;

16-1114 Monday “The Daily Bugle”

16-1114 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 14 November 2016

TOP
The 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.
 [Editor’s Note: The Daily Bugle was not published last Friday, 11 October, a U.S. national holiday.]

  1. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to Burundi 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. DoD/DSS Knowledge Center Closed 25-27 Nov 
  3. DoD/DTSA: “Multilateral Nonproliferation Regimes” 
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  1. Reuters: “U.S. Charges Turkish, Iranian Nationals with Evading Iran Sanctions” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Election Results, Preference Claims, GSP, Broker Exam, Classification” 
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “ITC Warns of Deficient MTB Petitions, Advises Petitioners to File Accurately and Early” 
  4. Tuttle Law Offices Newsletter: “ITMD Customer Service Survey” 
  5. Trade Compliance Flash: “OFAC Announces $25 Million Penalty in Joint Enforcement Action Against U.S. Oil and Gas Company” 
  1. D. Jacobson, G. Kelley and M. Burton: “Possible Post-Election Changes in US Trade and Sanctions Policy” 
  2. J.K. Huffman & D.P. Riley: “Farewell Paper Commodity Jurisdiction, Hello DECCS!” 
  3. S. Kohn Ross: “Compliance Programs That Work Are Key to Shippers’ Financial Success” 
  4. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day 
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 116 Jobs Posted 
  1. Thanksgiving Thanks for the Daily Bugle 
  2. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  3. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Oct 2016), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (4 Nov 2016), FACR/OFAC (4 Nov 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (12 Oct 2016) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11. President Continues National Emergency With Respect to Burundi

 
81 FR 79989: Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burundi
 
On November 22, 2015, by Executive Order 13712, I declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi.
 
The situation in Burundi continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on November 22, 2015, to deal with that threat must continue in effect beyond November 22, 2016. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712.
 
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 9, 2016.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)


* Commerce; International Trade Administration; NOTICES; Requests for Nominations: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee State and Federal Export Promotion Coordination Working Group [Publication Date: 15 November 2016.]

* State; NOTICES; Amendment to Procedures Established Pursuant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 [Publication Date: 15 November 2016.]

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

 
As a reminder, Personnel Security inquiries to include e-QIP (option #2) of the DSS Knowledge Center closes the last business day of each month for the purpose of conducting internal training to deliver the highest quality customer service to Industry and Government callers. Please note, we will be closed on Friday, November 25, for this month only, and will reopen Monday, November 28.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
U.S. export controls are often criticized for being stagnant and creating a disadvantage for American exporters. DTSA leaders and employees frequently field the question: “Why can’t the control lists be more exporter-friendly and updated more frequently”? The answer to this issue is complex, and not entirely within U.S. Government’s control.
 
Most of the items listed on the U.S. Commerce Control List are a result of our commitment to various multilateral nonproliferation regimes. The four major regimes are: the Australia Group (deals with chemicals and biological agents); the Missile Technology Control Regime (deals with—obviously enough-missiles), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (no explanation necessary), and the Wassenaar Arrangement (deals with conventional arms and dual-use goods). DTSA is the DoD’s office of primary responsibility for the MTCR, the NSG, and the WA. DTSA also provides substantive expertise for the AG.
 
Each of the regimes has its own rules and meets on its own schedule, at least annually, to, among other things, consider revisions to its own list of controlled goods. Typically, changes negotiated at the “expert” level must be approved at the policy level before they are deemed formally “agreed.” While the process is by necessity deliberate, the regime members are able to agree on important changes each year. In the WA, for example, this year participating states are poised to agree to 52 substantive changes: a mix of new controls, decontrols, and clarifications.
 
These multilaterally “agreed” changes are then implemented by the regimes’ member countries based on national legislation and practice. In the United States, the Department of Commerce promulgates regulatory changes to the Export Administration Regulations. This ensures all regime partners have uniform and consistent controls on sensitive technologies and advanced weapons. The result: up-to-date reasonable controls implemented by responsible governments; risks of proliferation are mitigated, without stifling international trade.

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

OGS_a45. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a16. Reuters: “U.S. Charges Turkish, Iranian Nationals with Evading Iran Sanctions”
(Source:
Reuters)
 
Four Turkish and Iranian nationals from the same family have been indicted on charges they violated U.S. sanctions against Iran by conducting hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions for Iran’s government and Iranian metals companies.
 
According to an indictment made public on Thursday [Editor: 10 Nov 2016.] in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Habibollah Zarei, Nesteren Zarei Deniz, Bora Deniz and Abdullah Evren Erdem conspired to evade U.S. sanctions from 2014 until at least January 2016.
 
The defendants were accused of helping three Iranian companies import and export large quantities of copper and steel to and from Iran, and arranging for U.S. banks to transfer at least $100 million to further the scheme.
 
“These defendants conspired and schemed to hide millions of dollars’ of financial transactions specifically to evade U.S. sanctions laws,” and deserve to face “strong legal action,” U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan said in a statement.
 
All of the defendants are at large. It is unclear whether they have hired lawyers.
 
Earlier this year, Reza Zarrab, a prominent Turkish gold trader, was arrested and criminally charged in a separate U.S. case for allegedly conspiring to conduct large transactions on behalf of Iran and entities there.
 
Prosecutors said Zarei, 67, is the father of Zarei Deniz, 39, and father-in-law of both her husband Deniz, 44, and Erdem, 32.
 
All live in Turkey and are citizens there, while Zarei and Zarei Deniz are also Iranian citizens, prosecutors added.
 
Each of the four defendants was charged with four conspiracy counts for alleged bank fraud, evading sanctions, money laundering and defrauding the United States. The bank fraud conspiracy charge carries a maximum 30-year prison term.
Papers relating to the case were first filed last December in the Manhattan court.
The case is U.S. v. Deniz et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-cr-00833.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a27. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Election Results, Preference Claims, GSP, Broker Exam, Classification”
 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week. … 
 
  – Nov 15: deadline for comments to State Dept. on form DS-7786, Request for Advisory Opinion
  – Nov 15: meeting of Defense Trade Advisory Group
  – Nov 16: effective date of BIS and State Dept. final rules harmonizing destination control statements for EAR and ITAR exports
  – Nov 16: deadline for comments to FTZ Board on requests from flavor compound, aircraft facilities
  – Nov 17: deadline for applications for membership on NAFTA binational panel
  – Nov 17: deadline for comments to ITC on potential IPR import restrictions on nucleic acid sequencing systems

  – Nov 18: deadline for nominations to USDA trade advisory committees

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

NWS_a38. ST&R Trade Report: “ITC Warns of Deficient MTB Petitions, Advises Petitioners to File Accurately and Early”

 
Many petitions seeking import tariff suspensions or reductions under the miscellaneous trade bill process have deficient article descriptions and are in danger of being rejected, according to the International Trade Commission. If these deficiencies are not addressed through the submission of revised petitions before the Dec. 12 deadline, the requested duty relief will not be granted.
 
The ITC says it does not have the resources to notify all petitioners whose filings are deficient, particularly if there is a surge in the number of petitions late in the filing period. The ITC has alerted some petitioners of potential deficiencies but is under no obligation to do so.
 
It is, therefore, critical for all MTB petitions to include article descriptions that:
 
  (1) use language that is clear and administrable by U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
  (2) include all applicable HTSUS subheadings; and
  (3) include any standard identification numbers or names.
 
MTB petitions (including those revised to address deficiencies) that are filed on or after Dec. 13 or are filed improperly will have to wait until October 2019 for another opportunity to be considered.
 
If you have already submitted an MTB petition, we recommend an immediate review prior to the Dec. 12 deadline.

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

NWS_a49. Tuttle Law Offices Newsletter: “ITMD Customer Service Survey”

 
Census is conducting a survey on ITMD customer support tools and services via the 2016 International Trade Management Division Customer Service. They are gathering feedback so that they can better meet the filing needs of its customers.
 
The survey should take only a few minutes to complete. You have until Friday, November 18, 2016 to complete the survey. Your feedback could inspire action.
 
All survey information is voluntary and Census will ensure your confidentiality under the provisions of Title 13, U.S.C. Chapter 5 Section 141 and 143.
 
Please click on the link here to begin the survey.
 
Questions can be directed to:
 
Wendy Peebles
Lead Outreach Coordinator
International Trade Helpline: 800.549.0595 Option 5

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

NWS_a510. Trade Compliance Flash: “OFAC Announces $25 Million Penalty in Joint Enforcement Action Against U.S. Oil and Gas Company”

(Source: Miller & Chevalier)

(Authors: Timothy P. O’Toole, Abigail E. Cotterill, and Patrick Stewart)

   Earlier today, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
announced
 that it had imposed a $5.976 million penalty against National Oilwell Varco Inc. (NOV) and two of its Canadian subsidiaries, Dreco Energy Services (Dreco) and NOV Elmar (Elmar). The OFAC penalty arose out of a number of transactions between NOV and its subsidiaries with Iran, Cuba, and Sudan — transactions that OFAC believed NOV either knew or should have known violated the applicable provisions of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, and/or the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. 

   OFAC noted that the transactions leading to the penalty included four large commission payments to a U.K. entity that resulted from sales to Iran. According to OFAC, “NOV ignored several warning signs over the course of three years that approving the payments was prohibited conduct.” OFAC determined that these specific violations were egregious. In reaching this conclusion, OFAC emphasized that NOV’s senior finance executives authorized the commissions, that NOV was willfully blind to the consequences of these payments, and that NOV ignored “Dreco’s deliberate non-identification of Iran in its communications. . . .” OFAC found the rest of the transactions that led to the violations were non-egregious.

   In explaining how the penalty was calculated under the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, OFAC included amongst its aggravating factors NOV’s “reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements,” harm to sanctions program objectives, the size and sophistication of NOV, and NOV’s “wholly inadequate” compliance program. Mitigating factors included the absence of a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation against NOV in the five years preceding the earliest alleged violation, and NOV’s commitment to improve its compliance program. No voluntary self-disclosure was made in this instance. 

   Although the OFAC penalty was lower than the $8.5 million base penalty for the apparent violations, it only represented about a quarter of the total penalty announced today against NOV. According to OFAC’s enforcement release, its settlement was “concurrent with both a settlement agreement between NOV and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) executed by NOV with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.” The release goes on to suggest that the amount of the joint settlement was $25 million, as it explains that OFAC’s portion of the settlement will be deemed satisfied by payment of the full $25 million penalty. 

   This announcement is another example of the dangers of what OFAC described as a “wholly inadequate” economic sanctions compliance program. It also illustrates that the enforcement agencies in this area — OFAC, BIS, and the Department of Justice — are increasingly working together, meaning that companies must take care to ensure their compliance programs address the entire range of export controls and economic sanctions laws that apply in this context.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a111. D. Jacobson, G. Kelley, and M. Burton: “Possible Post-Election Changes in US Trade and Sanctions Policy”

 
* Authors: Douglas N. Jacobson, Esq.,
djacobson@jacobsonburton.com
, 202-431-2407; Glen N. Kelley, Esq.,
gkelley@jacobsonburton.com
, 212-658-0601; and Michael L. Burton, Esq.,
mburton@jacobsonburton.com
, 202-957-8009. All of Jacobson Burton Kelley PLLC.
 
With Donald Trump’s surprise election victory there is now a great deal of uncertainty regarding the future direction of the US government on international trade and foreign policy issues. President-elect Trump’s campaign and transition teams have released few specific policy proposals and plans in these and other areas.
 
Just as the pollsters could not predict the outcome of the election, no one really knows what will happen after January 20, 2017. Candidate Trump took many conflicting positions during the campaign and in any event many campaign promises are never implemented.
 
However, we can already envision some significant changes in US trade and sanctions policy. In other areas we will closely watch the Trump transition team and the new Administration over the next few months for indications of the policies they will be formulating.
 
Trade Policy
 
For more than a year, a major part of President-elect Trump’s platform has been rejecting major US free trade agreements as “bad deals” for America, promising dramatic changes in the US approach to trade agreements. Ostensibly the goal is to better protect the interests of American workers and consumers.
 
As set out in President-elect Trump’s “100 day action plan“, his Administration could:
 
  – terminate US support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would, if adopted, greatly reduce the remaining trade barriers between the US and 11 other countries in the Americas and Asia. If the US chooses to withdraw from TPP, the other 11 countries may choose to enact their own free trade agreement. It is possible that Trump Administration will seek to re-open the TPP to new negotiations, although that will be difficult since many of the TPP member countries have already commenced the ratification process.
 
  – seek to renegotiate the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which could trigger substantial regulatory uncertainty, and possibly economic disruption, for manufacturers and exporters in the US, Mexico and Canada. It is important to note that this same promise was made by candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and was never acted upon. President Obama became a leading advocate of free trade agreements during his second term.
 
  – reject other trade agreements and arrangements that “unfairly impact American workers”. How a Trump Administration views the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), which is currently being negotiated, remains to be seen. It is possible the US will choose to enter into a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, once Brexit has occurred.
 
As set out on the Trump campaign website, the Trump Administration can be expected to ramp up enforcement of US trade remedy laws, as authorized in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) that was enacted in early 2016, to combat perceived unfair trade practices and subsidies by major US trading partners, particularly China. Also, candidate Trump indicated that he would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to take action against China’s alleged currency manipulation. Of course, there is a significant risk that these measures could trigger a damaging trade war (such as mutually escalating tariffs) with China and other trading partners.
 
Economic sanctions
 
Iran – During the presidential campaign, President-elect Trump frequently disparaged the current multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran and several other countries, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (commonly known as the Iran deal). Since the JCPOA was implemented on January 16, 2016, most US sanctions have remained on Iran (“primary sanctions”), though most US and EU sanctions applicable to EU and other non-US companies have been suspended by waivers, general licenses and other regulatory action (“secondary sanctions”). Non-US companies have been gradually increasing their new business and investment in Iran.
 
It is possible that the Trump Administration could reject all or some of the terms of the JCPOA and choose to reimpose some of the suspended sanctions, or the US Congress could enact additional sanctions on Iran. Either action would be viewed by Iran as a violation of the JCPOA. It seems unlikely that the EU, Russia or China would agree to any US request to renegotiate the JCPOA or to reimpose sanctions on Iran.
 
If the US reimposes sanctions, the Iranian government may be willing to continue with their nuclear-related commitments in exchange solely for continued EU sanctions relief, considering that the practical impact of US sanctions relief has been limited. On the other hand, if Iran rejects the JCPOA and accelerates its nuclear program, the world could once again see tensions escalate towards potential armed conflict.
 
Cuba – Over the last two years the Obama Administration has made numerous gradual amendments to the US sanctions regulations on Cuba. This has opened up opportunities for greater travel and cargo service between the US and Cuba, exports from the US of certain categories of goods, and US participation in the development of Cuban infrastructure, agriculture and telecommunications. Last month the White House made clear these changes were intended to “make our opening to Cuba irreversible”.
 
However, all of these changes were made by executive action, without the active support of Congress, and so the next President could immediately unwind them and put all of the sanctions back in place. President-elect Trump has signaled that he intends to “renegotiate” with the Cuban government. It seems that further relaxation of the sanctions will come slowly, if at all, and we will be watching for any indication that some of the sanctions could be reimposed next year.
 
Russia and Ukraine – President-elect Trump has expressed skepticism over the current US sanctions related to the situation in and around Ukraine and the underlying policies. These sanctions include a broad embargo of the Russian-occupied territory of Crimea, capital markets and other targeted sanctions on the Russian oil and gas, banking and defense sectors, and targeted sanctions on numerous Russian companies and individuals.
 
With a weakened US commitment to the sanctions we might see the US sanctions start to fall away in 2017. For example, they might be traded away in exchange for agreement with Russia on other issues. If this occurs, the voices within the EU against the continuation of sanctions may gain the upper hand, and we could also see some or all of the EU sanctions lifted.
 
Export controls
 
To date there is little indication how the Trump Administration will view export controls, many of which are subject to multilateral agreements. The Trump campaign website suggests that simplifying and reducing regulation will be a focus of the new Administration, but this may not apply as directly to regulations such as export controls that are primarily intended to protect US national security interests. We will be watching to see whether the current level of funding and support for the export control agencies can be expected to continue.
 
While President Obama’s Export Control Reform initiative (ECR) has made significant progress toward accomplishing the goal of achieving the “Four Singles” – a single control list, single licensing agency, single enforcement coordination agency, and single government IT system – the process is incomplete. The most significant progress from the perspective of exporters has been:

  (1) the review and update of the US Munitions List (USML) and the Commerce Control List (CCL);
  (2) the transfer of jurisdiction from the USML to the CCL of a broad range of less sensitive defense articles, such as parts and components; and
  (3) reducing the differences in the definitions of key terms in the two main sets of regulations, the ITAR and EAR.

 
The overall process, however, remains incomplete and further progress under the next Administration is in question given the close association of ECR with President Obama, a potential leadership gap within the agencies due to retirements and replacement of key political appointees driving ECR, and whether this initiative will be a priority of the next Administration. That being said, such significant investments have been made in ECR and momentum created that completing the less controversial portions of ECR seems likely. In sum, we may see further regulatory reforms next year, but it is unlikely that Congress will enact implementing legislation required to combine US export control agencies and lists.
 
Regarding defense manufacturing and exports, the Trump campaign website suggests that the new Administration will seek to enact legislation to expand all of the branches of the US military, to expand the US missile defense system and to expand US cyber warfare and defense capabilities. This implies an emphasis on growing the US defense industrial base.
 
Other trade and investment controls
 
Anti-corruption – it is difficult to say whether the Trump Administration will continue the aggressive enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) against non-US and US companies found to have engaged in bribery or corruption. In a 2012 CNBC interview Trump stated that the FCPA is a “horrible law and it should be changed.” Relevant factors include president-elect Trump’s stated focus on domestic (US) political corruption, on reducing regulations impacting US companies, and avoiding an interventionist foreign policy. It is possible FCPA enforcement could be de-prioritized in favor of national security, anti-terrorism and a greater focus on domestic corruption.
 
Anti-money laundering (AML) – much of the AML regulatory system built up by the last several presidential administrations is focused on countering the financing of terrorism. While little specifics can be gleaned from candidate Trump’s public statements thus far, with the overall focus on anti-terrorism we can assume that AML compliance and enforcement will remain a priority, both for financial institutions and companies involved in cross-border payments and transactions.
 
Foreign investment review/ CFIUS – we anticipate that the Trump Administration will be very focused on reviewing
foreign investments into the United States. The Trump campaign has emphasized national security issues and on the perceived harm to the US economy of the policies of other countries, and has had an unfortunate tendency to espouse protectionist policies. The range of transactions scrutinized by the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) may continue to expand. Unfortunately, as with the risk of a tariff-based “trade war”, any significant tightening of the US foreign investment review process could trigger increased restrictions on US companies investing in other countries.

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

COMM_a212. J.K. Huffman & D.P. Riley: “Farewell Paper Commodity Jurisdiction, Hello DECCS!”

(Source: Huffman Riley PLLC)
 
* Authors: Jeremy K. Huffman, Esq., jhuffman@huffmanriley.com, 202-742-6315 x3; and Darren P. Riley, Esq., driley@huffmanriley.com, 202-742-6315 x2. Both of Huffman Riley PLLC.
 
Tired of trying to figure out which of DDTC’s myriad electronic sites to use for a submission? The evolution of MARY, EFS and DTrade enters a new phase with the introduction of the Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS)!
 
The Defense Export Control and Compliance System
 
Beginning Wednesday November 16th at 5:00 PM, DDTC will no longer accept paper commodity jurisdiction requests. In fact, DDTC will not accept any commodity jurisdiction requests until Monday November 21st at 8:00 am when the DECCS system will be introduced.

The first phase of DECCS will consist of electronic submission of commodity jurisdiction requests, but the system is expected to be used for additional submissions, including ITAR registration and notification of changes to ITAR registrations. Anticipated highlights of DECCS include:

  – Ability to save and return to draft submissions
  – Form blocks will be customized to the type of submission being completed
  – Automated confirmation that all required blocks have been completed
  – Greater consistency between the ECR Order of Review and the information requested for a commodity jurisdiction review
 
We recommend that you review the upcoming changes now to ensure that you are familiar with the DECCS system and requirements, including the need for a digital signature.
 
Don’t be left behind!
 
DDTC’s most recent webinar concerning these upcoming changes, including a demonstration of DECCS is available here.

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

COMM_a313. S. Kohn Ross: “Compliance Programs That Work Are Key to Shippers’ Financial Success”

(Source: joc.com)
 
* Author: Susan Kohn Ross, Esq., Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, skr@msk.com, 310-312-3206
 
US Customs and Border Protection sent a letter to fruit and vegetable importers in early October, asking them to identify the basis on which they are declaring the value of their imported produce. The precursor was a realization by Customs that not all these imports were being correctly declared at time of entry. The consignment value was often based on an educated guess, if that, and generally not later updated to reflect actual sales values.
 
The questions asked by CBP included whether the produce was purchased or on consignment, whether the parties were related, how the consigned value was determined, and why reconciliation was not filed. This sent chills throughout the industry, and caused everyone to make sure to consult with appropriate advisers before responding.
 
If an importer knows his value (and other selected topics) at time of entry is not 100 percent correct, he runs the risk of penalty if he does not flag the discrepancy and then later file reconciliation to report his true sales values. Because of misunderstandings within the agency, those dealing with fruits and vegetables didn’t realize the disconnect until recently.
 
In reality, what importers often overlook is that the penalty for a failure to make a correct declaration when there is no duty difference is greater than when the full duty is not paid at time of entry. Perhaps this lax attitude can be traced to a lack of understanding, but it is also likely the result of the philosophy underpinning the CBP enforcement system.
 
When CBP enforces the law, it typically thinks first about civil penalties, for all but the most serious violations, and criminal penalties later. When it comes to exports, however, those enforcement agencies (for good reason) think jail first and civil penalties second. No one is suggesting CBP should change its philosophy. Rather, the point is that importers should know the requirements and abide by them, and so should exporters.
 
No doubt exporters pay far more attention to their levels of compliance, owing in large measure to the many companies that recognize the national security and foreign policy implications of the products they sell, along with their own compliance standards. However, it is also a matter that when it comes to enforcement, the departments of commerce and state have vigorous outreach programs and make a point of talking about their successes, whereas CBP is typically silent on this topic.
 
By way of example, last week was the annual Bureau of Industry and Security Update. The program featured representatives of commerce, but also from many other agencies, including state, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and the Defense Technology Security Administration. Perhaps one of the most striking discussions had to do with voluntary disclosures.
 
On a dais consisting of three investigators, the Office of Export Enforcement Director proudly pointed out that not one voluntary disclosure had ever led to a criminal investigation. Imagine how quickly disclosures would stop if one was ever turned into a criminal case. What was particularly noteworthy was the director’s comment that OEE routinely consults with the Department of Justice before deciding disclosures. When was the last time CBP talked about the disclosures it receives?
 
What made the discussion even more topical was the early October National Security Division at the Department of Justice guidance issued regarding voluntary self-disclosures. The focus of this guidance was described as “willful export control and sanctions violations” by companies and their employees. Aiming yet again to find ways to hold individuals responsible for violations that occur, this guidance requests companies to continue to file their voluntary self-disclosures with the agency that has jurisdiction over the alleged violation, but to also submit a disclosure to the justice department.
 
What makes this particular guidance unique is its focus on “willful” violations. What this tells the trade community is that generally less egregious mistakes will not lead to criminal prosecution, a philosophy the agencies generally follow when it comes to setting civil fines. In reality, any company that finds itself suffering a willful violation will most likely first fire the people involved and upgrade its compliance program. This must be done quickly, which again points to why having processes and procedures in place, fully supported by upper management, are critical.
 
The need for prompt action relates to a disclosure only being valid if it is reported before an investigation is opened, or if one is opened, before the company has notice of its existence. Once the remedial action has been completed, the disclosure is filed, and the steps taken are reported as part of the company seeking cooperation credit.
 
This latest Department of Justice memo builds on the now somewhat infamous Yates memo regarding individual liability. Both guidance documents underscore the same standard of full disclosure prior to any investigation having been initiated, with cooperation, including providing evidence and witnesses and facilitation of third-party evidence.
 
Taken together, these various publications and events serve to remind all importers and exporters that the key to financial success is a compliance program that actually works.

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

COMM_a414
. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
 

EAR § 758.1(e) provides that the person who files the Electronic Export Information (EEI) to the Automated Export System (AES) must be in the United States at the time of filing. The person who transmits the EEI to the AES must be a certified AES participant in accordance with 15 CFR 30.5 of the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). The person who transmits EEI to the AES, whether exporter (U.S. principal party in interest) or agent, is responsible for the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the EEI, except insofar as that person can demonstrate that he or she reasonably relied on information furnished by others.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a115
. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 116 Jobs Posted

(Source: Editor)  


 
Published every Monday or first business day of the week.  Send openings in the following format to
apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.
 
COMPANY; LOCATION; POSITION TITLE (WEBLINK); CONTACT INFO; REQ ID

#” New listing this week:

 

* The Aerospace Corporation; Crystal City VA; 
Export Compliance Staff V
; Requisition ID: 2761

* Amazon; London, UK;
Senior Trade Compliance Program Manager (M/F)
; Requisition ID: 429019

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432560
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432561
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Compliance Investigator
; Requisition ID: 432564
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Sanctions Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 431298

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
NA Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 256357

* Amazon; Seattle WA;
Prime Air Trade Compliance Program Manager; Requisition ID: 395658

* Amazon; Singapore;
Sr. Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 441734

* Aramco Services Company; Houston TX;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 295802


# Bendix; Elyria OH;
Trade Compliance Lead
; Requisition ID: 13130

# Boeing; Arlington (Crystal City) VA; 
Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1600018970

# Boeing; Bristol, UK;
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1600018482
* Boeing; Englewood CO;
Trade Specialist 2
; Requisition ID: 792575


#
Bose Corporation; Framingham MA;
Senior Customs & Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: R1867

* Bunn-O-Matic Corporation; Springfield IL;
Global Logistics Analyst
;
employment.openings@bunn.com
; GO1678

* Bunn-O-Matic Corporation; Springfield IL;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst
;
employment.openings@bunn.com
; GO1687

* Catalent; Swindon, Bathgate or Bolton, UK;
International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 0020306

* Cirrus Logic; Austin TX;
Logistics & Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: RB-3290

* CONMED Corporation; Utica NY;
Logistics & Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 3469

* Continental; Manila,
Philippines;
Head of Transportation and Foreign Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 42475BR

* Coriant; Naperville IL;
Sr Mgr of Global Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 11353

* Crane Currency; Nashua NH;
Import/Export & Logistics Manager
; Requisition ID: 2016-1459
* CSL Behring; King of Prussia PA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: R-031549

* DeLaval; Kansas City MO;
Trade Compliance Analyst

* Dow; Terneuzen, The Netherlands;
Customs & Trade Compliance Leader – Europe (M/F)
; Requisition ID: 16066552
* DRS Technologies; Dayton OH;
Senior Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 61027

* DRS Technologies; Germantown MD;
Senior Trade Compliance Manager
;
Requisition ID: 54749

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Bellevue WA;
Audit Manager – Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8215BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Bellevue WA;
Sr. Trade Compliance Manager – Sensors & Systems (Engineering)
; Requisition ID: 8791BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Brea CA;
Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 7333BR

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Paso Robles CA;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 6148BR

* Expeditors; Bangkok, Thailand; Regional Trade Compliance Manager – Indochina & Philippines
* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; 

Trade Compliance Specialist II

info@exportsolutionsinc.com

# FD Associates; Senior Export Compliance Associate,
jobs@fdassociates.net

* FLIR Systems; Arlington VA;
Director of Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance

* FLIR; Arlington VA;
Sr. Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 7924
* FLIR; Billerica MA; 
Sr. Defense Trade Licensing & Compliance Analyst
;
Requisition ID: 8008

* General Dynamics; South Wales, UK;
Senior Trade Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 6079

* Google; Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
Export Compliance Program Manager

* Graco; Rogers MN;
Trade Compliance Supervisor 

* Henderson Group Unlimited Inc.; Wash DC;
Commodities Jurisdiction Analyst
;
alannasmith@hendersongroupinc.net


# Intel; Santa Clara, CA;
Global Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: JR0814909

* IPG Photonics; Oxford MA;
Trade Compliance Analyst

* Jacobs; Houston TX;
Trade Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: REF00008A

* Lam Research Corporation; Fremont CA:
Foreign Trade Analyst 6
; Requisition ID: 12079BR

# Leica Biosystems; Nußloch, Germany;
Trade Compliance Manager (Import-Export)
; Requisition ID: COR000633

* Linde; Stewartsville NJ;
Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 916130

* Lumber Liquidators; Toano VA;
Compliance Auditor
; Requisition ID: 913

* Lutron; Coopersburg PA;
Trade Manager-Export
; Requisition ID: 2926

* Lutron; Coopersburg PA; Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 2834

* MACOM; Lowell MA;
Trade Compliance Analyst 1
; Requisition ID: 1529

* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; 16000DYY

* Meggitt (Erlanger), LLC; Erlanger KY;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 22005

* Meggitt PLC; Los Angeles CA;
Export Control/Trade Compliance Administrator
; Requisition ID: 22591
* Meggitt Control Systems; North Hollywood CA;
Trade Compliance Officer
;
jenn.avritt@meggitt.com
; Requisition ID: 23720

* Meggitt Advanced Composites Limited; Shepshed, UK;
Trade Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 22122

* Mentor Graphics; Fremont CA;
Senior Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 5129

* Microsoft; Redmond WA;
Trade Director, Regulatory Compliance & Standards
;
rybeli@microsoft.com
; Requisition ID: 973167

* Moog; East Aurora NY;
Export Compliance Manager
;
anihill@moog.com
; Requisition ID: 161913

* Northrop Grumman T
echnology Services Sector, Advanced Defense Services (ADS) Division
; International Posting (Saudi Arabia);
Manager International Trade Compliance 1
(Saudi Arabia)
; Requisition ID: 16003577

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; El Segundo CA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 4
; Requisition ID: 16024349 
 

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Falls Church VA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3/4
; Requisition ID: 16026961

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Falls Church VA;
International Trade Compliance Manager 1
; Requisition ID: 16023413

# Northrop Grumman Corporation; Herndon VA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 4
; Requisition ID: 16027421

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Linthicum MD;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16013233

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Redondo Beach CA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 4
; Requisition ID: 16024309
* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Rolling Meadows IL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16024684


* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Rolling Meadows IL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16023994
# Northrop Grumman Corporation; Woodland Hills CA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 16027068

* Paraxel; Berlin, Germany;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID:
pare-10055069

* PerkinElmer; Krakow, Poland or Zaventem, Belgium;
Regional Trade and Compliance Specialist – Belgium or Poland based

* PerkinElmer; Waltham MA;
International Trade Compliance Associate, Informatics

# Persistent Systems; New York;
International Trade Compliance Manager

* PPG; Sylmar CA;
Export Compliance Coordinator
;
doran@ppg.com


* Raytheon; Arlington VA;
Export Licensing Manager I
; Requisition ID: 88665BR
*Raytheon; Arlington VA;
Export Licensing Manager I
; Requisition ID: 87321BR
# Raytheon; El Segundo CA;
Import Control & Compliance Administration
; Requisition ID: 87699BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo CA;
Manager I Export-Import Control
; Requisition ID: 85354BR

* Raytheon; Fullerton CA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 85521BR

* Raytheon; Indianapolis IN;
Principal SC Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 84932BR

* Raytheon; Waltham MA;
Sr Principal SC Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 86169BR


* State Department; Wash DC;
Supervisory Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: HRSC/T/PM-2017-0003

* Tecomet; Lansing MI;
Export Control Coordinator – EAR/ITAR
; Requisition ID: 1539


* TE Connectivity; Middletown PA;
Senior Director Global Trade Services
; Requisition ID: 2016-73314

* Tenneco; Edenkoben, Germany;
Global Trade Compliance Manager (m/w)
; Requisition ID: 176871-846

#
Tesla Motors; Fremont CA;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 40738 

* Textron Systems; Wilmington MA;

Principal Export Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 242857


* Thales; Piscataway NJ;
Manager, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: R0012077

* Thales; Piscataway NJ;
Trade Compliance Specialist/Facility Security Officer; Requisition ID: R0012102

# ThermoFisher Scientific; Madison WI;
Import/Export Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: 41440BR

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Matamoros, Mexico;
Import/Export Supervisor
; Requisition ID: 39750BR

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Shanghai, China;
Compliance Director, Greater China
; Requisition ID: 38520BR
* ThermoFisher Scientific; Shanghai, China;
Sr. Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 37066BR

* Tractor Supply Company; Brentwood TN;
Customs Process Manager
;
nknott@tractorsupply.com
; Requisition ID: 16-986

* Troy Corporation; Florham Park NJ;
Global Trade and Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 306


* United States Pharmacopeia; Rockville MD OR Frederick MD;
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
Meaghan Ireland –
mci@usp.org
;
Requisition ID: 709-679

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
Manager, ITC-Authorizations
; Requisition ID: 22846BR  

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
International Trade Compliance Auditor; Requisition ID:
34285BR
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
Program Manager, Customs; Requisition ID:
31331BR


* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Phoenix AZ; Sr Analyst, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 30058BR 


#
University of Florida; Gainesville FL; Asst. Director Research Admin. – Export Control; Requisition ID: 499437 

* XPO Logistics; Greenwich CT;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst


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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a116. Thanksgiving Thanks for the Daily Bugle

(Source: Editor)
 
Northrop Grumman’s NGAS Management Newsletter (Nov 2016) contained a page of “Things We are Thankful For”, featuring several expressions of gratitude for the Daily Bugle, such as “We appreciate the massive amount of hard work that goes into keeping us current on all things relevant in the export world.  Plus, your quotations and jokes make The Daily Bugle even more of a go-to resource.  We are grateful for your expertise and your willingness to share it with us.” 
 
We at FCC thank Bob VanderLugt, Janet Jones, Ricardo Barreiro, Brenna Balcom, and all the members of the AS ITC team for including us in your Thanksgiving gratitude wishes.  And to all of our nearly 8,000 subscribers for being faithful readers of the Daily Bugle – we take a great deal of pride providing it to you.
 
  — Jim Bartlett, Alex Bosch, and the FCC partners and staff

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

(Source: Editor) 

 
*
Neil Young (Neil Percival Young, born 12 Nov 1945, is a Canadian singer-songwriter and musician, producer, director and screenwriter. He co-founded the band
Buffalo Springfield with Stephen Stills and Richie Furay, and formed
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young in 1969.
  – “It’s better to burn out, than to fade away.”
 
*
Charles Lyell (Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, FRS (14 Nov 1797 – 22 Feb 1875) was a British lawyer and the foremost geologist of his day.)
 – “Never call an accountant a credit to his profession; a good accountant is a debit to his profession.”
 
Monday is pun day:
 
Q. What is it called when the passengers in a van are heard screaming in terror while driving through a mountain?
A. Carpool Tunnel Syndrome. 
 –  Scott Blackmon, Madison, WI
 
Q. What’s the difference between a bad golfer and a bad skydiver?
A. The bad golfer goes *whack* “Oh, no!” and the bad skydiver goes “Oh no!” *whack*. 
  – Dan Kapptie, Great Falls, MT
 

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

EN_a318
. 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 Oct 2016: 81 FR 74918: New Mailing Address for the National Commodity Specialist Division, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade; Technical Correction  

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

* EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 
  – Last Amendment: 4 Nov 2016: 81 FR 76859-76861: Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations: Update of Arms Embargoes on Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, and Recognition of India as Member of the Missile Technology Control Regime 

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 4 Nov 2016: 81 FR 76861-76863: Amendments to OFAC Regulations To Remove the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations and References to Fax-on-Demand Service 
 
*
FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR)
: 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
here.
  – The latest edition (9 Mar 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.
 
*
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA)
, 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
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 (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: 12 Oct 2016: 81 FR 70340-70357: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Category XII and associated sections.
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 12 Oct 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, footnotes to amendments that will take effect tomorrow, 15 November, and on 31 December, plus a large Index and over 750 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 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.

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* 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 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 of this newsletter 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