http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/61 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-190 Clif Burns Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:51:08 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/61#comment-190 Good point, Luke. As long as SL applies to every destination there is no need for a column in the Country Chart. But having SL still leaves open the future possibility that in the future there would be an SL column without all the country rows checked. I'm not sure there's another reason to add the new control category. Do you have any other ideas for why it was added as new category? Good point, Luke. As long as SL applies to every destination there is no need for a column in the Country Chart. But having SL still leaves open the future possibility that in the future there would be an SL column without all the country rows checked. I’m not sure there’s another reason to add the new control category. Do you have any other ideas for why it was added as new category?

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/61/comment-page-1#comment-185 Luke Engan Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:45:38 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/61#comment-185 That looks like a sound analysis, though BIS retained the language in EAR § 742.13 that states in relevant part that the license requirement "is not reflected" in the Country Chart. I took this to mean the SL reason would be identified only in the CCL under the ECCNs, avoiding the need for a solid column of checkmarks in the Country Chart. That looks like a sound analysis, though BIS retained the language in EAR § 742.13 that states in relevant part that the license requirement “is not reflected” in the Country Chart. I took this to mean the SL reason would be identified only in the CCL under the ECCNs, avoiding the need for a solid column of checkmarks in the Country Chart.

]]>