The export control provisions of the EAR are intended to serve the national security, foreign policy, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other interests of the United States, which in many cases are reflected in international obligations or arrangements. Some controls are designed to restrict access to items subject to the EAR by countries or persons that might apply such items to uses inimical to U.S. interests. These include controls designed to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and controls designed to limit the military and terrorism support capability of certain countries. The effectiveness of many of the controls under the EAR is enhanced by their being maintained as part of multilateral control arrangements. Multilateral export control cooperation is sought through arrangements such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. The EAR also include some export controls to protect the United States from the adverse impact of the unrestricted export of commodities in short supply.
[61 FR 12734, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 78 FR 22705, Apr. 16, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Yi-Chi Shih, 73 F.4th 1077 (9th Cir. 2023).
“15 C.F.R. § 730.6 . If “rated for operation” requires post- manufacture, pre-export testing, one seeking to evade the EARs could simply design an export-controlled item, run reliable pre-manufacture simulations, freely export the item, and then test it only after export to…”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Enter. Solutions, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
“15 C.F.R. § 730.6 , § 740.1. Specific encryption products must be submitted to the BXA to determine whether the license exception for encryption commodities and software applies.”
United States v. Colon-Solis, 508 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.P.R. 2007).
“” 15 C.F.R. § 730.6 . Thus EAR provisions are geared specifically to national security issues and reach beyond mere reporting obligations.”
Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. v. Raimondo (D.D.C. 2021).
“” 15 C.F.R. § 730.6 . Within the EARs, the defendants have established that an entity may be placed on the Entity List if “there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entity has been involved, is involved, or poses a significant risk…”
De Jaray v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp. (D. Or. 2023).
“” 15 C.F.R. § 730.6 . Indeed, the regulations place the burden on companies like Apex (a “reexporter or transferor”) to “correctly classify[] the items in a transaction” and the [f]ailure to classify or have classified the item correctly does not relieve the person of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.