Comments on: Does Part 129 Cover Foreign Sales Reps?

By: Don Ellison

Don Ellison — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:52:58 +0000

What is the link to “The Daily Bugle, the excellent daily newsletter distributed by Jim Bartlett from Northrop Grumman”?

By: L.Payne

L.Payne — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:12:54 +0000

What of items in 129(2)(c) ‘of a nature described on the U.S. Munitions List’? Surely, despite the intergovernmental organization exception (e.g. ESA)there are more and more companies in Europe and elsewhere with ‘ITAR FREE’ products who could fall within this provision? If a foreign co. has some kind of contact with the U.S., in another capacity or for other reasons, and falls within ‘otherwise subject to U.S. jurisdiction’ posts (which are even after Yakou potentially miles apart) , then without being a U.S. company AND without brokering activities involving items actually on the list … 129 and the DDTC require registration.
Is this assertion correct?

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:40:31 +0000

John - You are right, and I wrote about those issues and more in my article in The Export Practitioner last August. In particular the issues relating to licensing of brokerage transactions unrelated to the United States has caused some FSRs to decline to register and to sever their relationships with U.S. defense companies.

By: John Liebman

John Liebman — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:45:52 +0000

Clif - the 129 issue is broader than you have described. It has caused consternation among our allies whose FSRs are supporting our exporters. In addition to the definitional problems you noted, there is also a serious question whether the FSRs are required to report all of their USML sales, including their sales activities on behalf of non-U.S. suppliers. The same is true regarding the licensing requirements found in 129. This has been a persistent issue for several years.