We now return to our regularly scheduled ITAR compliance requirements
April 17, 2012
By Tom Reynolds, Export Solutions
Less than two months after they were added to the Excluded Party List System (EPLS), it now appears that the last of the freight forwarders have been removed from the EPLS – paving the way for a return to “business as usual” for exporters who were being restricted from certain trade activities involving these forwarders under U.S. ITAR compliance requirements.
Last week, Schenker AG and BAX Global, Inc. became the final two forwarders to be removed from the EPLS. This followed earlier removals of CEVA Logistics (February 24), Panalpina (March 16) and Kuehne and Nagel International AG (March). The removal follows these companies’ sufficient demonstrations to the U.S. Air Force that they are responsible to conduct business as a federal contractor.
The removal also comes with a collective sigh of relief among U.S. manufacturers and exporters, who were forced in February to start adhering to complex ITAR compliance requirements stemming from the debarment of these forwarders. Among other things, these requirements had exporters filing for “transaction exception requests” to DDTC – asking for permission to continue doing business with the forwarders in lieu of shipping with other companies. These requirements traced back to a critical factor in ITAR compliance, found in Section 120.1(c) of the regulations. This section prohibits companies who are “ineligible” to receive export licenses from being involved in ITAR-controlled exports.
It would be helpful if DDTC removed the current guidance on its website regarding these forwarders. However, they’ve been dealing with a recent fire at the Columbia Plaza building complex, and I’m sure things have been quite chaotic in recent weeks with the relocation.
Tom Reynolds is the Vice President of Operations for Export Solutions, a consultancy firm which specializes in ITAR and EAR compliance. Follow Tom on Google+.
Comments
Comment by Maria Tamm (05.09.2012)
The stamping of oiigrn certificates by most US Chambers of Commerce is an exercise in wasted time & effort. Most US Chamber's personnel have little to zero training regarding oiigrn certificates and simply sign/stampthese documents as a matter of course.The only reason to have such documents stamped/signed is to complete an export transaction, usually governed by some type of letter of credit mandating a stamped/signed oiigrn certificate.Whereas in most non-US countries, the chambers act as a quasi government agency, the US chambers are for the most part dedicated hard working local business people who nonetheless are unqualified to review, approve and stamp/sign any oiigrn certificate. They simply do not understand these documents nor their content or format.The burden of proof as to the quality/accuracy of any oiigrn certificate, properly falls on the USPPI and or the US Importer of Record.Although little actual value can be placed on a US Chamber stamping/signing an oiigrn certificate, I do agree that the practice of lending out their official seal/stamp should cease.