Applied Materials to pay $252.5M for EAR violations after BIS rejects "substantial transformation" arguments.
On February 12, 2026, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) made a massive statement: moving your assembly process to another country will not magically cleanse your products of U.S. export controls.
Applied Materials (AMAT) and its South Korean subsidiary agreed to pay a staggering $252.5 million penalty. The charge? 56 violations tied to the unlicensed reexport of U.S.-origin ion implanting equipment to SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation) and its affiliates in China.
"This action makes clear that companies cannot use overseas subsidiaries or 'dual-build' manufacturing processes to circumvent U.S. export controls and supply restricted technology to entities of concern."BIS Statement
The core of the issue was AMAT's "dual-build" process in South Korea. The company argued that assembling the equipment in South Korea resulted in a "substantial transformation," effectively changing the origin of the item. BIS categorically rejected this, stating that "substantial transformation" was the wrong legal test under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
Under the EAR, a foreign-made item that incorporates controlled U.S.-origin parts, components, or materials is subject to U.S. export controls if the U.S. content exceeds certain de minimis thresholds. Assembling parts is not a compliance loophole.
If your organization relies on offshore manufacturing or assembly, you need to re-evaluate your compliance posture immediately.
Just because final assembly happens abroad doesn't mean U.S. export controls disappear. You must meticulously track the origin of every component.
The equipment ultimately went to SMIC. You are responsible for knowing who is ultimately using your products, regardless of the routing.
AMAT relied on an internal legal interpretation that BIS rejected. External legal counsel and strict adherence to EAR guidelines are non-negotiable.
As global supply chains become more scrutinized, knowing exactly who is touching your restricted data, physical sites, and product components is vital. This is no longer just a legal issue; it's an operational one.
At SecurePoint, we build systems designed to restrict unauthorized access and track compliance at every step. From visitor logs and ID checks to recording who was approved for access, we help you keep an audit trail of who was screened, approved, and escorted.
Occasional notes on sanctions, export controls, and visitor compliance when we publish them.
Get occasional notes on sanctions, export controls, and visitor compliance when we publish them.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Related posts
More guidance on sanctions, export controls, and visitor management for regulated facilities.
Printing 'ITAR Compliant' on a paper visitor book does not meet export-control recordkeeping. Why defense contractors digitize visitor screening and access records.
A practical, regulation-grounded guide to ITAR visitor requirements, EAR overlap, screening controls, and audit-ready evidence for defense contractors.
DDTC’s Precision Castparts enforcement action shows why aerospace and defense companies need stronger export compliance controls, technical data access review, and audit-ready evidence.
