16-0913 Tuesday “The Daily Bugle”

16-0913 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

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 
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. DoD/DSCA Posts SAMM and Policy Memoranda, Week 11-17 Sep 
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  5. Treasury/OFAC: “PanAmerican Seed Company Settles Potential Civil Liability for Alleged Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations” 
  6. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL, Al-Qaeda & Iraq 
  1. Reuters: “White House: Must Make Sure Myanmar Sanctions Not Preventing Investment”
  1. C. DeLeon, G. Tuttle III & A. Braumiller: “Top 10 Things to do if Your Company Receives an Informed Compliance Letter from U.S Customs” 
  2. M. Rathbone, E.J. Krauland & M. Shenk: “Potential Changes to the EU Dual-Use Export Control Regime, Including Cybertechnology” 
  3. W. Lehrenbaum & A. Marx: “CBP Proposes to Amend TSCA Certification Requirements”
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (26 Aug 2016), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (7 Sep 2016), FACR/OFAC (18 May 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (8 Sep 2016) 



[No items of interest noted today.]

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


OGS_a11. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* U.S. Customs and Border Protection; PROPOSED RULES; Modernization of the Customs Brokers Examination [Publication Date: 14 September 2016.]

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

OGS_a22. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a33. DoD/DSCA Posts SAMM and Policy Memoranda, Week 11-17 Sep

(Source: DoD/DSCA)
DSCA Policy Memo 16-32 Identifying Foreign Military Financing Recipient Units has been posted.
The memorandum describes changes made to the Defense Security Assistance Management System (DSAMS) for the purpose of obtaining more accurate FMF recipient unit information.
  – Expand specific references to IMET students to include all SC/SA students,
  – Focus on providing the SCO the responsibility and guidance to provide an appropriate TLA advance to every IMS.
  – Consolidate and clarify existing TLA language from throughout Chapter 10.


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

OGS_a44. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a55. Treasury/OFAC: “PanAmerican Seed Company Settles Potential Civil Liability for Alleged Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations”

(Source: Treasury/OFAC)
PanAmerican Seed Company (“PanAm Seed”), West Chicago, Illinois, a division of Ball Horticultural Company (“Ball Horticultural”), has agreed to pay $4,320,000 to settle potential civil liability for alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560 (ITSR). Specifically, OFAC alleged that from on or about May 5, 2009 to on or about March 2, 2012, PanAm Seed violated § 560.204 of the ITSR by indirectly exporting seeds, primarily of flowers, to two Iranian distributors on 48 occasions (collectively referred to hereafter as the “Alleged Violations”).
OFAC determined that PanAm Seed did not voluntarily self-disclose the Alleged Violations to OFAC, and that the Alleged Violations constitute an egregious case. Both the statutory maximum and base penalty civil monetary penalty amounts for the Alleged Violations were $12,000,000.
For a number of years, up to and including 2012, PanAm Seed made 48 indirect sales of seeds to two Iranian distributors. PanAm Seed shipped the seeds to consignees based in two third- countries located in Europe or the Middle East, and PanAm Seed’s customers arranged for the re-exportation of the seeds to Iran. Personnel (including several mid-level managers) from various business units within PanAm Seed and/or Ball Horticultural were aware of U.S. economic sanctions programs involving Iran and the need to apply for and obtain a specific license from OFAC in order to export the seeds in question. Despite this knowledge, PanAm Seed engaged in a pattern or practice designed to conceal the involvement of Iran and/or obfuscated the fact that the seeds were ultimately destined for distributors located in Iran.
The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following facts and circumstances, pursuant to the General Factors under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A. OFAC considered the following to be aggravating factors:
  (1) PanAm Seed willfully violated U.S. sanctions on Iran by engaging in, and systematically obfuscating, conduct it knew to be prohibited;
  (2) PanAm Seed demonstrated recklessness with respect to U.S. sanctions requirements by ignoring its OFAC compliance responsibilities, despitesubstantial international sales and warnings that OFAC sanctions could be implicated;
  (3) multiple PanAm Seed and Ball Horticultural employees, including mid-level managers, had contemporaneous knowledge of the transactions giving rise to the Alleged Violations and that the seeds were intended for reexportation to Iran, and PanAm Seed continued sales to its Iranian distributors for nearly eight months after its Director of Finance learned of OFAC’s investigation;
  (4) PanAm Seed engaged in this pattern of conduct over a period of years, providing over $770,000 in economic benefit to Iran;
  (5) PanAm Seed did not initially cooperate with OFAC’s investigation, providing some information that was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete; and
  (6) PanAm Seed is a division of Ball Horticultural, a commercially sophisticated, international corporation.
OFAC considered the following to be mitigating factors:
  (1) PanAm Seed has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the earliest date of the transactions giving rise to the Alleged Violations, making it eligible for “first offense” mitigation of up to 25 percent;
  (2) the exports at issue were likely eligible for an OFAC license under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000;
  (3) PanAm Seed took remedial steps to ensure future compliance with OFAC sanctions, including stopping all exports to Iran, implementing a compliance program, and training at least some of its employees on OFAC sanctions; and
  (4) PanAm Seed cooperated with OFAC by agreeing to toll the statute of limitations for a total of 882 days.
For more information regarding OFAC regulations, please go to: www.treasury.gov/ofac.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a66. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL, Al-Qaeda & Iraq

  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1641 of 12 September 2016 amending for the 252nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations
  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1642 of 12 September 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq


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


Reuters) [Excerpts.]
President Barack Obama will consult with Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Wednesday about U.S. sanctions policy and how it is affecting investment and the democratic transition in her country, the White House said.
The United States eased some sanctions against Myanmar earlier this year to support political reform but maintained most of its economic restrictions with an eye toward penalizing those it views as hampering the democratically elected government.
  “We want to make sure our sanctions are not preventing the type of economic development and investment” that would help the people of Myanmar, White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told a conference on Tuesday ahead of Suu Kyi’s visit to Washington.
  “We want to get her thinking on what we can do that is most effective in promoting the democratic transition and promoting greater economic growth,” he said.
Rhodes listed several areas of concern in Myanmar, also known as Burma, that needed to be addressed, including constitutional reform.
Waiting for all of those problems to be resolved could mean the sanctions would not be lifted for another decade, he said.
Rhodes noted U.S. officials often are told that the sanctions have a chilling effect on investment from the international business community.
He said decisions on lifting sanctions would seek to balance the need to show that more work needs to be done while also giving credit to Myanmar’s democratic progress.
  “That’s the balance that we’re aiming to strike: how do we demonstrate through our sanctions policies and other restrictions on engagement that this process is not complete?” he said. “But how do we also not set an impossible standard that is going to take so long that we are essentially denying the type of dividend that is going to be necessary for ensuring that democratization succeeds?” …
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


8. C. DeLeon, G. Tuttle III & A. Braumiller: “Top 10 Things to do if Your Company Receives an Informed Compliance Letter from U.S Customs”
* Authors: Cindy DeLeon, Senior Trade Auditor, DeLeon Trade, LLC, cindy@deleontrade.com, 281-466-2026; George Tuttle, III, Esq., Law Office of George R. Tuttle, george.tuttle.iii@tuttlelaw.com, 415-986-8780; and Adrienne Braumiller, Esq., Braumiller Law Group, Adrienne@BraumillerLaw.com.
CBP has begun to issue informed compliance notification letters to importers. The receipt of an informed compliance notification letter means Regulatory Audit has identified specific problems with the company’s import transactions and is “strongly considering” the company for a comprehensive audit. These audits may include both substantive transaction testing and internal control testing. These letters advise importers that, while they are not required to make a prior disclosure, they may elect to file a disclosure with CBP. The letters go on to state that, because the company has been provided information relating to specific problems with their import transactions, “violations that may occur in the future could result in seizures and forfeitures of imported merchandise and/or the assessment of monetary penalties.”
Below is a summary of the top 10 actions to consider once receiving an informed compliance letter.

  (1) Consider the Meaning of the Letter. CBP has explained that these letters are a courtesy notification that an audit and/or investigation may be forthcoming. These letters are not random. Why did they send you the letter? Don’t blind side your management, tell them about the letter and what it might mean for the company. Should your company sign and return the letter? What does it mean if you do? Who should sign? Is there another way?
  (2) Get Educated! Have you read the CBP Informed Compliance Publications provided to you via the letter and other sources available on CBP’s website to understand your legal requirements? Attend training and webinars to increase your knowledge and understanding of CBP requirements.
  (3) Conduct a Risk Assessment. Focus on the risks identified in the Informed Compliance letter as well as Anti-dumping Duty and Countervailing Duty risk. We also recommend confirming any corrective actions in prior disclosures are working as intended, and review the results of CBP Form 28s, CBP Form 29s, post summary corrections submitted to CBP, as well as any internal post entry audits conducted by the company.
  (4) Test and Measure Your Compliance Level. Are you audit ready in all risk areas? CBP may start with the risk area identified in the letter but, if audited, CBP auditors can and frequently do expand and review all risk areas. Conduct targeted sampling based on risk.
  (5) Get Management Buy-in. Use data metrics, identify possible loss of revenue and corresponding penalties for your management team.
  (6) Evaluate Your Internal Control Program. Include all 5 components of COSO-based internal control. Ensure you have a manual that is audit ready, develop/implement a robust post entry audit process, and ensure you have strong broker management procedures and a dedicated, well-educated compliance team.
  (7) Consider a Prior Disclosure.If you find past non-compliance consider the pros and cons of filing a Prior Disclosure to protect the company from penalties. Statistical sampling is a valuable tool to use to limit work. To ensure prior disclosure rights are not cut off, consider filing an initial notice, which would then be completed via a perfected prior disclosure.

  (8) Develop a Corrective Action Plan. Make a plan that will strengthen internal controls to ensure errors do not reoccur. When they do, conduct a root cause analysis.
  (9) Implement Corrective Action. Make sure that your corrective action plan is working. Retest compliance levels to validate new controls are working and are effective.
  (10) ACT NOW! Don’t wait until CBP is at your door!

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

COMM_a29. M. Rathbone, E.J. Krauland & M. Shenk: “Potential Changes to the EU Dual-Use Export Control Regime, Including Cybertechnology”
* Authors: Meredith Rathbone, Esq., mrathbone@steptoe.com, 202-429-6437; Edward J. Krauland, Esq., ekrauland@steptoe.com, 202-429-8083; and M. Shenk, Esq., mshenk@steptoe.com, +44 20-7367-8050. All of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
On July 22, 2016, a proposal by the European Commission to amend and update the European Union’s dual-use export control regime was leaked to the public, revealing a raft of changes to the current policy. Most significantly, the proposal includes new controls on the export of cyber-surveillance technologies, including intrusion software.
The proposal’s specific initiative to enhance export controls on cyber-surveillance technologies stems from a broader review process of the EU dual-use export control system which began in 2013. Along with other recommendations, the review highlighted in particular the need to develop and clarify the EU’s approach to “the use of cyber-space for proliferation activities.” [FN/1]
Proposed Changes
The EU Dual-Use Regulation, which sets out the EU dual-use export control regime, has been amended on multiple occasions since its adoption in 2000, but the recently leaked proposal recommends the most fundamental revisions since 2009. [FN/2] The changes proposed can be broadly grouped into two categories. First, changes that seek to simplify, clarify, and enhance the EU dual-use export control regime by adjusting the regulatory framework, and second, the introduction of a new category of controls aimed specifically at cyber-surveillance technology, as part of an effort to promote human rights and combat terrorism.
The proposed modifications to the Dual-Use Regulation largely include administrative provisions relating to licensing, enforcement, transparency and outreach, cooperation with third countries, and clarification and extension of concepts including intangible technology transfers, technical assistance, transit, exporters, and brokering. According to the proposal, these changes have been introduced in order to “enhance the effectiveness or the consistency of the controls” and “aim at simplifying the administration of controls and reducing the burdens for operators.” Perhaps most significantly, however, is the proposed redefinition of dual-use items to include cyber-surveillance technologies directly.
Additional Controls on Cyber-Surveillance Technology
The proposal defines cyber-surveillance technology as “items specially designed to enable the covert intrusion into information and telecommunication systems with a view to monitoring, extracting, collecting and analyzing data and/or incapacitating or damaging the targeted system. This includes items related to the following technology and equipment:
  (a) mobile telecommunication interception equipment;
  (b) intrusion software;
  (c) monitoring centers;
  (d) lawful interception systems and data retention systems;
  (e) biometrics;
  (f) digital forensics;
  (g) location tracking devices;
  (h) probes;
  (i) deep package inspection (DPI) systems…”
The proposed controls on cyber-surveillance technology would include the following elements:
  – a new “EU autonomous list” of controlled cyber-surveillance technologies presented as an annex to the regulations (which was not leaked along with the proposal), and
  – a “targeted catch-all mechanism” that would impose controls on non-listed cyber-surveillance items in situations involving exports to end-users characterized by conflict, internal repression, or other urgent violations of human rights. [FN/3]
Practical Implications
The new annex to the regulation which lists controlled cyber-surveillance technologies is not yet publically available, thus it is difficult to determine the full scope of the new controls. However, the revised legislation defines cyber-surveillance technology to include items related to mobile telecommunication interception equipment, monitoring centers, lawful interception systems and data retention systems, biometrics, digital forensics, location tracking devices, probes, deep package inspection systems, and intrusion software. In so doing, the proposal drastically expands the number and type of items that could fall under export control by the EU. Practically, this would mean additional licensing, reporting, and other regulatory requirements on a host of products and technologies. It will be crucial to continue to watch for the new list of controlled cyber-surveillance technologies and any other proposed revisions to the annexes.
In the proposal, the European Commission addresses concerns expressed by stakeholders regarding the control of a new set of items and technologies, including the potential for a “higher administrative burden for operators and authorities,” along with impediments to competitive trade. The European Commission argues, however, that the intended benefits to human rights and security outweigh those eventualities, stating that the new brand of controls “appears as an indispensable condition to prevent human rights violations resulting from the export of EU items to third countries and to address security risks.”
Next Steps
Although the timing is unclear, official adoption of the proposal’s recommendations is unlikely to occur imminently. It has been reported in the press that the European Commission will officially propose the changes in September 2016 [FN/4], though the legislation will have to undergo a lengthy approval process by the European Parliament and Council before it becomes law. This process could take anywhere from months to years to complete.
Throughout the review period, the European Commission conducted at least some outreach efforts to solicit stakeholder input regarding the changing scope of the dual-use export control regime. Now that the proposed legislation is nearly finalized, efforts to modify the proposal will have to be directed towards the legislators in the European Commission, Parliament, and Council.
The extent to which the EU will enact controls on intrusion software that differ from the Wassenaar Arrangement controls is unclear, but the proposed controls on intrusion software, plus the other controls on cyber-surveillance technologies, are likely to be closely reviewed by the cybersecurity industry once the annexes containing the technical language are released.
  [FN/1] COM(2014) 244 final, April 24, 2014.
  [FN/2] The current version is Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, which includes various amendments since 2009, notably the October 2014 addition of controls on so-called “intrusion software” in accordance with the Wassenaar Arrangement. See Regulation (EU) No 1382/2014.
  [FN/3] According to the proposal, the targeted catch-all mechanism “applies where there is evidence that the items may be misused by the proposed end-user for directing or implementing serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict or internal repression in the country of final destination.”
  [FN/4] See “Commission plans export controls for surveillance technology,” EurActiv.com, July 22, 2016, available here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a310. W. Lehrenbaum & A. Marx: “CBP Proposes to Amend TSCA Certification Requirements”

* Authors: Warren Lehrenbaum, Esq., wlehrenbaum@crowell.com, 202-624-2755; and Aaron Marx, Esq., amarx@crowell.com, 202.624.2751. Both of Crowell & Moring LLP.
On August 29, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a proposal to amend the regulations regarding the requirement to file a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) certification when importing chemical substances 1) in bulk form, 2) as part of mixtures, or 3) in articles containing a chemical substance or mixture. The proposed amendments include an electronic option for filing TSCA certifications, the clarification of certain definitions, and elimination of the paper-based blanket certification process.
Section 13 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2612) governs the entry of chemical substances and mixtures, and articles containing such chemical substances or mixtures, into the customs territory of the United States. Under this statute, CBP has the authority to refuse entry of any chemical substance, mixture, or article that fails to comply with any rules in effect under TSCA. The CBP regulations implementing section 13 of TSCA are contained in 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.118 through 12.127 and § 127.28.
CBP is proposing four changes to these regulations.
  (1) CBP proposes to amend certain definitions to clarify that the certification obligations apply to both chemical substances and mixtures that are subject to TSCA (which require a “positive” certification) and those chemicals and mixtures that are not subject to TSCA (which require a “negative” certification). To that end, CBP proposes to modify the scope of reporting to cover “a chemical substance in bulk form or as part of a mixture, and articles containing a chemical substance or mixture.”
    – Importers of TSCA chemicals in bulk form or as part of a mixture will be required to submit a positive certification, certifying that the shipment complies with all applicable TSCA rules.
    – Importers of non-TSCA chemicals (e.g., pesticides subject to regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) in bulk form or as part of a mixture will be required to submit a negative certification, certifying that the chemicals in the shipment are not subject to TSCA.
    – Importers of articles containing TSCA chemicals or mixtures will only have to submit a certification if required to by a rule or order issued under TSCA.

We note that CBP is specifically soliciting comments as to whether there should be an exemption from the negative certification requirement for chemicals which are clearly identified as being pesticides or other chemicals not subject to TSCA. Eliminating the negative certification requirement in these circumstances would seem to be beneficial for most importers of non-TSCA regulated chemical products, such as pharmaceuticals or pesticides. We also note that CBP’s proposed amendments pertaining to “articles containing chemicals or mixtures” may not align completely with EPA’s guidance on this issue, which distinguishes between chemical substances imported as part of an article versus chemical substances contained in an article. Companies that import articles may wish to submit comments on the proposed rule, to clarify these potential inconsistencies.
  (2) CBP proposes to allow importers the option to file TSCA Certifications electronically through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The proposed regulation would also require certifications to include, for the first time, the name and contact information for the person making the certification.
  (3) CBP proposes to eliminate the existing paper-based “blanket” certification process. CBP asserts that this process is burdensome, and has limited utility. CBP further asserts that the electronic filing option is a more efficient solution. Companies that currently utilize blanket certifications (typically companies that frequently import the same chemical product through a particular port of entry) may wish to submit comments on CBP’s proposal to eliminate that option.
  (4) CBP proposes to allow importers to provide electronic notice of exportation and abandonment as an alternative to the paper-based written notice allowed under the existing regulations.
    – CBP is accepting comments on all aspects of its proposed amendments, which are due by September 28, 2016. CBP indicates that it is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following questions: Whether the collection of the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the TSCA import certifier will impact your business or industry.
    – Whether the electronic submission of TSCA certifications in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) will affect your or industry.
    – Whether there should be an exemption from the negative certification requirement for chemicals that are clearly labeled as a pesticide or other chemical not subject to TSCA.

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


(Source: Editor)

Today’s notable birthdays: 

J.B. Priestley (John Boynton Priestley, 13 Sep 1894 – 14 Aug 1984, was an English author, novelist, playwright, scriptwriter, social commentator, man of letters and broadcaster.)

  – “To different minds, the same world is a hell, and a heaven.”


Clara Schumann (née Clara Josephine Wieck, 13 Sep 1819 – 20 May 1896, was a German musician and composer, considered one of the most distinguished pianists of the Romantic era. She was the wife of famous composer, Robert Schumann.)

  – “My health may be better preserved if I exert myself less, but in the end doesn’t each person give his life for his calling?”

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

12. 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.
: 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  
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 26 Aug 2016: 81 FR 58831-58834: Administrative Exemption on Value Increased for Certain Articles  

  – 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 canceled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM  (Summary here.)

  – Last Amendment: 7 Sep 2016: 81 FR 61595-61612: Russian Sanctions: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List  

: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: 81 FR 31169-31171: Burmese Sanctions Regulations 
: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment: 15 May 2015; 80 FR 27853-27854: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Reinstatement of Exemptions Related to Temporary Exports, Carnets, and Shipments Under a Temporary Import Bond 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
  – The latest edition (9 May 2016) 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, please contact us to receive your discount code. 
, 1 Jul 2016: 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: 30 Aug 2016; Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1612, containing 4,692 ABI records and 935 harmonized tariff records.   
  – HTS codes for AES are available
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available

22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130 (Caution — The ITAR as posted on GPO’s eCFR website and linked on the DDTC often takes several weeks to update the latest amendments.)

  – Latest Amendment: 8 Sep 2016;
81 FR 62004-62008
: 22 CFR Parts 120, 125, 126, and 130; Public Notice: 9672; RIN: 1400-AD70; International Traffic in Arms: Revisions to Definition of Export and Related Definitions 

  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 8 Sep 2016) 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 and over 700 footnotes containing 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
the essential tool of the ITAR professional.  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.

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


* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., edited by James E. Bartlett III and Alexander Bosch, and emailed every business day to approximately 7,500 subscribers to inform 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.

* INTERNET ACCESS AND BACK ISSUES: The National Defense Industrial Association (“NDIA”) posts the Daily Update on line, and maintains back issues since August, 2009 here.

* 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