By: Jay Nash
Your company exports dual-use items (goods or technologies) from Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent State (CIS) countries (including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan). Your items already have been classified according to the U.S. Commerce Control List (CCL) (or the 2012 EU “List of Dual-Use Items”), and you want to know, in general, whether those ECCNs/classifications would be the same in those CIS countries, and if they could be used to determine when you would need a license to export those items.
A U.S. ECCN or a classification in accordance with the EU “List of Dual-Use Items” for a given item may provide an indication that the item is subject to control in CIS countries in some cases, but in many cases it cannot. Several CIS countries, including Russia, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan, employ a unique classification numbering system for export controlled items, while others pattern their national control lists after (or have adopted wholesale) the European Union’s (EU) “List of Dual-Use Items.” Even the CIS countries that pattern their control lists after the EU may have discrepancies with the U.S. CCL, the EU “List of Dual-Use Items” and amongst each other.
In the case of CIS countries that pattern their control lists after the EU “List of Dual-Use Items”-such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia-it is possible that a U.S. ECCN or EU classification for a given item will be close to the item classification number for the same item in those countries. Even then, however, one would need to account for any discrepancies that may still exist between entries in the U.S. CCL and the 2012 EU “List of Dual-Use Items” (the technical parameters of entries on the U.S. CCL may be more detailed or altogether different than corresponding entries on the 2012 EU “List of Dual-Use Items”) and between the control lists of those countries and the 2012 EU “List of Dual-Use Items.” The control lists of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia each have unique characteristics that may lead to discrepancies between them and the U.S. CCL and 2012 version of the EU “List of Dual-Use Items.” For example, Ukraine separates its listings of dual-use items into five distinct control lists (conventional dual-use, chemical-related, biological-related, missile dual-use and nuclear-related), does not assign five-digit alpha numeric classification codes to all of the items on all of its lists and updates its lists at different times so that some of the five lists are less current than the current EU “List of Dual-Use Items”, while others (such as the Missile Dual-Use List) have been updated more recently than the EU list. Kazakhstan’s control list was last updated in 2008, whereby the entries on that list do not completely correspond with those of the EU 2012 “List of Dual-Use Items” or the current U.S. CCL. Azerbaijan’s control list employs a five-digit alpha numeric classification coding system that is similar to that of the EU “List of Dual-Use Items”; however, it does not appear to have been updated since it was issued in 2006. Finally, Armenia’s control list was last updated in 2011, and it includes some categories of unilaterally-controlled items.
The following is one example that demonstrates some of the similarities and differences between the classification of an item according to the U.S. CCL and the EU “List of Dual-Use Items” and the control lists of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia:
Even though the control lists of Russia, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan cover many of the same goods and technologies as the U.S. CCL and the EU “List of Dual-Use Items,” the item classification numbering systems utilized in those lists are quite different, making it more difficult to correlate U.S./EU item classifications with classifications in those three CIS countries. To date, Russia, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan have used item classification codes largely derived from the six (1. biological, 2. chemical, 3. nuclear, 4. nuclear dual-use, 5. missile-related and 6. conventional dual-use) Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) “Model Lists” of goods and technologies subject to export control. Each of those lists employs a simple numerical categorization and classification system (e.g. 1.1.1., 2.3.2, etc.). Together those six lists cover many of the same items as the U.S. CCL and the EU “List of Dual-Use Goods,” because they are drawn from the control lists published by the four major multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement), which the U.S. and EU lists are based on as well. Russia’s and Belarus’ lists are the most similar and comprehensive among the CIS countries following the EurAsEC “Model Lists” (as a result of their Customs Union relationship); Kyrgyzstan’s current control list (last updated in 2010) does not include all of the items that are on Russia’s and Belarus’ lists. Uzbekistan has a very simple list that only includes a handful of categories of controlled items, identified by their Foreign Economic Activity Commodity Nomenclature (FEACN – the customs commodity classification coding system employed by the Customs Union and several other CIS countries), and it bears no real semblance to the U.S./EU, or even Russia, etc. control lists.
The following example demonstrates the differences between the classification of an item according to the U.S./EU control lists and those of Russia/Belarus/Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan:
Summary Points and Looking Ahead
The above example comparing the classifications of a machine tool/lathe across the U.S., EU, and CIS country export control systems is just one of hundreds, and each one might produce a different combination of results. In this case (U.S. ECCN 2B001.a), we find:
• Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan having the same item classification number and technical specifications as the 2012 EU “List of Dual-Use Items,” but, as a result, a lower technical threshold than the comparable U.S. CCL entry;
• Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus having the same technical specifications for their respective machine tool/lathe control lists entries (with a technical threshold that is lower than that of the comparable U.S. CCL entry, but higher than that of the EU “List of Dual-Use Items”), but different item classification numbers-with Russia and Belarus using the EurAsEC-based numbering system and Ukraine using a U.S./EU-based numbering-and
• Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan currently not listing the item.
The technical specifications of comparable entries may be closer or the same across the control lists of the countries discussed herein (but for Uzbekistan) in the case of other items, particularly those on the Nuclear Suppliers Group lists given. Moreover, they may become more similar going forward as more countries work to align the items on their national control lists entries more precisely with those of the multilateral export control regime lists. However, the differences in item classification numbers between the U.S./EU and CIS countries (and even among CIS countries) may increase going forward, as some CIS countries (such as Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia) look to streamline their export control systems with the expansion of the Customs Union and formation of the Eurasian Economic Union, while others (such as Ukraine and Azerbaijan) continue to lean more towards the West, both in terms of economics and export controls. Whatever the case, it may be very beneficial for companies dealing in potentially controlled items in or with CIS countries to classify their items in accordance with the control lists of each country they are operating and monitor developments in CIS country control lists going forward.