Apr

29

DDTC Announces New License Documentation Requirements


Posted by at 9:26 pm on April 29, 2008
Category: DDTC

shipYesterday the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) announced new documentation requirements for export licenses. Failure to meet this requirement can result in an export license being returned without action although DDTC says that for an “interim” period of unspecified length it will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to return applications not in compliance with these documentary requirements.

  • Purchase orders and invoices support the license application must be with a foreign party not with its U.S. subsidiary. DDTC bases this requirement on the notion that the U.S. subsidiary is a “U.S. person” although why that should prevent the U.S. subsidiary from issuing purchase orders on behalf of its parent is not clear, particularly where the exporter may prefer to have an agreement with a U.S. party rather than a foreign one.
  • The purchase order or similar document must “have an issue date within one year from the date of application submission.” Since documents that are more than one-year-old are still legally binding, this seems, at best, an arbitrary requirement. DDTC gives no reason for this requirement.
  • If the invoice lists the price in a foreign currency, the exchange rate and U.S. dollar conversion for each line item must be annotated on the document. Again, since the license application must provide those figures in dollar amounts, there is no reason why this must be hand-annotated on the documentation. Even so, this shouldn’t pose a huge compliance burden on applicants.
  • The purchase order, invoice, or similar documentation must indicate the ultimate end user of the item.
Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


[…] DDTC Announces New License Documentation Requirements- Export Law Blog […]

Comment by Library: A Round-up of Reading « Res Communis on May 5th, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Clif – the “one year” PO requirement was explained to me by an unnamed source at DDTC as an outgrowth of their frustration that industry could “sit” on a PO for such long periods of time and then have the chutzpah to request expedited processing of license applications.

Comment by SReuer on May 19th, 2008 @ 1:28 pm