Editorial
When a company needs to determine the export control status of a product, one of its first instincts is often to ask the supplier.
The answer sometimes comes quickly: “This product is not controlled.” Or, in the case of a US supplier: “ECCN: EAR99.”
This information is useful. But what does it actually allow us to conclude?
We encounter this situation regularly: a supplier’s classification gradually comes to be regarded as the product’s classification, without always checking which regulatory framework it relates to or the precise scope of the analysis performed.
For a French company, our first question will therefore generally be: what is this product’s status under the applicable EU regulations?
The case
Consider a French SME developing a piece of equipment intended for sale in France and internationally. The equipment incorporates several components purchased from European and US suppliers.
To prepare for future exports, the company asks its main suppliers to provide the export classifications of their products.
“Product not listed as a dual-use item.”
“EAR99.”
The company therefore has two pieces of information that appear reassuring. Can it conclude that its equipment raises no particular export control issues?
Not yet.
Five questions we ask first
Here are the questions we would ask before reaching that conclusion.
Under which regulations did the supplier classify the product?
An export classification is not universal. For a French company, the analysis should notably determine whether the product is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/821 on dual-use items. A US supplier, for its part, may provide a classification under the US Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
These two pieces of information relate to different regulatory frameworks.
Stating that a product is EAR99 is not, by itself, enough to determine its status under EU dual-use regulations. Conversely, an EU analysis does not necessarily remove the need to consider whether foreign regulations may apply.
What exactly does ‘not listed as a dual-use item’ mean?
This description is common, but:
- What is it based on?
- Did the supplier actually compare the product’s technical characteristics with the criteria in Annex I?
- Which version or configuration of the product was analysed?
- Is the analysis recent?
- Is there a document providing an audit trail?
For the company that will have to justify its own export decision, the key question remains: what evidence supports this conclusion?
What if the supplier states EAR99?
EAR99 is also often interpreted as meaning: “no export control issue”. That is not what this classification means.
In simplified terms, EAR99 indicates that an item subject to the EAR is not specifically listed on the Commerce Control List. It does not mean that every transaction involving that item is automatically free of restrictions.
This is why we always distinguish between two questions:
- What is my supplier telling me?
- What regulatory analysis do I need for my transaction?
Are the component and the finished equipment the same thing?
The suppliers classified their components, but the French company will export its own equipment. The characteristics and functions of the finished product must therefore be analysed to determine whether they meet any applicable control criteria.
The classifications of the components are input data. They do not necessarily replace the analysis of the product into which those components are incorporated.
Does ‘not listed’ mean the analysis is complete?
No. Product classification is an essential step, but it is not the whole export compliance analysis. Depending on the proposed transaction, the analysis will also need to consider, in particular: the destination, the end user, the end use, and any restrictive measures or other applicable provisions.
A non-listed product does not necessarily mean an unrestricted transaction.
The method
When a supplier provides a classification, we first seek to understand what it means before using it. Our reasoning can be summarised as follows:
- Exact product and configuration
- Applicable regulatory framework
- Technical evidence supporting the classification
- Product status under other applicable frameworks
- Analysis of the equipment or technology actually exported
- Destination, end user, end use
- Documented export decision
This approach helps avoid a fairly simple mistake: turning supplier information into a regulatory conclusion.
The reflex
When you receive a classification from a supplier, do not retain only the statement. Wherever possible, also retain:
- the exact product reference and version;
- the regulations under which it was analysed;
- the date of the classification;
- the technical characteristics used;
- the identity or source of the information;
- any supporting documents.
The value of a classification also depends on your ability to trace why it was adopted.
Takeaways
A supplier classification is input data. It is not automatically your compliance conclusion.
For a French company, receiving a US classification does not automatically answer the question of the product’s status under EU dual-use regulations.
Nor does ‘not listed as a dual-use item’ remove the need to understand how that conclusion was reached.
Before asking “What is the classification of this product?”, ask: “Under which regulations?”
Radar Returns 10 Nov 2026
US Affiliates Rule: screening a company name may soon no longer be enough
The BIS Affiliates Rule is currently suspended, but its provisions are scheduled to return on 10 November 2026 unless the suspension is extended or the rule is amended.
Under the rule, an entity may become subject to Entity List or Military End-User List restrictions even if it does not itself appear on either list. The restrictions may apply where it is owned, directly or indirectly and individually or in aggregate, 50% or more by one or more listed entities.
Who is affected? Companies exporting, reexporting or transferring items subject to the EAR, including European companies incorporating US-origin components, software or technology into aerospace, defence, space, nuclear or other dual-use products.
What action should be taken? Do not rely solely on screening the names of customers, distributors and other transaction parties. Identify where ownership information will be required, determine how it will be collected and verified, and prepare to update screening procedures before 10 November 2026.
Status as of 1 October 2026.
Advisory only — not legal advice.