China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

How China Customs Enforces the Export Control Law

Sun, 23 Oct 2022
Categories: Insights

avatar

 

Key takeaways:

  • Under China’s Export Control Law, which came into effect in December 2020, the Chinese government exercises export control over dual-use items, military products, nuclear materials and other goods, technologies, services and other items that are related to the protection of national security and interests and the fulfillment of non-proliferation or other international obligations.
  • From September 2021 to April 2022, Tianjin Xingang Customs rendered China’s first batch of ECL-related administrative penalty decisions against seven trading companies.
  • The companies subject to administrative penalties are located across China, indicating that not enough attention has been paid by exporters to export control compliance on a nationwide basis.

China’s Export Control Law (the “ECL”) came into effect on 1 Dec. 2020. As it has been almost two years since its implementation, it’s time for us to glimpse how China enforces the ECL.

I. Which one is the ECL enforcement authority?

Pursuant to the ECL, the Chinese government exercises export control over dual-use items, military products, nuclear materials and other goods, technologies, services and other items that are related to the protection of national security and interests and the fulfillment of non-proliferation or other international obligations. (hereinafter referred to as “Controlled Items”). Exporters who violate export control measures will face administrative punishment from law enforcement authorities.

The competent law enforcement authority refers to the state export control authorities. Specifically, in accordance with the White Paper on China’s Export Control released by the Chinese government, the state export control authorities include the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the General Administration of Customs, the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence, the China Atomic Energy Authority and the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission.

The Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence, the China Atomic Energy Authority and the Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission are respectively responsible for the law enforcement of Controlled Items in different fields, while the General Administration of Customs is responsible for supervising the export of Controlled Items.

As the export process is the core of the ECL, we can know the ECL enforcement from the Customs enforcement.

II. The first batch of administrative penalty decisions rendered by China’s Customs

From September 2021 to April 2022, China’s Tianjin Xingang Customs made seven administrative penalty decisions in accordance with the ECL. It’s the first batch of cases related to China’s Customs enforcement of the ECL, whose characteristics are as follows:

1. It is the same customs office, Tianjin Xingang Customs, that makes the administrative penalty decision.

According to Alphaliner, Tianjin Port ranks the sixth largest port in China and the eighth largest in the world in 2021.

Other customs offices in Tianjin and customs offices across the country have yet to announce any administrative penalty decisions made in accordance with the ECL.

The General Administration of Customs once issued a circular, requiring all customs offices to “undertake the duties of supervising goods under export control and punishing illegal acts concerning export control in accordance with the law” and “strictly investigate and deal with illegal acts concerning export control under the jurisdiction of the customs offices”. Therefore, other Chinese customs offices are or have been performing their duties of supervision and investigation under the ECL.

As the enforcement process rolls out, it is likely for us to find more administrative penalty decisions for conducts in violation of the ECL in the future.

2. The Customs make their penalty decisions in accordance with Article 34 of the ECL.

This means that exporters may be punished for any of the following acts:

(1) exporting Controlled Items without the relevant license;

(2) exporting Controlled Items beyond the scope specified in the export license; or

(3) exporting Controlled Items, the export of which is prohibited.

3. The companies subject to administrative penalties are located across China.

The companies subject to administrative penalties are mainly from six provinces and cities, including Jiangxi, Shandong, Hebei, Jiangsu, Henan and Shanghai, which indicates that not enough attention has been paid by exporters to export control compliance on a nationwide basis.

4. All but one of the six cases involved the same Controlled Item.

That is artificial graphite.

According to the administrative penalty decisions, exporters declared the product as graphite petroleum coke or calcined petroleum coke when they made customs declaration. The decisions did not mention whether the exporter had adopted disguise, false report, or any other means to evade supervision. Judging from the penalties, we cannot exclude the possibility that the exporter simply failed to classify the products correctly and thus did not know that the exported products were Controlled Items.

5. All illegal acts involved are defined as the “export of Controlled Items without a license”.

Such act is one of the nine types of export control violations under the ECL.

The nine types of illegal activities related to export control include:

(1) the exporter is engaged in the export of a controlled item without accreditation thereof;

(2) the exporter exports any controlled item without a license;

(3) the exporter exports a controlled item beyond the scope set forth in the export license;

(4) the exporter exports an item that is prohibited to export;

(5) the license for the export of any controlled item is obtained by fraud, bribery, or any other improper means, or is illegally transferred,

(6) a license for the export of any controlled item is forged, altered, or traded,

(7) the subjects provide the exporter with agency, freight, delivery, customs declaration, third-party e-commerce trading platform, financial, or other services even with the knowledge of an exporter’s violation of export control laws;

(8) the exporter trades with any importer or end-user on the blacklist in violation of the law; and

(9) the exporter refuses to accept or obstructs an inspection.

6. Most of the companies subject to administrative penalties are trading companies.

With the exception of one company whose business scope is unknown, the companies subject to administrative penalty are all trading companies and not manufacturing enterprises.

7. Administrative penalties are relatively light.

The Customs imposed mitigation of penalties on all the seven companies, i.e. the penalty amount is determined below the statutory penalty range. In addition, the Customs did not confiscate any illegal income from the seven companies.

We believe that since the ECL has been implemented for such a short period, China’s Customs authorities are generally inclined to impose a lighter or mitigated punishment for export control violations, especially first-time violations without seriously harmful consequences.

 

 

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋

Save as PDF

You might also like

China’s Wenzhou Court Recognizes a Singapore Monetary Judgment

In 2022, a local Chinese court in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, ruled to recognize and enforce a monetary judgment made by the Singapore State Courts, as highlighted in one of the typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recently released by China’s Supreme People’s Court (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No.4).

Legal Crossroads: Canadian Court Denies Summary Judgment for Chinese Judgment Recognition When Faced with Parallel Proceedings

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Canada refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese monetary judgment in the context of two parallel proceedings in Canada, indicating that the two proceedings should proceed together as there was factual and legal overlap, and triable issues involved defenses of natural justice and public policy (Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Fasteners & Fittings Inc. 2022 ONSC 279).

Chinese Civil Settlement Statements: Enforceable in Singapore?

In 2016, the Singapore High Court refused to grant summary judgment to enforce a Chinese civil settlement statement, citing uncertainty about the nature of such settlement statements, also known as ‘(civil) mediation judgments’ (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).

China's MOFCOM Updates Graphite Export Controls

In October 2023, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) announced updated export controls on graphite items, effective December 1, 2023, with restrictions on high-sensitivity categories and the lifting of temporary controls on low-sensitivity graphite items.

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (B) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (3)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on how conflicts of jurisdiction are resolved through mechanisms such as lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens.

What’s New for China’s Rules on International Civil Jurisdiction? (A) - Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (2)

The Fifth Amendment (2023) to the PRC Civil Procedure Law has opened a new chapter on international civil jurisdiction rules in China, covering four types of jurisdictional grounds, parallel proceedings, lis alibi pendens, and forum non conveniens. This post focuses on the four types of jurisdictional grounds, namely special jurisdiction, jurisdiction by agreement, jurisdiction by submission, and exclusive jurisdiction.

China 2022 Overseas Investment: 47K Enterprises, USD 3.5T Revenue

In September 2023, the “2022 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment” was released, showing that in the year of 2022, China's overseas investment reached 47,000 enterprises, contributing USD 75 billion in taxes and achieving USD 3.5 trillion in sales revenue.