;

17-0922 Friday “The Daily Bugle”

17-0922 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 22 September, 2017

TOPThe Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe here for free subscription. Contact us for advertising inquiries and rates.

[No items of interest noted today.]

  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage on 23-24 Sep
  4. DHS/CBP Continues Suspension of Commercial Trade Operations at Juan Area Port Due to Hurricane Maria
  5. State/DDTC Publishes Updated Australian Intermediate Consignees List
  6. Treasury/OFAC Releases New and Updated FAQS and Licenses Concerning North Korea
  7. Treasury/OFAC Reminds Financial Institutions to Submit Annual Report of Blocked Property
  8. White House Releases Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea
  1. Asia Times: “European Union Tries to Curb Tech Transfer to China”
  2. Reuters: “Exclusive: U.S. Defense Firms Want Control over Tech in Make-in-India Plan”
  3. Reuters: “Oberbank Signs Deal to Finance Austrian Projects in Iran”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Trade Policy, AEO, China 301, Origin Ruling, OFAC”
  1. Amber Road: “Extreme Export Violations – Are You In Danger Too?”
  2. M. Volkov Publishes Free Podcasts on Corruption, Crime, and Compliance
  3. R. Walters: “Trump Blocks His First Chinese Acquisition of an American Company”
  4. R.D. Junck, K.D. Krakaur & E. Robertson: “Second Circuit Upholds Prosecutorial Discretion in Deferred Prosecution Agreements”
  5. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  1. Friday List of Approaching Events: 11 New Events Posted This Week
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Jul 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (15 Aug 2017), FACR/OFAC (16 Jun 2017), FTR (19 Apr 2017), HTSUS (25 Jul 2017), ITAR (30 Aug 2017)
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

 
[No items of interest noted today.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11
. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 

* President; EXECUTIVE ORDERS; North Korea; Additional U.S. Sanctions Imposed (EO 13810) [Publication Date: 25 Sep 2017; included in today’s Daily Bugle under “Other Government Sources” section.]
 
* Commerce/BIS; RULES; Entity List: Removals and Revisions of Certain Entities [Publication Date: 25 Sep 2017.]
 
* Commerce/ITA; Meetings: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness [Publication Date: 25 Sep 2017.]
 
* Treasury/OFAC; Notices; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 25 Sep 2017.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a3
3.

DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage on 23-24 Sep

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000605, 22 Sep 2017.)
 
There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, September 23, 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, September 24, 2017 for ACE infrastructure maintenance.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a4
4.

DHS/CBP Continues Suspension of Commercial Trade Operations at Juan Area Port Due to Hurricane Maria

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000603, 22 Sep 2017.)
 
Due to the effects of Hurricane Maria, during the week of September 19, 2017, the commercial trade operations at the San Juan Area Port continue to be suspended until further notice. Updates will be issued accordingly.
 
Below is a list of the ports affected by this local closure:
 
  – 
4901 AGUADILLA, PR
  – 
4904 FAJARDO, PR
  – 
4907 MAYAGUEZ, PR
  – 
4908 PONCE, PR
  – 
4909 SAN JUAN, PR
  – 
4913 LUIS MUÑOZ MARIN – AIR CARGO, PR
 
The port is extending additional days without the assessment of liquidated damages for any entry summaries and payments due from September 22-29, 2017.
 
SAN JUAN AREA PORT Trade Operations POC – Mrs. Leida Colon at: (787) 729-6998.
 
  – Related CSMS# 17-000595.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_aa5
5.

State/DDTC Publishes Updated Australian Intermediate Consignees List

 
DDTC has published an updated list with approved Australian Intermediate Consignees (version: 14 Sep 2017). The list is available here

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a6
6.

Treasury/OFAC Releases New and Updated FAQS and Licenses Concerning North Korea

 
The President has issued a new Executive Order on September 20, 2017 Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea.  OFAC is concurrently releasing new and updated FAQs along with a new General License 10 and an updated General License 3-A.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a7
7.

Treasury/OFAC Reminds Financial Institutions to Submit Annual Report of Blocked Property

(Source: Treasury/OFAC)

On June 30, 2017, OFAC issued a notice reminding financial institutions holding property blocked pursuant to OFAC sanctions regulations published in Chapter V of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the requirement, as outlined in
, to provide OFAC with a comprehensive report on all blocked property held as of June 30 of the current year by September 30.
 
The annual reports must be filed using Form TD F 90-22.50, Annual Report of Blocked Property (ARBP). If your institution holds 20 or more blocked accounts, OFAC recommends, but does not require, supplementing Part B of your ARBP with a spreadsheet along with your completed form. Please send completed forms to OFACReport@treasury.gov. Failure to submit a required report by September 30 constitutes a violation of 31 C.F.R. Part 501 (“Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”).
 
For more information, click here to view OFAC’s Guidance on Filing the ARBP.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a8
8.

White House Releases Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea

EXECUTIVE ORDER: IMPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA
 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191), sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code; and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that:
 
The provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, each of which violated its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six

Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States.
 
In order to take further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders, I hereby find, determine, and order:
 
Section 1.
(a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
 
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
    (i) to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea;
    (ii) to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry;
    (iii) to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology;
    (iv) to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers’ Party of Korea;
    (v) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
    (vi) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
  (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.
  (c) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
  (d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include:
    (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
    (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
 
Sec. 2
. (a) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
  (b) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship

to

ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
  (c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
 
Sec. 3. (a) All funds that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person and that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account that has been determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person, or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
  (b) No United States person, wherever located, may approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by subsection (a) of this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
  (c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
 
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:
    (i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or this order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea

related activities; or
    (ii) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea.
  (b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:
    (i) prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States; or
    (ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
  (c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
  (d) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (b)(ii) of this section.
  (e) The prohibitions in subsection (b)(ii) of this section include:
    (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
    (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
 
Sec. 5
. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is therefore hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
 
Sec. 6
. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
  (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
 
Sec. 7
. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
 
Sec. 8
. For the purposes of this order:
  (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
  (b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
  (c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
  (d) the term “North Korean person” means any North Korean citizen, North Korean permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of North Korea or any jurisdiction within North Korea (including foreign branches). For the purposes of section 1 of this order, the term “North Korean person” shall not include any United States citizen, any permanent resident alien of the United States, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States, or any alien holding a valid United States visa;
  (e) the term “foreign financial institution” means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes, among other entities, depository institutions; banks; savings banks; money service businesses; trust companies; securities brokers and dealers; commodity futures and options brokers and dealers; forward contract and foreign exchange merchants; securities and commodities exchanges; clearing corporations; investment companies; employee benefit plans; dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels; and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
  (f) the term “knowingly,” with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
 
Sec. 9
. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
 
Sec. 10
. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
 
Sec. 11
. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, September 21, 2017.
 
Sec. 12
. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
  DONALD J. TRUMP
  THE WHITE HOUSE,
 
September 20, 2017.
 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

NWS_1
9.

Asia Times: “European Union Tries to Curb Tech Transfer to China”

(Source:
Asia Times, 22 Sep 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
The odds that the European Union and China finalize a bilateral investment agreement in the near future have dropped to almost zero. On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry called on the EU not to move forward with its proposed scheme to vet inbound foreign investment in security-sensitive sectors.
 
The investment-screening framework was advanced by European Commission (EC) President Jean-Claude Juncker on September 13. To be definitely approved, it must be adopted by member states with a qualified majority and by the EU Parliament.
 
Only a dozen EU countries have their own vetting mechanisms for foreign takeovers of local industries. EU institutions aim to prevent state-owned or state-financed foreign enterprises from stealing European know-how, particularly in defense technology, energy infrastructure, semiconductors, automation and robotics. …
 
[Editor’s Note: Due to copyright restrictions, we are not authorized to include the entire article. To read the remaining sections, click on the source link above.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a2
10.

Reuters: “Exclusive: U.S. Defense Firms Want Control over Tech in Make-in-India Plan”

(Source:
Reuters, 19 Sep 2017.)
 
U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.
 
These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.
 
Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Boeing (BA.N) are both bidding to supply combat jets to India’s military, which is running short of hundreds of aircraft as it retires Soviet-era MiG planes, and its own three-decade long effort to produce a domestic jet is hobbled by delays.
 
Lockheed has offered to shift its F-16 production line to India from Fort Worth, Texas, and make it the sole factory worldwide if India orders at least 100 single-engine fighters.
 
The U.S. firm has picked Tata Advanced Systems as its local partner under the defense ministry’s new Strategic Partnership model under which foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can hold up to a 49 percent stake in a joint venture with an Indian private firm which will hold the majority of shares.
 
The US-India Business Council (USIBC) wrote to India’s defense minister last month seeking a guarantee that U.S. firms would retain control over sensitive technology – even as joint venture junior partners.
 
  “Control of proprietary technologies is a major consideration for all companies exploring public and private defense partnerships,” the business lobby, which represents 400 firms, said in the Aug. 3 letter, reviewed by Reuters and previously unreported.
 
  “To allow foreign OEMs to provide the most advanced technologies, the partnership arrangement between an Indian owned ‘strategic partner’ company and a foreign OEM needs to provide an opportunity for the foreign OEM to retain control over its proprietary technology,” it said, noting this wasn’t explicit in the policy document.
 
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
 
Technology transfer is at the heart of Modi’s drive to build a domestic industrial base and cut a reliance on imports that has made India the world’s biggest arms importer in recent years.
 
Without full tech transfer in previous arms deals, India’s mainly state-run defense factories have largely been left to assemble knock-down kits even for tanks and aircraft produced under license from the foreign maker.
 
Modi’s advisers have vowed to change that, insisting on transfer of technology so that critical military equipment are designed and manufactured in India.
 
Benjamin Schwartz, USIBC’s director for defense and aerospace, said the new Indian policy offered a roadmap for establishing partnerships between U.S. and Indian companies, but it raised some questions for the firms.
 
He said he was not in a position to name those companies concerned by the Indian policy, but there was a “general desire to see increased clarity” on several aspects, including the control of proprietary technologies.
 
QUALITY ISSUES
 
The USIBC also opposed a clause in the new rules that held foreign firms jointly responsible for the quality of the platforms provided to the military, saying legal liability is a significant factor in business decisions.
 
  “We recommend the MoD (Ministry of Defence) affirm that foreign OEMs will not be liable for defects outside their company’s control,” the USIBC said.
 
Lockheed did not respond to a request for comment. Boeing, which is bidding for a separate contract to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornets for India’s aircraft carrier fleet, declined to comment on the USIBC letter. But the company’s India president, Pratyush Kumar, told a conference this month there were concerns about Indian private firms’ lack of experience in the aerospace sector.
 
Only state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HIAE.NS) Ltd had made planes under license, while some private players were starting from scratch, having never built even an aircraft component. Kumar said he could not find a single example worldwide of a private enterprise with limited experience building out a plane under transfer of technology.
 
  “Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil – look at multiple countries. In all cases there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise,” Kumar said at a conference organized by the Centre for Air Power Studies, a think-tank of the Indian air force.
 
India’s defense ministry offered no response to the concerns expressed by the trade lobbying group on the strategic partnership model, which will also apply to building submarines and helicopters as part of a $150 billion modernization drive.
 
But an official, referring to sensitive technology, said the government has made clear in the past that foreign firms can be allowed to increase their stake beyond 49 percent if the technology they bring in is state-of-the art.
 
  “It can be done on a case-to-case basis,” the official said.
 
Mukesh Aghi, president of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, said that despite the starting problems, defense manufacturing looked set to be a breakthrough area in ties between India and the United States.
 
  “It’s the next big thing. There is strong support from the (U.S. President Donald) Trump administration to take this forward.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a3
11.

Reuters: “Oberbank Signs Deal to Finance Austrian Projects in Iran”

(Source:
Reuters, 21 Sep 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
Oberbank on Thursday said it had signed a deal with Iran, enabling it to finance new ventures there and making it one of the first European banks to do so since sanctions were eased.
 
The deal Tehran struck in 2015 with six major powers lifted many sanctions against the country in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear activities and paved the way for international business deals.
 
But many banks have stayed away for fear of inadvertently breaking remaining U.S. sanctions, which could lead to huge fines.
 
U.S. President Donald Trump has created new uncertainties over the U.S. stance toward the Iran nuclear agreement. Trump told reporters this week he had made a decision on what to do about the agreement but would not say what he had decided. …
 
Oberbank’s agreement with Iran covers projects by Austrian companies in Iran lasting more than two years in areas that were previously under sanctions. Oberbank already finances exports to Iran in areas such as food.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a4
12.

ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Trade Policy, AEO, China 301, Origin Ruling, OFAC”

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
27 Sept:
  – deadline for requests for judicial review of CBP origin ruling on tablet computers
 
28 Sept:
  – deadline for comments to USTR on Section 301 investigation of China
  – deadline for comments to ITC on potential IPR infringement probe of reusable diapers

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a213
.

Amber Road: “Extreme Export Violations – Are You In Danger Too?”

 
Florida-based freight forwarding company, Access USA Shipping, entered into a $27 million agreement with the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) after admitting it had committed 150 export violations. Unbelievable, since according to Access USA’s homepage, the freight forwarder had previously won not one, but TWO export awards: Think Global’s “Exporter of the Year Award,” as well as the US Department of Commerce’s prestigious “President ‘E’ Award” for exporters.  . . .
 
According to BIS, Access USA settled on “129 counts of evasion, 17 counts of exporting or attempting to export crime control items without the required license, and 4 counts of exporting or attempting to export to a sanctioned entity on the BIS Entity List without the required license.”  Access USA repeatedly misrepresented various items intended for export and deliberately evaded regulatory requirements using a variety of schemes, including, but not limited to:
  – Providing false item descriptions in an attempt to avoid detection by the US Government (i.e., labeling night vision lenses as “camera lenses” and rifle stocks as “toy accessories”).
  – Offering a “personal shopper program” to allow foreign customers to place orders through Access employees and, occasionally, have the order delivered to the employee’s home to mislead US merchants of the end-use of these items.
  – Destroying or altering export control documents and failing to make the required AES filings.
 
The case against Access USA had an overwhelming list of aggravating factors that ultimately led to the $27 million agreement with BIS. Most notably is an email between the CTO and then CEO of the company where the CTO stated “I will not be a party to [undervaluation]. I know we’re doing it now. I know we have the means to avoid doing it. I know we are WILLINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY breaking the law.”
 
Not only were some employees aware of the violations, but BIS itself suspected violations may have occurred long before charges were brought against the company. A document released by the BIS, states that a Special Agent was sent to meet with an Access USA employee to describe in detail how to comply with the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), as well as other US export control laws and regulations. It was said that Access USA understood this information, but chose to either ignore it and its export compliance obligations, or employed little to no use of an export compliance solution.
 
The US Government Isn’t Playing Anymore
 
US exporters and freight forwarders should expect scrutiny from the government to intensify in the wake of the Access USA case. The BIS quoted United States Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, stating that “the games are over” when it comes to the enforcement of United States trade laws. Organizations of all shapes and sizes will be examined closely to ensure they are in complete compliance with ever-changing trade regulations. Those who think they could potentially get away with export violations are dead wrong – just ask the guys who thought they were in the clear because they won a couple export awards.
 
The US Government’s promise to crack down on trade laws is becoming increasingly evident due to the growing number of export violations brought against a wide range of organizations. Last month, Blue Sky Blue Sea, Inc., doing business as American Export Lines (AEL), was one of the latest to settle with the US government for apparent export violations.
 
AEL agreed to pay $518,063 to settle potential civil liability for 140 apparent export violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) with the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). Although this may seem like chump change to some mid-sized and enterprise companies, this case is only one example of OFAC coming down hard on export violations, especially pertaining to Iran sanctions (read: Amazon investigation).
 
OFAC found that AEL did have an OFAC export compliance program in place at the time of the violations, however, these shipments to Iran must not have been flagged on AEL’s database. When AEL became aware of the violations they took remedial steps, including ceasing shipments via Iran before OFAC began its investigation, as well as amending its export compliance policy to address the issue. These actions were considered by OFAC and ultimately led to leniency within the case, but the export violations in question would have been nonexistent with the proper export compliance solution in place.
 
What Can You Do to Protect Your Company?
 
Don’t be the next organization caught up in an export compliance violation case with BIS, OFAC or another one of the vigilant government agencies.  A majority of export compliance violations that occur are 100% avoidable with the proper export compliance solution in place. . . . 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_JEB
14.

M. Volkov Publishes Free Podcasts on Corruption, Crime, and Compliance

(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
I am pleased to offer a free podcast service under the same title as the blog – Corruption, Crime and Compliance. We have added a button on the left slide of the blog to make subscribing easy. 
Here
is link to Episode 2, which includes subscription buttons
here
.
 
We have released two episodes so far, and a third episode will be released on Sunday.
 
* Episode 2 – Ethics and Profits
* Episode 3 – The Most Recent FCPA Undercover Sting Case – The John Baptiste Case (To Be Released)
* Episode 4 – Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail – The Justice Department’s Outsourcing of Criminal Prosecutions (To Be Released)
 
We plan to offer interviews, corruption reviews, compliance program advice and guidance, and other topics of interest.
 
Thanks for your support.  Have a great weekend.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a3
15.

R. Walters: “Trump Blocks His First Chinese Acquisition of an American Company”

(Source:
The Diplomat, 21 Sep 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Author: Riley Walters, Research Associate, The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.
 
U.S. President Donald J. Trump has blocked his first foreign entity from acquiring an American company. And, contrary to the claims of Gao Feng, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce, the decision wasn’t (a) an exercise in American protectionism, or (b) political, (c) grounded in anti-China bias, or (d) part of a grand strategy to counter China’s growing global presence.
 
What it boiled down to was simply this: Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and Canyon Bridge Capital Partners LLC, a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited, failed to allay the national security concerns held by those serving on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). If this incident demonstrates anything, it’s that the CFIUS process works and remains free of political influence.
 
A little-known committee, CFIUS, reviews foreign transactions-such as mergers and acquisitions of American companies-for national security risks. According to Kevin Wolf, a former Department of Commerce representative to CFIUS, the committee is a key mechanism, complementary to the Commerce Department’s export controls, regarding the transfer of technology and maintaining of U.S. national security interests. …
 
[Editor’s Note: Due to copyright restrictions, we are not authorized to publish the entire article. To read the remaining sections of the article, click on the source link above.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a4
16.

R.D. Junck, K.D. Krakaur & E. Robertson: “Second Circuit Upholds Prosecutorial Discretion in Deferred Prosecution Agreements”

 
* Authors: Ryan D. Junck, Esq.,
ryan.junck@skadden.com; Keith D. Krakaur, Esq.,
kkrakaur@skadden.com; and Elizabeth Robertson, Esq.,
elizabeth.robertson@skadden.com. All of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, London.
 
On July 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in
United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. that a federal district court does not have the authority to supervise the implementation of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) absent a showing of impropriety, and therefore a compliance monitor’s report prepared pursuant to a DPA was not a “judicial document” subject to a presumptive right of public access. The ruling is consistent with a 2016 decision by the D.C. Circuit in
United States v. Fokker Services B.V., which held that the requirement of court approval to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act does not grant judges the authority “to second-guess the Executive’s exercise of discretion over the initiation and dismissal of criminal charges.” [FN/1] 
But
HSBC Bank and
Fokker Services contrasts with recently introduced DPA frameworks in Europe that contemplate more robust judicial supervision of DPAs. While DPAs in practice have been used for many years as a mechanism to resolve corporate criminal liability, the law governing DPAs has remained relatively undeveloped on both sides of the Atlantic. Thus, the Second Circuit’s decision in this high-profile case provides critical guidance concerning the role of federal district courts in overseeing DPAs.
 
DPAs in the United States
 
DPAs have become increasingly prevalent in criminal cases involving corporate defendants – over 168 since 2007 compared to 33 in the preceding 15 years. [FN/2] But because DPAs involve a federal prosecutor filing criminal charges with a district court and seeking a ruling that the term of the DPA can be excluded from the ticking clock of the Speedy Trial Act, this involvement of the district court has given rise to the question of what power – if any – the court has to consider the merits of and supervise the implementation of the DPA.
 
When the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a defendant enter into a DPA, the DOJ files charges against the defendant and the defendant acknowledges facts sufficient to support a conviction, but the DOJ agrees not to pursue the case if the defendant adheres to certain agreed-upon requirements. Under the Speedy Trial Act, though, a trial must begin within 70 days of when a defendant is charged or makes an initial appearance. Time can be excluded from the speedy trial clock for any period of delay during which the prosecution is deferred by the government pursuant to a written agreement – such as a DPA – with the defendant, with the approval of the court, for the purpose of allowing the defendant to demonstrate its good conduct. [FN/3] 
Some district courts have taken the position that this requirement of court approval, as well as the parties’ use of the court’s docket, grants the district court discretion to consider the merits of and supervise the implementation of the underlying agreement. The two appellate courts that have addressed this question, though, have both found that DPAs reflect charging (as opposed to sentencing) decisions and therefore fall squarely within the prerogative of the executive branch to determine what charges to bring and, if charges are brought, whether to pursue them. These appeals courts have, therefore, concluded that, except for determining whether a DPA involves misconduct, such as a disguised effort by the prosecution and/or defense to circumvent the speedy trial clock, a district court has no authority to consider the merits or implementation of a DPA.
 
Fokker Services reached the D.C. Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order refusing to exclude from the speedy trial clock the term of a June 2014 DPA between the DOJ and Fokker Services B.V., a Dutch aerospace firm that allegedly violated U.S. economic sanctions and export controls laws. The district court held that it had the ability to approve or reject a DPA pursuant to its inherent supervisory power over matters before it and concluded that the terms of that DPA did not serve the public interest. The district court found that the DPA “would undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and promote disrespect for the law for it to see a defendant prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies.” [FN/4] 
Both the DOJ and Fokker Services appealed that order to the D.C. Circuit, and in April 2016, a three-judge panel vacated the district court’s order, holding that the Speedy Trial Act “confers no authority in a court to withhold exclusion of time pursuant to a DPA based on concerns that the government should bring different charges or should charge different defendants.” [FN/5] The D.C. Circuit cited the executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions under the Constitution’s Faithful Execution clause and the judicial branch’s general lack of authority to second-guess such decisions. [FN/6] The D.C. Circuit rejected an argument analogizing the court’s review of a DPA to its review of a proposed plea agreement, explaining that the court’s review of a plea agreement is rooted in the judiciary’s power over criminal sentencing, which itself is limited and does not permit judges to withhold approval based on disagreement with the prosecutor’s underlying charging decisions.
 
HSBC Bank reached the Second Circuit following a December 2012 DPA between the DOJ and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Holdings plc (together, HSBC) relating to alleged economic sanctions and Bank Secrecy Act violations. As part of the DPA, HSBC agreed to the imposition of an independent monitor charged with preparing periodic reports on HSBC’s compliance with anti-money laundering laws and with the terms of the DPA. The district court determined that it had supervisory authority to approve or reject the DPA and conditioned its approval of the DPA on its own continued monitoring of the DPA’s implementation. Later, when the monitor issued a report pursuant to the DPA, the district court ordered the DOJ to file the report on the docket. Although the court initially ordered the report sealed at the parties’ request, a member of the public, Hubert Dean Moore, later sought access to the report in connection with a separate suit against HSBC, and the district court construed the request from Mr. Moore as a motion to unseal the report. The district court found that the monitor’s report was a “judicial document” subject to a presumptive right of public access and ordered it to be unsealed with limited redactions. [FN/7] The DOJ and HSBC both appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing that the report is not a judicial document subject to disclosure and that the district court’s order ran counter to separation of powers principles vesting prosecutorial discretion solely with the executive branch.
 
A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit agreed with the DOJ and HSBC, reversing the district court’s order. The Second Circuit reasoned that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances … a district court’s role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to arraigning the defendant[and] granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock.” [FN/8] The Second Circuit determined that the district court had encroached on the executive branch’s prerogative to make prosecutorial decisions by ”
sua sponte invoking its supervisory power to monitor the implementation of the DPA in the absence of a showing of impropriety.” [FN/9] Moreover, the Second Circuit found that “[a]t least in the absence of any clear indication that Congress intended courts to evaluate the substantive merits of a DPA or to supervise a DPA,” the Speedy Trial Act should not be read to alter the traditional roles of the executive and judicial branches. [FN/10] Because the district court lacked supervisory authority to oversee the implementation of the DPA, the Second Circuit concluded that the monitor’s report was not a judicial document and therefore should not be unsealed.
 
The decisions in Fokker Services and HSBC Bank, issued in two prominent circuits for corporate DPAs, are particularly significant for several reasons. First, they clarify the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive branch in the DPA process. Second, they enable the DOJ and corporate defendants to negotiate DPAs without fear of having to win substantive approval from a district court, thus providing parties with greater certainty in negotiations and lowering the risk that a court will second-guess a DPA after it has been finalized. Third, they reduce the risk that documents generated or produced pursuant to a DPA, such as monitor reports, would become public as judicial documents.
 
DPAs in France and the U.K.
 
DPAs are still relatively novel in Europe, as countries such as France and the U.K. have only recently authorized their use. Unlike the approach in the United States, exemplified in
Fokker Services and
HSBC Bank, however, France and the U.K. have both opted for judicial supervision over the substance of agreements between prosecutors and defendants.
 
In France, DPAs – known as a c
onvention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) under the Sapin II framework – are “validated” during a public hearing by a judge who reviews both the substance (including the facts of the case) and the procedural aspects of the CJIP. [FN/11] While the judge’s decision to validate the CJIP cannot be appealed, companies have 10 days to withdraw from and renounce the agreement. If they do so, the CJIP becomes null and void, and none of the statements or documents provided by the company to the prosecutor during the CJIP process can be used by the prosecutor as part of a subsequent formal proceeding against the company. Similar to DPAs, CJIPs do not require companies to plead guilty. Rather, they defer the prosecution until the agreement’s provisions have been executed by the company. CJIPs may also contain provisions requiring the company to establish a remediation plan for a maximum period of three years under the control of the newly established French Anti-Corruption Agency. The CJIP process also contemplates restitution to victims injured by the conduct underlying the CJIP. [FN/12]
 
In the U.K., DPAs have been available in England and Wales since February 2014, having been introduced by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. They are a discretionary tool that may be used by prosecutors to dispose of a narrowly defined list of serious economic offenses committed by a corporate defendant. Before a prosecutor considers entering into a DPA, the prosecutor must be satisfied that there would be sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the public interest would be properly served by entering into a DPA with the defendant rather than pursuing a prosecution. During the DPA negotiations, there is no requirement for the corporate organization to make formal admissions of guilt; however, it is necessary to admit the contents and meaning of key documents referred to in the statement of facts. Full guidance on whether to proceed with a DPA, and the procedure for doing so, is set forth in the Deferred Prosecution Agreements Code of Practice.
 
The English courts play a significant role in approving DPAs. This approval process consists of two stages. The first stage involves a preliminary hearing, held in private, where the outcomes of the DPA negotiations are presented to the court in the form of a proposed indictment and an agreed-upon statement of facts. If the judge is not satisfied with the terms of the proposed DPA or the facts or evidence of the alleged offense, directions can be given to the parties to provide more information or evidence, or to amend the proposed terms of the DPA. Before making a determination at the preliminary hearing, the judge must be satisfied that entering into a DPA, rather than proceeding with prosecution, is in the interests of justice and that the proposed terms of the DPA are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
 
After the preliminary hearing, the parties have an opportunity to address any concerns raised by the court. If these concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the proposed DPA is brought before the court at a final hearing, which is held in public. This is the second stage of the approval process, and it is at this stage that the court is invited to approve the terms of the DPA to which the parties have agreed. If the court approves the agreement and the draft indictment, the corporate organization is charged with the stipulated offenses but the case is immediately treated as having been suspended.
 
The court continues to perform a supervisory function after the approval of the DPA. The prosecutor may apply to the court to amend the terms of or terminate the DPA if, for example, the prosecutor believes that the defendant has breached the terms. If the DPA is terminated before its term expires, the prosecutor may apply to the court to lift the suspension of the prosecution and proceed with its case before the court. The prosecutor must also make an application to the court to discontinue the prosecution once the term of the DPA expires.
 
Corporate defendants do not have a right to be offered a DPA: Whether a DPA is offered is in the discretion of the prosecutor and the courts. For this reason, a corporate defendant cannot challenge a decision not to offer a DPA. It is, at least in theory, possible for an interested third party to challenge a DPA by way of judicial review, although the requirements for bringing a successful application for judicial review are complex and limited.
 
Possible Legislative Action in the United States
 
Although
Fokker Services and
HSBC Bank envision only a minimal role for judicial supervision of DPAs, Congress could provide increased supervision and review. Indeed, in a concurring opinion in
HSBC Bank, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler urged Congress to revisit the legal framework surrounding DPAs, noting that without legal reform, “[p]rosecutors can enforce legal theories without such theories ever being tested in a court proceeding” and that “[a]s the law governing DPAs stands now … the prosecution exercises the core judicial functions of adjudicating guilt and imposing sentence with no meaningful oversight from the courts.” [FN/13] A 2014 bill introduced in the House of Representatives would have addressed some of these concerns by requiring a district court to consider whether a DPA is in the interest of justice, but the bill did not receive a committee vote and has not been reintroduced in the current Congress. [FN/14] Nonetheless, DPAs could again come under congressional scrutiny, and reforms could shift the U.S. legal framework toward increased judicial supervision similar to the current frameworks in Europe. [FN/15]
 
Conclusion
 
As prosecutors in the United States and Europe continue to use DPAs to resolve criminal cases involving corporate defendants, they may face future scrutiny within their respective legal and political systems. For now, the decisions in Fokker Services and HSBC Bank provide corporate defendants in the United States with increased comfort that DPAs that they enter into with the DOJ will generally not be second-guessed by district courts. In France and the U.K., though, corporate defendants should expect to engage in dialogue not only with prosecutors, but also with the judiciary when entering into DPAs.
 
———-
  [FN/1] 
United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V.
, 818 F.3d 733, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

  [FN/2] See Brandon L. Garrett & Jon Ashley,
Corporate Prosecution Registry, U. Va. Sch. Law, available
here (including data through June 30, 2017).

  [FN/3] 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2).
  [FN/4] 
United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V.
, 79 F. Supp. 3d 160, 167 (D.D.C. 2015).

  [FN/5] 
Fokker Servs.
, 818 F.3d at 738.

  [FN/6] 
See id
. at 741 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (“[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”)).

  [FN/7] The common law right of public access to judicial documents is said to predate the Constitution and has been endorsed by the Supreme Court and the numerous circuit courts that have addressed the issue. See
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98, 612 (1978);
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).

  [FN/8] 
United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
, 863 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2017).

  [FN/9] 
Id.
at 135.

  [FN/10] 
Id.
at 138.

  [FN/11] The CJIP procedure is regulated by article 41-1-2 of the French Criminal Procedure Code and by decree n° 2017-660 du 27 avril 2017.
  [FN/12] When victims of the offense underlying the CJIP are identifiable, they are informed by the prosecutor of the decision to offer a CJIP to the company. The prosecutor is required to consider the harm to victims of the company’s conduct and may require the company to pay damages to the victims as part of the CJIP.
  [FN/13] 
HSBC Bank
, 863 F.3d at 143 (Pooler, J., concurring).

  [FN/14] Accountability in Deferred Prosecution Act of 2014, H.R. 4540, 113th Cong. (2014).
  [FN/15] Although they would not increase judicial supervision
per se, several bills in the current Congress would affect the legal framework of DPAs. For example, section 393 of the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, 115th Cong. (2017), which passed the House in June, would prohibit the DOJ from entering into a DPA that would “direct or provide for payment to any person who is not a victim of the alleged wrongdoing.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a5
17.

Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
.

According to section 3.18 of DDTC’s Guidelines for Preparing Agreements (Rev. 4.4b), when a a U.S. person is providing technical data/defense services to a foreign person, they may need a U.S. person translator/interpreter to facilitate the communication. If the U.S. person translator/interpreter is merely facilitating communication between a U.S. person and a foreign person, then DDTC does not consider the translator/interpreter to be providing a defense service. If any defense articles, including technical data, are disclosed to the translator/interpreter, and that translator/interpreter is a foreign person, then such a disclosure constitutes an export or reexport in accordance with 22 CFR 120.17 or 22 CFR 120.19, respectively. The medium is not important: such a disclosure can be spoken as well as written. Translators/interpreters may be eligible for consideration as contract employees if they meet the conditions of Section 3.9 of the Guidelines.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a218
. Friday List of Approaching Events: 11 New Events Posted This Week

(Sources: Event Sponsors) 
 
Published every Friday or last publication day of the week. Send events to
jwbartlett@fullcirclecompliance.eu
, composed in the below format:

* DATE: PLACE; “TITLE;” SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number)

#” New listing this week:   
 
Continuously Available Training:
 
* E-Seminars: “
US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls
;” Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com
 
* On-Line: “
Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)
;” Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “
Webinars On-Demand Library
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
 
Training by Date:

* Sep 25-27: Wash DC; “
1st Advanced Forum on Customs and Trade Enforcement, Washington, DC
;” American Conference Institute

*
 Sep 26: Woodbridge, VA; 
SIA 2017 Annual Golf Outing
; Society for International Affairs (SIA)

* Sep 26: Cupertino, CA; ”
11th CompTIA Global Trade Compliance Best Practices Conference;” CompTIA; OR contact
Ken Montgomery, 202-682-4433
* Sep 26: Webinar; “[Monthly Update] The Latest in Administration and Congressional Trade Actions
;” Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg
* Sep 27: Tysons Corner, VA; ”
IT Capabilities and Solutions for the Trade Compliance Community;” Society for International Affairs (“SIA”)
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Sep 27: Webinar; “Understanding the European Union’s AEO Program
;” Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg

*
 Sep 27-28: Atlanta, GA;
 
2017 Trade Compliance and Policy Seminar
; C.H. Robinson

* Sep 27-28: Rome, Italy; “Defence Exports 2017 ;” SMi 

* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
# Sep 29: Webinar; ”
Understanding VAT and GST for US Exporters;”

* Oct 2-5: Columbus OH; “
University Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977
# Oct 3: Kansas City, MO; “Import/Export 101;” Miller and Company P.C.; Register here.
# Oct 4: Kansas City, MO; “Import/Export 201;” Miller and Company P.C.; Register here.

# Oct 3-5: Washington, D.C.; BIS Annual Update: ”
Protecting American Technology, Growing American Industry;” Bureau of Industry and Security

* Oct 4: Itasca, IL; ”
Understanding Incoterms;” Mohawk Global Trade Advisors; Adrienne Graddy; 
agraddy@mohawkglobalta.com
; 630-994-3036

*
 Oct 4: Kansas City, MO;
 
2017 Trade Compliance and Policy Seminar
; C.H. Robinson

* Oct 4: Toronto, Canada; ”
2nd National Institute on US-Canadian Securities Litigation;” American Bar Association
* Oct 4: Webinar; “
Exports – New Incentives, Old Rules
;” 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; 
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com

* Oct 4-5:  Miramar (Miami/Fort Lauderdale), FL; ”
9th Maritime Logistics Training Course
“; Contact ABS Consulting, phone:
 
(954) 218-5285

# Oct 5: New York, NY; 
Trade and Customs Updates
; KPMG LLP; 


* Oct 5-6: London, UK; ”
The World ECR Forum 2017;” World ECR 
# Oct 6: Allston, MA; ”
Developing Your Export Compliance Program;” Compliance Alliance


* Oct 10: Aberdeen, UK; ”
UK Strategic Export Controls: Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” Code Coct2017; or contact
Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; 
UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 10: Aberdeen, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Licenses Workshop;” Code Loct2017; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade;

* Oct 10-12: Dallas, TX; “
‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program
;” Partnering for Compliance
 


*
 Oct 10: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “
Awareness Training Export Control, Dual-Use, and Sanctions
” day I/3 [in Dutch]; Fenex 

*
Oct 10 & 24: Webinar; “Two Part Webinar Series: Harmonized System Classifications: Learning By Doing;” ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Oct 11: Aberdeen, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Intermediate Oil and Gas Seminar;” Code loct2017-2; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade;

* Oct 11-12: Detroit, MI;
 
2017 Trade Compliance and Policy Seminar
; C.H. Robinson

* Oct 11: Webinar; “Basics of Importation Under the Gun Control Act;” Reeves & Dola LLP; Teresa Ficaretta; tficaretta@reevesdola.com; 202-715-9183 

*
Oct 11: Webinar; “Encryption Export Controls 2017 Update;” ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Oct 12: Brussels, Belgium; 
Compliance in Export Control of Dual-Use Items; EU Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy


* Oct 12-13: Boston, MA; “Automated Export System Compliance Seminar and Workshop;” Commerce/Census, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, State/DDTC, Treasury 

*
Oct 12: Webinar; “OFAC Enforcement Trends: Exporters in the Crosshairs;” ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Oct 13: Dallas, TX; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
;” Partnering for Compliance

* Oct 16: Toronto; ”
3rd Canadian Forum on Economic Sanctions Compliance and Enforcement, Toronto;” American Conference Institute and Canadian Institute

*
Oct 17 & 26: Webinar; “Two Part Webinar Series: EAR License Exceptions: Learning By Doing;” ECTI; 540-433-3977

*
 Oct 19: Boston, MA;
 
2017 Trade Compliance and Policy Seminar
; C.H. Robinson

* Oct 22-24: Grapevine, TX; “
Annual ICPA Fall Conference
;” International Compliance Professional Association;
Wizard@icpainc.org 

* Oct 23-24: Arlington, VA; “
2017 Fall Advanced Conference
;” Society for International Affairs

*
 Oct 24-25: Cleveland, OH;
 
2017 Trade Compliance and Policy Seminar
; C.H. Robinson

*
 Oct 24: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “
Awareness Training Export Control, Dual-Use, and Sanctions
” day 2/3 [in Dutch]; Fenex

* Oct 25-26: Tysons Corner, VA;
ITAR Fundamentals; FD Associates
# Oct 26: Coventry, UK;
Export Control Symposium; Midlands Aerospace Alliance and UK Department of International Trade

* Oct 30-Nov 2: Phoenix, AZ; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977
* Oct 31: Manchester, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Intermediate Seminar;” Code loct2017; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade;
* Nov 1: Manchester, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Beginner’s Workshop;” Code Bnov2017-1; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade; 
* Nov 1: Manchester, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Licenses Workshop;” Code Lnov2017-1; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade; 
* Nov 1: Manchester, UK; “UK Strategic Export Controls: Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” Code Cnov2017-1; or contact Denise Carter at 020-7215-4459; UK Department for International Trade;
* Nov 2-3: Las Vegas, NV; “The 22nd National M&A Institute;” American Bar Association
*
Nov 2: Webinar; “DIY Encryption Classification 2017 Edition;” ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Nov 5-7: Singapore; ”
ICPA Singapore Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org
*
 Nov 6: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “
Awareness Training Export Control, Dual-Use, and Sanctions
” day 3/3 [in Dutch]; Fenex 

* Nov 6-8: Chicago, IL; “Basics of Government Contracting;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Nov 7: Norfolk, VA; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;
” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov

* Nov 8: Webinar; “Introduction to the National Firearms Act;” Reeves & Dola LLP; Teresa Ficaretta; tficaretta@reevesdola.com; 202-715-9183

* Nov 9-10: Shanghai, China;ICPA China Conference;” International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org  
* Nov 9: Tysons Corner, VA; ITAR for the Empowered Official; FD Associates

* Nov 13-16: Wash DC; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Nov 15: Leeds, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade  
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Nijkerk, the Netherlands; “Training Export Control” [in Dutch]; Fenedex

* Nov 29: Wash DC; ”
4th U.S. Customs Compliance Boot Camp, Washington, DC;” American Conference Institute

* Dec 4: NYC; ”
8th Annual New York Forum on Economic Sanctions, New York“, American Conference Institute

 * Dec 4-7: Miami FL; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Dec 5: Brussels, Belgium; ”
Dual Use For Beginners
” [In Dutch]; Flemish Department of Foreign Affairs

* Dec 5: San Juan, PR; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov

* Dec 6: Webinar; ”
Introduction to Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET);” Reeves & Dola LLP; Teresa Ficaretta;
tficaretta@reevesdola.com; 202-715-9183

* Dec 6: Wood Ridge, NJ; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 7: Laredo, TX; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

# Dec 8: Boston, MA; ”
Export Expo;” Compliance Alliance

* Dec 11-13: Sterling, VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

2 0 1 8
 

* Jan 22-25: San Diego CA; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

*
Jan 29-30: Toronto, Canada;
7th Industry Forum on Export and Re-Export Compliance for Canadian Operations;”
American Conference Institute

* Feb 19-22: Huntsville AL; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Mar 11-14: San Diego, CA; ”
ICPA Annual Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org
* Mar 6-8: Orlando, FL; “
‘Partnering for Compliance’ East Export/Import Control Training and Education Program
;” Partnering for Compliance
* Mar 9: Dallas, TX; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
;” Partnering for Compliance

* Apr 16-19: Las Vegas NV; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977
* Apr 30-May 3: Wash DC; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* May 6-8: Toronto, Canada;
2018 ICPA Canadian Conference

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a119
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

 
* Philip Stanhope (Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, KG, PC; 22 Sep 1694 – 24 Mar 1773; was a British statesman, man of letters, and wit.)
  – “Know the true value of time; snatch, seize, and enjoy every moment of it. No idleness, no laziness, no procrastination: never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.”
Compare the Stock-Sanford Corollary: “If you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
Q. How do you keep your husband or father from reading your diary?
A. Put it in a folder marked “INSTRUCTION MANUALS”.
  — Fran Macdonald, Holyoke, MA
 
A lady was picking through the frozen turkeys at the grocery store but she couldn’t find one big enough for her family. She asked a stock boy, “Do these turkeys get any bigger?” The stock boy replied, “No ma’am, they’re dead.”  
  — Mitch Kelly, Idabel, Oklahoma 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EN_a220. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  Changes to applicable regulations are listed below.
 


ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 
81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
 

CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – 
Last Amendment: 28 Jul 2017: 82 FR 35064-35065: Technical Corrections to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations
 
DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M

  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2
: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary 
here
.)


EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 
  – Last Amendment: 15 Aug 2017: 
82 FR 38764-38819: Wassenaar Arrangement 2016 Plenary Agreements Implementation
 

  

FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
 
 – Last Amendment: 16 Jun 2017: 82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations 
 

FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30
  –
Last Amendment: 
20 Sep 2017:
 
82 FR 43842-43844
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements; Correction
  
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  – The latest edition (20 Sep 2017) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, and Census/AES guidance.  Subscribers receive revised copies every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance 
website.  BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR.
 

HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 2017: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 25 Jul 2017: 
Harmonized System Update 1704, containing 
2,564 ABI records and 463 harmonized tariff records. 
  – HTS codes for AES are available 
here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
 
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130.
  – Last Amendment: Last Amendment: 30 Aug 2017: 82 FR 41172-41173: Temporary Modification of Category XI of the United States Munitions List
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 12 Sep 2017) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, over 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, case annotations, practice tips, DDTC guidance, and explanations of errors in the official ITAR text. Subscribers receive updated copies of the BITAR in Word by email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment.  The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website. BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please contact us to receive your discount code.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EN_a321
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor)
 

Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of Daily Bugle Top Stories” posted here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, John Bartlett. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 8,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

* CAVEAT: The contents cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.

* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top