June 24, according to Reuters, the US Department of Commerce long Wilbur Ross on Tuesday said the US government announced in May this year considered for Huawei no loopholes new export control rules, and “positive” stop Any method that violates the intention of containment. In addition, he also revealed that this month has issued a guide to Huawei’s new regulations for semiconductor companies.
On the evening of May 15 this year, on the first anniversary of Huawei’s inclusion in the “entity list” for export control by the US Department of Commerce, the United States again upgraded its control measures against Huawei, that is, without obtaining a US license, Huawei would not be able to Use US-based chip design software, and wafer foundries such as TSMC will not be able to use US-based semiconductor equipment for Huawei OEM chips. This also makes the design and manufacture of Huawei’s self-developed chips subject to further restrictions.
However, many semiconductor companies, lawyers, and some lawmakers believe that the rule is too complex, unclear, and has loopholes, and some people claim that key transactions are beyond the control.
In this regard, Ross said in a statement to Reuters: “The US Department of Commerce believes that this rule does not have any loopholes.” “We reiterate that we will actively implement the rule and curb any attempts to evade its sanctions.”
Reuters reported that the US Department of Commerce has sent letters to certain semiconductor designers and manufacturers this month to further clarify this requirement. But industry lawyers said the guidance was unclear.
The US Department of Commerce Matthew Borman said: “The Department of Commerce reminds you of the recent amendments to the “US Export Administration Regulations… This may affect your possible business with HiSilicon, Huawei Technologies, and other Huawei branches”. The official wrote in a letter dated June 16.
Trade lawyer Doug Jacobson told Reuters that the letter of June 16 merely translated legal terminology into popular text, but did not propose new explanations for the new regulations. The US Department of Commerce declined to comment on the letter.
