| TLDR
The Export Control (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2025 broaden UK controls on emerging technologies, dual-use goods, and sensitive items. Enforcement is tightening, and liability increasingly touches third parties and digital operations. Boardrooms should treat export control governance as a strategic, enterprise-wide responsibility to reduce risk and maintain market access. |
The UK’s export control landscape is entering a period of accelerated change.
In December 2025, the government brought forward amendments to the UK’s strategic export control framework; updates designed to align with international commitments, emerging technology controls, and recent EU regulatory changes.
Simultaneously, a UK exporter was recently obliged to pay a £620,515.04 compound settlement for unlicensed military exports, serving as a stark reminder that enforcement sits at the centre of the UK’s trade compliance strategy.
Individually, these developments are significant; together, they signal a clear shift towards more controls, more regulatory scrutiny, and higher expectations of internal governance.
Why this mattersUK exporters now face a wider regulatory perimeter: from EU-aligned dual-use rules to updates on Armenia and Azerbaijan, unlicensed exports can trigger substantial penalties. Companies that integrate oversight into boardroom-level decision-making – mapping third-party access, digital interactions, and supply chain interfaces – safeguard operations, protect reputation, and ensure business continuity in high-risk markets. |
→ Borders for the Boardroom: Being proactive at the border
Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music
What the new export control amendments change
According to the UK government’s advance notice (NTE 2025/29), the regulations will introduce several structural updates to modernise the regime. Key changes include:
- Alignment with EU Dual-Use Regulation.
-
- Certain emerging technologies and dual-use items will move from Schedule 3 of the Export Control Order 2008 to Annex I of the (assimilated) Dual-Use Regulation.
- This prevents duplication of controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- Revised controls linked to torture and capital punishment.
-
- Updates to Annexes II and III of the assimilated Torture Goods Regulation to mirror EU Regulation 2019/125.
- Policy changes affecting Armenia and Azerbaijan.
-
- Following the lifting of the UK arms embargo, Schedule 4 will be updated while retaining transit controls for certain goods.
- International regime consistency.
-
- Several control entries will be refined, to ensure alignment with multilateral control regimes.
Enforcement in practice
A £620k reminder
On 1 December 2025, HMRC announced that a UK exporter had paid £620,515.04 in relation to unlicensed exports of military-listed goods.
This compound settlement was offered only because:
HMRC Criteria |
Explanation |
| Inadvertent breach | Internal control failures, not deliberate evasion |
| Voluntary disclosure | The company proactively informed HMRC |
The case underscores a key message – weak internal controls represent material financial and regulatory risk.
Corporate implications and takeaways
For UK exporters, the combined effect of tighter controls and stricter enforcement reaches well beyond export compliance teams. The 2025 updates widen the scope of what counts as a controlled activity (especially for dual-use and emerging technologies), meaning businesses may suddenly fall within licensing requirements they previously didn’t consider relevant. This elevates the issue to a governance priority: boardrooms must be confident they understand where export control exposure sits across products, partners, and digital operations.
For instance, consider a (hypothetical) UK-based AI company that uses an EU contract manufacturer, a US cloud platform for testing, and a research partner in Armenia. Before the amendments, the firm may have considered itself “low-risk.” But the migration of new items into Annex I, changing geopolitical rules, and the involvement of third-party logistics now create new licensing obligations and potential diversion pathways. The business hasn’t changed, but the regulatory perimeter around it has.
The core implication is that risk sits in the interfaces: between engineering and procurement, between digital access and physical exports, between suppliers and logistics routes. Understanding who touches sensitive technology, where it transits, and how third parties operate is now operation-critical. Strong governance ownership, clear escalation routes, and the ability to evidence “reasonable knowledge” will increasingly determine whether companies avoid disruption and costly settlements.
What UK Exporters Should Do NowA practical response would include: |
Confirm whether products are affected by the Annex I migration. |
Assess exposure to Armenia/Azerbaijan and any transit-control implications. |
Validate record-keeping, screening, and export licensing workflows. |
Ensure the organisation has a structured escalation pathway if issues emerge. |
Looking ahead: strong governance becoming the differentiator
The direction of travel is unmistakable: tighter controls, broader technology coverage, and more assertive enforcement. Exporters who treat compliance as an operational formality will, increasingly, find themselves exposed. Meanwhile, those who adopt a governance-led, risk-tiered approach – integrating legal, trade, HR, security, and supply-chain disciplines – will be better placed to navigate the next wave of regulatory changes.
Now is the moment for boardrooms and senior business leaders to ask a key question: Are our export control systems built for the regime we have… or for the one that’s incoming?
For trade advisory tailored to your business, contact clearBorder today →
