Red light or Red flag
The customer or purchasing agent is vague, evasive, or inconsistent in providing information about the end-use of a product.
A request for equipment configuration is incompatible with the stated ultimate destination (e.g., 120 volts for a country with 220 volts).
The product ordered is incompatible with the technical level of the country to which the product is being shipped. For example, semiconductor manufacturing equipment would be of little use in a country without an electronics industry.
The customer is willing to pay cash for an expensive item when the normal practice in this business would involve financing.
The customer is unfamiliar with the product’s performance characteristics, but still wants the product.
Installation, testing, training, or maintenance services are declined by the customer, even though these services are included in the sales price or ordinarily requested for the item involved.
Terms of delivery, such as date, location, and consignee, are vague or unexpectedly changed, or delivery is planned for an out-of-the-way destination.
The address of the ultimate consignee, as listed on the airway bill or bill of lading, indicates that it is in a free trade zone.
The ultimate consignee, as listed on the airway bill or bill of lading, is a freight forwarding firm, a trading company, a shipping company or a bank, unless it is apparent that the ultimate consignee is also the end-user or the end-user is otherwise identified on the airway bill or bill of lading.
The shipping route is abnormal for the product and destination. Packaging is inconsistent with the stated method of shipment or destination. When questioned, the buyer is evasive or unclear about whether the purchased product is for domestic use, export or reexport.
The customer uses an address that is inconsistent with standard business practices in the area (e.g., a P.O. Box address where street addresses are commonly used).
The customer does not have facilities that are appropriate for the items ordered or end-use stated.
The customer’s order is for parts known to be inappropriate or for which the customer appears to have no legitimate need (e.g., there is no indication of prior authorized shipment of system for which the parts are sought).
The customer is known to have or is suspected of having dealings with embargoed countries.
The transaction involves a party on the published by BIS in the Federal Register.
The product into which the exported item is to be incorporated bears unique designs or marks that indicate an embargoed destination or one other than the customer has claimed.
The customer gives different spellings of its name for different shipments, which can suggest that the customer is disguising its identity and/or the nature and extent of its procurement activities.
The requested terms of sale, such as product specification and calibration, suggest a destination or end-use other than what is claimed (e.g., equipment that is calibrated for a specific altitude that differs from the altitude of the claimed destination).
The customer provides information or documentation related to the transaction that you suspect is false, or requests that you provide documentation that you suspect is false.
According to an official with the Office of Exporter Services, the comment period for this rule proposal is now closed and agency officials are reviewing comments. No date has yet been set for the final publication and implementation of the rule.