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