Is your company doing enough to train its employees about how to comply with ITAR and EAR? Some companies are, while others are finding out the hard way.
This is the first in a series of articles which looks at some of the common “do’s and don’ts” of automating your company’s export compliance process. Today's topic is: Restricted Parties List Screening. Keep checking back for future installments in this series.
Joseph Debose, 30, – a resident of North Carolina and former Staff Sergeant with a U.S. Special Forces National Guard Unit – faces up to 20 years imprisonment for the illegal export of firearms to China. The government has charged Debose with making multiple shipments of semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns to customers in China. These activities constitute ITAR violations under the Arms Export Control Act.
When it comes to EAR compliance, a common mistake is to find the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) for your product and then make all your licensing determinations based on that alone. However, it’s important to remember there are actually two ECCNs for every item.
Ever heard of the BIS Entity List? More importantly, are you screening your transactions against this and other U.S. government watch lists? Several companies were recently penalized for trying to send scrap metal to an entity on this list.
What is considered ITAR? Historically, the answer to that question has been very far-reaching and intentionally broad. However, a new proposed definition could help change all of that.
Yesterday it was announced that United Technologies (UTC) and two of its subsidiaries – Pratt & Whitney Canada and Hamilton Sundstrand – have entered into a consent agreement with the U.S. Department of State for alleged ITAR violations with China.
Earlier this week, I was updating our list of common ITAR exemptions and noticed that several have been added in recent weeks or months. Do some of these help your company comply?
The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) recently settled with Mattson Technology of Fremont, CA, in a case which alleges 47 EAR violations from 2006 to 2008. According to the order from BIS, Mattson “sold, transferred or otherwise serviced” pressure transducers “with knowledge that violations of the Regulations were about to occur or were intended to occur.”
ITAR compliance is agreeably difficult, and exemptions are not “exempt” from this conundrum. Take, for example, the export of defense articles and technical data.