;

17-0329 Wednesday “The Daily Bugle”

17-0329 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

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 Seven Persons from the Entity List 
  2. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Makes Three Changes to the Entity List, and Removes Supplement No. 7 to part 744 
  3. DoD/DARS Seeks Comments on DFARS Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program 
  4. State Certifies Largest Exporting and Importing Countries of Certain Precursor Chemicals Comply with UN Convention 
  5. State Imposes Nonproliferation Measures Against Rosoboronexport 
  6. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on e-Allegations Submission 
  7. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Form 7523, Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier’s Certificate and Release 
  8. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Announces 29 March ACE Certification Outage 
  4. DHS/CBP Announces DIS Option to Submit TSCA Certification for Expedited Release Programs 
  5. DHS/CBP Posts Update Concerning Removal of AES License Code C32  
  6. State/DDTC Posts Notice on DTAS System Outage on 31 Mar 
  7. State/DDTC Posts Address Change for Bijlsma Hijs- en Heftechniek Projecten BV 
  1. Defense News: “Brexit Countdown Leaves British Defense Industry Uneasy” 
  2. Global Trade News: “What You Need to Know About Brexit Right Now” 
  3. Reuters: “China Telecom Firm ZTE Removed from U.S. Trade Blacklist” 
  1. C.T. Cherniak: “Canadian Senate Bill Takes Firm Position On Iran Sanctions And Could Add To Sanctions List” 
  2. G.S. Green & A. Floyd: “D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Challenge to Application of ITAR Brokering Regulations to Practicing Attorneys” 
  3. J.A. LeBeau, M. Mannino & A. Seymour: “ZTE Corporation to Be Removed from Entity List as of March 29, 2017” 
  4. R.C. Burns: “Commerce Export Award Winner Fined $27 Million for Export Violations” 
  1. ECTI Presents Deemed Exports: Extremely Common and Commonly Misunderstood Webinar, 27 Apr 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (27 Jan 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (29 Mar 2017), FACR/OFAC (10 Feb 2017), FTR (15 May 2015), HTSUS (7 Mar 2017), ITAR (11 Jan 2017) 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Removes Seven Persons from the Entity List


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15461-15463: Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing seven persons under ten entries from the Entity List. This rule removes four persons listed under the destination of Germany, one person listed under the destination of Hong Kong, one person listed under the destination of India, one person listed under the destination of Singapore, one person listed under the destination of Switzerland, and two persons under the destination of the United Arab Emirates from the Entity List. The three additional entries are being removed to account for two persons listed under more than one destination on the Entity List. All seven of the removals are the result of requests for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity and a review of information provided in the removal requests in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity.
* DATES: This rule is effective March 29, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: ERC@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following ten entries from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests received by BIS: Industrio GmbH, Martin Hess, Peter Duenker, and Wilhelm “Bill” Holler, all located in Germany; Frank Genin, located in Hong Kong and the U.A.E. (which accounts for two of the entries this final rule removes); Beaumont Trading AG, located in India, Switzerland, and the U.A.E. (which accounts for three of the entries this final rule removes); and Amanda Sng, located in Singapore. These seven persons under ten entries were added to the Entity List on March 21, 2016 (see 81 FR 14958). The ERC decided to remove these seven persons under ten entries based on information received by BIS pursuant to Sec. 744.16 of the EAR and further review conducted by the ERC. …
 
   Dated: March 24, 2017.
Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

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

EXIM_a2

2. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, Makes Three Changes to the Entity List, and Removes Supplement No. 7 to part 744


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15458-15461: Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; Addition of a Person to the Entity List; and EAR Conforming Change
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing two persons listed under the destination of China from the Entity List. The two removals are the result of a request for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entry and a review of information provided in the removal request in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity. In light of the recent settlement of administrative and criminal enforcement actions against ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun, the End-User Review Committee (ERC) has determined that these two persons being removed have performed their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and have otherwise cooperated with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities’ listing.
  This final rule also adds one person to the Entity List. This person who is added to the Entity List has been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. This person will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of China.
  Lastly, this final rule makes a conforming change to the EAR as a result of the removal of these two persons from the Entity List.
* DATES: This rule is effective March 29, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: ERC@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following two entries from the Entity List: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. These two entities were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016 (see 81 FR 12006).
  The U.S. Government recently reached an agreement with ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun for the settlement of administrative charges and entry of a guilty plea in a criminal case against the companies. On March 7, 2017, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., issued a statement regarding the settlement and guilty plea, which resulted in a very substantial monetary penalty, intrusive independent monitoring, and additional suspended penalties that will be imposed if ZTE fails to meet its obligations or further violates U.S. export controls.
  In light of the settlement, the ERC has determined that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun have performed their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and have otherwise cooperated with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities’ listing. Therefore, the ERC has decided to remove these two entities from the Entity List. …
  This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add one person to the Entity List. This person is being added on the basis of Sec. 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The person added to the Entity List will be listed under the destination of China. …
  This final rule removes Supplement No. 7 to part 744–Temporary General License, which was originally added to the EAR in a final rule on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a temporary general license that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to those which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. BIS subsequently extended the validity date of the temporary general license on four occasions (June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41799), August 19, 2016 (81 FR 55372), November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81663), and February 24, 2017 (82 FR 11505)), resulting in the current validity end-date of March 29, 2017.

   Dated: March 24, 2017.
Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

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

EXIM_a3

3. DoD/DARS Seeks Comments on DFARS Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15517-15518: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
* ACTION: Notice. …
* DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 28, 2017.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  – Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program; OMB Control Number 0704-0332. …
  – Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to ensure that participants in the Mentor-Protégé Program (“the Program”) are fulfilling their obligations under the mentor-protégé agreements and that the Government is receiving value for the benefits it provides through the Program. DoD uses the information as source data for reports to Congress required by section 811(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65). Participation in the Program is voluntary. …
 
  Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

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

EXIM_a4

4. State Certifies Largest Exporting and Importing Countries of Certain Precursor Chemicals Comply with UN Convention


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15547: Determination and Certification Under Section 490(b)(l)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing Countries or Certain Precursor Chemicals
  Pursuant to Section 490(b)(l)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act or 1961, as amended. I hereby determine and certify that the top five exporting and importing countries and economies of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine (Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) have cooperated fully with the United States, or have taken adequate steps on their own, to achieve full compliance with the goals and objectives established by the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. …
 
  Dated: March 6, 2017.
Thomas A. Shannon, Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

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

EXIM_a5

5. State Imposes Nonproliferation Measures Against Rosoboronexport


(Source: Federal Register)
 
82 Fr 15547-15548: Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Rosoboronexport, Including a Ban on U.S. Government Procurement
* AGENCY: Department of State.
* ACTION: Notice.
* SUMMARY: A determination has been made that a foreign person has engaged in activities that warrant the imposition of measures pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Act provides for penalties on foreign entities and individuals for the transfer to or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from Syria since January 1, 2005; or the transfer to or acquisition from North Korea since January 1, 2006, of goods, services, or technology controlled under multilateral control lists (Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise having the potential to make a material contribution to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or cruise or ballistic missile systems. The latter category includes (a) items of the same kind as those on multilateral lists but falling below the control list parameters when it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems, (b) items on U.S. national control lists for WMD/missile reasons that are not on multilateral lists, and (c) other items with the potential of making such a material contribution when added through case-by-case decisions.
* DATES: Effective Date: March 21, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On general issues: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930. For U.S. Government procurement ban issues: Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of State, Telephone: (703) 875-4079.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2017 the U.S. Government applied the measures authorized in Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109-353) against the following foreign person identified in the report submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act:
  Rosoboronexport (ROE) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof.
  Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the following measures are imposed on these persons:
    (1) No department or agency of the United States Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from this foreign person, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine. This measure shall not apply to subcontracts at any tier with ROE and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof made on behalf of the United States Government for goods, technology, and services for the maintenance, repair, overhaul, or sustainment of Mi-17 helicopters for the purpose of providing assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, as well as for the purpose of combating terrorism and violent extremism globally. Moreover, the ban on U.S. government procurement from the Russian entity Rosoboronexport (ROE) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof shall not apply to United States Government procurement of goods, technology, and services for the purchase, maintenance, or sustainment of the Digital Electro Optical Sensor OSDCAM4060 to improve the U.S. ability to monitor and verify Russia’s Open Skies Treaty compliance. Such subcontracts include the purchase of spare parts, supplies, and related services for these purposes;
    (2) No department or agency of the United States Government may provide any assistance to this foreign person, and this person shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the United States Government, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
    (3) No United States Government sales to this foreign person of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to this person of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated; and
    (4) No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to this foreign person of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.
   These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States Government and will remain in place for two years from the effective date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise.
 
Ann K. Ganzer, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.

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

EXIM_a6

6. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on e-Allegations Submission


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15530-15531: Agency Information Collection Activities: e-Allegations Submission
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information. …
* ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0131 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
  (1) Email. Submit comments to: CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
  (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800- 877-8339, or CBP Web site.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – Title: e-Allegations Submission.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0131.
  – Form Number: None.
  – Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection. There is no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. …
  – Abstract: In the interest of detecting trade violations to customs laws, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) established the e-Allegations Web site to provide a means for concerned members of the trade community to confidentially report violations to CBP. The e-Allegations site allows the public to submit pertinent information that assists CBP in its decision whether or not to pursue the alleged violations by initiating an investigation. The information collected includes the name, phone number and email address of the member of the trade community reporting the alleged violation. It also includes a description of the alleged violation, and the name and address of the potential violators. The e-Allegations Web site is accessible here. …
 
   Dated: March 24, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a7

7. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Form 7523, Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier’s Certificate and Release


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 15528-15529: Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier’s Certificate and Release
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
* ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0013 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
  (1) Email: Submit comments to: CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
  (2) Mail: Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800- 877-8339, or CBP Web site.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – Title: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier’s
Certificate and Release.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0013.
  – Form Number: CBP Form 7523.
  – Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection. There is no change to the burden hours or the information collected. …
  – Abstract: CBP Form 7523, Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier’s Certificate and Release, is used by carriers and importers as a manifest for the entry of merchandise free of duty under certain conditions. CBP Form 7523 is also used by carriers to show that articles being imported are to be released to the importer or consignee, and as an inward foreign manifest for a vehicle or a vessel of less than 5 net tons arriving in the United States from Canada or Mexico with merchandise conditionally free of duty. CBP uses this form to authorize the entry of such merchandise. CBP Form 7523 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1433, 1484 and 1498. It is provided for by 19 CFR 123.4 and 19 CFR 143.23. This form is accessible here. …
 
   Dated: March 24, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a8

8. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 Fr 15529-15530: Agency Information Collection Activities: Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information. …
* ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0051 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
  (1) Email: Submit comments to: CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
  (2) Mail: Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800- 877-8339, or CBP Web site.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
  – Title: Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0051.
  – Form Number: None.
  – Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection. There is no change to the burden hours, the information collected, or to the record keeping requirements.
  – Abstract: In accordance with 19 CFR 146.4 and 146.25 foreign trade zone (FTZ) operators are required to account for zone merchandise admitted, stored, manipulated and removed from FTZs. FTZ operators must prepare a reconciliation report within 90 days after the end of the zone year for a spot check or audit by CBP. In addition, within 10 working days after the annual reconciliation, FTZ operators must submit to the CBP port director a letter signed by the operator certifying that the annual reconciliation has been prepared and is available for CBP review and is accurate. These requirements are authorized by Foreign Trade Zones Act, as amended (Pub. L. 104-201, 19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.)
 
   Dated: March 24, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a19. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* State; NOTICES; Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Foreign Persons, Including Ban on U.S. Government Procurement [Publication Date: 30 March 2017.]

* Treasury; Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 30 March 2017.]

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

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

OGS_311. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification Outage, 29 Mar
(Source: CSMS# 17-000176)
 
Please be advised that there will be an ACE CERTIFICATION Outage Wednesday evening, March 29, 2017 from 1700 ET to 2000 ET.
 
The following ACE Deployment will take place during this time:
 
ACE Reference Data
 
* CAOM-9998: Database changes to allow all Unlading Ports to become RLF (Remote Location Filing)-eligible.
 
ACE Accounts
 
* CAOM-9514: When an Importer account was created via EDI message “TI” and Organization Structure code is ’08’ (Other), the update was not making it to ACS.
 
ACE Manifest
 
* CAOM-4011: Wrong port code sent in Permit To Transfer Authorized (1W) notification if BOL’s discharge port and In-bond destination are in same cluster
* CAOM-9877: Tickets# 7423094, 7541102 – Express House BOL with entry type 87-1C stuck in Do Not Send status even when house air waybill got re-added.
* CAOM-9780: Ticket# 7389444 – Manifest UI screens: Incorrect C-TPAT Status of Importers were displayed when CBP users viewed shipments’ Entry Party details.
* CAOM-9634: Ticket# 7374139 – Carrier received 1S (Sent to G.O.)/1R (Eligible for G.O.) messages in error with incorrect G.O. quantities for FTZ withdrawals done via PTT at the unlading port.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a4
12. DHS/CBP Announces DIS Option to Submit TSCA Certification for Expedited Release Programs

(Source: CSMS# 17-000175, 28 Mar 2017.)
 
Trade Policy Updates
 
  – Related: CSMS #17-000155
 
On March 21, 2017, the final rule on Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions went into effect. See 81 FR 94980. The final rule, among other things, removed the blanket permit procedure as a viable method through which importers and brokers can submit TSCA certification information for covered chemicals.
 
For importers and brokers that import TSCA chemicals under one of CBP’s expedited release programs (e.g., FAST, BRASS), however, the requirement to submit TSCA certification prior to cargo release remains intact.
 
Importers and brokers can meet this requirement by uploading the required certification and certifier information through DIS (code EPA 06), associated to the bill of lading. Importers and brokers can also meet TSCA requirements by submitting the certification and certifier information in paper format.
 
For more information on the new TSCA import requirements, go here.

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

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000177, 29 Mar 2017.)
 
In preparation for the removal of License Code C32 from the Automated Export System (AES), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has removed license code C32 from the Appendix F – License and License Exemption Type Code document located in the Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) and entered this update into the Summary of Changes.
 
Please reference CSMS# 17-000170 for information on the changes made by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
The DTAS information systems will be unavailable from March 30th, 2017 at 9:00PM through 6:00am March 31st 2017 for scheduled routine maintenance. The DTAS systems will be available at 6:00AM March 31st 2017.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a715. State/DDTC Posts Address Change for Bijlsma Hijs- en Heftechniek Projecten BV
(Source: State/DDTC) [Excerpts.]
 
Effective immediately, Bijlsma Hijs- en Heftechniek Projecten BV, Transportwei 2, 8501 ZP Joure, The Netherlands will change as follows: Bijlsma Hijs- en Heftechniek Projecten BV, De Wielen 1, 8502 TK Joure, The Netherlands. Due to the volume of authorizations requiring amendments to reflect this change, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls is exercising the authority under 22 CFR 126.3 to waive the requirement for amendments to change currently approved license authorizations. The amendment waiver does not apply to approved or pending agreements. …
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

NWS_a116
. Defense News: “Brexit Countdown Leaves British Defense Industry Uneasy”

(Source:
Defense News) [Excerpts.]
 
The two-year countdown to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union has been officially triggered by Prime Minister Theresa May, raising questions about the impact on the U.K. defense sector and the future for cooperation between the U.K. and the remaining 27 EU member nations at the industrial level.
The letter invoking Article 50 – the formal notification of Britain’s intention to exit the organization, or Brexit – was delivered to EU President Donald Tusk on March 29, signaling the start of what will be a two-year negotiation of terms and conditions on trade and many other key issues before the U.K. officially severs its ties. …
 
Overall, U.K. defense firms are “less vulnerable compared to other sectors to major losses in the event of a ‘hard Brexit’, given EU sales account for only four per cent of [UK defense] turnover,” the report read.
 
One big area of concern for the British defense industry following Brexit is research and development, said Rand.
“The UK risks reduced access to EU funds for research, and influence over the research agenda. The EU is planning to invest hundreds of millions of euros in new defense [research and development],” according to the report.
 
The poor showing of U.K. defense sales into Europe partly reflects the fact that EU attempts at an open market for defense procurement in the region have largely failed, with governments more often than not choosing to protect local jobs and technology by invoking national security grounds to avoid open competition. …
 
How cooperation will play out is, like so much else about Britain’s withdrawal, unclear.
 
There is little we know about the negotiating positions of London or Brussels at the moment, although May’s letter confirmed the British will leave the single European market arrangement and instead seek to negotiate a trade deal, a position known in Britain as a hard Brexit.
 
Failure of the two sides to agree to a free trade arrangement could disrupt defense supply chains into and out of the U.K., although the impact is likely to be limited compared with other sectors of the economy. …
 
Although the British will exit the EU in 2019, the complexity of the divorce proceedings could mean that only the broad outline of a deal is in place by then, requiring more detailed negotiations on issues like trade that could continue for several years.

To an extent, the prospects for continued defense collaboration may depend on how acrimonious the exit negotiations become and what kind of arrangement can be struck to keep the U.K. aligned with the wider European defense architecture – mainly through NATO, but also through Europe’s common defense and security policy framework. …
 
However, Witney is of the belief that there is little future for British industry in U.S. cooperation.
 
  “Although British generals and admirals are very comfortable with the idea of the transatlantic future, U.K. defense industrialists know, like it or not, there is no future in industrial or research cooperation across the Atlantic,” the former European Defence Agency boss said.
 
  “There never has been a future because of U.S. determination to deny market access to European firms and because of the rooted objection to the U.S. to sharing technology. I say this not accusatorily – if I spent all the money and had all the technology I wouldn’t be handing it out to others either. But this does actually make any realistic form of technological or industrial cooperation in defense in a balanced form unfeasible, which is why we already have a fairly well-integrated defense industry in Europe,” he added. …

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

 
As expected, the United Kingdom has given notice that it will be leaving the European Union, invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 50 sets a two-year window to renegotiate a new legal basis for Britain’s trade relationship with the EU. Prime Minister Theresa May began the formal steps for Brexit earlier today (March 29) after triggering Article 50, kicking off Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.
 
BBrexit (short for British Exit) has consumed the media worldwide and has been a worry to global trade markets. British citizens voted in a referendum mid-2016 to exit the EU, roiling global markets, including currencies, causing the British pound to fall to its lowest level in decades.
 
Supporters of Brexit have based their opinions on a variety of factors, from the global competitiveness of British businesses to the European debt crisis to concerns about immigration. Britain had already opted out of the European Union’s monetary union–meaning that it uses the pound instead of the euro.
 
However, what does the reality of Brexit mean for exporters and importers in Europe and in the United States?
 
According to Forbes, the negative impact in the U.S. on exports is relatively small compared with trends in domestic demand, but “the deflationary pressure on tradable goods will widen the divergence between reasonably strong inflation in the services sector vs. reasonably strong deflation in the goods sector.” Analysts say the ability to trade with the U.S. on current terms will not be affected. However, the UK will not be part of the controversial TTIP trade deal between the EU and the U.S.
One of the most contentious points of the Brexit debate was the UK’s trade relations with the EU. A new trade deal is expected to be one of the most difficult and important parts of the two-year negotiations.
 
The UK intends to leave the EU’s single market and may leave the EU customs union, through which Britain enjoys tariff-free trade. If no trade deal is agreed upon, the UK would have to trade with the EU under World Trade Organization rules, which could lead to new tariffs and regulations.
 
While the UK most likely has the skills to renegotiate trade agreements, the group might find it difficult to pull off a wide range of bilateral and regional trade deals within a short time frame. Undertaking a broad suite of regional and bilateral trade negotiations requires a significant number of qualified and experienced individuals.
 
A few immediate consequences seem highly likely.
 
If UK commercial functions are looking for alternative routes outside the EU, then this will create a negative forecast for existing suppliers as well as enticing new global entrants. It is a big threat for existing suppliers and an opportunity for buyers. The competitive advantage lies in using the option to switch and negotiate better deals now with incumbent supply chains. That unknown impact of Brexit creates a genuine challenge for supply chains and means that purchasing has a pivotal role to play in helping to mitigate increases and manage risks.
 
After the June 2016 referendum to leave the EU, the economic market demonstrated currency swings. This is highly likely to continue post-Brexit. Supply chain professionals should map out their geographical sources for goods and identify where currency fluctuations may hit.
 
Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives any EU member the right to quit unilaterally, and outlines the procedure for doing so. It gives the leaving country two years to negotiate an exit deal and once it’s set in motion it can’t be stopped except by unanimous consent of all member states.
 
No country has ever left the EU before, and there was no way to exit the EU legally before the Treaty of Lisbon was signed in 2007.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a3
18. Reuters: “China Telecom Firm ZTE Removed from U.S. Trade Blacklist”

(Source: Reuters)
 
The U.S. Department of Commerce will remove Chinese telecommunications equipment maker ZTE Corp from a trade blacklist on Wednesday after the company pleaded guilty to violating sanctions on Iran and agreed to pay nearly $900 million, the agency said in a notice.
 
Removal from the list marks the end of a tense period for ZTE, which faced trade restrictions that could have severed its ties to critical U.S. suppliers.
 
  “By acknowledging the mistakes we made, taking responsibility for them … we are committed to a ZTE that is fully compliant, healthy and trustworthy,” said ZTE Chief Executive Zhao Xianming said in an emailed statement.
 
Last year, the U.S. Commerce Department placed export restrictions on ZTE as punishment for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. The restrictions would have prevented restricted suppliers from providing ZTE any U.S.-made equipment, potentially freezing the Chinese handset maker’s supply chain.
 
Over the past 12 months, as ZTE cooperated with U.S. authorities, the U.S. Commerce Department temporarily suspended the trade restrictions with a series of three-month reprieves, allowing the company to maintain ties to U.S. suppliers.
 
Earlier this month, ZTE agreed to pay a total of $892.4 million and pleaded guilty to violating U.S. sanctions by sending American-made technology to Iran and lying to investigators.
 
The Commerce Department said on Tuesday it would impose severe restrictions on former ZTE CEO Shi Lirong, whom the agency accused of approving efforts to skirt sanctions and ship equipment to Iran.
 
The Commerce Department said Shi approved a systematic, written business plan to use shell companies to secretly export U.S. technology to Iran. Reuters could not immediately reach Shi for comment.
 
The U.S. investigation followed reports by Reuters in 2012 that ZTE had signed contracts with Iran to ship millions of dollars’ worth of hardware and software from some of America’s best-known technology companies.
 
U.S. authorities have said the size of the financial penalty against ZTE also reflects the fact that the company lied to investigators when executives were approached about the allegations.
 
As part of the deal, ZTE will be under probation for three years and agreed to cooperate in the continuing investigation.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a119. C.T. Cherniak:“Canadian Senate Bill Takes Firm Position On Iran Sanctions And Could Add To Sanctions List”
(Source: Canada-US Blog)
 
* Author: 
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Esq, LexSage PC, cyndee@lexsage.com
, 416-307-4168 
 
Canada imposes various economic sanctions and trade restrictions pursuant to the United Nations Act (“UNA”) and the Special Economic Measures Act (“SEMA”). The specific sanctions are implemented in country specific or targeted regulations.  That being said, most regulations promulgated under SEMA
 
Canada’s Senate is currently considering Bill S-219 “An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations” (to be called “Non-Nuclear Sanctions Against Iran Act“) which has received little attention. Bill S-219 will, if passed into law, ensure that Canada has the most restrictive economic sanctions regime against Iran of all countries in the World.
 
Canada’s unilateral economic sanctions regime is based on targeted sanctions. Bill S-219 also pursues targeted sanctions – but the new sanctions targets are wide in potential scope.  Bill S-219 would, if passed, change Canada’s economic sanctions regime, as it applies to Iran, in four fundamental ways:
 
  (1) The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be required to table an Annual Report focused on Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations;
  (2) Canada would be prohibited from easing economic sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act unless two consecutive annual reports conclude that there is no credible evidence of terrorist activity or incitement to hatred emanating from Iran and that there has been significant progress in Iran in respect of human rights;
  (3) Incorporating into Canada’s economic sanctions system a human rights imperative (Iran only); and
  (4)
Establishing another list of sanctioned Iranian persons (which can be modified from time to time) the following persons:
    – the Execution of Imam Khomenei’s Order (EIKO);
    –
other entities named in the annual report, including those that the Minister believes have been owned or controlled by EIKO or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or the officers of which have been acting on behalf of EIKO or the IRGC during the five preceding years; and
    – Iranian officials named in the annual report as being persons the Minister believes to be responsible for terrorist activity, support of terrorism, incitement to hatred, or serious human rights violations.
 
These changes will be significant, if passed into law.  Currently, Bill S-219 has receive Second Reading in the Senate.  Bill S-219 is currently being reviewed by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There has already been much testimony on Bill S-219 (Bill Bowder testified on December 8, 2016 and his testimony is a very interesting read) and more testimony will be had.  Bill S-219 is on the Agenda of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s March 29, 2017 meeting.  There is no guarantee that Bill S-219 will be passed into law in Canada.
 
If Bill S-219 is passed into law in Canada, it will limit the ability of the Minister of Global Affairs to ease Canada’s economic sanctions against Iran even if other countries ease their sanctions against Iran.  This would limit the ability of Canadian companies and Canadians outside Canada from pursuing the opportunities that are available to other companies (e.g., U.S. companies or EU companies where the economic sanctions regimes have been eased).  If Bill S-219 is passed into law, Canada would essentially take the hardest stance against Iran of any country.  For this reason, Canadian companies should be watching this Bill very closely and revisit any business in or with Iran.  Any Canadian business or Canadian doing business in Iran should ensure that their compliance program process for reviewing designated persons lists is updated and able to respond quickly to the addition of new names of designated persons/entities (targets).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMM_a220. G.S. Green & A. Floyd: “D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Challenge to Application of ITAR Brokering Regulations to Practicing Attorneys”

 
* Authors: Gwen S. Green, Esq., gsgreen@hollandhart.com,
202-654-6913; and Amani Floyd, Esq., asfloyd@hollandhart.com, 208-383-3924. Both of Holland & Hart LLP.
 
On March 14, 2017, the D.C. Circuit dismissed a law firm’s challenge to the State Department’s application of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) Part 129 brokering provisions against practicing attorneys. In its lawsuit, law firm Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLC (“Goldstein”) alleged that the State Department lacked constitutional and statutory authority to apply Part 129 to legal services provided to its clients and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the State Department from applying the brokering provisions to the firm. [FN/1]
 
Regulation of Brokering Activities
 
The State Department regulates international arms brokering under the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) and the ITAR. The AECA mandates that “every person . . . who engages in the business of brokering activities with respect to the manufacture, export, import, or transfer of any defense article or defense service” shall register with the State Department and obtain a license before engaging in “the business of brokering activities.” [FN/2] The AECA further provides that “brokering activities shall include the financing, transportation, freight forwarding, or taking of any other action that facilitates the manufacture, export, or import of a defense article or defense service.” [FN/3] These requirements are implemented and further defined at Part 129 of the ITAR.
 
In 2013, the State Department amended the ITAR’s definition of “brokering activities” to exclude “activities by an attorney that do not extend beyond the provision of legal advice to clients.” [FN/4] Shortly after the amendment, Goldstein sought an advisory opinion from the State Department, asking whether certain categories of legal services would constitute “brokering activities”-i.e., advising clients on how to structure sales of defense articles, preparing sales contracts for these items, drafting technical assistance agreements, advising on the availability of financing, advising on and preparing sales proposals, and corresponding and meeting with U.S. government officials.
 
Goldstein’s Lawsuit
 
Finding the advisory guidance insufficient, Goldstein filed suit alleging, in part, that the State Department lacked constitutional and statutory authority to apply Part 129 to bona fide legal advice and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the State Department from requiring the firm to register as a broker. Goldstein claimed that compliance with Part 129 regulations would require its attorneys to disclose confidential client information to the State Department. As a result, attorneys would be forced to choose between not providing legal services and violating professional rules of responsibility or violating federal law.
 
The district court, however, disagreed and dismissed the case for lack of standing and ripeness. The court held that Goldstein failed to allege with specificity that the law firm engaged in “brokering activities” and failed to specify the type of information that the law firm would have to disclose to the State Department that would conflict with its ethical obligations. The court found that the threat of enforcement against Goldstein was speculative at best.
 
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case, stating:
 
   “[B]ecause the firm alleges that it intends only to provide legal advice and denies that it will act as a finder (or collect a contingency fee) in the process, it has not shown that it faces a meaningful risk that the State Department will seek to enforce Part 129 against it, either by forcing it to register or by penalizing it for failure to register. Without any credible threat of enforcement, the firm has no injury to speak of that would afford it standing to seek to enjoin enforcement of that regulation in court.”
 
The D.C. Circuit found that without a credible threat of enforcement there was “no injury to speak of that would afford standing to seek to enjoin enforcement of that regulation in court.”
 
But, what about the potential conflict between Part 129’s disclosure requirements and an attorney’s duty of confidentiality?
 
The D.C. Circuit did not speak on this issue. The D.C. Circuit merely said: “[Goldstein] . . . need not fear that it will have to disclose confidential client information or otherwise take steps to register.” In a footnote, however, the district court reminded attorneys that, despite their duty of confidentiality, Rule 1.6(e) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct permits attorneys to disclose “client confidences or secrets” “with the informed consent of the client” or “when . . . required by law or court order.” Thus, it appears that if attorneys engage in “brokering activities” by providing services that go “beyond the provision of legal advice to clients”-e.g., acting as a finder for clients-then they may be required to disclose otherwise confidential client information to the State Department under Part 129 of the ITAR.
 
————
  [FN/1] Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLC v. U.S. Department of State, D.C. Cir., Civil Action No. 16-5034 (Mar. 14, 2017).
  [FN/2] 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (III).
  [FN/3] 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II).
  [FN/4] 22 C.F.R. § 129.2(b)(2)(iv).

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

COMM_a321. J.A. LeBeau, M. Mannino & A. Seymour: “ZTE Corporation to Be Removed from Entity List as of March 29, 2017”

 
* Authors: Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Esq., 202-973-8813, jalebeau@wsgr.com; Melissa Mannino, Esq., 202-973-8856, mmannino@wsgr.com; and Anne Seymour, Esq., 202-973-8874, aseymour@wsgr.com. All of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
 
Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (ZTE Corporation) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. (ZTE Kangxun) (collectively “ZTE” or “the companies”) will be removed from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List as of March 29, 2017. The removal follows the entry of a guilty plea by ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun and the settlement of BIS and Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) administrative charges against the companies. In conjunction with the removal of the companies, BIS is adding ZTE Corporation’s former chief executive officer, Shi Lirong, to the Entity List. The BIS rule announcing these changes will be published in the Federal Register on March 29.
 
ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun
 
On March 8, 2016, ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun, as well as ZTE Parsian and Beijing 8-Star, were added to the Entity List. As a result, a license from BIS was required for the export, reexport, and in-country transfer of any item (commodity, technology, and software) subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to any of those entities. The listing stemmed from the U.S. Government’s investigation involving ZTE and the related entities’ reexport of U.S.-origin parts to Iran and North Korea. Then, on March 24, 2016, as reported in prior WSGR Alerts, BIS issued a temporary general license that suspended the Entity List license requirements against ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun, thereby returning the license requirement status to the same level that existed prior to ZTE Corporation’s and ZTE Kangxun’s inclusion on the Entity List. The general license expires on March 29, which is the same day that the two entities will be removed from the Entity List. As noted above, the removal of ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun follows their guilty plea to conspiracy to unlawfully export in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators, and their agreement to settle the violations of the EAR and OFAC’s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). BIS noted that ZTE’s cooperation and fulfillment of its undertakings to the U.S. Government were important factors in removing the entities from the Entity List.
 
ZTE Parsian and Beijing 8-Star remain on the Entity List and the general license issued by BIS does not apply to them.
 
Former CEO Shi Lirong Added to Entity List
 
Shi Lirong, ZTE’s former chief executive officer, is being added to the Entity List effective March 29, 2017. Accordingly, a license must be obtained from BIS for the export, reexport, or in-country transfer of any items subject to the EAR to Shi Lirong. No license exceptions are available. The Federal Register Notice states that Shi Lirong, as the CEO of ZTE Corporation, signed and approved the document “Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and Standardization of the Company Export Related Matters,” which planned and organized a scheme to establish, control, and use a series of “detached” (i.e., shell) companies to illicitly reexport controlled items to Iran in violation of U.S. export control laws.
 
Conclusion
 
Effective March 29, 2017, ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun will no longer be on BIS’s Entity List, but Shi Lirong, ZTE Parsian, and Beijing 8-Star will be on the Entity List. Thus, a BIS license must be obtained prior to any direct or indirect export, reexport, or in-country transfer of any items subject to the EAR to Shi Lirong, ZTE Parsian, or Beijing 8-Star. License exceptions may not be used.

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

COMM_a422
.
R.C. Burns: “Commerce Export Award Winner Fined $27 Million for Export Violations”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067)
 
Access USA Shipping, which runs the website MyUS.com, was once the darling of the Commerce Department.  According to the company’s website, the company won that agency’s “President’s ‘E’ Award” for exporters. Do they still get to keep that award after agreeing to pay the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) a $27 million for 150 export violations?
 
The allegations contained in the BIS Charging Documents, if true, are pretty harrowing. According to BIS, Access USA changed values and item descriptions in export documents to avoid export scrutiny, describing, for example, guns and weapons parts as “sporting goods accessories,” “fishing tools and spare parts,” or “tailoring tools.” In another case, employees described exported rifle stocks and grips as “toy accessories.” And then, according to BIS, the company had a “personal shopper program” not to help busy executives pick out the best ties or dresses but to have employees pose as the foreign customer, using the employee’s own personal credit cards and home addresses, where the U.S. seller had refused to sell export controlled goods to that foreign customer. There’s plenty more, but you get the gist.
 
Not surprisingly, the charging documents point out at length that BIS had made “outreach” visits to explain the export laws to Access Shipping. The purpose of these references, apparently, was to bolster the case, as if that were needed, that the company knew what it was doing was on the dark side of the shady line. It strikes me that when guns are described as fishing tools – hey look, it’s a barrel of fish! – you’ve pretty much got the intent issue covered.
 
This reference to “outreach” visits reinforces the point I’ve made before that these “outreach” visits are not as much made out of the agency’s altruistic desire to educate as they are made to build future cases when the “outreach” victim makes a mistake – although this particular case, admittedly, seems pretty far from an innocent mistake.  Just say no to “outreach” visits.  They will provide less information than sending employees to real training conferences and seminars and will only come back to haunt you.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
23. ECTI Presents Deemed Exports: Extremely Common and Commonly Misunderstood Webinar, 27 Apr

(Source: Danielle McClellan, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com)

* What: Deemed Exports: Extremely Common and Commonly Misunderstood
* When: April 27, 2017; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Joan Koenig
* Register:
Here
or Danielle McClellan, 540-433-3977, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

(Source: Editor) 

 
*
Sam Walton (Samuel Moore “Sam” Walton, 29 Mar 1918 – 5 Apr 1992, was an American businessman and entrepreneur best known for founding the retailers Walmart and Sam’s Club.)

  – “The way management treats associates is exactly how the associates will treat the customers.”

 

*
John Tyler (20 Mar 1790 – 18 Jan 1862, was the tenth President of the United States (1841-45). He was also, briefly, the tenth Vice President (1841), elected to that office on the 1840 Whig ticket with William Henry Harrison. Tyler became president after Harrison’s death in April 1841, only a month after the start of the new administration.)

  – “This Constitution was not made for a day, nor is it composed of such flexible materials as to be warped to the purposes of a casually ascendant influence.”

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

EN_a325
. 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: 27 Jan 2017: 82 FR 8589-8590: Delay of Effective Date for Importations of Certain Vehicles and Engines Subject to Federal Antipollution Emission Standards; and 82 FR 8590: Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions.

* 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: 29 Mar 2017: 82 FR 15461-15463: Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; and 82 FR 15458-15461: Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; Addition of a Person to the Entity List; and EAR Conforming Change.  

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment:
10 Feb 2017: 82 FR 10434-10440: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties. 
 
*
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 Jan 2017: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 7 Mar 2017: Harmonized System Update 1702, containing 1,754 ABI records and 360 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: 11 Jan 2017: 82 FR 3168-3170: 2017 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 8 Mar 2017) of the ITAR is Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, 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