Sanctions hub · Multi-regime flagship · Screening desk · ECP guide · US tracker · Entity List removal · Primary sources · U.S. import / customs.
Direct answer
The Legal Rule
This is an EAR analysis desk — not a customs/Section 301/UFLPA manual, not an ECP build guide, not a restricted-party screening SOP, not an Entity List removal petition, and not a current-measures tracker.
The Business Impact
Verify classification, customs value, origin, licence status and the document chain for the actual goods. A mistake in any one of those inputs can delay clearance or change the duty, preference or penalty exposure. Apply that to the facts of U.S. Export Controls for Chinese Companies: EAR Compliance Guide.
U.S. export controls can apply to a Chinese company that never ships from the United States. The EAR can attach to U.S.-origin goods, software and technology; to reexports and in-country transfers; to certain foreign-made items under de minimis or the Foreign Direct Product Rule; and to technology or software releases, including remote access.
Before a controlled act, build one EAR analysis file in this order: jurisdiction → classification (ECCN or EAR99) → destination / Country Chart → party effect → end use / end user (Part 744) → license, exception or hold. Record one of: not subject · subject — classify · NLR on these facts · exception candidate · license required · presumption of denial · hold / escalate. This page does not itself grant a license or clear a shipment. How to search parties is on the screening desk. This week’s instrument is on the US tracker.
- US EAR legal hierarchy from ECRA to company license file.
- Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) — statutory authority
- Export Administration Regulations (EAR) — 15 C.F.R. Parts 730–774
- CCL + Part 738
At a glance: the EAR analysis decision
OPERATING MAP Each stage has a legal question and a fileable output. This is not a screening hold tree and not an ECP eight-element checklist.
| Stage | Legal question | Output in the file |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Jurisdiction | Is the item, software or technology subject to the EAR? | Jurisdiction memo |
| 2. Classify | ECCN or EAR99? What is the evidence? | Classification evidence card |
| 3. Destination | Which reasons for control apply to this destination (including China)? | Country Chart / destination result |
| 4. Parties | What is the license-policy effect of any listing or affiliate rule? | Party-effect note (search elsewhere) |
| 5. End use / user | Does Part 744 overlay (MEU, catch-all, advanced computing)? | End-use file |
| 6. Authorization | NLR, exception candidate, license, or presumption of denial? | License-analysis memo |
| 7. Escalate | Are facts missing or is the class high-risk? | Hold + counsel intake pack |
Scope / legal framework
This desk covers U.S. dual-use and commercial export controls administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) under the EAR. Typical controlled acts: export from the United States; reexport from a third country; in-country transfer; and release of technology or source code, including certain remote access.
It does not decide ITAR/USML questions, OFAC blocking, CBP entry, Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification, Section 301 duties, or UFLPA detention. It does not build the company’s written Export Compliance Program (that is the ECP guide). It does not run name-matching (the screening desk). Multi-regime architecture (PRC Export Control Law, Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, EU dual-use) sits on the flagship.
U.S. export controls are a different legal question from U.S. import compliance
| Legal question | Primary regime / agency | Where CLP owns it |
|---|---|---|
| Can this item / tech be exported, reexported or released? | EAR / BIS | This page |
| Is this a defense article or defense service? | ITAR / DDTC | Flagship (orientation only) + U.S. counsel |
| Is this party blocked or sanctioned? | OFAC | Screening · SDN 50% |
| What duty applies when goods enter the United States? | CBP / HTS | U.S. import / customs |
| Is Section 301 additional duty in play? | USTR / CBP | Import / customs pages |
| Is UFLPA detention risk the issue? | CBP / UFLPA | UFLPA audit |
| Does mainland PRC dual-use law also attach? | MOFCOM / PRC ECL | Flagship + China tracker |
If the reader’s question is HTS, valuation, country-of-origin marking, Section 301 lists, customs brokers or UFLPA traceability, stop this page and open the import owner. Those topics were previously mixed into this URL and are no longer hosted here in depth.
- Decision tree: is the item, software or technology subject to the EAR?.
- Proposed export, reexport, in-country transfer or release
- 1. U.S.-origin?
- Goods, software or tech
- produced in the United States
When is an item subject to the EAR?
DECISION TREE Fact-dependent. Confirm Part 734 on the transaction date.
Gate A — U.S.-origin item, software or technology?
If yes: treat as subject unless a published / publicly available or other Part 734 exclusion is documented. Then classify.
Gate B — Foreign-made item with U.S. content?
If a reliable bill of materials and valuation exist, run de minimis. If not: HOLD jurisdiction — do not invent a percentage.
Gate C — Foreign-produced with specified U.S. technology or software?
Run the Foreign Direct Product nexus test for the footnote that may apply. This is not de minimis.
Gate D — Is a Part 734 exclusion documented?
Published information, certain publicly available software and other exclusions are narrow. If the exclusion is not written with a cite: do not treat the item as outside the EAR.
Leaves: not subject (exclusion on file) · subject — classify · insufficient facts — hold. A Chinese company with no U.S. subsidiary can still be in Gate B, C or a reexport/release fact pattern.
- De minimis calculation sketch with assumptions and stop rules.
- Working formula (confirm current Part 734 / Supplement)
- Compare the percentage to the applicable de minimis threshold
- for that destination / content type — do not invent a single global %.
De minimis: calculation diagram and assumptions
Working expression (confirm the current Part 734 method and any special rules for the content type):
U.S. controlled content value ÷ fair market value of the foreign-made item = U.S. controlled content percentage, then compare to the applicable threshold for that destination and content — there is no single global percentage on this page.
| Must be written | Why it matters | If missing |
|---|---|---|
| Which U.S. items count as controlled content | Wrong numerator | Hold |
| Valuation method and date | Related-party price risk | Hold |
| Encryption / 600-series / 9x515 special treatment if relevant | Different test | Escalate |
| Destination to which the threshold is applied | Thresholds can differ | Hold |
Illustration only (not a real product): if documented U.S. controlled content is 80 and FMV is 1,000, the working percentage is 8%. Whether 8% is below the applicable threshold is a legal question under the then-current rule — this page does not state a China-wide cutoff. A 0% de minimis result still leaves the FDP tree open.
- Foreign Direct Product Rule nexus diagram — not a percentage formula.
- 1. U.S. nexus
- Specified U.S.-origin
- (e.g. EDA, process tech)
- Identify the instrument
Foreign Direct Product Rule and Chinese supply chains
The FDP analysis asks whether a foreign-made item is nonetheless subject to the EAR because specified U.S. technology or software was used in its production and the item and destination/end user fall within a footnote’s scope.
- U.S. nexus — which U.S. technology or software (for example design software or process technology) is in the fact set?
- Foreign plant — was the item produced outside the United States using that nexus?
- Product scope — does the finished item sit inside the footnote’s product description?
- Destination / party scope — China, a listed party, or another covered person/place?
Leaves: out of this footnote · in — treat as subject to the EAR and continue the license path · insufficient plant/tech facts — hold. Semiconductor, advanced-computing and Entity List-related footnotes change; confirm the live text on the US tracker. This section is the method, not a news feed.
ECCN versus EAR99: how classification works
An HS / HTS code answers a customs question. An ECCN answers an EAR question. They are not interchangeable.
| Route | What it is | Does not decide |
|---|---|---|
| Self-classification | Documented CCL order of review + technical file | A license grant |
| Supplier ECCN | Useful input if the supplier’s item is identical | Your reexport / integration / software build |
| CCATS | BIS commodity classification request | License authorization; not required in every case |
| HS / HTS | Tariff classification | ECCN or EAR99 |
| Marketing “EAR99” email | Not a 738 methodology | Anything |
Annotated classification evidence card
| Field | Why it is in the file |
|---|---|
| Item / software / technology description and version | What is being classified |
| Technical parameters that drive CCL entries | Order of review |
| Proposed ECCN or EAR99 + reasons for control | License path input |
| Classification source, date, reviewer, assumptions | Reconstructability |
| Unresolved questions | Hold trigger |
CCATS versus self-classification
File a CCATS when the technical file cannot support a responsible self-classification, when a counterparty or bank requires an official determination, or when counsel so advises. A CCATS is not a license. BIS review time is not published as a promise on this page — use current BIS CCATS instructions.
- License-analysis sequence: ECCN to license, exception, or hold.
- ECCN / EAR99
- Part 738 / CCL
Does exporting or reexporting to China require a BIS license?
Sequence: ECCN → reason for control → Commerce Country Chart / China-specific rule → party effect → Part 744 → NLR / exception / license / presumption of denial.
| Reason-for-control family (illustrative) | What the analyst checks | This page will not invent |
|---|---|---|
| NS, MT, NP, CB, RS, AT, EI and others as listed on the ECCN | Whether the Country Chart or a China-specific EAR provision shows “X” / a license requirement | A static “always / never” for every ECCN to China |
| EAR99 | Part 744 overlays and party-based rules still apply | “EAR99 means ship” |
License-exception matrix (orientation — confirm Part 740)
| Exception family (examples) | Typical question | China / listed-party caution |
|---|---|---|
| TMP / RPL | Temporary export or replacement part? | Conditions and destination limits; often unavailable as a shortcut |
| ENC | Encryption item? | Classification and reporting conditions; not automatic for China |
| STA | Strategic Trade Authorization? | Frequently not available for China — confirm Part 740.20 |
| GOV | Government end user as defined? | Narrow; do not stretch |
Every exception cell on this page is a candidate test, not an authorization. If any condition is unmet: treat as license required or hold.
Entity List, Unverified List and other restricted-party effects
This table states what a listing does to the EAR analysis. How to search, resolve aliases and apply ownership tests is the screening desk. How to petition for removal is the Entity List removal article.
| List / status | Typical EAR effect (confirm the entry) | Not decided here |
|---|---|---|
| BIS Entity List | License requirement for items subject to the EAR as specified in the entry; many China-related entries carry a presumption of denial | How to screen; delisting strategy |
| Unverified List | Not a prohibition by itself; enhanced end-use diligence and specified EAR filings may apply | End-use check logistics |
| Denied Persons List | Denial-order restrictions on dealings involving the person | Match resolution |
| Affiliate / ownership overlay (confirm current EAR rule) | Restrictions may reach unlisted affiliates when the then-current ownership rule applies | Do not paste the OFAC 50% test as a universal EAR formula |
| OFAC SDN | Different statute — blocking, not an ECCN question | See screening + SDN 50% page |
Military end use, military end users and other Part 744 overlays
| Overlay theme | Analyst question | Default posture if unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| Military end use / military end user | Is the stated use and user consistent with a civil story that survives documents? | Hold |
| Catch-all / knowledge of a prohibited end use | Do facts give knowledge or reason to know? | Hold / escalate |
| Supercomputer / advanced computing / SME themes | Does a current 744 provision cover this item × destination × user? | Hold + tracker |
This page does not conclude that a hypothetical fab, university or data centre is a military end user. Those are fact-specific.
- Technology and software release: shipment, deemed export, remote access.
- Physical / electronic export
- Shipment of goods
- Transfer of media / source
- Still run jurisdiction first
Technology transfers, software access and deemed-export issues
A release of controlled technology or source code can be an export or reexport even when nothing is boxed. U.S. design software used by a China-based engineering team, a Singapore subsidiary sharing U.S.-origin technical data, or a U.S. lab employing a foreign person can all raise a release question.
Leaves: not a release on these facts · possible export/reexport · possible deemed export · hold — access or nationality facts incomplete. This is not a PIPL / CAC data-export analysis; open that page when personal or important data also leaves China.
Semiconductor and advanced-computing controls (evergreen method)
Advanced computing, AI-related integrated circuits, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and related software are where EAR jurisdiction (especially FDP) and Part 744 overlays move fastest. This desk keeps the method: identify the item generation/parameters, the U.S. tech nexus, the destination and the end user, then read the current footnote. It does not republish each Federal Register increment — that is the US tracker.
Law last checked (this section): 16 August 2026. Next review trigger: a new Part 734/744 advanced-computing or SME instrument.
Four annotated scenarios (incomplete facts — no legal conclusion)
| Scenario | First tree | Do not skip |
|---|---|---|
| Chinese semiconductor company using U.S.-origin design software | Jurisdiction + tech release + possible FDP on the chip | Software ECCN; who can access; plant facts |
| Distributor asked to supply U.S.-origin equipment to a listed customer | Party-effect matrix | Presumption of denial; screening desk for identity |
| Singapore subsidiary reexporting U.S.-origin technology | Reexport + classification + destination | In-country transfer if the tech stays in Singapore but users change |
| Third-country factory using specified U.S. process technology | FDP nexus, not de minimis % | Footnote product scope + end user |
Five-step U.S. export-control compliance workflow
- Determine EAR jurisdiction (subject-to-EAR tree, de minimis, FDP).
- Classify the item, software or technology (evidence card; CCATS if needed).
- Check destination and party effect (Country Chart; listing effect — search on the screening desk).
- Assess end use and end user (Part 744).
- Decide NLR / exception / license / hold and, if filing, assemble the SNAP-R pack.
- Procedural sequence for classification and BIS license filings.
- T0 File facts
- Jurisdiction + class
- T1 Classify
- Self-class file or
- EAR analysis outcomes: NLR, exception, license, presumption of denial, hold.
- Still keep the file
- Conditions must execute
- SNAP-R / do not ship
Timelines for classification and SNAP-R (procedural, not promised days)
Self-classification is an internal clock: it ends when the evidence card is complete or when the reviewer records that facts are insufficient. CCATS and SNAP-R license applications follow current BIS portal instructions. This page will not invent a statutory day-count. Typical agency actions include request for information, return without action, approval with conditions, or denial. A grant is not permission to ignore license conditions at shipment or access time. Re-screen parties immediately before the controlled act — event rules live on the screening desk.
Annotated SNAP-R / application structure (fields, not a filled form)
| Field group | What it is for | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant / consignee / end user / end use | Who does what with the item | Distributor listed as end user |
| Item / ECCN / quantity / value | What is authorized | Software version omitted |
| Letter of explanation / support docs | Why the stated civil use is credible | Marketing brochure only |
| Conditions (if granted) | Must execute in logistics / access systems | Memo never reaches operations |
Risk matrix and when to stop the transaction
| Risk cell | Cue | Default posture |
|---|---|---|
| Unclassified advanced compute / SME | No technical file | Hold |
| Supplier “EAR99” without a methodology | Email only | Reclassify |
| Listed party or unresolved affiliate | Entry or ownership gap | Hold + screening page |
| Vague fab / supercomputer end use | No site or project | Hold |
| Third-country reexport of U.S. tech | No jurisdiction memo | Run the subject-to-EAR tree |
| Customer refuses end-use facts | Resistance | Do not proceed on this file |
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Why it fails | Fix on this desk |
|---|---|---|
| “We never export from the U.S.” | Reexport, FDP, tech release | Jurisdiction tree |
| HS code treated as ECCN | Different statute | Classification comparison |
| Supplier email as classification | No Part 738 method | Evidence card |
| EAR99 = no license ever | Part 744 / parties | License path |
| Jump to Entity List before jurisdiction | May be FDP or not subject | Gates A–D first |
| Treat FDP as a de minimis percentage | Different legal test | Two diagrams |
| Paste OFAC 50% into EAR affiliates | Wrong instrument | Confirm current EAR rule; screening page |
| Staff access to U.S. EDA = “no export” | Release / deemed export | Tech-release diagram |
| Keep Section 301 / UFLPA on this URL | Wrong agency | Boundary table |
| Use this page as a news feed | Stale law | US tracker |
Action checklist — EAR analysis intake pack
Send this package so counsel can test jurisdiction and license path. It is not the screening counsel pack.
- Item / software / technology description and version
- U.S. content, U.S. design software or U.S. tooling nexus (or “unknown”)
- BOM or written statement that de minimis cannot be calculated
- Proposed ECCN or “unclassified”
- Destination, consignee, end user, stated end use, installation site
- Whether the act is export, reexport, in-country transfer or technology release
- Any known listing / ownership issue (pointer only)
- Draft license-analysis memo fields and open questions that force a hold
FAQs
Does the EAR apply to a Chinese company with no U.S. office?
It can. Reexport, foreign-produced items (de minimis or FDP) and technology or software release do not require a U.S. office. See jurisdiction.
Can a foreign-made chip still be subject to the EAR?
Yes, if de minimis or an applicable Foreign Direct Product footnote brings it in. See FDP and de minimis.
What is the difference between ECCN and EAR99?
An ECCN is a CCL entry with reasons for control. EAR99 is the residual bucket for items subject to the EAR that are not on the CCL. EAR99 is not a license holiday. See classification.
Does EAR99 need a BIS license for China?
Sometimes. Party-based rules and Part 744 can require a license even when the item is EAR99. See license path.
What is the Foreign Direct Product Rule in one paragraph?
It is a nexus test: specified U.S. technology or software used in foreign production can make the foreign-made item subject to the EAR when product and destination/end-user conditions in the relevant footnote are met. It is not a percentage. See FDP.
Can we rely on a U.S. supplier’s ECCN?
It is an input, not a substitute for classifying your integration, software build or reexport. See the classification comparison table.
When is a CCATS worth filing?
When the technical file cannot support a responsible self-classification, or when a counterparty requires an official determination. A CCATS is not a license.
Is selling to an Entity List customer always prohibited?
The typical entry imposes a license requirement with a presumption of denial for items subject to the EAR — confirm the specific entry. That is not the same as an OFAC blocking. Screening and removal are other pages.
Is cloud access to U.S. software an export?
It can be a release of software or technology. Classify the software and identify who can access it. See technology transfers.
Where do I check this week’s rule changes?
The US Export Control & Sanctions Tracker. This desk stays evergreen.
Source cards (precise instruments)
- Issue: When items, software and technology are subject to the EAR, including certain foreign-produced items.
- Supports: Jurisdiction tree, de minimis and FDP method.
- Use on this page: Gates A–D; calculation and nexus diagrams.
- Limitation: Does not classify an ECCN or grant a license. Confirm current eCFR text, including footnotes.
- Issue: How a license requirement is identified after classification.
- Supports: License-path flowchart and destination stage.
- Use on this page: At-a-glance stages 2–3 and 6.
- Limitation: Country Chart results are date-specific. Do not cache a China “always X” table on this page.
- Issue: Whether an exception is even a candidate and how an application is structured.
- Supports: Exception matrix and SNAP-R field map.
- Use on this page: Authorization stage and timeline.
- Limitation: Many exceptions are unavailable for China or listed parties. Portal day-counts are B1, not a promise.
- Issue: End-use / end-user overlays and the legal effect of a listing.
- Supports: Party-effect and Part 744 matrices.
- Use on this page: Stages 4–5. Live additions belong on the US tracker.
- Limitation: Not a screening SOP and not a removal petition.
- Issue: How a classification request or license application is lodged.
- Supports: Procedural timeline only.
- Use on this page: T1–T3.
- Limitation: A filing is not a legal conclusion. Follow current BIS instructions.
Selected official starting points: eCFR EAR (15 C.F.R. Parts 730–774) · BIS EAR page · BIS licensing · CLP primary-source library.
Evidence grades: A1 statute/regulation · A2 official list/CCL entry · A3 agency FAQ · B1 official portal · B2 program guidance (ECP page) · C1 practitioner note only · D unsourced web — not used for outcomes.
Find U.S. export-controls counsel
Use the EAR intake pack above. Listings are a starting point, not a license determination.
General information for planning and counsel engagement — not legal advice and not a license, NLR or classification determination. Confirm current primary sources at transaction time. Last reviewed: 16 August 2026 · China Legal Portal Editorial
Attribution
Reviewed by Kathrine Boer, Boer & Hendricks, LLP (Houston). Advises multinationals and Chinese outbound investors on OFAC sanctions, EAR/ITAR themes, ECCN classification, licensing and export compliance programme design. View directory profile →
Review tier: Reviewed by — accuracy review of drafts for orientation only. Content remains general information — not legal advice for a specific matter, and no attorney–client relationship is created by reading these pages.
Last reviewed: August 2026 · Related: Primary sources · Outbound decision hub.
Discussion
Share experience or questions about this topic. This is a public discussion — not legal advice. Do not post confidential case details.
Have a question after reading? Leave it here, or Ask a Lawyer for a free initial intake.
Comments are moderated. China Legal Portal is a directory and information resource; no attorney–client relationship is formed by posting here.
