;

16-1130 Wednesday “The Daily Bugle”

16-1130 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 30 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.

  1. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments on Impact of the Implementation of the CWC on Legitimate Commercial Chemical, Biotechnology, and Pharmaceutical Activities Involving “Schedule 1” Chemicals 
  2. DHS/CBP Posts Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Computer Notebook Hard Disk Drives 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. OMB/OIRA Reviews of Proposed Ex/Im Regulations 
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  1. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday: How Does CBP Determine If an Importer Has Acted with Negligence, Gross Negligence, or Fraud?” 
  2. Reuters: “U.N. Imposes New Sanctions on North Korea to Slash Cash from Exports” 
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “ACE Entry Filing Requirements for FDA-Regulated Goods Finalized” 
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Annual Customs Broker User Fee Due Feb. 3” 
  1. J. Dickeson: “Why You Might NOT Want a Customs Binding Ruling” 
  2. R. Rodriguez: “8% Pass Rate for CBP’s October 2016 Customs Broker Exam” 
  3. R.C. Burns: “Why It’s Called The Hill Rag” 
  1. Alex Groba Moves to MTU Aero Engines 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Oct 2016), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (25 Nov 2016), FACR/OFAC (4 Nov 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (21 Nov 2016) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments on Impact of the Implementation of the CWC on Legitimate Commercial Chemical, Biotechnology, and Pharmaceutical Activities Involving “Schedule 1” Chemicals

 
81 FR 86322-86323: Impact of the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on Legitimate Commercial Chemical, Biotechnology, and Pharmaceutical Activities Involving “Schedule 1” Chemicals (Including Schedule 1 Chemicals Produced as Intermediates) Through Calendar Year 2016
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
* SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public comments on the impact that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR), has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals during calendar year 2016. The purpose of this notice of inquiry is to collect information to assist BIS in its preparation of the annual certification to Congress on whether the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms are being harmed by such implementation. This certification is required under Condition 9 of Senate Resolution 75, April 24, 1997, in which the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the CWC.
* DATES: Comments must be received by December 30, 2016. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the Chemical Weapons Convention requirements for “Schedule 1” chemicals, contact Douglas Brown, Treaty Compliance Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-1001. For questions on the submission of comments, contact Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-2440.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
   In providing its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction, commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC or “the Convention”), the Senate included, in Senate Resolution 75 (S. Res. 75, April 24, 1997), several conditions to its ratification. Condition 9, titled “Protection of Advanced Biotechnology,” calls for the President to certify to Congress on an annual basis that “the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are not being significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, those chemicals and toxins listed in Schedule 1.” On July 8, 2004, President Bush, by Executive Order 13346, delegated his authority to make the annual certification to the Secretary of Commerce. …
 
   Dated: November 23, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a22. DHS/CBP Posts Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Computer Notebook Hard Disk Drives

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 86334-86337: Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Country of Origin of Computer Notebook Hard Disk Drives
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: Notice of final determination.
* SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of computer notebook hard disk drives.
* DATES: The final determination was issued on November 22, 2016. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within December 30, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Dinerstein, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade (202-325-0132).
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on November 22, 2016, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of computer notebook hard disk drives which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H261623, was issued at the request of Seagate Technology under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP was presented with two scenarios on how the hard disk drives are produced. In the first scenario, the firmware for the hard disk drives is primarily written and installed onto the hard disk drives in the same country. CBP concluded for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, that the country of origin of the notebook hard disk drives will either be Singapore or South Korea. In the second scenario, the firmware is written in a different country from where it is downloaded. In the second scenario, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, the country of origin of the notebook hard disk drives will be the country where the components for the devices are finally assembled, either [redacted]. …
   Based on the facts of this case, in first scenario, we find for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, the country of origin of the Notebook HDDs will either be Singapore or South Korea, where the firmware is both written and installed onto the HDDs. In the second scenario, where the firmware is written in a different country from where it is downloaded onto the HDDs, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement and country of origin marking, the country of origin of the Notebook HDDs will be the country where the last substantial transformation takes place, namely the country where the device components are finally assembled, which in this case will either be [redacted].
   Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.
 
   Sincerely,
Myles B. Harmon, Acting Executive Director Regulations and Rulings Office of Trade.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a13. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)


* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; RULES; Temporary Exports to Mexico under License Exception TMP [Publication Date: 1 December 2016.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

(Source:
OMB/OIRA
)     
 
* Commerce Control List: Updates Based on the 2015 Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Plenary Meeting; Conforming Changes and Corrections to Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation (NP) Controls
  – AGENCY: DOC-BIS
  – STAGE: Final Rule
  – RECEIVED DATE: 11/29/2016
  – RIN: 0694-AH20
  – Status: Pending Review

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

OGS_a46. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source: State/DDTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

NWS_a17
. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday — How Does CBP Determine If an Importer Has Acted with Negligence, Gross Negligence, or Fraud?”

 
Welcome to Weise Wednesday! Every week we will share a brief Q&A with the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise. Please send questions to AskGeorge@IntegrationPoint.com.

Q:  How does CBP determine whether an importer has acted with negligence, gross negligence, or fraud when errors are made on import transactions?
 
A:  There is no easy answer for this critical question.  Clearly, CBP will attempt to look at a broad range of factors in making this determination, and its conclusion will be affected by the experience they have had with the importer in question on past transactions. 
 
If the importer can clearly demonstrate that . . .
 
  (1) they have exercised reasonable care to get their transactions right over an extended period of time by implementing best-in-class processes and procedures; and
  (2) they have consulted with Customs experts in an effort to get it right, CBP is likely to be sympathetic when innocent mistakes are made and determine that only negligence has occurred.
 
On the other hand, if the importer cannot demonstrate a commitment to the exercise of reasonable care over an extended period of time and CBP finds an absence of underlying processes and procedures in place to get the transactions right – this will not bode well for the importer and is likely to lead to a determination of gross negligence. 
 
Gross negligence is also often found when CBP determines that the importer was aware, or clearly should have been aware based on the circumstances, that its processes were flawed and not likely to result in correct declarations, but no corrective actions were taken.
 
Fraud is a much more serious finding. It occurs when CBP finds evidence that the importer was aware that the information filed with CBP was incorrect and would result in under payment of duties or other violations of law, but filed it that way anyway.

Whenever an importer becomes aware that errors were made that could result in penalties, they should consult with their attorneys as quickly as possible.

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

NWS_a2
8. Reuters: “U.N. Imposes New Sanctions on North Korea to Slash Cash from Exports”

(Source: Reuters)
 
The United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions on North Korea on Wednesday aimed at cutting the Asian country’s annual export revenue by a quarter in response to Pyongyang’s fifth and largest nuclear test in September.
 
The 15-member council unanimously adopted a resolution to slash North Korea’s biggest export, coal, by about 60 percent with an annual sales cap of $400.9 million or 7.5 million metric tonnes, whichever is lower.
 
The U.S.-drafted resolution also bans copper, nickel, silver and zinc exports and the sale of statues by Pyongyang.
 
The United States was realistic about what the new sanctions on North Korea – also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) – will achieve, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, told the council after the vote.
 
  “No resolution in New York will likely, tomorrow, persuade Pyongyang to cease its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons. But this resolution imposes unprecedented costs on the DPRK regime for defying this Council’s demands,” she said.
 
  “In total, this resolution will slash by at least $800 million per year the hard currency that the DPRK has to fund its prohibited weapons programs, which constitutes a full 25 percent of the DPRK’s entire export revenues,” Power said.
 
North Korea has been under U.N. sanctions since 2006 over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests. It conducted its latest nuclear test on Sept. 9.
 
  “Sanctions are only as effective as their implementation,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council. “It is incumbent on all member states of the United Nations to make every effort to ensure that these sanctions are fully implemented.”
 
China, believed to be the only country buying North Korean coal, would slash its imports by some $700 million compared with 2015 sales under the new sanctions, diplomats said.
 
Over the first 10 months of 2016, China imported 18.6 million tonnes of coal from North Korea, up almost 13 percent from a year earlier. North Korean exports to the end of 2016 will now be capped at $53.5 million, or 1 million metric tonnes.
 
While China said it was opposed to North Korea’s nuclear tests, U.N. Ambassador Liu Jieyi accused the United States and South Korea of intensifying confrontation with North Korea by scaling up military exercises and presence.
 
He described the planned U.S. deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea as “neither conducive to the realization of the goal of de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula nor helpful to the maintenance of peace and stability on the peninsula.”
 
The U.N. resolution blacklisted 11 more individuals, including former ambassadors to Egypt and Myanmar, and 10 entities, subjecting them to a global travel ban and asset freeze for ties to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
 
It calls on U.N. states to reduce the number of staff at North Korea’s foreign missions and requires countries to limit the number of bank accounts to one per North Korean diplomatic mission amid concerns that Pyongyang had used its diplomats and foreign missions to engage in illicit activities.

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

NWS_a3
9. ST&R Trade Report: “ACE Entry Filing Requirements for FDA-Regulated Goods Finalized”

 
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a final rule that, effective Dec. 29, will require certain data elements material to admissibility reviews on imported FDA-regulated products to be submitted in the Automated Commercial Environment (or any other electronic data interchange system authorized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection) at the time of entry.
 
The FDA states that this rule will facilitate automated “may proceed” determinations for low-risk FDA-regulated products and thus allow the agency to focus its limited resources on those products that may be associated with a greater public health risk. To that end, the FDA may reject any entry filing that does not contain the complete and accurate information required by this rule without performing an admissibility review.
 
The final rule requires the following data elements to be submitted in ACE at the time of entry for food (as applicable), drugs, biological products, human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, medical devices, radiation-emitting electronic products, cosmetics, and tobacco products.
 
  – the country where the article last underwent any manufacturing or processing of more than a minor, negligible, or insignificant nature or where the article was grown (including harvested or collected and readied for shipment to the U.S.)
  – complete FDA product code, which must be consistent with the invoice description of the product
  – full intended use code (which may be UNK for “unknown”)
  – email and phone number of the importer of record
  – product-specific data elements
 
The final rule does not require submission of the following data elements that were included in the proposed rule: FDA value and quantity, contact information for persons related to the importation other than the IOR (e.g., manufacturer, shipper, importer of record, or “deliver to” party), name and address of the ACE filer for tobacco products, the investigational new drug application number for device-drug combination products, and the drug listing number for human drugs regulated by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
 
This rule also makes technical revisions to certain sections of the FDA’s regulations to make updates and provide clarifications. These include updating the definition of “owner” or “consignee” to make it consistent with title 19 of the U.S. Code, allowing the FDA to provide notice of sampling directly to an owner or consignee, and clarifying that written notice can be provided electronically to owners or consignees of FDA actions to refuse and/or subject certain products to administrative destruction.

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

NWS_a4
10. ST&R Trade Report: “Annual Customs Broker User Fee Due Friday, Feb. 3rd”

 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has set Feb. 3, 2017, as the due date for payment of the $138 annual customs broker user fee. This fee is assessed for each permit held by a broker, whether an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. It is payable for each calendar year in each broker district where the broker was issued a permit to do business. CBP anticipates that for subsequent years this fee will be due on the last business day of January (not February, as has previously been the case).

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a111. J. Dickeson: “Why You Might NOT Want a Customs Binding Ruling”

(Source:
Dickeson.net Blog
, Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Jim Dickeson,
jim@dickeson.net
, 206-910-0311
 
I just read an article about Customs Binding Rulings, the premise being that you always need one.  Always.  Regardless of circumstances.
 
Call me contrarian, but I don’t quite agree.
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides for importers, or their hired experts, to submit a request for
Binding Ruling
on HTS classification, valuation, country of origin, and other import matters, but they’re mostly done for classification. This can give importers a relative assurance of what they are getting into before they bring in a whole boatload of something. But it’s relative, because Binding Rulings are occasionally overturned.
 
The first problem I have with Binding Rulings is this. Shortcut the request, and CBP may issue a bad ruling with negative consequences, such as higher duty rates. Overturning bad rulings is more trouble, and can take much longer, than getting a proper ruling in the first place.
 
Requesting a Binding Ruling properly requires providing technical documentation, doing considerable supporting research, including rulings previously issued to others in similar circumstances, and building a case for the end result sought. But I would argue that, having done all that, you have fulfilled your
Reasonable Care
requirement. Just file your work away, and pull it out if CBP should ever question things. If CBP disagrees with your work, only then, if it is worth pursuing, do you go for a Binding Ruling. In other words, it is a last resort, not a first.
 
The other problem I have with Binding Rulings are those issued specifically for HTS classification, which, as I said early, are the majority of them. CBP Regulation,
19 CFR 177.8(a)(2)
, requires that a HTS classification ruling be referenced on any and all customs entries of the subject merchandise. This can be a problem when new people at a customs brokerage company, or a completely different brokerage company, begins handling an importer’s business, and the existence of a ruling is not adequately conveyed.
 
I have seen CBP nailing importers during a
Focused Assessment
(otherwise known as a Customs audit) for failing to mention a ruling on customs entries.  It’s a good idea for a customs broker, when taking on a new importer account, to search
CBP’s Binding Rulings Database
by that importer’s name to see what might be out there.
 
And that’s my ruling on Binding Rulings.

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

COMM_a212. R. Rodriguez:  “8.1% Pass Rate for CBP’s October 2016 Customs Broker Exam”

(Source: Ruth Rodriguez, Esq., 800-256-2013,
ruthr@exportimportlaw.com
)
 
Below are the pass rate for CBP’s Licensed Customs Broker exams since October 2007. Only 3 of the 19 exams in that time period had a lower pass rate than this year’s October exam.
 

DATE
          PASS RATE
 

2007/10      9.2%
2008/04      20.5%
2008/10      15.0%
2009/04      10.1%
2009/10      6.0%
2010/04      11.1%
2010/10      29.0%
2011/04      19.0%
2011/10      25.2%
2012/04      1.5%
2012/10      20.0%
2013/04      4.4%
2013/10      11.0%
2014/04      24.6%
2014/10      34.2%
2015/04      28.3%
2015/10      20.0%
2016/04      21.7%
2016/10      8.1%
Average      17%
 
Feel free to share, but please credit “The Best Customs Broker Course,”
www.bestcustomsbrokercourse.com
.

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

COMM_a313. R.C. Burns: “Why It’s Called The Hill Rag”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, 202-624-3949,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
)
 
The Washington political gossip sheet officially called The Hill, but more commonly known as “The Hill Rag,” wanders into the world of OFAC regulations and, no big surprise, gets it wrong.   The occasion for the Hill Rag’s regulatory blunder is a blurb on the representation by a DC firm of the government of Sudan in federal court litigation:
 
[The firm] is working for the Republic of the Sudan on “several litigation matters pending before [U.S.] federal courts.” … Because of U.S. sanctions on Sudan, [the firm] must obtain a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to work on the contract. OFAC approves some activities that would be otherwise prohibited by sanctions, including legal services.
 
Er, no. Section 538.505 of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations provides that law firms may provide legal services without a specific license to the Government of Sudan when “made a party to domestic U.S. legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings.” It also covers suits where Sudan is the plaintiff and which are filed to protect property interests subject to U.S. jurisdiction. These two provisions cover just about any federal court law suit involving Sudan.
 
The only thing that requires a specific license in these two instances is the receipt of fees by the law firm for the services provided. But licenses are not required, as The Hill says, for all legal services.
 
I guess the Hill Rag reporters could not find anybody in DC who could talk to them about OFAC or show them how to use The Google.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a114. Alex Groba Moves to MTU Aero Engines

(Source: Editor)
 
Mr. Alexander Groba, formerly with Airbus Group, Munich, has been appointed Head of Customs and Export Control / Foreign Trade at MTU Aero Engines, Munich.  Alexander’s new contact information will be: alexander.groba@mtu.de and +49 89 1489 6450.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

(Source: Editor) 

 
*
C. S. Lewis (Clive Staples Lewis, 29 Nov 1898 – 22 Nov 1963, was a British novelist, poet, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian, broadcaster, lecturer, and Christian apologist. He is best known for his fictional work, especially
The Screwtape Letters, and
The Chronicles of Narnia.)

  – “Failures, repeated failures, are finger posts on the road to achievement. One fails forward toward success.”

              

*
Jonathan Swift (30 Nov 1667 – 19 Oct 1745, was an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer poet and cleric, remembered mainly for
Gulliver’s Travels.)

  – “Good manners is the art of making those people easy with whom we converse. Whomever makes the fewest people uneasy is the best bred in the room.” 

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

EN_a316
. 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: 25 Nov 2016: 81 FR 85138-85147: Commerce Control List: Removal of Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 Controls  

  
*
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: 21 Nov 2016 (effective 31 Dec 2016): 81 FR 83126-83135: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Categories VIII and XIX
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 21 Nov 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 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