Specifically, the aggregate historical transaction amount with the customer designated on the SDN List was less than RMB50,000, and no transactions have been conducted with such SDN-listed customer since May 2022.
Business · p. 161
The aggregate historical transaction amount with the supplier designated on the SDN List was less than RMB60,000 and we ceased to conduct transactions with SDN-listed suppliers as of the Latest Practicable Date.
Business · p. 161
Based on advice from our legal advisor as to international sanctions laws, our Directors are of the view that these transactions did not involve any U.S. nexus and therefore did not constitute U.S. Primary Sanctioned Activity.
Accordingly, even though the Footnote 5 Entity List Foundries are within the end-user scope of the rule, the product scope is not satisfied, and based on information provided by us, our legal adviser as to U.S. outbound investment rules, sanctions and export control laws is of the view that the transfer of the chip design files to the Footnote 5 Entity List Foundries does not require a license from the BIS under the Footnote 5 FDP Rule.
Business · p. 174
Because the Entity List Foundries act as our suppliers, our legal adviser as to U.S. outbound investment rules, sanctions and export control laws has informed us that our procurement of the services from the Entity List Foundries does not, in itself, trigger a license requirement under §744.11.
Business · p. 175
Based on the foregoing and the factual matters described above, and subject to our ongoing implementation of the sanctions compliance measures, our legal adviser as to U.S. outbound investment rules, sanctions and export control laws advised us that our business activities during the Track Record Period did not implicate material risks of U.S. primary or secondary sanctions.
As advised by our PRC Legal Advisor, our products were not subject to export control restrictions under PRC laws and regulations during the Track Record Period and up to the Latest Practicable Date.
Business · p. 139
Based on advice from our legal advisor as to international sanctions laws, during the Track Record Period and up to the Latest Practicable Date, as our products are not of U.S. origin, are not within the U.S., and do not fall within the scope of either the De Minimis Rules (which subject certain foreign-made items to the EAR if they incorporate more than a de minimis level, typically 25%, of controlled U.S.-origin content by value) or the Foreign-Direct Product Rules (which extend EAR jurisdiction to certain foreign-produced items that are the direct product of specified U.S. technology or software), such products are not subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) because none of the criteria set forth under the EAR has been met and, consequently, are not subject to U.S. export licensing requirements, as such licensing requirements under the EAR only apply strictly to items that are subject to the jurisdiction of the EAR.
Business · p. 163
As advised by our legal advisor as to international sanctions laws, during the Track Record Period and as of the Latest Practicable Date, the additional cumulative U.S. tariffs applicable to our products generally ranged from 20% to 37.5%.
As advised by the International Sanctions Legal Advisors, we would not be viewed as a Covered Foreign Person under the Final Rule.
Risk Factors · p. 47
our procurements (and subsequent use in our products) of such Procured Items during the Track Record Period did not represent a violation of the applicable U.S. export controls.
Business · p. 205
As advised by our International Sanctions Legal Advisors, given the aforementioned nature of our transactions with these Entity List Customers, these transactions did not involve any exports or transactions of any items subject to the EAR, and hence did not represent a violation of the applicable U.S. export controls.