;

17-0504 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

17-0504 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 4 May 2017

TOPThe Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe 
here
for free subscription.
Contact us
 for advertising inquiries and rates.

  1. President Establishes Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy 
  2. President Addresses Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses 
  3. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Form 3495, Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond 
  4. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Forms 301 and 5297, Importation Bond Structure 
  5. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Notice of Detention 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  1. Global Trade News: “The Value of The Trusted Trader” 
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Foreign Policy Barriers to Digital Trade to be Examined by ITC” 
  1. D.M. Edelman: “What Exporters Need to Know for the Next 100” 
  2. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day 
  3. R.C. Burns: “Maybe BIS Should Read This Blog More Often” 
  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 (18 Apr 2017), FACR/OFAC (10 Feb 2017), FTR (19 Apr 2017), HTSUS (26 Apr 2017), ITAR (11 Jan 2017) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

 
82 FR 20821-20822: Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy
 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
 
Section 1. Establishment.
 
The Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (OTMP) is hereby established within the White House Office. The OTMP shall consist of a Director selected by the President and such staff as deemed necessary by the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff.
 
Sec. 2. Mission.
 
The mission of the OTMP is to defend and serve American workers and domestic manufacturers while advising the President on policies to increase economic growth, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the United States manufacturing and defense industrial bases.
 
Sec. 3. Responsibilities. The OTMP shall:
 
  (a) advise the President on innovative strategies and promote trade policies consistent with the President’s stated goals;
  (b) serve as a liaison between the White House and the Department of Commerce and undertake trade-related special projects as requested by the President; and
  (c) help improve the performance of the executive branch’s domestic procurement and hiring policies, including through the implementation of the policies described in Executive Order 13788 of April 18, 2017 (Buy American and Hire American). …
 
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 29, 2017.

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

 
82 FR 20819-20820: Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses
 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
 
Section 1. Policy.
 
Every trade agreement and investment agreement entered into by the United States, and all trade relations and trade preference programs of the United States, should enhance our economic growth, contribute favorably to our balance of trade, and strengthen the American manufacturing base. Many United States free trade agreements, investment agreements, and trade relations have failed, in whole or in part, to meet these criteria. The result has been large and persistent trade deficits, a lack of reciprocal treatment of American goods and investment, the offshoring of factories and jobs, the loss of American intellectual property and reduced technological innovation, downward pressure on wage and income growth, and an impaired tax base. It is the policy of the United States to negotiate new trade agreements, investment agreements, and trade relations that benefit American workers and domestic manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers; protect our intellectual property; and encourage domestic research and development. It is also the policy of the United States to renegotiate or terminate any existing trade agreement, investment agreement, or trade relation that, on net, harms the United States economy, United States businesses, United States intellectual property rights and innovation rate, or the American people.
 
Sec. 2. Conduct Performance Reviews.
 
The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative (USTR), in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, shall conduct comprehensive performance reviews of:
 
  (a) all bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral trade agreements and investment agreements to which the United States is a party; and
  (b) all trade relations with countries governed by the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with which the United States does not have free trade agreements but with which the United States runs significant trade deficits in goods.
 
Sec. 3. Report of Violations and Abuses.
 
  (a) Each performance review shall be submitted to the President by the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR within 180 days of the date of this order and shall identify:
 
    (i) those violations or abuses of any United States trade agreement, investment agreement, WTO rule governing any trade relation under the WTO, or trade preference program that are harming American workers or domestic manufacturers, farmers, or ranchers; harming our intellectual property rights; reducing our rate of innovation; or impairing domestic research and development;
    (ii) unfair treatment by trade and investment partners that is harming American workers or domestic manufacturers, farmers, or ranchers; harming our intellectual property rights; reducing our rate of innovation; or impairing domestic research and development;
    (iii) instances where a trade agreement, investment agreement, trade relation, or trade preference program has failed with regard to such factors as predicted new jobs created, favorable effects on the trade balance, expanded market access, lowered trade barriers, or increased United States exports; and
    (iv) lawful and appropriate actions to remedy or correct deficiencies identified pursuant to subsections (a)(i) through (a)(iii) of this section.
 
  (b) The findings of the performance reviews required by this order shall help guide United States trade policy and trade negotiations.
 
Sec. 4. Remedy of Trade Violations and Abuses.
 
The Secretary of Commerce, the USTR, and other heads of executive departments and agencies, as appropriate, shall take every appropriate and lawful action to address violations of trade law, abuses of trade law, or instances of unfair treatment.
 
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 29, 2017.

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

EXIM_a33. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Form 3495, Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond

 
82 FR 20901: Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond
* 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. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than July 3, 2017) to be assured of consideration.
* 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: Application for Exportation of Articles under Special Bond.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0004.
  – Form Number: CBP Form 3495.
  – Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information being collected.
  – Affected Public: Businesses.
  – Abstract: CBP Form 3495, Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond, is an application for exportation of articles entered under temporary bond pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1202, Chapter 98, subchapter XIII, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and 19 CFR 10.38. CBP Form 3495 is used by importers to notify CBP that the importer intends to export goods that were subject to a duty exemption based on a temporary stay in this country. It also serves as a permit to export in order to satisfy the importer’s obligation to export the same goods and thereby get a duty exemption. This form is accessible here. …
 
   Dated: May 1, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

EXIM_a44. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Forms 301 and 5297, Importation Bond Structure

 
82 FR 20903-20904: Agency Information Collection Activities: Importation Bond Structure
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 30-day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than June 5, 2017) to be assured of consideration. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the 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: Importation Bond Structure.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0050.
  – Form Number: CBP Forms 301 and 5297.
  – Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.
  – Affected Public: Businesses.
  – Abstract: Bonds are used to ensure that duties, taxes, charges, penalties, and reimbursable expenses owed to the Government are paid; to facilitate the movement of cargo and conveyances through CBP processing; and to provide legal recourse for the Government for noncompliance with laws and regulations. Each person who is required by law or regulation to post a bond in order to secure a Customs transaction must submit the bond on CBP Form 301 which is available here.
   Surety bonds are usually executed by an agent of the surety. The surety company grants authority to the agent via a Corporate Surety Power of Attorney, CBP Form 5297. This power is vested with CBP so that when a bond is filed, the validity of the authority of the agent executing the bond and the name of the surety can be verified to the surety’s grant. CBP Form 5297 is available here. Bonds are required pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1608, and 1623; 22 U.S.C. 463; 19 CFR part 113. …
 
   Dated: May 1, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

 
82 FR 20902-20903: Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Detention
* 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. …
* DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than July 3, 2017) to be assured of consideration.
* 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: Notice of Detention.
  – OMB Number: 1651-0073.
  – Form Number: None.
  – Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or the information collected. …
  – Affected Public: Businesses.
  – Abstract: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may detain merchandise when it has reasonable suspicion that the subject merchandise may be inadmissible but requires more information to make a positive determination. If CBP decides to detain merchandise, a Notice of Detention is sent to the importer or to the importer’s broker/agent no later than 5 business days from the date of examination stating that merchandise has been detained, the reason for the detention, and the anticipated length of the detention. The recipient of this notice may respond by providing information to CBP in order to facilitate the determination for admissibility, or may ask for an extension of time to bring the merchandise into compliance. The information provided assists CBP in making a determination whether to seize, deny entry of, or release detained goods into the commerce. Notice of Detention is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1499 and provided for in 19 CFR 151.16, 133.21, 133.25, and 133.43. …
 
   Dated: May 1, 2017.
Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

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

OGS
OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a16. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions

(Source: Federal Register)
[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGS_a27. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS

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

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a19. Global Trade News: “The Value of The Trusted Trader”

 
Importers and exporters have long sought a comprehensive Trusted Trader program to encompass all federal agencies regulating imports and importers under one uniform system, offering meaningful benefits to both. Last year, the American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) released a blueprint for such a program.
 
At a recent presentation for AAEI’s Healthcare Industries Committee (HIC) and Regulated Industries Committee (RIC), Integration Point Vice President-Product Management Virginia Thompson and Erika Vidal-Faulkenberry, the Director of Global Customs & Trade Compliance for The Hershey Co. relayed information about Trusted Trader as well as a scenario on importer risk.
 
Developing The Trusted Trader Program
 
Within AAEI, discussions about using risk-management models began within RIC, noting that partnering government agencies (PGA) were not using risk management tools similar to U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP). Concerns about mounting costs/complexity conveyed a need for greater consistency and efficiency at the border across all regulatory agencies.
In 2014, the working group with three co-chairs, including Thompson, began with a wider survey of the AAEI membership to establish what should be the scope of the project. Erik Autor–now the President of the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones–was engaged to assist the working group, and helped to publish “A Blueprint to Trust,” introducing the concept of the Certified Compliant Commercial Entity (3CE) Program.
 
These 3CE companies represent low compliance risks and would be designated by all trade-regulating agencies under the AAEI proposal “3CE” following an assessment of sectoral and horizontal risks.
 
Charts were introduced last year that reflect the 3CE risk categories and four compliance areas-commercial (Customs), Security, Health/Safety and Environmental and shared with the Border Interagency Executive Council. This year, the working group began running fictional companies through the scoring process. Four years of diligent work resulted in the first look at how an actual company’s score would look after being assessed in the 3CE program.
 
A Profile in Risk
 
To see how The Trusted Trader program looks in actual practice, consider the profile of a long- established industrial glass importer: annual revenue of $30 to $60 billion and no FTA usage.

Company X has a 20-year history of importing industrial glass products to the U.S, supplying glass mainly for commercial construction. Company X sources its imported glass primarily from China and Taiwan. The company does not utilize preferential trade agreements and files approximately 1,250 consumption entries a year totally between $15 and $30 million. The company has between five and 10 suppliers in China and Taiwan. It is not ISA but is C-TPAT validated (Tier 2), and does fall into the Centers for Excellence and Expertise (CEE)–Industrial Manufacturers Group but does not have a CEE Partnership Account.
 
Company X enters its goods through various ports on the West coast and Chicago, and occasionally through New York–exporting some scrap glass back to China. Except for safety standards for tempered (laminated) glass, there are no other federal agency regulations for this product. The company is an ACE filer. Company X’s only compliance review, a Customs audit, occurred three years ago. During the audit, Company X was certified as having adequate internal controls.
 
Senior management supports compliance by using automated solutions. They now have a Global Trade Management (GTM) platform that supports a process beginning with a pre-classification database that is shared with all Customs brokers, compares data elements on entries before declarations are submitted, and provides automated data comparison of the declarations submitted to Customs against source data such as Accounts Payables and Receipt records for accuracy.
 
All import documents are maintained by the Trade Compliance team within the GTM solution as well. Electronically, records are named, indexed and searchable by entry number, purchase order number and part number.
 
New trade compliance department member training was implemented, driven by the department and topic. For example, all departments receive Supply Chain Security training and an annual refresher. The company is meeting minimum C-TPAT standards.
 
The organization has developed policies about compliance with importation that require individual transactions be fully audited internally, and staff has clear procedures to ensure compliance goals are met. In the health safety and environmental areas, the company has developed and implemented clear goals and procedures in regards to the regulated areas.    
 
Scoring Results within the Model
 
The example below illustrates how Company X fared when applied within scoring in the 3CE program:
 
 – Commercial: 48
 – Security: 30
 – Health-Safety: 45
 – Environmental: 47 
 – Average 3CE Score: 42.5
 
42.5 represents a relatively low-risk importer. The AAEI working group is looking forward to testing the concept further by running more fictional companies and company profiles based on actual member experiences through the model. That will help continue to refine and improve the proposal for an effective Trusted Trader program based on true Risk Management methodologies that can be a real win-win for both trade and U.S. regulatory agencies.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
The International Trade Commission has instituted the second and third of three investigations to examine uses of new digital technologies for U.S. firms and the impact of foreign policy barriers to digital trade on the competitiveness of U.S. firms in international markets. The reports in these investigations will provide an update and extension of the analysis presented in two earlier ITC reports, which can be accessed here and here.
 
The two new investigations will analyze measures that affect the ability of U.S. firms to develop or supply business-to-business and business-to-consumer digital products and services to customers abroad. They will also assess the impact of such measures on the competitiveness of U.S. firms supplying digital products and services as well as on international trade and investment flows. The ITC intends to hold public hearings and seek public comments in connection with these investigations in spring 2018 and to submit its confidential reports to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by Oct. 29, 2018, and March 29, 2019, respectively.
 
The first investigation in this series, which was initiated in March, will assess the rate of adoption of digital technologies in the U.S. and foreign markets, with further study of the importance of both domestic and cross-border data flows. It will also describe regulatory and policy measures in important markets abroad that may impede digital trade. A report is expected to be delivered to USTR by Aug. 29 and released to the public soon thereafter.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

        
* Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com
 
We are 100 days into the Trump Administration and  the question is not what did President Trump promise and what did he do, the question is how should business prepare for the future?    Let’s begin with a “State of the Union” so we can evaluate our next steps. On some policy issues President Trump did follow the lead of the last Administration.  The Trump Administration has implemented regulatory changes to continue its predecessors’ decade-long efforts to streamline regulatory requirements for exporters and importers.   One such project will modernize and streamline procedures and paperwork that must be filed with government agencies and eliminate redundant requirements for exporters and importers. His willingness to stay the course on this practical initiative as well as on more controversial issues like relations with Cuba, Iran, and China, suggests that President Trump may develop into a more cautious chief executive.
 
On other fronts, the Trump Administration is behind in moving trade policy forward.  As of this writing we do not yet have Robert Lighthizer confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Ross and the White House advisors have been very busy. However, to date many senior policy positions still remain open.  Seasoned negotiators and policy makers are leaving government.  While there are 188 ambassador spots, President Trump terminated all politically appointed ambassadors and has nominated only six.
 
While the Trump Administration did take the United States out of the 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), which the United States Trade Representatives negotiated for the last ten years, it has not taken any measureable steps on the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).   In order to actually make changes to the NAFTA, the Administration must formally notify Congress 90 days before it begins negotiating.  And, it must provide specific plans with Chapters and verse regarding proposed changes. Such a detailed NAFTA review is likely not ready since we do not have a USTR in place.  All of the recent hoopla regarding Canada and softwood lumber and dairy products are not part of NAFTA, those issues were excluded from NAFTA.
 
President Trump has indicated that he wants to address trade issues on a bilateral or trilateral basis. My assumption would be that he believes he can get the better deal for American companies with such negotiations.  However, when the USTR negotiated the TPP it was able to leverage the deal.  If country A wanted something in return for agreeing to a particular provision, there were 11 other countries that could make it happen.  In other words the U.S. was able to win concessions by giving Country A something from Country B, while giving up nothing.  This type of negotiation is not possible in bilateral or trilateral negotiations.
 
Meanwhile, the Commerce Department recently determined that new countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber are warranted because of Canadian government subsidies.  The new duties, although fitting with the Administration’s promise to enforce our trade laws, were in the queue long before President Trump took office.  The decision sounds good for the U.S. as we are enforcing our trade laws and the U.S. injured parties will actually be paid from the duties our government collects from the Canadians.  However, it isn’t the Canadians who actually will be paying those duties.  The softwood lumber duties will be passed on to the U.S. importers of the Canadian lumber and the downstream customers – the home builders and the home buyers.  Maybe it is better to add these topics into the NAFTA for predictability for businesses going forward.
 
So how can companies doing business in the United States move forward without a clear vision of the next few years of U.S. trade policy
? Be a boy scout and be prepared.  What I mean is stay the course but formulate alternatives if you need them.
 
Consider where your products and component parts come from.  What if duties increase for those items.  Can you buy them in the U.S.?  Do you have other sources?  How quickly can you get what you need and how much inventory do you keep?
Are you foreign-owned?  Consider your product’s country of origin.  Is it substantially transformed in the U.S.? Where is the technology and engineering coming from?  Could you manufacture in the U.S. and take advantage of Trump’s potential tax plan if it comes to fruition?
 
Are you going to need foreign workers?  How are you going to get them if the immigration rules change?
 
Do you export?  Ensure you are screening your customers and complying with the Treasury Department’s sanctions requirements.  The Administration promises more enforcement regarding U.S. and foreign parties violating U. S. export and Office of Foreign Assets Control sanction requirements. Understand U.S. jurisdiction over your products and services, including the potential for U.S. control over the exports of any foreign subsidiaries.
 
The new Administration also promises an uptick in other types of trade enforcement, and it might surprise some to find out that the U.S. has jurisdiction over products and technology with U.S. content all over the world.  The Commerce Department controls and licenses the shipments of U.S. commercial products globally and the State Department governs not only U.S. military goods and technology but also the actions of U.S. entities providing defense services and facilitating the manufacture, sale and export of foreign defense products worldwide.  So be sure you know the rules that apply to you.

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

 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
 
EAR § 734.19 provides that to the extent an authorization would be required to transfer “technology” or “software,” a comparable authorization is required to transfer access information if done with “knowledge” that such transfer would result in the release of such “technology” or “software” without a required authorization.

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

COMM_a313. R.C. Burns: “Maybe BIS Should Read This Blog More Often”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067)
 
Way back in January of this year, I pointed out a problem that the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control  (“OFAC”) may have unwittingly created for U.S. manufacturers of encryption-enabled products, i.e., virtually anything that touches the Internet or a private network.  Both agencies had imposed sanctions on the FSB, the Kremlin spy agency formerly known as the KGB.  The problem with this otherwise laudable move is that the FSB regulates import of encryption products into Putinstan, er, Russia, and these restrictions could effectively prevent exports of U.S. encryption items into Russia.  This would happen because U.S. exporters were forbidden from filing the necessary paperwork with the FSB by virtue of its addition to OFAC’s SDN List and BIS’s Entity List.
 
Well, OFAC heard the howls of industry and in just after a little more than a week after the issue had come to light issued General License 1 to permit the filing with the FSB of the necessary paperwork for imports of these products.  BIS, however, slept through those howls and did nothing.  The original post on this problem had noted the difficulties posed by BIS having put FSB on the Entity List. It was at least possible that the FSB notification and application forms could contain unpublished EAR99 technology regarding the device to be exported to Russia, in which case a BIS license would be necessary before the notification or application could be sent to the FSB. That would be the case even after the OFAC General License authorized the notification and application forms to be sent.
 
Rip van BIS-winkle has finally roused itself from its slumber on this issue.  On April 17, 2017, BIS amended the Entity List designation for FSB to remove the license requirement for transactions for “items subject to the EAR” that are “related to transactions that are authorized by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control pursuant to General License No. 1 of February 2, 2017.” What do you want to bet that a number of FSB applications were filed with technology “subject to the EAR” without the required license before this amendment to the Entity List? Technology, even technology relating to an EAR99 item, is subject to the EAR unless it has already been published or has arisen during “fundamental research.” Few people would think that unpublished information about a commercial EAR99 item would require a license. Most people probably felt that the OFAC General License got them to the finish line when dealing with the FSB. It now does, but it did not before April 17.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

(Source: Editor)

*
 
Amos Oz
 (4 May 1939; is an Israeli writer, novelist, journalist and intellectual. Oz is regarded as Israel’s most famous living author).
  – “My definition of a tragedy is a clash between right and right.”

*
 
Horace Mann
 (4 May 1796 – 2 August 1859; was an American educational reformer and Whig politician dedicated to promoting public education).
  – “Seek not greatness, but seek truth, and you will find both.”
  – “Education is our only political safety.  Outside of this ark all is deluge.”

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

EN_a215
. 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 [New effective date: 21 March 2017.]; and 82 FR 8590: Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions [New effective date: 21 March 2017.]

* 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:
18 Apr 2017: 82 FR 18217-18220: Revision to an Entry on the Entity List

  
*
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: 19 Apr 2017: 82 FR 18383-18393: Foreign Trade Regulations: Clarification on Filing Requirements 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
  – The latest edition (19 Apr 2017) 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: 26 Apr 2017: Harmonized System Update 1703, containing 2,512 ABI records and 395 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 with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III.  The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, 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.  

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

EN_a316
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)

Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories” published 
here
. 

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

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 subscribers to inform readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

* CAVEAT: The contents cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.

* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top