<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Export License Requirements Delay Sale of Radar Parts to U.S. Navy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evelyn Morales</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2210</link>
		<dc:creator>Evelyn Morales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 17:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2210</guid>
		<description>Hmmm.  Makes sense. I had to read it through a few times, but I understand. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm.  Makes sense. I had to read it through a few times, but I understand. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2207</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 13:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2207</guid>
		<description>Except that only applies to U.S.-origin parts &quot;incorporated into a foreign defense article.&quot;  As I understood the story the parts were never incorporated into the Malaysian article.   Even if they had been, 123.9(e) also seems only to cover the re-export of the parts as part of the foreign defense article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except that only applies to U.S.-origin parts &#8220;incorporated into a foreign defense article.&#8221;  As I understood the story the parts were never incorporated into the Malaysian article.   Even if they had been, 123.9(e) also seems only to cover the re-export of the parts as part of the foreign defense article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Troy</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2206</link>
		<dc:creator>Troy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 13:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2206</guid>
		<description>What about the exemption 123.9(e)?  If these parts meet the requirements, EADS would just have to notify the DDTC in writing within 30 days of the retransfer or re-export.  The US is a NATO country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about the exemption 123.9(e)?  If these parts meet the requirements, EADS would just have to notify the DDTC in writing within 30 days of the retransfer or re-export.  The US is a NATO country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2201</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 01:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2201</guid>
		<description>Actually, Evelyn, it&#039;s a little more complicated than that.

The USMIL/BATF list governs permanent imports and the USML/DDTC list covers temporary imports as well as permanent and temporary exports and reexports.  If a reexport is also a permanent import into the U.S. and the item is on both the USMIL and the USML then both an import permit from BATF and a reexport license from DDTC would be required.  A reexport, even into the United States, will require a license regardless of whether something is on the USMIL list or not

In the case cited by Enders, only a DDTC re-export license was required because the item was on the USML only and not also on the USMIL.   Even if it had been on the USMIL, there is an exemption, under &lt;a href=&quot;http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr447.2.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;27 CFR § 447.2(c)&lt;/a&gt; for imports for the use of the United States or its agencies.

Does that clear things up?  :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Evelyn, it&#8217;s a little more complicated than that.</p>
<p>The USMIL/BATF list governs permanent imports and the USML/DDTC list covers temporary imports as well as permanent and temporary exports and reexports.  If a reexport is also a permanent import into the U.S. and the item is on both the USMIL and the USML then both an import permit from BATF and a reexport license from DDTC would be required.  A reexport, even into the United States, will require a license regardless of whether something is on the USMIL list or not</p>
<p>In the case cited by Enders, only a DDTC re-export license was required because the item was on the USML only and not also on the USMIL.   Even if it had been on the USMIL, there is an exemption, under <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr447.2.pdf" rel="nofollow">27 CFR § 447.2(c)</a> for imports for the use of the United States or its agencies.</p>
<p>Does that clear things up?  <img src='http://www.exportlawblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evelyn Morales</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2198</link>
		<dc:creator>Evelyn Morales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 23:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2198</guid>
		<description>So just to clarify, if your USML product is being permanently imported back into the US and is NOT identified on the BATF list, a retransfer request must be submitted to DDTC?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So just to clarify, if your USML product is being permanently imported back into the US and is NOT identified on the BATF list, a retransfer request must be submitted to DDTC?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2196</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2196</guid>
		<description>Military imports that require licensing are listed on the United States Munitions Import List, &lt;a href=&quot;http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01apr20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr447.21.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;27 CFR §447.21&lt;/a&gt;, and require a permit from BATF.  Radar parts aren&#039;t on that list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Military imports that require licensing are listed on the United States Munitions Import List, <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01apr20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr447.21.pdf" rel="nofollow">27 CFR §447.21</a>, and require a permit from BATF.  Radar parts aren&#8217;t on that list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn Wheatfill</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167/comment-page-1#comment-2195</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Wheatfill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/167#comment-2195</guid>
		<description>I found no supporting documentation for an permanent import license either - radar is not a listed category for articles that qualify for permanent import of USML or International Munitions List items. I referenced 27 CFR Parts 47, 178, 179.

A situation never dealt with to have the ITAR updated. Perhaps, this would be that time.

Thanks for the blog postings. Most enjoyable reading.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found no supporting documentation for an permanent import license either &#8211; radar is not a listed category for articles that qualify for permanent import of USML or International Munitions List items. I referenced 27 CFR Parts 47, 178, 179.</p>
<p>A situation never dealt with to have the ITAR updated. Perhaps, this would be that time.</p>
<p>Thanks for the blog postings. Most enjoyable reading.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
