C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER M—INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS › PART 120—PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS › Subpart B—General Policies and Processes

22 C.F.R. § 120.17

End-use monitoring

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2785) and related delegations of authority, the Department of State is required to establish a monitoring program in order to improve accountability with respect to defense articles and defense services, sold, leased, or exported under Department of State licenses or other approvals under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act and this subchapter.

(b) All exports of defense articles, technical data, services, and brokering activities made pursuant to this subchapter are subject to end-use monitoring by the Department of State through the Blue Lantern program.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: United States v. Smith, 945 F.3d 729 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Smith, 945 F.3d 729 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “See 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(1). Smith was not engaging in speech, nor can his actions be 11 reasonably construed as “symbolic speech” or “expressive conduct.”
Def. Distributed v. United States Dep't of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016). “” 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(4). 7 In order to resolve doubts about whether an “export” is covered by ITAR, parties may request a “commodity jurisdiction” determination from the DDTC, which will determine each request on a “case-by-case basis,” 22 C.”
United States ex rel. McGrath v. Microsemi Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 885 (D. Ariz. 2015). · cites it 5× “” 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(l)-(4). The regulations do not, however, define any of these exemplars of “exports.”
Stagg P.C. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 354 F. Supp. 3d 448 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 6× “" 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(2). 2. The Information Plaintiff Seeks to Use and Disseminate Plaintiff "is a law firm that advises clients on export control matters .”
Bernstein v. United States Dep't of State, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1996). · cites it 7× “Finally, “export” is defined as “[s]ending or taking a defense article out of the United States in any manner”, 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(1), and as “[disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or transferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States…”
Stagg, P.C. v. U.S. Dept. of State, 983 F.3d 589 (2d Cir. 2020). “” 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(2). Additionally, the 12 ITAR define “defense service” to include the “furnishing to foreign persons of 13 any technical data controlled under this subchapter .”
Def. Distributed v. United States Dep't of State, 121 F. Supp. 3d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(4). Plaintiffs argue this definition falls outside Con *691 gressional intent in authorizing restriction of export of defense articles because, as interpreted by Defendants, it includes public speech within the United States.”
Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(1) (2001). This definition fits comfortably within other legal definitions of “export,” e.”
United States v. Chi Tong Kuok, 671 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012). “See 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (a)(l)(defining “export” as “[s]ending or taking a defense article out of the United States in any manner”).”
United States Ex Rel. McGrath v. Microsemi Corp., 690 F. App'x 551 (9th Cir. 2017). “n assuming that the statement “ITAR controlled” on Microse-mi’s receipts constituted a false representation that Microsemi was in compliance with ITAR, the complaint cannot plead facts sufficient to support an inference that Microsemi knew it had failed to comply with ITAR at…”
Bernstein v. United States Dep't of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996). “Prior Restraint Plaintiff alleges that the AECA and ITAR act as an administrative licensing scheme for the publication of scientific papers, algorithms and computer programs related to cryptography, since publishing could release that information to foreign persons and would…”
LIU v. United States (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 3× “§ 2778 (b)(1)(A)(I), and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. § 120.17 (Counts One through Six of the indictment).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.