Comments on: Close Enough for Government Work

By: ExportLawBlog » BIS Issues Temporary Denial Order in Cirrus Electronics Matter

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:46:19 +0000

[...] The Bureau of Industry and Security (”BIS”) has issued a temporary denial order against everyone in sight involved in the Cirrus Electronics matter. As we previously reported, Cirrus Electronics took orders for electronic components from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (”VSSC”) and Bharat Dynamics, Ltd (”BDL”) both Indian-government related companies on the Entity List. [...]

By: ExportLawBlog » Wonked (or Not?)

ExportLawBlog » Wonked (or Not?) — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:10:00 +0000

[...] Jeffrey Lewis, who works at a DC think tank and who blogs at Arms Control Wonk, took issue with our post on the Sudarshan indictment. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that either he or Scott Gearity, whom he quotes, bothered to read what we said very carefully: Clif Burns at export law blog [sic] suggests one of the microprocessors—the i960—in the second half of the indictment isn’t controlled, noting that its out of production and obsolete. [...]

By: Charles Liu

Charles Liu — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:26:02 +0000

Now, the question is where, and what are these custom specs? What are the tests? Do they support the “mil-spec” accusation?

The i960 are inside things like DVD player and computer network router, and they all have “specs”.

—
I’ll share some personal experience. While back a customer in China inquired about some 15 year old drill beds. I located them but was not able to export them, after learning that they required exemption.

The CAD/CAM software came with is on 5.25″ floopy (if anyone still remember what that is) and is a very popular model everyone else in the world have been selling them to China.

But we consider it “munition”. No wonder those containers are going back to China empty.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:12:03 +0000

Performance testing can also apply to published specs for COTS items as well as to custom specs. If the government’s claim was that the i960s were USML because ADE supplied custom specs, it would have been easy enough to plead it. But, you’re right, if the ADE did supply custom specs designed to integrate the chips into the Tejas fighter jet, the i960 would be USML

By: Matthew J. Lancaster

Matthew J. Lancaster — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:48:40 +0000

-continued-
Combat Aircraft can at least be arguably construed as specifically designed or modified for a military application.

Sorry for the accidental submission and continuance.

By: Matthew J. Lancaster

Matthew J. Lancaster — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:45:42 +0000

There is evidence in the indictment that these i960s were not COTs microprocessors. On Pages 24-25 of the indictment, defendant attended a testing of the i960s to ensure “the i960 microprocessors satisfied the criteria set forth in ADE’s purchase order for the items.”

Sounds like a special order to me. And, as I’m sure we all know, a special order to meet criteria for a

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:37:07 +0000

Mr. McKallor — end use doesn’t render a COTS item a defense article on the USML. Period. Electronics components aren’t USML unless they have been specifically designed or modified for military use.

Would the AUSA charge this without getting a certification from DDTC? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t have thought the AUSA could misread section 126.1 as erroneously as they did in the Mak case either.

Of course, it’s possible that this was a special i960 chip designed for military use other than the MX. Or maybe it was the MX. And maybe the capacitors were specially modified for military use, but they sure looked like standard issue capacitors to me.

By: Robert McKallor

Robert McKallor — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:12:42 +0000

Do you really think an AUSA would charge a case like this if the items in question were not certified by DDTC as USML? That would be a very quick way to lose a case (and a job). It is doubtful the AUSA prosecuting this case would make that mistake.

Many electronic components, such as the microprocessors and capacitors in this case, are considered USML based on their testing parameters (ability to withstand heat, shock, and vibration) and how they are being used (ie navigation and weapons guidance systems). Facts regarding end-use are often not disclosed to US vendors by exporters operating illegally, which is likely what is happening here.

By: Charles Liu

Charles Liu — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:50:06 +0000

Mil-spec processors are vastly different than it’s civilian counterpart. To say the i960 is the same as the MX version, put it mildly, is insane.

The i960 processor is a comidity readilly available within China. I found it on Hong Kong and Shenzhen electronic sites, even Ebay China:

http://tinyurl.com/36w6y4

Spec on the i960 says it’s based on 0.8 micron fabrication process. While China’s semiconductor industry is behind the times, is 4 generations ahead of that. There are Chinese and Japanese chip companies making similiar microprocessors:

http://tinyurl.com/2orgno

[Edited by site owner to shorten URIs.]

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:36:17 +0000

Again, you have to wonder whether Bush Buddy Alberto’s Dept. of Justice is actually requiring AUSAs to follow the US Attorney’s Manual and get Main Justice approval, or whether, under Alberto, Main Justice is just so incompetent that no one there understands the AECA and ITAR. Bring back Joe Tafe.