CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT | 2026-09-20

BIS Renews Denial Orders on Three Russian Airlines — and the Obligation Falls on Everyone Else

A temporary denial order under 15 CFR 766.24 prohibits other parties from dealing with the denied party in EAR-subject items, which makes it a screening problem for California distributors and logistics providers.

On September 17, 2026 BIS published orders renewing the temporary denial of export privileges for PJSC Aeroflot, UTair Aviation JSC and Azur Air, each for 180 days. The airlines are not the point for most California businesses. The instrument is. A temporary denial order works by prohibiting everyone else from engaging in transactions with the denied party involving items subject to the EAR, which means parts distributors, freight forwarders, maintenance providers and financial intermediaries ca

On September 17, 2026 the Bureau of Industry and Security published orders renewing the temporary denial of export privileges for three Russian airlines: PJSC Aeroflot in Moscow, UTair Aviation JSC at Khanty-Mansiysk Airport, and Azur Air in Krasnoyarsk. Each renewal runs 180 days. For most California businesses the airlines themselves are irrelevant — but the legal instrument is not, because a temporary denial order restricts what everyone else may do.

What a temporary denial order actually does

A temporary denial order is issued under 15 CFR 766.24. Its distinguishing feature is that it does not merely punish the named party; it cuts that party out of the export control system entirely, and it does so by imposing obligations on everyone else.

Once a TDO is in force, other persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with the denied party involving items subject to the Export Administration Regulations — including exports, reexports, and in-country transfers. A company that ships, services, finances, forwards, or otherwise participates in a transaction with a denied party can itself violate the Regulations, whether or not it had any connection to the original conduct.

That is why a TDO is a screening problem rather than a news item. The order's practical reach extends to freight forwarders, parts distributors, maintenance providers, insurers, and financial intermediaries who may never have thought of themselves as exporters.

The conduct behind the Aeroflot order

The Aeroflot renewal recites the history. The initial TDO, issued April 7, 2022, was based on evidence that Aeroflot engaged in conduct prohibited by the Regulations by operating multiple aircraft subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 9A991.b on flights into Russia after March 2, 2022, from destinations including Beijing, China; Delhi, India; and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, without the required BIS authorization.

Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Aeroflot was continuing to operate aircraft subject to the EAR domestically on flights within Russia, potentially in violation of section 736.2(b)(10) of the Regulations.

The mechanism is worth understanding because it is not intuitive. Flying an aircraft that is subject to the EAR into a controlled destination can itself constitute an export or reexport requiring authorization. The aircraft is the controlled item; the flight is the transaction. Companies whose assets move across borders under their own power — aircraft most obviously, but the reasoning is not limited to them — should not assume that a control analysis built around shipments captures their exposure.

Renewal is not a formality, and it is not rare

A TDO issued in April 2022 and renewed again in September 2026 has been in place for more than four years, in successive 180-day increments. Renewals require a showing, and BIS must find that renewal is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation.

The compliance consequence is that denied party status is not a fact you can check once. It changes on its own schedule: orders issue, renew, lapse, and are modified, and related persons can be added under section 766.23. A screening program that captured a list at implementation and has not refreshed it is not a screening program. It is a snapshot with an expiration date that nobody wrote down.

Why California companies with no Russia exposure still care

The instinctive response — we do not sell to Russia — is the wrong test, for three reasons.

First, denied party obligations attach to the party, not the destination. Dealing with a denied party in EAR-subject items is the prohibited conduct, wherever it occurs. Second, the aviation sector is intermediated: parts move through distributors, brokers, MRO providers, and lessors, and the ultimate consignee is frequently not the counterparty on the purchase order. Third, related-person designations under section 766.23 can extend an order to affiliates whose names do not obviously signal the connection.

The result is that a California parts distributor or logistics provider can find itself in a prohibited transaction through a chain of counterparties it never examined. Screening every party to a transaction, not merely the buyer, is the control that actually prevents this — and it is a core element of any serious export controls program.

What an adequate screening program looks like

Screen against the consolidated U.S. government lists, including the Denied Persons List, at transaction initiation and again before shipment, because status can change between order and delivery. Screen all parties — buyer, ultimate consignee, end user, intermediate consignee, freight forwarder, and where relevant the financial institution.

Keep the records. Documented screening at the time of the transaction is the evidence that distinguishes a diligent company from a negligent one when BIS asks questions later. Train the people who actually take orders, since the first opportunity to catch a problem is usually at order entry rather than at the loading dock. And build an escalation path, so that a screening hit stops the transaction rather than generating an email that someone clears to keep freight moving.

Companies that discover a potential violation face a genuine decision about voluntary self-disclosure, which carries real mitigation value but requires careful handling. That decision benefits from counsel before anything is submitted, and a California export control review can help evaluate the facts and the options.

Penalties, and why this is an enforcement story

Violations of the Regulations are addressed under 15 CFR 764.2, which reaches not only direct violations but also causing, aiding, or abetting them, and acting with knowledge that a violation will occur. The knowledge standard is important: willful blindness to obvious warning signs is not a defense, and a company that structures its processes to avoid learning inconvenient facts does not thereby avoid liability.

Enforcement exposure here is not limited to fines. It includes denial of a company's own export privileges — the same instrument applied to these airlines — which for an exporting business is an existential rather than a financial consequence.

What to do this quarter

Confirm when your screening lists were last refreshed and how the refresh is automated. Re-screen open orders and any long-running contracts, since a counterparty that cleared a year ago may not clear today. Map your transaction chains to identify the parties you are not currently screening. And document the whole thing, because a compliance program that exists only in practice and not on paper is difficult to demonstrate after the fact.

Businesses managing both import and export obligations should keep the two analyses aligned rather than siloed, since the same shipment can raise questions on both sides; a California customs attorney can help keep them consistent. Further developments are tracked in our international trade news.

This article is general information about published Federal Register orders and is not legal advice. Denied party status, regulatory citations and penalty exposure change, and the application of the Export Administration Regulations depends on facts specific to each transaction. No outcome is promised or guaranteed. Consult qualified counsel about your own situation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301