BIS adds new statement to validated export licenses

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said it will include a new statement to exporters on all validated licenses, effective Dec. 8.    The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said it will include a new statement to exporters on all validated licenses, effective Dec. 8. 
   The notice, which informs exporters of the scope of the license authorization, states:
   “Unless limited by a condition set forth below, the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) authorized by this license is for the item(s), end-use(s) and parties described in the license application and any letters of explanation. The applicant is responsible for informing the other parties identified on the license, such as ultimate consignees and end-users, of the license’s scope and of the specific conditions applicable to them. BIS has granted this license in reliance on representations the applicant made in the license application, letters of explanation and other documents submitted.” 
   BIS, in coordination with other U.S. export control agencies, is making this change “as part of our ongoing effort to rationalize and make more consistent the use of conditions on BIS licenses,” the agency said. “The purpose of the change is to eliminate, to the greatest extent possible, the inclusion of requirements and prohibitions included in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as conditions on validated licenses.”
   BIS is also eliminating conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR from licenses because the EAR’s conditions and requirements are applicable to all exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR as a matter of law; “inclusion of such conditions on licenses is redundant,” it stated.
   The agency said the change should “eliminate the confusion caused by the negative implication of some, but not all, EAR requirements and/or prohibitions’ having been specified as license conditions, which erroneously suggested that the requirements not specified were not required specific to the license and that prohibitions not specifically listed were not prohibited.”