill that order, A solicits bids from U.S. companies B and C, manufacturers of components used in A's products. A does not, however, solicit bids from U.S. companies D or E, which also manufacture such components, because it knows that D and E are restricted from doing business in Y and that their products are, therefore, not importable into that country.

Company A may not refuse to solicit bids from D and E for boycott reasons, because to do so would constitute a refusal to do business with those persons.

A, a U.S. exporter, uses company B, a U.S. insurer, to insure the shipment of its goods to all its overseas customers. For the first time, A receives an order for its products from boycotting country Y. Knowing that B is on the blacklist of Y, A arranges with company C, a non-blacklisted U.S. insurer, to insure the shipment of its goods to Y.

A's action constitutes a refusal to do business with B.

A, a U.S. exporter, purchases all its liability insurance from company B, a U.S. company that does business in boycotted country X. A wishes to expand its operations into country Y, the boycotting country. Before doing so, A decides to switch from insurer B to insurer C in anticipation of a request from Y that A sever its relations with B as a condition of doing business in Y.

A may not switch insurers for this reason, because doing so would constitute a refusal to do business with B.

U.S. company A exports goods to boycotting country Y. In selecting vessels to transport the goods to Y, A chooses only from among carriers which call at ports in Y.

A's action is not a refusal to do business with carriers which do not call at ports in Y.

A, a U.S. bank with a branch office in boycotting country Y, sends representatives to boycotted country X to discuss plans for opening a branch office in X. Upon learning of these discussions, an official of the local boycott office in Y advises A's local branch manager that if A opens an office in X it will no longer be allowed to do business in Y. As a result of this notification, A decides to abandon its plans to open a branch in X.

Bank A may not abandon its plans to open a branch in X as a result of Y's notification, because doing so would constitute a refusal to do business in boycotted country X.

A, a U.S. company that manufactures office equipment, has been restricted from doing business in boycotting country Y because of its business dealings with boycotted country X. In an effort to have itself removed from Y's blacklist, A ceases its business in X.

A's action constitutes a refusal to do business in boycotted country X.

A, a U.S. computer company, does business in boycotting country Y. A decides to explore business opportunities in boycotted country X. After careful analysis of possible business opportunities in X, A decides, solely for business reasons, not to market its products in X.

A's decision not to proceed is not a refusal to do business, because it is not based on boycott considerations. A has no affirmative obligation to do business in X.

A, a U.S. oil company with operations in boycotting country Y, has regularly purchased equipment from U.S. petroleum equipment suppliers B, C, and D, none of whom is on the blacklist of Y. Because of its satisfactory relationship with B, C, and D, A has not dealt with other suppliers, including supplier E, who is blacklisted by Y.

A's failure affirmatively to seek or secure business with blacklisted supplier E is not a refusal to do business with E.

Same as (viii), except U.S. petroleum equipment supplier E, a company on boycotting country Y's blacklist, offers to supply U.S. oil company A with goods comparable to those provided by U.S. suppliers B, C, and D. A, because it has satisfactorily, established relationships with suppliers B, C, and D, does not accept supplier E's offer.

A's refusal of supplier E's offer is not a refusal to do business, because it is based solely on non-boycott considerations. A has no affirmative obligation to do business with E.

A, a U.S. construction company, enters into a contract to build an office complex in boycotting country Y. A receives bids from B and C, U.S. companies that are equally qualified suppliers of electrical cable for the project. A knows that B is blacklisted by Y and that C is not. A accepts C's bid, in part because C is as qualified as the other potential supplier and in part because C is not blacklisted.

A's decision to select supplier C instead of blacklisted supplier B is a refusal to do business, because the boycott was one of the reasons for A's decision.

A, a U.S. general contractor, has been retained to construct a highway in boycotting country Y. A circulates an invitation to bid to U.S. manufacturers of road-building equipment. One of the conditions listed in the invitation to bid is that, in order for A to obtain prompt service, suppliers will be required to maintain a supply of spare parts and a service facility in Y. A includes this condition solely for commercial reasons unrelated to the boycott. Because of this condition, however, those suppliers on Y's blacklist do not bid, since they would be unable to satisfy the parts and services requirements.

A's action is not a refusal to do business, because the contractual condition was included solely for legitimate business reasons and was not boycott-based.

Company A, a U.S. oil company, purchases drill bits from U.S. suppliers for export to boycotting country Y. In its purchase orders, A includes a provision requiring the supplier to make delivery to A's facilities in Y and providing that title to the goods does not pass until delivery has been made. As is customary under such an arrangement, the supplier bears all risks of loss, including loss from fire, theft, perils of the sea, and inability to clear customs, until title passes.

Insistence on such an arrangement does not constitute a refusal to do business, because this requirement is imposed on all suppliers whether they are blacklisted or not. (But see § 760.4 on “Evasion”.)

A, a U.S. engineering and construction company, contracts with a government agency in boycotting country Y to perform a variety of services in connection with the construction of a large industrial facility in Y. Pursuant to this contract, A analyzes the market of prospective suppliers, compiles a suggested bidders list, analyzes the bids received, and makes recommendations to the client. The client independently selects and awards the contract to supplier C for boycott reasons. All of A's services are performed without regard to Y's blacklist or any other boycott considerations, and are the type of services A provides clients in both boycotting and non-boycotting countries.

A's actions do not constitute a refusal to do business, because, in the provision of pre-award services, A has not excluded the other bidders and because A customarily provides such services to its clients.

Same as (xiii), except that in compiling a list of prospective suppliers, A deletes suppliers he knows his client will refuse to select because they are blacklisted. A knows that including the names of blacklisted suppliers will neither enhance their chances of being selected nor provide his client with a useful service, the function for which he has been retained.

A's actions, which amount to furnishing a so-called “whitelist”, constitute refusals to do business, because A's pre-award services have not been furnished without regard to boycott considerations.

A, a U.S. construction firm, provides its boycotting country client with a permissible list of prospective suppliers, B, C, D, and E. The client independently selects and awards the contract to C, for boycott reasons, and then requests A to advise C of his selection, negotiate the contract with C, arrange for the shipment, and inspect the goods upon arrival. A knows that C was chosen by the client for boycott reasons.

A's action in complying with his client's direction is a refusal to do business, because A's post-award actions carry out his client's boycott-based decision. (Note: Whether A's action comes within the unilateral selection exception depends upon factors discussed in § 760.3(d) of this part).

Same as (xv), except that A is building the project on a turnkey basis and will retain title until completion. The client instructs A to contract only with C.

A's action in contracting with C constitutes a refusal to do business, because it is action that excludes blacklisted persons from the transaction for boycott reasons. (Note: Whether A's action comes within the unilateral selection exception depends upon factors discussed in § 760.3(d) of this part).

A, a U.S. exporter of machine tools, receives an order for drill presses from boycotting country Y. The cover letter from Y's procurement official states that A was selected over other U.S. manufacturers in part because A is not on Y's blacklist.

A's action in filling this order is not a refusal to do business, because A has not excluded anyone from the transaction.

(xviii) A, a U.S. engineering firm under contract to construct a dam in boycotting country Y, compiles, on a non-boycott basis, a list of potential heavy equipment suppliers, including information on their qualifications and prior experience. A then solicits bids from the top three firms on its list—B, C, and D—because they are the best qualified. None of them happens to be blacklisted. A does not solicit bids from E, F, or G, the next three firms on the list, one of whom is on Y's blacklist.

A's decision to solicit bids from only B, C, and D, is not a refusal to do business with any person, because the solicited bidders were not selected for boycott reasons.

U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit requires B to certify that he is not blacklisted. B meets all other conditions of the letter of credit but refuses to certify as to his blacklist status. A refuses to pay B on the letter of credit solely because B refuses to certify as to his blacklist status.

A has refused to do business with another person pursuant to a boycott requirement or request.

U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit requires B to provide a certification from the steamship line that the vessel carrying the goods is not blacklisted. B seeks payment from A and meets all other conditions of the letter of credit but refuses or is unable to provide the certification from the steamship line about the vessel's blacklist status. A refuses to pay B on the letter of credit solely because B cannot or will not provide the certification.

A has required another person to refuse to do business pursuant to a boycott requirement or request by insisting that B obtain such a certificate. (Either A or B may request an amendment to the letter of credit substituting a certificate of vessel eligibility, however. See Example (xxi) below).

U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit from a bank in boycotting country Y in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit requires B to provide a certification from the steamship line that the vessel carrying the goods is eligible to enter the ports in Y. B seeks payment from A and meets all other conditions of the letter of credit. A refuses to pay B solely because B cannot or will not provide the certification.

A has neither refused, nor required another person to refuse, to do business with another person pursuant to a boycott requirement or request because a request for a vessel eligibility certificate to be furnished by the steamship line is not a prohibited condition. (See supplement no. 1 to this part, paragraph (I)(B), “Shipping Certificate”.)

U.S. bank A confirms a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit contains a requirement that B certify that he is not blacklisted. B presents the letter of credit to U.S. bank C, a correspondent of bank A. B does not present the certificate of blacklist status to bank C, but, in accordance with these rules, bank C pays B, and then presents the letter of credit and documentation to bank A for reimbursement. Bank A refuses to reimburse bank C because the blacklist certification of B is not included in the documentation.

A has required another person to refuse to do business with a person pursuant to a boycott requirement or request by insisting that C obtain the certificate from B.

(xxiii) U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit requires B to certify that he is not blacklisted. B fails to provide such a certification when he presents the documents to A for payment. A notifies B that the certification has not been submitted.

A has not refused to do business with another person pursuant to a boycott requirement by notifying B of the omitted certificate. A may not refuse to pay on the letter of credit, however, if B states that B will not provide such a certificate.

U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B from the issuing bank for the purpose of confirmation, negotiation or payment. The letter of credit requires B to certify that he is not blacklisted. A notifies B that it is contrary to the policy of A to handle letters of credit containing this condition and that, unless an amendment is obtained deleting this condition, A will not implement the letter of credit.

A has not refused to do business with another person pursuant to a boycott requirement, because A has indicated its policy against implementing the letter of credit containing the term without regard to B's ability or willingness to furnish such a certificate.

A, a U.S. construction firm, is retained by an agency of boycotting country Y to build a primary school. The proposed contract contains a clause stating that A “may not use goods or services in the project that are produced or provided by any person restricted from having a business relationship with country Y by reason of Y's boycott against country X”.

A's action in entering into such a contract would constitute an agreement to refuse to do business, because it is an agreement to exclude blacklisted persons from the transaction. A may, however, renegotiate this clause so that it does not contain terms prohibited by this part.

A, a U.S. manufacturer of commercial refrigerators and freezers, receives an invitation to bid from boycotting country Y. The tender states that the bidder must agree not to deal with companies on Y's blacklist. A does not know which companies are on the blacklist; however, A submits a bid without taking exception to the boycott conditions. A's bid makes no commitment regarding not dealing with certain companies.

At the point when A submits its bid without taking exception to the boycott request in Y's tender, A has agreed to refuse to do business with blacklisted persons, because the terms of Y's tender require A to agree to refuse to do business.

A, a U.S. construction firm, is offered a contract to perform engineering and construction services in connection with a project located in boycotting country Y. The contract contains a clause stating that, in the event of a contract dispute, the laws of Y will apply.

A may enter into the contract. Agreement that the laws of boycotting country Y will control in resolving a contract dispute is not an agreement to refuse to do business.

Same as (iii), except that the contract contains a clause that A and its employees will comply with the laws of boycotting country Y. A knows that Y has a number of boycott laws.

Such an agreement is not, in and of itself, an agreement to refuse to do business. If, however, A subsequently refuses to do business with someone because of the laws of Y, A's action would be a refusal to do business.

Same as (iv), except that the contract contains a clause that A and its employees will comply with the laws of boycotting country Y, “including boycott laws.”

A's agreeing, without qualification, to comply with local boycott laws constitutes an agreement to refuse to do business.

Same as (v), except that A inserts a proviso “except insofar as Y's laws conflict with U.S. laws,” or words to that effect.

Such an agreement is not an agreement to refuse to do business.

A, a U.S. general contractor, is retained to construct a pipeline in boycotting country Y. A provision in the proposed contract stipulates that in purchasing equipment, supplies, and services A must give preference to companies located in host country Y.

A may agree to this contract provision. Agreeing to a “buy local” contract provision is not an agreement to refuse to do business, because A's agreement is not made for boycott reasons.

A, a U.S. exporter planning to sell retail goods to customers in boycotting country Y, enters into a contract to purchase goods wholesale from B, a U.S. appliance manufacturer. A's contract with B includes a provision stipulating that B may not use components or services of blacklisted companies in the manufacture of its appliances.

A's contract constitutes a refusal to do business, because it would require another person, B, to refuse to do business with other persons for boycott reasons. B may not agree to such a contract, because it would be agreeing to refuse to do business with other persons for boycott reasons.

Same as (viii), except that A and B reach an implicit understanding that B will not use components or services of blacklisted companies in the manufacture of goods to be exported to Y. In the manufacture of appliances to be sold to A for export to non-boycotting countries, B uses components manufactured by blacklisted companies.

The actions of both A and B constitute agreement to refuse to do business. The agreement is implied by their pattern of conduct.

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. company B. Y opens a letter of credit with foreign bank C in favor of B. The letter of credit specifies that negotiation of the letter of credit with a bank that appears on the country X boycott blacklist is prohibited. U.S. bank A, C's correspondent bank, advises B of the letter of credit. B presents documentation to bank A seeking to be paid on the letter of credit, without amending or otherwise taking exception to the boycott condition.

B has agreed to refuse to do business with blacklisted banks because, by presenting the letter of credit for payment, B has accepted all of its terms and conditions.

Discriminatory actions.

No United States person may:

Refuse to employ or otherwise discriminate against any individual who is a United States person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin;

Discriminate against any corporation or other organization which is a United States person on the basis of the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any owner, officer, director, or employee of such corporation or organization;

Knowingly agree to take any of the actions described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section; or

Require or knowingly agree to require any other person to take any of the actions described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

This prohibition shall apply whether the discriminatory action is taken by a United States person on its own or in response to an agreement with, request from, or requirement of a boycotting country. This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States and only when such activities are undertaken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The section does not supersede or limit the operation of the civil rights laws of the United States.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which the taking of particular discriminatory actions is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

U.S. construction company A is awarded a contract to build an office complex in boycotting country Y. A, believing that employees of a particular religion will not be permitted to work in Y because of Y's boycott against country X, excludes U.S. persons of that religion from consideration for employment on the project.

A's refusal to consider qualified U.S. persons of a particular religion for work on the project in Y constitutes a prohibited boycott-based discriminatory action against U.S. persons on the basis of religion.

Same as (i), except that a clause in the contract provides that “no persons of country X origin are to work on this project.”

A's agreement constitutes a prohibited boycott-based agreement to discriminate against U.S. persons, among others, on the basis of national origin.

Same as (i), except that a clause in the contract provides that “no persons who are citizens, residents, or nationals of country X are to work on this project.”

A's agreement does not constitute a boycott-based agreement to discriminate against U.S. persons on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin, because the clause requires exclusion on the basis of citizenship, residency, and nationality only.

U.S. construction company A enters into a contract to build a school in boycotting country Y. Y's representative orally tells A that no persons of country X origin are to work on the project.

A may not comply, because to do so would constitute discrimination on the basis of national origin.

It makes no difference that A learned of Y's requirement orally. It makes no difference how A learns about Y's discriminatory requirement.

Boycotting country Y tenders an invitation to bid on a construction project in Y. The tender requires that the successful bidder's personnel will be interviewed and that persons of a particular religious faith will not be permitted to work on the project. Y's requirement is based on its boycott of country X, the majority of whose citizens are of that particular faith.

Agreement to this provision in the tender document by a U.S. person would constitute a prohibited agreement to engage in boycott-based discrimination against U.S. persons of a particular religion.

Same as (v), except that the tender specifies that “women will not be allowed to work on this project.”

Agreement to this provision in the tender by a U.S. person does not constitute a prohibited agreement to engage in boycott-based discrimination, because the restriction against employment of women is not boycott-based. Such an agreement may, however, constitute a violation of U.S. civil rights laws.

A is a U.S. investment banking firm. As a condition of participating in an underwriting of securities to be issued by boycotting country Y, A is required to exclude investment banks owned by persons of a particular faith from participation in the underwriting. Y's requirement is based on its boycott of country X, the majority of whose citizens are of that particular faith.

A's agreement to such a provision constitutes a prohibited agreement to engage in boycott-based discrimination against U.S. persons on the basis of religion. Further, if A requires others to agree to such a condition, A would be acting to require another person to engage in such discrimination.

U.S. company A is asked by boycotting country Y to certify that A will not use a six-pointed star on the packaging of its products to be imported into Y. The requirement is part of the enforcement effort by Y of its boycott against country X.

A may not so certify. The six-pointed star is a religious symbol, and the certification by A that it will not use such a symbol constitutes a statement that A will not ship products made or handled by persons of that religion.

Same as (viii), except that A is asked to certify that no symbol of boycotted country X will appear on the packaging of its products imported into Y.

Such a certification conveys no statement about any person's religion and, thus, does not come within this prohibition.

Furnishing information about race, religion, sex, or national origin.

No United States person may:

Furnish information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any United States person;

Furnish information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any owner, officer, director, or employee of any corporation or other organization which is a United States person;

Knowingly agree to furnish information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any United States person; or

Knowingly agree to furnish information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any owner, officer, director, or employee of any corporation or other organization which is a United States person.

This prohibition shall apply whether the information is specifically requested or is offered voluntarily by the United States person. It shall also apply whether the information requested or volunteered is stated in the affirmative or the negative.

Information about the place of birth of or the nationality of the parents of a United States person comes within this prohibition, as does information in the form of code words or symbols which could identify a United States person's race, religion, sex, or national origin.

This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States and only when such activities are undertaken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which the furnishing of discriminatory information is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

U.S. company A receives a boycott questionnaire from boycotting country Y asking whether it is owned or controlled by persons of a particular faith, whether it has any persons on its board of directors who are of that faith, and what the national origin of its president is. The information is sought for purposes of enforcing Y's boycott against country X, and A knows or has reason to know that the information is sought for that reason.

A may not answer the questionnaire, because A would be furnishing information about the religion and national origin of U.S. persons for purposes of complying with or supporting Y's boycott against X.

U.S. company A, located in the United States, is asked by boycotting country Y to certify that A has no persons of a particular national origin on its board of directors. A knows that Y's purpose in asking for the certification is to enforce its boycott against country X.

A may not make such a certification, because A would be furnishing information about the national origin of U.S. persons for purposes of complying with or supporting Y's boycott against X.

U.S. company A believes that boycotting country Y will select A's bid over those of other bidders if A volunteers that it has no shareholders, officers, or directors of a particular national origin. A's belief is based on its knowledge that Y generally refuses, as part of its boycott against country X, to do business with companies owned, controlled, or managed by persons of this particular national origin.

A may not volunteer this information, because it would be furnishing information about the national origin of U.S. persons for purposes of complying with or supporting Y's boycott against X.

U.S. company A has a contract to construct an airport in boycotting country Y. Before A begins work, A is asked by Y to identify the national origin of its employees who will work on the site. A knows or has reason to know that Y is seeking this information in order to enforce its boycott against X.

A may not furnish this information, because A would be providing information about the national origin of U.S. persons for purposes of complying with or supporting Y's boycott against X.

Same as (iv), except that in order to assemble its work force on site in Y, A sends visa forms to its employees and asks that the forms be returned to A for transmittal to Y's consulate or embassy. A, itself, furnishes no information about its employees, but merely transmits the visa forms back and forth.

In performing the ministerial function of transmitting visa forms, A is not furnishing information about any U.S. person's race, religion, sex, or national origin.

Same as (iv), except that A is asked by Y to certify that none of its employees in Y will be women, because Y's laws prohibit women from working.

Such a certification does not constitute a prohibited furnishing of information about any U.S. person's sex, since the reason the information is sought has nothing to do with Y's boycott of X.

U.S. company A is considering establishing an office in boycotting country Y. In order to register to do business in Y, A is asked to furnish information concerning the nationalities of its corporate officers and board of directors.

A may furnish the information about the nationalities of its officers and directors, because in so doing A would not be furnishing information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any U.S. person.

Furnishing information about business relationships with boycotted countries or blacklisted persons.

No United States person may furnish or knowingly agree to furnish information concerning his or any other person's past, present or proposed business relationships:

With or in a boycotted country;

With any business concern organized under the laws of a boycotted country;

With any national or resident of a boycotted country; or

With any other person who is known or believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in a boycotting country.

This prohibition shall apply:

Whether the information pertains to a business relationship involving a sale, purchase, or supply transaction; legal or commercial representation; shipping or other transportation transaction; insurance; investment; or any other type of business transaction or relationship; and

Whether the information is directly or indirectly requested or is furnished on the initiative of the United States person.

This prohibition does not apply to the furnishing of normal business information in a commercial context. Normal business information may relate to factors such as financial fitness, technical competence, or professional experience, and may be found in documents normally available to the public such as annual reports, disclosure statements concerning securities, catalogs, promotional brochures, and trade and business handbooks. Such information may also appear in specifications or statements of experience and qualifications.

Normal business information furnished in a commercial context does not cease to be such simply because the party soliciting the information may be a boycotting country or a national or resident thereof. If the information is of a type which is generally sought for a legitimate business purpose (such as determining financial fitness, technical competence, or professional experience), the information may be furnished even if the information could be used, or without the knowledge of the person supplying the information is intended to be used, for boycott purposes. However, no information about business relationships with blacklisted persons or boycotted countries, their residents or nationals, may be furnished in response to a boycott request, even if the information is publicly available. Requests for such information from a boycott office will be presumed to be boycott-based.

This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States and only when such activities are undertaken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which the furnishing of information is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

U.S. contractor A is considering bidding for a contract to build a dam in boycotting country Y. The invitation to bid, which appears in a trade journal, specifies that each bidder must state that he does not have any offices in boycotted country X. A knows or has reason to know that the requirement is boycott-based.

A may not make this statement, because it constitutes information about A's business relationships with X.

U.S. contractor A is considering bidding for a contract to construct a school in boycotting country Y. Each bidder is required to submit copies of its annual report with its bid. Since A's annual report describes A's worldwide operations, including the countries in which it does business, it necessarily discloses whether A has business relations with boycotted country X. A has no reason to know that its report is being sought for boycott purposes.

A, in furnishing its annual report, is supplying ordinary business information in a commercial context.

Same as (ii), except that accompanying the invitation to bid is a questionnaire from country Y's boycott office asking each bidder to supply a copy of its annual report.

A may not furnish the annual report despite its public availability, because it would be furnishing information in response to a questionnaire from a boycott office.

U.S. company A is on boycotting country Y's blacklist. For reasons unrelated to the boycott, A terminates its business relationships with boycotted country X. In exploring other marketing areas, A determines that boycotting country Y offers great potential. A is requested to complete a questionnaire from a central boycott office which inquires about A's business relations with X.

A may not furnish the information, because it is information about A's business relationships with a boycotted country.

U.S. exporter A is seeking to sell its products to boycotting country Y. A is informed by Y that, as a condition of sale, A must certify that it has no salesmen in boycotted country X. A knows or has reason to know that the condition is boycott-based.

A may not furnish the certification, because it is information about A's business relationships in a boycotted country.

U.S. engineering company A receives an invitation to bid on the construction of a dam in boycotting country Y. As a condition of the bid, A is asked to certify that it does not have any offices in boycotted country X. A is also asked to furnish plans for other dams it has designed.

A may not certify that it has no office in X, because this is information about its business relationships in a boycotted country. A may submit plans for other dams it has designed, because this is furnishing normal business information, in a commercial context, relating to A's technical competence and professional experience.

U.S. company A, in seeking to expand its exports to boycotting country Y, sends a sales representative to Y for a one week trip. During a meeting in Y with trade association representatives, A's representative desires to explain that neither A nor any companies with which A deals has any business relationship with boycotted country X. The purpose of supplying such information is to ensure that A does not get blacklisted.

A's representative may not volunteer this information even though A, for reasons unrelated to the boycott, does not deal with X, because A's representative would be volunteering information about A's business relationships with X for boycott reasons.

U.S. company A is asked by boycotting country Y to furnish information concerning its business relationships with boycotted country X. A, knowing that Y is seeking the information for boycott purposes, refuses to furnish the information asked for directly, but proposes to respond by supplying a copy of its annual report which lists the countries with which A is presently doing business. A does not happen to be doing business with X.

A may not respond to Y's request by supplying its annual report, because A knows that it would be responding to a boycott-based request for information about its business relationships with X.

U.S. company A receives a letter from a central boycott office asking A to “clarify” A's operations in boycotted country X. A intends to continue its operations in X, but fears that not responding to the request will result in its being placed on boycotting country Y's blacklist. A knows or has reason to know that the information is sought for boycott reasons.

A may not respond to this request, because the information concerns its business relationships with a boycotted country.

U.S. company A, in the course of negotiating a sale of its goods to a buyer in boycotting country Y, is asked to certify that its supplier is not on Y's blacklist.

A may not furnish the information about its supplier's blacklist status, because this is information about A's business relationships with another person who is believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in a boycotting country.

U.S. company A has a manufacturing plant in boycotted country X and is on boycotting country Y's blacklist. A is seeking to establish operations in Y, while expanding its operations in X. A applies to Y to be removed from Y's blacklist. A is asked, in response, to indicate whether it has manufacturing facilities in X.

A may not supply the requested information, because A would be furnishing information about its business relationships in a boycotted country.

U.S. bank A plans to open a branch office in boycotting country Y. In order to do so, A is required to furnish certain information about its business operations, including the location of its other branch offices. Such information is normally sought in other countries where A has opened a branch office, and A does not have reason to know that Y is seeking the information for boycott reasons.

A may furnish this information, even though in furnishing it A would disclose information about its business relationships in a boycotted country, because it is being furnished in a normal business context and A does not have reason to know that it is sought for boycott reasons.

U.S. architectural firm A responds to an invitation to submit designs for an office complex in boycotting country Y. The invitation states that all bidders must include information concerning similar types of buildings they have designed. A has not designed such buildings in boycotted country X. Clients frequently seek information of this type before engaging an architect.

A may furnish this information, because this is furnishing normal business information, in a commercial context, relating to A's technical competence and professional experience.

U.S. oil company A distributes to potential customers promotional brochures and catalogs which give background information on A's past projects. A does not have business dealings with boycotted country X. The brochures, which are identical to those which A uses throughout the world, list those countries in which A does or has done business. In soliciting potential customers in boycotting country Y, A desires to distribute copies of its brochures.

A may do so, because this is furnishing normal business information, in a commercial context, relating to professional experience.

U.S. company A is interested in doing business with boycotting country Y. A wants to ask Y's Ministry of Trade whether, and if so why, A is on Y's blacklist or is otherwise restricted for boycott reasons from doing business with Y.

A may make this limited inquiry, because it does not constitute furnishing information.

U.S. company A is asked by boycotting country Y to certify that it is not owned by subjects or nationals of boycotted country X and that it is not resident in boycotted country X.

A may not furnish the certification, because it is information about A's business relationships with or in a boycotted country, or with nationals of a boycotted country.

U.S. company A, a manufacturer of certain patented products, desires to register its patents in boycotting country Y. A receives a power of attorney form required to register its patents. The form contains a question regarding A's business relationships with or in boycotted country X. A has no business relationships with X and knows or has reason to know that the information is sought for boycott reasons.

A may not answer the question, because A would be furnishing information about its business relationships with or in a boycotted country.

(xviii) U.S. company A is asked by boycotting country Y to certify that it is not the mother company, sister company, subsidiary, or branch of any blacklisted company, and that it is not in any way affiliated with any blacklisted company.

A may not furnish the certification, because it is information about whether A has a business relationship with another person who is known or believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in a boycotting country.

Information concerning association with charitable and fraternal organizations.

No United States person may furnish or knowingly agree to furnish information about whether any person is a member of, has made contributions to, or is otherwise associated with or involved in the activities of any charitable or fraternal organization which supports a boycotted country.

This prohibition shall apply whether:

The information concerns association with or involvement in any charitable or fraternal organization which (a) has, as one of its stated purposes, the support of a boycotted country through financial contributions or other means, or (b) undertakes, as a major organizational activity, to offer financial or other support to a boycotted country;

The information is directly or indirectly requested or is furnished on the initiative of the United States person; or

The information requested or volunteered concerns membership in, financial contributions to, or any other type of association with or involvement in the activities of such charitable or fraternal organization.

This prohibition does not prohibit the furnishing of normal business information in a commercial context as defined in paragraph (d) of this section.

This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States and only when such activities are undertaken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which the furnishing of information concerning associations with charitable or fraternal organizations is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

U.S. engineering firm A receives an invitation to bid from boycotting country Y. The invitation includes a request to supply information concerning any association which A's officers have with charitable organization B, an organization which is known by A to contribute financial support to boycotted country X. A knows or has reason to know that the information is sought for boycott reasons.

A may not furnish the information.

U.S. construction company A, in an effort to establish business dealings with boycotting country Y, proposes to furnish information to Y showing that no members of its board of directors are in any way associated with charitable organizations which support boycotted country X. A's purpose is to avoid any possibility of its being blacklisted by Y.

A may not furnish the information, because A's purpose in doing so is boycott-based. It makes no difference that no specific request for the information has been made by Y.

A, a citizen of the United States, is applying for a teaching position in a school in boycotting country Y. In connection with his application, A furnishes a resume which happens to disclose his affiliation with charitable organizations. A does so completely without reference to Y's boycott and without knowledge of any boycott requirement of Y that pertains to A's application for employment.

The furnishing of a resume by A is not a boycott-related furnishing of information about his association with charitable organizations which support boycotted country X.

Letters of credit.

No United States person may pay, honor, confirm, or otherwise implement a letter of credit which contains a condition or requirement compliance with which is prohibited by this part, nor shall any United States person, as a result of the application of this section, be obligated to pay, honor or otherwise implement such a letter of credit.

For purposes of this section, “implementing” a letter of credit includes:

Issuing or opening a letter of credit at the request of a customer;

Honoring, by accepting as being a valid instrument of credit, any letter of credit;

Paying, under a letter of credit, a draft or other demand for payment by the beneficiary;

Confirming a letter of credit by agreeing to be responsible for payment to the beneficiary in response to a request by the issuer;

Negotiating a letter of credit by voluntarily purchasing a draft from a beneficiary and presenting such draft for reimbursement to the issuer or the confirmer of the letter of credit; and

Taking any other action to implement a letter of credit.

In the standard international letter of credit transaction facilitating payment for the export of goods from the United States, a bank in a foreign country may be requested by its customer to issue a revocable or irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the United States exporter. The customer usually requires, and the letter of credit provides, that the issuing (or a confirming) bank will make payment to the beneficiary against the bank's receipt of the documentation specified in the letter of credit. Such documentation usually includes commercial and consular invoices, a bill of lading, and evidence of insurance, but it may also include other required certifications or documentary assurances such as the origin of the goods and information relating to the carrier or insurer of the shipment.

Banks usually will not accept drafts for payment unless the documents submitted therewith comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.

A United States person is not prohibited under this section from advising a beneficiary of the existence of a letter of credit in his favor, or from taking ministerial actions to dispose of a letter of credit which it is prohibited from implementing.

Compliance with this section shall provide an absolute defense in any action brought to compel payment of, honoring of, or other implementation of a letter of credit, or for damages resulting from failure to pay or otherwise honor or implement the letter of credit. This section shall not otherwise relieve any person from any obligations or other liabilities he may incur under other laws or regulations, except as may be explicitly provided in this section.

This prohibition, like all others, applies only with respect to a United States person's activities taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. In addition, it applies only when the transaction to which the letter of credit applies is in United States commerce and the beneficiary is a United States person.

A letter of credit implemented in the United States by a United States person located in the United States, including a permanent United States establishment of a foreign bank, will be presumed to apply to a transaction in United States commerce and to be in favor of a United States beneficiary where the letter of credit specifies a United States address for the beneficiary. These presumptions may be rebutted by facts which could reasonably lead the bank to conclude that the beneficiary is not a United States person or that the underlying transaction is not in United States commerce.

Where a letter of credit implemented in the United States by a United States person located in the United States does not specify a United States address for the beneficiary, the beneficiary will be presumed to be other than a United States person. This presumption may be rebutted by facts which could reasonably lead the bank to conclude that the beneficiary is a United States person despite the foreign address.

A letter of credit implemented outside the United States by a United States person located outside the United States will be presumed to apply to a transaction in United States commerce and to be in favor of a United States beneficiary where the letter of credit specifies a United States address for the beneficiary and calls for documents indicating shipment from the United States or otherwise indicating that the goods are of United States origin. These presumptions may be rebutted by facts which could reasonably lead the bank to conclude that the beneficiary is not a United States person or that the underlying transaction is not in United States commerce.

Where a letter of credit implemented outside the United States by a United States person located outside the United States does not specify a United States address for the beneficiary, the beneficiary will be presumed to be other than a United States person. In addition, where such a letter of credit does not call for documents indicating shipment from the United States or otherwise indicating that the goods are of United States origin, the transaction to which it applies will be presumed to be outside United States commerce. The presumption that the beneficiary is other than a United States person may be rebutted by facts which could reasonably lead the bank to conclude that the beneficiary is a United States person. The presumption that the transaction to which the letter of credit applies is outside United States commerce may be rebutted by facts which could reasonably lead the bank to conclude that the underlying transaction is in United States commerce.

The following examples are intended to give guidance in determining the circumstances in which this section applies to the implementation of a letter of credit and in which such implementation is prohibited. They are illustrative, not comprehensive.

A, a U.S. bank located in the United States, opens a letter of credit in the United States in favor of B, a foreign company located outside the United States. The letter of credit specifies a non-U.S. address for the beneficiary.

The beneficiary is presumed to be other than a U.S. person, because it does not have a U.S. address. The presumption may be rebutted by facts showing that A could reasonably conclude that the beneficiary is a U.S. person despite the foreign address.

A, a branch of a foreign bank located in the United States, opens a letter of credit in favor of B, a foreign company located outside the United States. The letter of credit specifies a non-U.S. address for the beneficiary.

The beneficiary is presumed to be other than a U.S.person, because it does not have a U.S. address. The presumption may be rebutted by facts showing that A could reasonably conclude that the beneficiary is a U.S. person despite the foreign address.

A, a U.S. bank branch located outside the United States, opens a letter of credit in favor of B, a person with a U.S. address. The letter of credit calls for documents indicating shipment of goods from the United States.

The letter of credit is presumed to apply to a transaction in U.S. commerce and to be in favor of a U.S. beneficiary because the letter of credit specifies a U.S. address for the beneficiary and calls for documents indicating that the goods will be shipped from the United States. These presumptions may be rebutted by facts showing that A could reasonably conclude that the beneficiary is not a U.S. person or that the underlying transaction is not in U.S. commerce.

A, a U.S. bank branch located outside the United States, opens a letter of credit which specifies a beneficiary, B, with an address outside the United States and calls for documents indicating that the goods are of U.S.-origin. A knows or has reason to know that although B has an address outside the United States, B is a U.S. person.

The letter of credit is presumed to apply to a transaction in U.S. commerce, because the letter of credit calls for shipment of U.S.-origin goods. In addition, the letter of credit is presumed to be in favor of a beneficiary who is a U.S. person, because A knows or has reason to know that the beneficiary is a U.S. person despite the foreign address.

A, a U.S. bank branch located outside the United States, opens a letter of credit which specifies a beneficiary with a U.S. address. The letter of credit calls for documents indicating shipment of foreign-origin goods.

The letter of credit is presumed to be in favor of a U.S. beneficiary but to apply to a transaction outside U.S. commerce, because it calls for documents indicating shipment of foreign-origin goods. The presumption of non-U.S. commerce may be rebutted by facts showing that A could reasonably conclude that the underlying transaction involves shipment of U.S.-origin goods or goods from the United States.

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. company B. Y opens a letter of credit with foreign bank C in favor of B. The letter of credit specifies as a condition of payment that B certify that it does not do business with boycotted country X. Foreign bank C forwards the letter of credit it has opened to U.S. bank A for confirmation.

A may not confirm or otherwise implement this letter of credit, because it contains a condition with which a U.S. person may not comply.

Same as (i), except U.S. bank A desires to advise the beneficiary, U.S. company B, of the letter of credit.

A may do so, because advising the beneficiary of the letter of credit (including the term which prevents A from implementing it) is not implementation of the letter of credit.

Same as (i), except foreign bank C sends a telegram to U.S. bank A stating the major terms and conditions of the letter of credit. The telegram does not reflect the boycott provision. Subsequently, C mails to A documents setting forth the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, including the prohibited boycott condition.

A may not further implement the letter of credit after it receives the documents, because they reflect the prohibited boycott condition in the letter of credit. A may advise the beneficiary and C of the existence of the letter of credit (including the boycott term), and may perform any essentially ministerial acts necessary to dispose of the letter of credit.

Same as (iii), except that U.S. company B, based in part on information received from U.S. bank A, desires to obtain an amendment to the letter of credit which would eliminate or nullify the language in the letter of credit which prevents A from paying or otherwise implementing it.

Either company B or bank A may undertake, and the other may cooperate and assist in, this endeavor. A could then pay or otherwise implement the revised letter of credit, so long as the original prohibited boycott condition is of no force or effect.

Boycotting country Y requests a foreign bank in Y to open a letter of credit to effect payment for goods to be shipped by U.S. supplier B, the beneficiary of the letter of credit. The letter of credit contains prohibited boycott clauses. The foreign bank forwards a copy of the letter of credit to its branch office A, in the United States.

A may advise the beneficiary but may not implement the letter of credit, because it contains prohibited boycott conditions.

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. company B. U.S. bank A is asked to implement, for the benefit of B, a letter of credit which contains a clause requiring documentation that the goods shipped are not of boycotted country X origin.

A may not implement the letter of credit with a prohibited condition, and may accept only a positive certificate of origin as satisfactory documentation. (See § 760.3(c) on “Import and Shipping Document Requirements.”)

[Reserved]

B is a foreign bank located outside the United States. B maintains an account with U.S. bank A, located in the United States. A letter of credit issued by B in favor of a U.S. beneficiary provides that any negotiating bank may obtain reimbursement from A by certifying that all the terms and conditions of the letter of credit have been met and then drawing against B's account. B notifies A by cable of the issuance of a letter of credit and the existence of reimbursement authorization; A does not receive a copy of the letter of credit.

A may reimburse any negotiating bank, even when the underlying letter of credit contains a prohibited boycott condition, because A does not know or have reason to know that the letter of credit contains a prohibited boycott condition.

Same as (viii), except that foreign bank B forwards a copy of the letter of credit to U.S. bank A, which then becomes aware of the prohibited boycott clause.

A may not thereafter reimburse a negotiating bank or in any way further implement the letter of credit, because it knows of the prohibited boycott condition.

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. exporter B and requests a foreign bank in Y to open a letter of credit in favor of B to cover the cost. The letter of credit contains a prohibited boycott clause. The foreign bank asks U.S. bank A to advise and confirm the letter of credit. Through inadvertence, A does not notice the prohibited clause and confirms the letter of credit. A thereafter notices the clause and then refuses to honor B's draft against the letter of credit. B sues bank A for payment.

A has an absolute defense against the obligation to make payment under this letter of credit. (Note: Examples (ix) and (x) do not alter any other obligations or liabilities of the parties under appropriate law.)

[Reserved]

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. company B. A letter of credit which contains a prohibited boycott clause is opened in favor of B by a foreign bank in Y. The foreign bank asks U.S. bank A to advise and confirm the letter of credit, which it forwards to A.

A may advise B that it has received the letter of credit (including the boycott term), but may not confirm the letter of credit with the prohibited clause.

Same as (xii), except U.S. bank A fails to tell B that it cannot process the letter of credit. B requests payment.

A may not pay. If the prohibited language is eliminated or nullified as the result of renegotiation, A may then pay or otherwise implement the revised letter of credit.

U.S. bank A receives a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B. The letter of credit requires B to certify that he is not blacklisted.

A may implement such a letter of credit, but it may not insist that the certification be furnished, because by so insisting it would be refusing to do business with a blacklisted person in compliance with a boycott.

A, a U.S. bank located in the U.S. opens a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B for B's sale of goods to boycotting country Y. The letter of credit contains no boycott conditions, but A knows that Y customarily requires the seller of goods to certify that it has dealt with no blacklisted supplier. A, therefore, instructs B that it will not make payment under the letter of credit unless B makes such a certification.

A's action in requiring the certification from B constitutes action to require another person to refuse to do business with blacklisted persons.

A, a U.S. bank located in the U.S., opens a letter of credit in favor of U.S. beneficiary B for B's sale of goods to boycotting country Y. The letter of credit contains no boycott conditions, but A has actual knowledge that B has agreed to supply a certification to Y that it has not dealt with blacklisted firms, as a condition of receiving the letter of credit in its favor.

A may not implement the letter of credit, because it knows that an implicit condition of the credit is a condition with which B may not legally comply.

Boycotting country Y orders goods from U.S. company B. Y opens a letter of credit with foreign bank C in favor of B. The letter of credit includes the statement, “Do not negotiate with blacklisted banks.” C forwards the letter of credit it has opened to U.S. bank A for confirmation.

A may not confirm or otherwise implement this letter of credit, because it contains a condition with which a U.S. person may not comply.