Nearly a month after the U.S. announced new export controls on advanced computing and semiconductor equipment destined to China, lawyers and companies are still grappling with what they say is a complex set of regulations and are awaiting clearer government guidance on how and whether their activities are covered. The dense regulations, along with lengthy response times from the Bureau of Industry and Security, have caused firms to delay decisions on shipments until they can better understand their risks and BIS’s due diligence requirements, trade attorneys and industry officials said in recent interviews.
Ian Cohen
Ian Cohen, Deputy Managing Editor, is a reporter with Export Compliance Daily and its sister publications International Trade Today and Trade Law Daily, where he covers export controls, sanctions and international trade issues. He previously worked as a local government reporter in South Florida. Ian graduated with a journalism degree from the University of Florida in 2017 and lives in Washington, D.C. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2019.
The Bureau of Industry and Security published its first set of frequently asked questions on its new China-related export controls (see 2210070049), covering the definition of semiconductor “facility” and offering guidance on certain U.S. persons requirements, license review policies and more.
New U.S. restrictions on semiconductor exports to China likely will have a “truly devastating impact” on China’s access to advanced semiconductors within the next three years, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in an Oct. 27 report. Even though China has been expecting the controls and has stockpiled some chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment, those stockpiles will eventually “dwindle” and the country “will likely be forced to step backward in technological time and use less advanced chips that the industry has long since moved past,” the report said.
The Federal Maritime Commission should scrap its notice of proposed rulemaking on how it should define certain unreasonable conduct by ocean carriers, the Agriculture Transportation Coalition said in comments to the FMC last week. The group said the NPRM misses congressional intent “by a wide margin” and would not solve the issue of carriers unfairly declining to take exports in favor of imports.
The Biden administration could soon lift certain sanctions against Venezuela as it recalibrates its strategy toward the country amid global oil shortages, experts said. But they also said it remains unclear if those moves will entice President Nicolas Maduro regime to hold free and fair elections or stop committing human rights violations.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is confident it will soon convince allies to adopt similar semiconductor export controls on China, Undersecretary Alan Estevez said, adding that he expects some type of “multilateral deal” finalized in the “near term.” Estevez, speaking during an Oct. 27 event hosted by the Center for a New American Security, also said BIS isn’t “done” imposing chip-related controls and said companies should expect new restrictions on emerging technologies, including on biotechnologies, artificial intelligence software and items in the quantum sector.
Semiconductor company KLA is expecting the U.S.’s new export controls on China (see 2210070049) to hurt its revenue and is looking at moving its products to customers not subject to the restrictions, CEO Rick Wallace said during an Oct. 26 earnings call. The company is preparing for up to a $900 million revenue hit in 2023, but Wallace also stressed the company is uncertain how much its operations will be affected until it receives more guidance from the Commerce Department.
The Bureau of Industry and Security recently sent a proposed charging letter to Seagate Technology alleging that it violated U.S. export controls by providing controlled items to a company on the Entity List. Seagate said the Aug. 29 letter accused it of violating the Export Administration Regulations by providing hard disk drives to the blacklisted company and its affiliates between August 2020 and September 2021.
U.S.-based MVM Logistics said major shipping line MSC violated the Shipping Act by failing to provide MVM with “adequate” time to return containers and charging per diem fees for delays MSC had caused. In a complaint this week to the Federal Maritime Commission, MVM said MSC charged it about $800,000 stemming from unfair fees and failed to "establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property."
A Chinese freight forwarder illegally tried to change the terms of its signed service contract with a U.S. distributor and purposefully delayed 20 container shipments so it could submit higher detention and demurrage invoices, the American company said in a complaint this month to the Federal Maritime Commission. Indiana distributor Way Interglobal also said China-based Shenzhen Unifelix, a von-vessel operating common carrier, “improperly” disclosed Way’s financial information to Shenzhen’s vendors to try to force Way into agreeing to a new contract.