This appears to be the only case where the USG forces an EAR License Exception down industry’s throat. This does not happen on the State Department side. Using or not using an International Traffic in Arms Regulations exemption is at the discretion of the registrant.
Industry still complains about STA saying it’s too complex and an administrative burden. In the view of many, getting a license proves easier and less problematic. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) points the finger at industry indicating those who don’t use STA and can, are uneducated, uniformed or simply don’t understand. Yet, BIS has amended the exception 16 times.
Another consideration is workload. If you use STA, the exposure, liability and risk is all yours. If you submit a license, effort and decision making shift to BIS. One consequence and reality of Export Control Reform (ECR) are shifting responsibilities from the USG to industry. Either way, resources are a factor.
It’s also worth reminding practitioners BIS routinely audits exporters who use STA. In this context the word “audit” is not politically correct; thus, BIS prefers “review.” Call it what you will, but they ask for proof it’s being used properly.
Further, STA use is a metric measuring ECR success. STA use is low and has been since its inception. There is no doubt BIS is on a quest to increase the numbers, thus a reinvigorated effort to do just that.
As always there are at least two sides to the story; however, at the end of the day, aren’t trade compliance professionals adults who can and should make their own well-informed business decisions on using or not using an exception or exemption?
In the spirit of an open/honest dialogue what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment