EXTRANCHECK: PRE-LICENSE CHECK: BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH

UNCLAS NEW DELHI 008185 SIPDIS SIPDIS USDOC FOR 532/OEA/M. NICKSON-DORSEY/JAY HATFIELD USDOC FOR 3131/USFCS/OIO/ANESA/KREISSL USDOC FOR 4530/MAC/ANESA/OSA ICE HQ FOR STRATEGIC INVESTIGATIONS STATE FOR EB/ESP E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETTC ETRD BEXP IN SUBJECT: EXTRANCHECK: PRE-LICENSE CHECK: BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTER, MUMBAI, LICENSE NO. D364271 REF: USDOC 05623 ¶1. Unauthorized disclosure of the information provided below is prohibited by Section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act. ¶2. BIS requested a Pre-license Check (PLC) at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC),under the GOI's Department of Atomic Energy, website: www.barc.ernet.in. BARC was listed as the Ultimate Consignee and Horiba Jobin Yvon SAS, Z.I. as the Foreign Purchaser and Intermediate Consignee for one Model Fluoromax Spectrofluorometer controlled under ECCN 3A999. The license applicant was Horiba Jobin Yvon (Horiba),Edison, NJ. ¶3. On October 13, 2006, ECO sent a formal request to Deputy Secretary (AMS) Viraj Singh (Singh),GOI Ministry of External SIPDIS Affairs (MEA) to set up a PLC at BARC for a Spectrofluorometer, ordered by BARC for scientific research in protein crystallography. In the third week of October Singh was transferred to another MEA Division and Under Secretary (AMS) Prashant Agrawal (Agrawal) replaced Singh. ¶4. On November 13, 2006, ECO contacted Agrawal informing him that the BARC PLC request had passed the 4-week deadline per the End Use Visit Arrangement (EUVA). Agrawal stated that the BARC officials informed him that the equipment is not of U.S.-origin and inquired why a USG official was required to conduct an EUV for this transaction. On November 15, 2006, to address BARC officials concerns, ECO gave a copy Part 734.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) detailing what falls within U.S. jurisdiction. On November 20, 2006, ECO again sent an email reminding Agrawal that the visit is 38 days past the EUVA deadline. Unless ECO has a confirmed date for the visit soon, the PLC recommendation would likely be deemed unfavorable. ¶5. On November 22, 2006, Agrawal sent an email to ECO Quote: About BARC PLC, I had conveyed to you the impression of BARC authorities that the equipment was not being sourced from the U.S. You had shown me some clauses indicating in which all circumstances licenses are required. Would appreciate if you can share that with us, so that it can be taken up with BARC End Quote. On November 22, 2006, ECO again sent an email reminding Agrawal that the information sought was already given to him on November 15, 2006. ¶6. On December 2, 2006 while conducting a PLC at a GOI PSU in Gujarat, ECO again brought up the BARC PLC issue with Agrawal and insisted that BIS requires a response in writing from both BARC and MEA. Agrawal stated that he has received a response from BARC and they are still maintaining the same stand the PLC is not required by USG officials. Agrawal stated that he is departing for the U.S. on official business on December 5, 2006 for two weeks and will forward the BARC response to BIS upon his return. ¶7. Recommendation: Based on MEA email stating that BARC is not permitting an EUV for this transaction, the Pre-license Check remains unfavorable. (MKRUFE) Mulford