BIS Fines Teledyne FLIR $1 Million For Unlicensed China-Related Thermal Camera Exports And De Minimis Miscalculations

On February 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") reached an administrative enforcement settlement with Teledyne FLIR LLC and its affiliates FLIR Optoelectronic Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. and Teledyne FLIR Commercial Systems, Inc. d/b/a Teledyne FLIR OEM, (together, "Teledyne FLIR"), imposing a $1,000,000 civil penalty to resolve alleged violations of the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR").

According to BIS, Teledyne FLIR voluntarily self-disclosed 19 alleged violations between 2017 and 2024 tied to exports, reexports, and related conduct involving thermal imaging cameras under export control classification numbers ("ECCN") 6A003 and 6A993.a. The penalties broke into four types of violations:

• Causation: BIS alleged that Teledyne FLIR caused nine exports from abroad of ECCN 6A003 thermal imaging cameras from a Swedish affiliate to China without required BIS authorization, based in part on incorrect calculations under the EAR's de minimis rule in 15 C.F.R. Part 734.
• Evasion: BIS alleged an evasion-related fact pattern involving a 2018 collaboration with a Chinese drone manufacturer concerning the Zenmuse XT2, a project involving the integration of a FLIR camera for use with civilian drones. This evasion scheme consisted of a pricing structure that BIS alleged was designed to keep U.S.-controlled content below the de minimis threshold and did not reflect the fair market value of the items.
• Failure to Keep Records: BIS alleged failures to comply with license-condition recordkeeping requirements for certain demonstrations by the Shanghai affiliate.
• Exports to Entity List Address: BIS alleged eight unlicensed exports of ECCN 6A993.a thermal cameras to company included on the Entity List for being an "address only" company (i.e., part of a shell company). Under EAR § 744.16, a license was required for exports of any items listed on the Commerce Control List.

This action is a useful reminder that conducting a "de minimis" analysis is not a box-checking exercise and can be more complicated that it seems. When you assess the valuation of the controlled U.S.-origin item, it should reflect the fair market value of that item when it was exported from the United States and account for items customarily included (and actually shipped) with the controlled U.S.-origin item. BIS can view any attempts to "engineer" pricing to fall below the applicable de minimis thresholds as an evasion violation.

The settlement also underscores that exporters should not rely solely on name-based denied-party screening; address-only Entity List entries require address-level controls and, often, manual review. Companies should be sure that their screening providers both screen for these address-only Entity List entries and that their algorithms and fuzzy logic appropriately capture those addresses.

Lastly, the settlement is a good reminder that companies should be mindful of all license requirements and have in place disciplined recordkeeping processes when authorizations are obtained. Without these controls, U.S. export violations can quickly multiply.

Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor developments related to export control enforcement actions and their potential impact to industry.