;

16-1205 Monday “The Daily Bugle”

16-1205 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 5 December 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 Amends EAR, Removes SMIC from Validated End-Users in China 
  2. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Removes Special Iraq Reconstruction License 
  3. State/DDTC Amends ITAR with Corrections & Additions to ITAR Parts 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and 127 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. Commerce/Census Posts Guidance to Correct an Issue Concerning the EEI Filing Printout in AESDirect 
  4. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yeats Announces New DPJ “Individual Accountability” Website 
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  6. EU Posts Recommendations Concerning Directive 2009/43/EC 
  1. Expeditors News: “Presidential Proclamation Modifies 2016 HTS to Include WCO Changes” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “ITAR Amended to Clarify Provisions on Disclosures and Debarments” 
  1. L.M. Friedman: “Ruling of the Week 2016.23: Patents and Value” 
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 114 Jobs Posted 
  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 (5 Dec 2016), FACR/OFAC (4 Nov 2016), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (30 Aug 2016), ITAR (5 Dec 2016) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Removes SMIC from Validated End-Users in China

 
81 FR 87426-87427: Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation From the List of Validated End-Users in the People’s Republic of China
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule. …
* DATES: This rule is effective December 5, 2016.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: 202-482-5991; Email: ERC@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   In this final rule, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR (Supplement No. 7) to remove the VEU Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”) from the list of VEUs in the PRC. Specifically, BIS removes information for SMIC from Supplement No. 7. BIS takes this action at SMIC’s request. BIS makes this change to Supplement No. 7 at the company’s request and not in response to activities of concern. …
   Dated: November 23, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a22. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Removes Special Iraq Reconstruction License

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 87424-87426: Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Special Iraq Reconstruction License
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing the Special Iraq Reconstruction License (SIRL) from the EAR. This action furthers the objectives of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative that directs BIS and other federal agencies to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public. Specifically, the SIRL is outdated and seldom used by exporters, who now have more efficient options for exports and reexports to Iraq and transfers (in-country) in Iraq. This rule also makes conforming changes.
* DATES:
This rule is effective January 4, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Andrukonis, Director, Export Management and Compliance Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, by telephone at (202) 482-6396 or by email at Thomas.Andrukonis@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   The record indicates that exporters supplying items used in support of the civil reconstruction efforts in Iraq have not relied on the SIRL to advance those efforts, apparently because of its complexity and narrowness. Further, since 2004, BIS processed only three applications for the SIRL and approved only one, as compared to over 400 approved individual license applications for the export of items to Iraq between 2012 and 2015. Finally, with the implementation of updates to the EAR, the relative advantages of the SIRL have been offset by changes to individual licenses and other types of authorizations offered by BIS that provide less complex alternatives to the SIRL.
   Thus, consistent with the President’s Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public (see “Improving Regulatory Review” (Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011)), BIS concluded that the SIRL proved not to be useful.
   BIS received no comments in response to the June 7 rule. BIS, therefore, publishes in final form the amendments to the EAR to remove the SIRL as described initially in the June 7 rule. …
   Dated: November 23, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a33. State/DDTC Amends ITAR with Corrections & Additions to ITAR Parts 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and 127

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
81 FR 87427-87430: Corrections & Additions to ITAR Parts 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and 127
(Public Notice: 9757; RIN 1400-AE05)
* AGENCY: Department of State.
* ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
* SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to clarify recent revisions made pursuant to the President’s Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative. This rule clarifies the scope of disclosure of information submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), clarifies the policies and procedures regarding statutory debarments, and corrects administrative and typographical errors.
* DATES: This Final rule is effective on December 5, 2016. The Department will accept comments on the Final regulation up to January 4, 2017. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792; email DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change, Corrections and Clarifications.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department makes the following revisions to the ITAR in this final rule:
     A definition of “classified” is moved from § 121.1(e) to § 120.46;
     The structure of § 121.1(a)-(e) is realigned, with paragraphs (a) and (b) revised to clarify the existing requirements for United States Munitions List (USML) controls, and paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) removed;
     Thirteen USML categories are amended to clarify that commodities, software, and technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and related to defense articles in a USML category may be exported or temporarily imported on the same license with defense articles from any category, provided they are to be used in or with that defense article;
     In three places within the USML, the word “enumerated” is replaced with the word “described” to make the language consistent with changes directed in the Final Rule published at 79 FR 61226, Oct. 10, 2014;
     Section 122.4(c)(4) is revised to permit the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to approve an alternative timeframe, not less than 60 days, to the current 60-day requirement for registrants to provide a signed amended agreement;
     Section 124.2(c)(5)(v) is revised to correct errors to the USML category references for gas turbine engine hot sections, from VI(f) and VIII(b) to Category XIX;
     Section 124.12 is amended in paragraph (a)(9) to update the name of the Defense Investigative Service to Defense Security Service;
     Section 126.9 on Advisory Opinions and Related Authorizations is amended to correct paragraph (a);
     Paragraph (b) of § 126.10 is amended to clarify the scope of control and disclosure of information, however, notwithstanding the changes to paragraph (b) it is the Department’s policy not to publicly release information relating to activities regulated by the ITAR except as required by law or when doing so is otherwise in the interest of the United States Government; and
     Section 127.7(b) is amended to clarify the policies and procedures regarding statutory debarments (addressing inadvertent omissions resulting from a prior amendment to that section), and § 127.11 is amended to make conforming revisions to paragraph (c) omitted from prior amendment to that section.  . . .
Dated: November 18, 2016.

Tom Countryman, Acting Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of State
[Editor’s Note: The GPO’s eCFR edition of the ITAR has not yet been updated, but all subscribers of
Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“The BITAR”) have received a complete version of the BITAR including the above amendments.  To subscribe, go to
www.FullCircleCompliance.eu
.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a14. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)


[No items of interest noted today.] 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

OGS_a66. Commerce/Census Posts Guidance to Correct an Issue Concerning the EEI Filing Printout in AESDirect

(Source: census@subscriptions.census.gov, 5 Dec 2016)
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has identified an issue with the Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing printout in AESDirect and would like to provide the following guidance for resolution:
 
Issue: The AESDirect Electronic Export Information (EEI) Filing Printout is not populating the Company Address in block 5b.
 
Resolution: Please ensure that an address record with address type of “Street (Physical) Address” exists in the sub-account of your ACE Portal Account’s Exporter view. If a “Street (Physical) Address” record is not listed, please contact either your Account Owner or a Proxy Account Owner to add the address record to your account. If the Account Owner or Proxy Account Owner is unable to add the “Street (Physical) Address” record to the ACE Portal Account, an e-mail on company letterhead may be sent to ACE.SUPPORT@CBP.DHS.GOV requesting and authorizing CBP to add the “Street (Physical) Address” record to their ACE Portal Account on their behalf.
 
*** Note: You will have to logout from AESDirect and the ACE Portal after making this change so the change can take effect in the Export Filing module. Also this will not pre-populate already completed filings. ***
 
For questions concerning this message, please contact William Delansky at william.s.delansky@cbp.dhs.gov or David Garcia at david.uscs.garcia@cbp.dhs.gov

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

 
From Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates remarks at the Annual International Conference on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:
 
Companies that fail to self-disclose can be assured they will be treated differently from those that choose to make a disclosure.  …  The department’s heightened focus on individuals extends beyond the FCPA arena.  Across our corporate enforcement work, department attorneys are identifying ways to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their conduct, regardless of where those individuals appear on a company’s organizational chart.  The same basic principle applies:  to deter wrongdoing, we need to change the risk-reward calculus for corporate decision-makers, and we do that by punishing decision-makers when they decide to break the law.  …
 
I suspect that everyone in this room is familiar with what’s now known – for better or for worse – as the Yates Memo.  I don’t need to recount the six specific policy steps we outlined in the Memo, although I think it’s helpful to discuss generally what we hoped to accomplish and what results we’re seeing so far.  
The purpose of the Memo was never to increase individual prosecutions by a certain number or percentage, or to instruct our prosecutors to bring us the heads of certain corporate executives.  From the beginning, our goal was to develop and institutionalize mechanisms to ensure that, across the department, we consistently investigate and prosecute corporate cases as effectively as possible.  And that’s exactly what we’ve done.  …
 
Our effort took several forms, but a common thread throughout all the policy steps is ensuring that our lawyers, both criminal and civil, are focused on individuals from the very beginning of an investigation.  First, we made clear that providing information about individual wrongdoers is a threshold requirement for any corporate cooperation – without it, no cooperation credit is available.  Second, we changed the way that we approach civil enforcement against individuals, especially by encouraging our attorneys to pursue civil charges where warranted even if a defendant may not have full ability to pay a judgment.  And, third, we increased the difference between the credit a corporation receives for voluntary self-disclosure and the credit it gets if the company was aware of wrongdoing but failed to cooperate until after the government came knocking.  We did this by adding a 10th factor to the principles of federal prosecution of business organizations, more commonly known as the “Filip factors,” focused exclusively on the question of whether a company has or has not made a voluntary self-disclosure to the department of its potentially unlawful conduct.  We did this, in part, because of a perception in the defense bar – not entirely unfounded – that companies lacked significant incentive to disclose misconduct voluntarily.  The perception was that the credit received for a self-disclosure was not meaningfully different from the credit a company received if it began fully cooperating only after it knew it was on the department’s radar.  By breaking out voluntary self-disclosure into a 10th, standalone factor, we are aiming to change that perception, and the reality behind it.  Now, companies that voluntarily self-disclose can be assured they will be treated differently from those that do not.  Or, put the other way round, companies that fail to self-disclose can be assured they will be treated differently from those that choose to make a disclosure.
 
Today, I’m pleased to announce that we’re launching a new website, which is posted at the
DOJ Website
.  It includes links to the September 2015 Memo, as well as the changes we made last year to the Filip factors.  In addition, we have posted answers to a number of the most frequently asked questions, which will hopefully provide all of you with helpful guidance.  But, as I said last September when we first rolled out the Memo, there’s always a simpler option when you have a question:  pick up the phone and call.  You should always feel comfortable calling the Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) or trial attorney handling your case, and they will do what they can to answer questions you have.  …
 
I expect that, in coming months and years, when companies enter into high-dollar resolutions with the Justice Department, you’ll see a higher percentage of those cases accompanied by criminal or civil actions against the responsible individuals.  It won’t be every case, but the investments we’re making now are likely to yield a real increase in the years ahead.  …

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

OGS_a48. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

OGS_a59. EU Posts Recommendations Concerning Directive 2009/43/EC

 
Recommendations:
  – Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2123 of 30 November 2016 on the harmonization of the scope of and conditions for general transfer licenses for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C (2016) 7711)
  – Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2124 of 30 November 2016 on the harmonization of the scope of and conditions for general transfer licenses for certified recipients as referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C (2016) 7728)
 
[Editor’s Note: Please keep in mind that a “recommendation” is not legally binding. A recommendation allows the EU institutions to make their views known and to suggest a line of action without imposing any legal obligation on those to whom it is addressed.]

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a110
. Expeditors News: “Presidential Proclamation Modifies 2016 HTS to Include WCO Changes”

 
On December 1, 2016 President Obama signed Proclamation 9549 modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) to incorporate the changes recommended in U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Publication 4653 which is based on the amendments suggested by the World Customs Organization (WCO).
 
The amendments will become effective on January 2, 2017 or thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register.
 
As detailed in the Proclamation, the USITC is tasked with keeping the HTS “Pursuant to sections 1205(c) and (d) of the 1988 Act (19 U.S.C. 3005(c) and (d)), the Commission has recommended modifications to the HTS to conform the HTS to amendments made to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and the Protocol thereto (the “Convention”).
 
The full text of the Presidential Proclamation is available online here.

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

NWS_a2
11. ST&R Trade Report: “ITAR Amended to Clarify Provisions on Disclosures and Debarments”

 
The State Department has issued a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to clarify recent revisions made pursuant to the Export Control Reform Initiative. While this rule is effective as of Dec. 5, comments on it may be submitted through Jan. 4.
 
Specific changes in this rule include the following:
 
  – Thirteen U.S. Munitions List categories are amended to clarify that commodities, software, and technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations and related to defense articles in a USML category may be exported or temporarily imported on the same license with defense articles from any category provided that they are to be used in or with that defense article.
  – The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may approve a timeframe of not less than 60 days as an alternative to the current 60-day requirement for registrants to provide a signed amended agreement
  – The scope of control and disclosure of information is clarified; however, it is the department’s policy not to publicly release information relating to activities regulated by the ITAR except as required by law or when doing so is otherwise in the interest of the U.S. government.
  – The policies and procedures regarding statutory debarments are clarified by addressing inadvertent omissions resulting from a prior amendment.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a112. L.M. Friedman: “Ruling of the Week 2016.23: Patents and Value”

(Source:
Customs Law Blog
)
 
* Author: Lawrence M. Friedman, Esq., Barnes, Richardson & Coburn LLP,
Lfriedman@barnesrichardson.com
, 312-297-9554.
 
We don’t talk enough about customs value here. It is important, complicated, and interesting. It deserves more attention. There are, however, also fewer rulings and cases on valuation questions. Happily, this one (HQ H233376, Sep. 19, 2016) caught my eye. The issue is whether a royalty paid to a U.S. patent holder who is unrelated to the importer is dutiable when the royalty is paid not by the importer but by the importer’s parent company.

The patents at issue are all utility patents, meaning that they relate to new and useful inventions rather than to the design aesthetics of the item. A utility patent generally involves the critical technology that defines or empowers the invention. The license grants to the importer (via a predecessor company, just to complicate matters) “to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale and import Licensed Devices” worldwide. The license also authorizes the licensee to disclose to the manufacturer, who is in Malaysia, the information that is necessary to manufacture the products. Similarly, the manufacturer is authorized to use the patented technology to makes the item and to apply related trademarks.

 
When goods are imported pursuant to a sale, the customs valuation is usually the “transaction value.” That is defined at 19 USC 1401a(b) as the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, plus specified statutory additions including “any royalty or license fee related to the imported merchandise that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States.”

In 1993, Customs published an official notice detailing how it will analyze royalties for dutiability. We discussed that here. To summarize from my earlier post, under the test, Customs and Border Protection analyzes each royalty agreement on a case-by-case basis and asks three questions:

(1) Was the importer merchandise manufactured under patent? If the answer is yes, then the payment is more closely tied to the production of the merchandise and is, therefore, more likely dutiable.

(2) Was the payment involved in the production or sale of the imported merchandise? This question goes more deeply into the purpose of the payment. If the importer can show that the payment is for something other than the manufacture, production, or purchase of the imported goods, the payment may not be dutiable. Customs gave two examples in which the Court found that the putative royalty was for the use of the product in the United States, not for the patent rights related to the production or importation of the product. A positive answer to this question, therefore, leans toward dutiablity while a negative answer leans against.

(3) Could the importer buy the product without paying the fee? If the fee is not optional and goes to the seller, it is more likely to be a dutiable part of the value of the merchandise. According to Customs, this question “goes to the heart” of whether the payment is a condition of sale. That means a negative answer to this question indicates dutiability.

In this ruling, Customs gave the short answer that the royalty is dutiable. The merchandise was manufactured under a patent and the patented technology is related to the production or sale of the imported item. Furthermore, Customs found that the importer could not buy the merchandise without paying the fee. Nevertheless, counsel for the importer (who was not me) argued against suitability of the royalty in this case.

Counsel first noted that the royalty is not paid to or for the benefit of the seller. This is a common argument and merits attention. How is a royalty part of the “price paid or payable” for the merchandise if it not paid to the seller? The answer is that the statute does not require that the royalty be paid to the seller to be dutiable. Rather, the statute requires that royalties be added to the dutiable value when they are “related to the imported merchandise” and when “the buyer is required to pay [the royalty], directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the imported merchandise for exportation to the United States.” Note that the statute does not say to whom the royalty must be paid to be dutiable.

The question is not how much did the seller receive in exchange for the goods. The question is what is the total cost to the buyer to acquire the merchandise. This is entirely consistent with other parts of the statute which, for example, add assists, selling commissions, and packing materials to the entered value for duty. If the buyer did not pay this patent royalty, the seller would have to do so to acquire the legal right to manufacture the item. Because the buyer’s parent paid it, the cost to the seller is reduced below what it would otherwise have been. This is exactly why the value of buttons provided by the buyer to the manufacturer for use in the production of shirts must be added to the entered value of the shirts. If the seller had to go buy the buttons, it would increase the price to cover the additional expense. This, therefore, is a losing argument, even when the patent holder is in the U.S.

To stick to this conclusion, Customs had to distinguish several prior rulings that appear to have conflicting results. I’m going to spare you the details. It should suffice to say that a patent royalty might not be dutiable if it is not a condition of the sale to the United States or is not fundamental to the manufacturer of the item. For example, a patent license relating only to the use of some item, as opposed to the manufacturer of it, is less likely to result in a dutiable royalty. Similarly, a design patent is less likely to be dutiable than is a utility patent.

The other question is whether a royalty paid to a U.S. patent holder can be a condition of the sale for export from the foreign manufacturer. After all, what does the manufacturer care if the buyer fails to pay the royalty? That is not its problem. Customs’ analysis is more nuanced than that. It held that a condition of the sale exists where the right to use the patent “must be secured, either by the buyer or the manufacturer because the patent is necessary to produce the merchandise to be sold for export to the United States. i.e., [sic] the imported merchandise would not exist it the rights to the patent were not obtained.” This gives the requirement that the royalty be a condition of the sale a broad and flexible interpretation that can be interpreted practically as well as under the terms of an individual contract.

All of that led Customs and Border Protection to hold the royalty in this case to be dutiable.

I have a question. The ruling clearly says, “the royalty payments at issue are made to the licensor, [Company A] (a U.S. patent holder who is not related to the company or to the manufacturer of the imported merchandise_, by [Company B], the parent of the company’s parent.” [Emphasis added.] So am I correct that the buyer did not actually pay this royalty? It was paid not by the parent company but by the grandparent company. This should be discussed in the ruling. The company, presumably the importer, is not responsible for the payment of the royalty. It seems possible that the company did not even know about it.

The statute covers “any royalty or license fee related to the imported merchandise that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale . . . .” [Emphasis added.] It appears that Customs treated the royalty as indirectly paid, without stating so. Is that right?

I would read “indirectly” as relating to the method of payment to the seller, not to the party making the payment, which seems to be limited to the buyer. How do we know from this ruling that the buyer is required to make this payment, whether directly or indirectly? It seems clear that a related but legally separate entity is required to make that payment. I can see CBP’s implied conclusion that this is an indirect payment by the buyer, but I think there needs to be some facts stated to support that conclusion. Otherwise Customs has effectively ignored the separate legal status of the companies and pierced a corporate veil without comment.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a113
. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 114 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:

 

* 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: 432564

# Amazon; Seattle WA;
Sanctions Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 467576

* 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

* AT&T; Dallas TX;
Global Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 1661045


# Bayer; Leverkusen, Germany;
Head of Customs & International Trade Classification (m/f)
; Requisition ID: 0000180456


* Boeing; Bristol, UK;
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1600018482


* Boeing; Neu-Isenburg, Germany;
Trade Specialist 4 m/f
; Requisition ID: 760960
*
Bose Corporation; Framingham MA;
Senior Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: R1867

* 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 Aerospace and Electronics; Chandler AZ;
Sr. Export Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 4725

* 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

*
DRS Technologies; Dayton OH;
Senior Trade Compliance Specialist
III
; Requisition ID: 61027

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

* Edgewell Personal Care; Milford CT; 
FTA Export Compliance And Security Lead; Requisition ID: NAM00808

* Emerald Performance Materials; Vancouver WA;
Manager, North America Logistics

* 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;
Logistics Coordinator
; Requisition ID:
8887BR

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

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

* Esterline Technologies Corporation; Tijuana, Mexico;
Import-Export Specialist
; Requisition ID: 8617BR

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

info@exportsolutionsinc.com

* Facebook; Menlo Park CA;
Head of Global Trade Compliance Operations

* 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

# Hewlett Packard Enterprise; Amstelveen, The Netherlands;
Customs and Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 1585140

* Ingersoll Rand; San Diego, CA;
Trade Compliance Manager (Trilingual: English, Spanish, and Portuguese)
; Requisition ID: 1610632

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

* 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

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

* Meggitt PLC; Los Angeles CA;
Export Control/Trade Compliance Administrator
; Requisition ID: 22591

* Meggit PLC; Los Angeles CA;
Trade Compliance Officer
* Meggit PLC; Simi Valley CA;
Trade Compliance Administrator

* 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

* Merck KGaA; South West England, UK;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 153405

* 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
# North Dakota State University; Fargo, ND;
Research Integrity and Compliance Administrator-Export Control
; Requisition ID: 1600266

* 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; 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 2
; Requisition ID: 16024684


* Pall Corporation; Portsmouth, UK;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: SHA000201 

* Parexel; Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: pare-10055899

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


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

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

* Smith and Wesson; Springfield MA;
International Sales Administrator
; Requisition ID: SCB-1223
* Solenis; Wilmington, DE;
Global Trade Compliance NAFTA Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2016-5783

* SpaceX; Wash DC;
Counsel – Export Compliance Officer


* 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;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 42144BR
# ThermoFisher Scientific; Shanghai, China;
Trade Compliance Specialist – CMC
; Requisition ID: 42143BR

* Toyota; Dallas TX;
Export Control Analyst
; Requisition ID: TMS003DS

* 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; Charlotte NC;
Specialist, ITC IT Systems
; Requisition ID: 33792BR
# United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Charlotte NC;
Sr Mgr, Intl Trade Compl
; Requisition ID: 30525BR

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


# United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Windsor Locks CT;
ITC Investigator; Requisition ID: 28069BR


* 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

(Source: Editor) 

 
*
Walt Disney (Walter Elias “Walt” Disney, 5 Dec 1901 – 15 Dec 1966, was an American entrepreneur, animator, voice actor and film producer. A pioneer of the American animation industry, he introduced several developments in the production of cartoons. As a film producer, Disney holds the record for most Academy Awards earned by an individual, having won twenty-two Oscars from 59 nominations. In the 1950s, Disney expanded into the amusement park industry, and in 1955 he opened Disneyland in California, followed by Walt Disney World and EPCOT Center in Florida)

  – “If you can dream it, you can do it.”

  – “The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.”

 

*
Martin Van Buren (5 Dec 1782 – 24 Jul 1862, was an American politician who served a single term as the eighth President of the United States, from 1837 to 1841).

  – “As to the presidency, the two happiest days of my life were those of my entrance upon the office and my surrender of it.”

 

Monday is pun day.

 

Q. What did the German Shepherd say to a Schnauzer on meeting in the park?

A. “Barken Sie Deutsch?”

  — Tony Chute, Hesperia, CA

 

After a long career of being blasted into a net, The Human Cannonball was tired. He told the circus owner he was going to retire. “But you can’t!” protested the boss. “Where am I going to find another man of your caliber?”

  — Jeff Sawyer, Mount Horeb, WI 

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

EN_a315
. 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: 5 Dec 2016: 81 FR 87426-87427: Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation From the List of Validated End-Users in the People’s Republic of China (effective 5 Dec 2016); and 81 FR 87424-87426: Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Special Iraq Reconstruction License (effective 4 Jan 2017) 

  
*
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.
  – Latest Amendment: 5 Dec 2016 (effective 5 Dec 2016): 81 FR 87427-87430: Corrections & Additions to ITAR Parts 120, 121, 122, 124, 126 and 127
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 5 Dec 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 2016, plus a large Index, 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