Archive for the ‘Canada’ Category

State/DDTC Posts New Agreement Guidelines for US-Canada Exchange of Notes re ITAR 126.18 Dual/3rds Exemption

Monday, March 5th, 2012 by Holly Thorne

Licensing: New agreement guidelines pursuant to the US-Canadian Exchange of Notes regarding ITAR section 126.18, Canada has provided appropriate implementation guidance which can be found at the following links:http://ssi-iss.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/dmc-cgd/bulletins/bulletin3-eng.html

I. Background — Classification Requests Section 748.3(a) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) sets forth a procedure for how the public may seek and receive determinations regarding where or if items “subject to the EAR”1 are classified on the EAR’s Commerce Control List (CCL). In essence, if one makes a request in accordance with EAR sections 748.1 and 748.3(b), the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will issue a formal classification determination regarding which, if any, ECCN controls the item described in the request.

Classification determinations are only as good as the quality, clarity, and the accuracy of the information provided in the classification request. The rules pertaining to the classification of composite-related information are complex largely because composite related technology is complex. Small changes in facts can result in significant differences in the control status of technologies. Thus, if a classification request for composite-related information does not describe carefully and address all the potentially applicable regulatory, definitional, and technical issues associated with a particular item at issue (as opposed to broad categories of items), then the classification determination will not likely be as reliable or useful as it should or could be. The most common questions BIS personnel have received in recent years regarding such items pertain to whether information used in the production or development of carbon fiber organic matrix material systems and related structures are within the scope of Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 1E001.

To read fully article see<http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/advisoryopinions/oct25_2011_guidance.pdf>

The following are paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 14-page document:

Guidance for Preparing Commodity Classification (“CCATS”) Requests for Information Pertaining to the Development or Production of Carbon Fiber Organic Matrix Composite Items (October 25, 2011)

I. Background — Classification Requests

Section 748.3(a) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) sets forth a procedure for how the public may seek and receive determinations regarding where or if items “subject to the EAR”1 are classified on the EAR’s Commerce Control List (CCL). In essence, if one makes a request in accordance with EAR sections 748.1 and 748.3(b), the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will issue a formal classification determination regarding which, if any, ECCN controls the item described in the request.

Classification determinations are only as good as the quality, clarity, and the accuracy of the information provided in the classification request. The rules pertaining to the classification of composite-related information are complex largely because composite-related technology is complex. Small changes in facts can result in significant differences in the control status of technologies. Thus, if a classification request for composite-related information does not describe carefully and address all the potentially applicable regulatory, definitional, and technical issues associated with a particular item at issue (as opposed to broad categories of items), then the classification determination will not likely be as reliable or useful as it should or could be. The most common questions BIS personnel have received in recent years regarding such items pertain to whether information used in the production or development of carbon fiber organic matrix material systems and related structures are within the scope of Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 1E001.

II. Purpose of this Document

In light of the foregoing, BIS hopes to begin building a public collection of carbon fiber organic matrix composite-related classification determinations that will be the foundation for the development of better and common understandings between and within industry and government regarding the proper classifications of a wide variety of such technologies. For such a collection to be useful, however, the requests should address all the relevant definitional and control variables in the EAR for such composite-related technologies. To assist those preparing such requests, BIS has assembled this guidance document. Section III below contains a description of the various EAR provisions relevant to analyzing the classification status of carbon fiber organic matrix technologies. Drawing upon these descriptions, section IV contains BIS’s recommendations for issues to consider and address when drafting classification requests for carbon fiber organic matrix technologies.

The guidance in this document is limited in scope to descriptions of composite-related EAR provisions in effect at the time of its publication and related suggestions pertaining to the preparation of classification requests. Exporters are reminded that they will need to refer to all relevant EAR provisions in effect at the time of any particular export to determine the export control-related obligations pertaining to the export.

Source: http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/advisoryopinions.htm

DDTC Waives Amendment Requirement for Canadian Acquisition

Monday, April 20th, 2009 by Danielle McClellan

CAE Professional Services (Canada) Inc. (CAE PS) has acquired Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership’s xwave Division Canada (formerly a division of Xwave Solutions Inc.). CAE PS will operate the company under the CAE PS name, due to the high volume of authorizations requiring amendments under this name change DDTC has decided to waive the amendments requirement. (more…)

DDTC Asks NSC For Guidance on Foreign National Rules

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 by Guest Author

Source: Reprinted from Export Law Blog (ExportLawBlog.com) by permission of its author Clif Burns, Bryan Cave LLP, Washington DC (telephone: 202.624.3949, email: clif.burns@bryancave.com).

April 14, 2009. An article in this week’s Washington Tariff & Trade Letter (paid subscription required) reports that at the Defense Trade Advisory Group (“DTAG”) meeting held on April 7, Frank Ruggiero, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) announced that the agency had asked the National Security Council to review the treatment of foreign nationals under U.S.
export laws. The DDTC request was sent at the end of March, but there is no current timetable for its consideration by the NSC inasmuch as the Obama administration is still putting together and organizing the new NSC. (more…)

Forwarder Gets Slapped on Wrist for Involvement in Illegal Cuba Shipment

Saturday, July 5th, 2008 by Danielle McClellan

Kabba & Amir Investments, Inc., d.b.a. International Freight Forwarders (IFF) of Canada have been fined $6,000 for export violations. The company is a freight forwarding company. In June 2000, IFF took possession of shipment of X-Ray Film Processors, items subject to the Regulations, and exported them to Cuba without a license.

The company worked with known and unknown co- conspirators to export the processors to Cuba via Canada without obtaining a BIS export license. IFF violated the regulations when they took possession of the items in the United States and took them to Canada.

After several reviews, and IFF claiming that they were unaware that a license was necessary, BIS found that they do not have to prove that the company knew or did know that they needed a license. As long as IFF pays their fine within 30 days of their final charging letter they will not be denied export privileges, if they do not, their export privileges will be denied for three years.

More information:

Canada Implements Export and Financial Sanctions on Burma

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 by Danielle McClellan

Canada has released the implementation to the Special Economic Measures (Burma) Regulations applying sanctions against Burma.

The main measures taken by Canada prohibit:

  1. The export from Canada to Burma of any goods, excepting only the export of humanitarian goods
  2. The export of technical data
  3. The provision of financial services to Burma

Canada implemented the new sanctions in light of resolutions by both the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly who condemned the human right violations in Burma at this time.

More information:

dfait-maeci.gc.ca/trade/eicb/notices/Ser155-en.asp

Bell Helicopter and Quebec Human Rights Commission Settle ITAR-Based Problem

Thursday, January 17th, 2008 by Danielle McClellan

The Quebec Human Rights Commission issued a press release on January 17, 2008 regarding the settlement between Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. and a Haitian-born man who held Canadian citizenship but was denied an internship because of his ethnicity and the ITAR. According to the ITAR, individuals who hold citizenship in 25 countries, Haiti included, cannot work on U.S. military contracts.

The man was initially hired for the internship with Bell Helicopter until it was found that his citizenship would affect the company’s compliance with the ITAR so he was denied the position. The man has lived in Canada for 30 years and was a citizen, but because he was born in Haiti he was restricted by the ITAR to perform duties at Bell Helicopter.

Quebec Human Rights Commission is now encouraging other individuals of dual citizenship to bring cases to the human rights commissions if they have suffered, are suffering or will suffer in the future discrimination by companies who are complying with the U.S. ITAR. Companies are urged to develop policies and procedures to comply with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This however, will be difficult because certain policies and procedures will not be appropriate and work for the laws in both Canada and the United States.

Compliance with U.S. ITAR Can Cause Legal Problems for Canadian Companies

Thursday, December 20th, 2007 by Guest Author

Some Canadian companies in the defense industry are finding themselves in a catch-22 situation. If they comply with the U.S. ITARs and restrict access on employees with certain nationalities, then the employees are taking the company to the provincial human rights tribunal. If they do not comply with the U.S ITARs, they cannot obtain U.S business and they may be committing an offence under U.S. law (if there is a connection to a U.S. based company). (more…)

DDTC Announces New Dual and Third Country National TAA and MLA Rule

Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 by John Black

“Beware of apparently good news.” — John Black

In the December 19, 2007 Federal Register, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) of the State Department announced its new policy for dual and third country nationals. The change primarily is related to the requirement that when you apply for a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) or Manufacturing License Agreement, you must identify the foreign nationalities of the foreign signatories to the agreement. (more…)

Update on Canada’s Trade Sanctions Against Burma (and More)

Friday, December 14th, 2007 by Guest Author

On December 14, 2007, Minister Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced that Canada’s economic sanctions against Burma entered into force on December 13, 2007. (more…)

ITAR Compliance Forces General Motors Canada to Pay

Friday, September 28th, 2007 by John Black

Maybe if you comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) you can get sued for doing so…

General Motors of Canada Limited was forced to pay an undisclosed amount of money to six workers who complained of discrimination based on their citizenship and place of origin. The six unionized workers were all Canadian citizens or landed immigrants who also held citizenships from other countries. They all worked in a division of GM that manufactured military vehicles. GM Canada used US defense articles and technical data controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to produce these vehicles.

The problem is that the ITAR prohibited GM Canada from allowing the US defense articles and data to be accessed by Canadian landed immigrants (“permanent residents”) or Canadian duals nationals whose original or second country of nationality was from a country considered problematic by the ITAR. Because of this, the six workers who had citizenships in other problem countries were called into a meeting by General Motors and sent home with pay because they did not have the proper clearance to work on the U.S. vehicles from the U.S. State Department.

The six employees eventually were permitted to return to work, but General Motors did not apply for the US State Department for them to legally work on the military vehicles, so GM assigned them to alternative duties.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission brought the workers and General Motors together where they reached a settlement in July 2007. General Motors agreed to pay money to each of the six employees who had been forced to perform alternate duties because of the lack of US State Department approval.

Full article in Canadian Employment Law Today