Wasn't there an issue with mislabelling ("clerical error")? I would expect "the Indian government" to reconfirm their past statement today if indeed everything was unmanipulated then and the facts readily at hand. But Henry is always mentioning the past statements only. If an Indian authority upheld today that the export was ok under their laws, I don't believe there would be an issue under the Lacey Act. Of course, as a litigator, I read statements like Henry's with a professionally perverted view ("what is he not saying?"), but to me it looks like he is writhing around the core issue.
If I'm wrong, so much the better. I'm not on a vendetta against either the man or his company. This year he gave me many nice little new basses as a present.