17-0807 Monday “Daily Bugle”

17-0807 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 7 August 2017

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.

[No items of interest noted today.] 

  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts Reminder Regarding ATF Filing Requirements
  4. State/DDTC Announces DTAS Information Systems Unavailable, 11-13 Aug
  5. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning Libya, and Combatting Terrorism
  1. ST&R Trade Report: “Classification of Fiber Optic Ribbon to be Revised”
  2. Washington Post: “What the New U.N. Sanctions on North Korea Mean”
  1. D.M. Edelman: “OFAC Imposing Penalties on Non-U.S. Companies”
  2. M. Lester: ” UK Government Outlines Post-Brexit Sanctions Legal Regime”
  3. M. Volkov: “What Happens When Employees Stop Speaking Up?”
  4. S.M.C. Kovarovics: “Much Ado About Sanctions in the United States”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Jul 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (7 Jul 2017), FACR/OFAC (16 Jun 2017), FTR (19 Apr 2017), HTSUS (25 Jul 2017), ITAR (11 Jan 2017) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 



[No items interest noted today.]

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


OGS_a11. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register

* U.S. Customs and Border Protection; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Report of Diversion [Publication Date: 8 August 2017.]  

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

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

CSMS #17-000461, 4 August 2017.)
Brokers and importers are reminded that the law requires pre-approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to import – either electronically or manually – all HTS Chapter 36 explosives (product type EXP) and defense articles listed on the U.S. Munitions Import List. 

Please note that ATF forms or permits many not be submitted through the ACE Document Image System (DIS). Any ATF-specific data filed electronically must be submitted through ATF’s PGA message set.  

For additional information, please refer to the ATF Supplemental Guidance at here or ATF Lead: Desiree M. Dickinson (304) 616-4584.

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

. State/DDTC Announces DTAS Information Systems Unavailable, 11-13 Aug

The DTAS information systems will be unavailable from August 11th, 2017 at 6:00PM through August 13th, 2017 6:00PM for scheduled routine maintenance. The DTAS systems will be available August 13th, 2017 after 6:00PM.

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

  – Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1419 of 4 August 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 of 4 August 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150
  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1423 of 4 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426 of 4 August 2017 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/154
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1427 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
  – Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1429 of 4 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

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


U.S. Customs and Border Protection is proposing to reclassify multi-mode optical fiber ribbon cable as optical fiber bundles and cables under HTSUS 9001.10.00 (6.7 percent duty) rather than as optical fiber cables under HTSUS 8544.70.00 (duty-free). CBP explains that this product falls squarely within the meaning of “bundle” provided by the fiber optic industry because it contains individual fibers bound together within a single plastic jacket. In addition, the product is not fiber optic cable because it lacks strength members and a protective outer jacketing.
Ruling NY N247006 would be revoked to reflect this change. Comments on this proposal are due by Sept. 1.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWS_a27. Washington Post: “What the New U.N. Sanctions on North Korea Mean”

(Source: Washington Post, 7 August 2017.) [Excerpts.]
When it comes to dealing with North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, many people hope sanctions are a useful tool. But not all sanctions are created equal.
This weekend, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to impose strict new sanctions on Pyongyang – a response to North Korea’s launch of two intercontinental missiles last month. The new measures significantly step up restrictions on North Korea’s international trade: Estimates say they may cost Pyongyang $1 billion a year, an enormous sum for a relatively poor country.
The hope is that these efforts may lead Kim Jong Un’s regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program, or at least bring it to the negotiation table. But the effectiveness of sanctions is hard to predict – often it is difficult to quantify their effect even in hindsight – and North Korea’s weapons program has appeared relatively impervious to previous sanctions. …

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


8. D.M. Edelman: “OFAC Imposing Penalties on Non-U.S. Companies”

* Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com
A recent OFAC enforcement case illustrates that even non-U.S. companies that do business with sanctioned jurisdictions under the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) face significant risks when using U.S. dollar payments. This means that OFAC is claiming jurisdiction over any transaction that’s in U.S. dollars.
On July 27th, OFAC announced a $12 million settlement with CSE Global Limited and its subsidiary, CSE TransTel Pte. Ltd.; both companies based in Singapore. TransTel violated U.S. sanctions by using its U.S. dollar account at a Singapore-based bank to make over $11 million in payments to various third-party vendors that included several Iranian companies providing goods and services to multiple Iranian contracts. OFAC is claiming jurisdiction over these payments because they were processed through the U.S. financial system (using U.S. dollars) and caused multiple financial institutions to violate U.S. sanctions by participating in the illegal exportation of financial services.
This settlement is important because it’s the first time OFAC has penalized a non-U.S., non-financial company for violating U.S. sanctions. It also signals broader enforcement by OFAC to non-bank parties for U.S. dollar payments that involve sanctioned jurisdictions and parties.

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

9. M. Lester: “UK Government Outlines Post-Brexit Sanctions Legal Regime”

* Author: Maya Lester, Esq., Brick Court Chambers, maya.lester@brickcourt.co.uk, +44 20 7379 3550.
The UK Government has published its response to the consultation on the White Paper setting out the proposed legal framework for imposing sanctions in the UK post-Brexit (see previous blog post). The White Paper is available here. The key points in the Government’s response are as follows:
  (1) The Government considers that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is the correct threshold to adopt for UK sanctions designations, which will “only be met if there is sufficiently solid evidence to enable the government to form a reasonable suspicion”.
  (2) The Sanctions Bill will include separate provision for UN sanctions which the UK is obliged to implement under international law, and for terrorist sanctions.
  (3) The Sanctions Bill will set out how sanctions will apply where there is a link with the UK; there will be “clear guidance” on the meaning of “UK nexus”.
  (4) The Government will review future UK autonomous sanctions regimes every year, and every individual listing at least every 3 years.
  (5) Designations will be subject to judicial review and requests for “administrative reassessment”.
  (6) The Bill will enable the use of closed material procedures, plus unclassified statements of reasons for designation.
  (7) There will not be provision for an independent reviewer or Ombudsperson, but the Government does “see a case for improving the way designations are agreed and reviewed at the UN level, building on the good work of the UN Ombudsperson for the ISIL / AQ Sanctions Committee”.
  (8) The Bill will broaden the licensing powers available to OFSI, and create a power enabling general licences, for example, “to facilitate humanitarian aid to regions affected by sanctions”.
  (9) The Government will issue guidance on “the content and implementation of sanctions”.
  (10) The Government believes that obligations to report to ensure sanctions compliance should apply to all sectors in relation to financial sanctions. (See separate regulations and blog in relation to enhanced UK reporting obligations here).
  (11) There will be new powers to seize and detain as well as freeze assets subject to an asset freeze which go beyond powers existing under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Criminal Finances Act 2017.
  (12) The Government will “put limits” on the ability of designated persons to seek compensation for unlawful sanctions designations “in a way that is consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998”.

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

10. M. Volkov: “What Happens When Employees Stop Speaking Up?”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
One of several difficult compliance questions facing companies revolves around reporting of employee concerns. If the number of complaints coming in on a company hotline goes down over time, is corporate misconduct going down or are employees losing trust in the company’s speak up system?
These are two diametrically opposite conclusions.
Compliance officers have to be realistic and objective when analyzing this question. Misconduct rates do not just go down by themselves. Instead a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) has to fairly identify trends and influences that support the conclusion that misconduct is going down. Such a trend does not occur in a vacuum.
If the positive conclusion is true – that misconduct rates are going down – there would be other indicators of a positive ethical culture. For example, the CCO should ask:
  – Has the CEO or the board made an increased effort to demonstrate their commitment to an ethical culture?
  – Have they taken affirmative and proactive steps to promote a positive ethical culture?
  – Have mid-level managers reported any evidence that employee conduct has been improving?
  – Are employees reporting misconduct incidents committed by other employees?
  – Are there other positive developments that support a conclusion that the company’s compliance program is taking hold?
In the absence of positive indicators of ethical improvement, a CCO should avoid the simplistic conclusion that a reduction in employee complaints means that employee conduct is improving.
In certain situations, a CCO should be concerned that employee-reporting rates on hotlines have declined over time. Such a phenomenon can reflect a serious culture problem in the company – the employees do not trust the reporting system and are not using existing employee reporting systems. Such a breakdown is a significant risk to the company. When misconduct goes underground, the company’s risk profile increases and a culture of misconduct can spread rapidly throughout the company.
We are all aware of situations where employees are afraid the raise difficult concerns. In fact, this phenomena has specifically been cited in a number of major government enforcement actions, including the BP Deepwater Horizon case, the GM ignition system problem, VW’s emissions cheating scandal, and Wells Fargo’s sales incentives program. In each of these cases, a robust speak up culture could have saved the respective companies from significant misconduct, government enforcement actions and reputational damage.
Employees who distrust a company’s reporting system may have reached this attitude for a variety of reasons. Employees who experience significant delays in responding to concerns usually conclude that the company does not care about their concerns. Additionally, if a company fails to discipline managers, employees or executives who engage in misconduct, employees will rapidly lose faith in the company’s commitment to organizational justice.
A company’s attitude towards internal employee reporting systems becomes very obvious – a company is either committed to encouraging employee reporting as a vital source of information needed to address risks and misconduct, or a company displays a “do not care” attitude by failing to respond timely and with commitment to addressing employee concerns.
CCOs know the score on a company’s commitment to a speak up culture – sometimes they may turn a blind eye from realizing that the decline in employee reporting is a serious warning sign. By failing to acknowledge this risk, CCOs are exacerbating the risk and failing to act when they should be doing something to address the problem. On the other hand, a CCO who acknowledges the problem, has embraced an important first step – the CCO’s company has a real culture problem and needs to address the issue quickly before the situation deteriorates and the company experiences a serious incident.

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

11. S.M.C. Kovarovics: “Much Ado About Sanctions in the United States”

* Author: Susan M.C. Kovarovics, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, susan.kovarovics@bryancave.com, 202-508-6132.
President Trump signed into law the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (the CAATS Act) on August 2, 2017.  This new law impacts sanctions related to Russia, Iran and North Korea.  Key among the changes is that it takes discretion out of the hands of the U.S. President to lift or change certain existing sanctions, particularly the sectoral sanctions imposed against Russia.  A number of other changes are made to the various sanctions programs, including creating a number of additional criteria for designating parties as subject to U.S. sanctions.  Particularly important for entities in Europe is to continue to ensure adequate restricted party screening and due diligence is conducted as additional parties are designated under these new provisions. 
Changes implemented with respect to Russia sanctions include the following:
  – The President must report to Congress and wait 30 days (60 days between July 10 and September 7) before taking actions to terminate existing sanctions, waive imposition of new sanctions called for under the Act or engage in licensing that significantly alters U.S. foreign policy with respect to Russia, unless a joint resolution of Congress authorizes such action before the waiting period expires.
– The Act codifies the sanctions provided for pursuant to Executive Orders 13660, 13661, 13662, 13685, 13694, and 13757.
  – Sanctions are required or authorized for activities related to
  — Cyber security;
  — Corruption;
  — Crude oil projects;
  — Financial institutions;
  — Human rights abuses;
  — Evasion of sanctions;
  — Arms transfers to Syria;
  — Intelligence or defense sectors; and
  — Investments in or facilitation of the privatization of state-owned assets by the Russian Federation.
  – Sanctions are authorized (but not required) to be imposed on any party that engages in certain activities related to Russian energy export pipelines and state-owned entities in the metals and mining sectors.
  – Modified Directives 1, 2 and 4 of the Sectoral Sanctions.
  – Shortened the period for which debt may be extended to sectoral sanctions targets under Directives 1 and 2 to 14 days and 60 days, respectively (down from 30 and 90 days). Even if no U.S. persons are involved in the underlying transaction, beware of the role of U.S. financial institutions (or non-U.S. financial institutions that follow U.S. sanctions).
  – Directive 4 has been expanded to include deepwater, Arctic offshore or shale projects with the potential to produce oil and involve a party designated pursuant to Directive 4 or involve property or interests in property of such a person who has a controlling interest or a substantial non-controlling ownership interest in such a project (defined as not less than a 33 percent interest). No longer do these projects have to be located in Russia for the restrictions of Directive 4 to apply.
The CAATS Act also requires preparation of a report on Russian senior political figures, oligarchs and parastatal entities to assess the potential impact of additional sectoral sanctions or designations as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs).  Certain other reports and actions are also called for under the Act.  Going forward, the scope of the Russian sanctions imposed by the United States may not be limited to what is in the current law.
Pursuant to the portion of the Act entitled “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017,” the following should be noted:
  – Sanctions are required to be imposed related to the following:
  – Iran’s ballistic missile program;
  – The IRGC and affiliated parties; and
  – The supply of arms and armaments (and related technical and other support) to Iran.
  – Sanctions may be imposed against persons responsible for human rights violations against individuals in Iran.
The President is required to submit a report to Congress twice a year regarding coordination between the United States and the European Union on sanctions against Iran.  In particular, the report must identify where and why there are discrepancies between the lists of sanctions targets (i.e., someone is sanctioned by the EU but not the United States, or vice versa).
The following sanctions and prohibitions are imposed with respect to North Korea:
  – Provides authority to the U.S. President to impose sanctions on parties that violate UN Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea;
  – Places restrictions on North Korean cargo and shipping;
  – Prohibits the importation into the United States of goods produced by North Korean convict or forced labor;
  – Provides for the imposition of sanctions on foreign persons that employ North Korean laborers;
  – Prohibits U.S. financial institution activities related to the use of correspondent accounts of foreign financial institutions to provide indirect financial services to North Korea; and
  – Requires the President to report to relevant Congressional committees information about whether the following parties should be subject to sanctions, or if not, what justification there is for not designating each party:
  – Korea Shipowners’ Protection and Indemnity Association;
  – Chinpo Shipping Company (Private) Limited;
  – The Central Bank of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
  – Kumgang Economic Development Corporation (KKG);
  – Sam Pa and any entities owned or controlled by this individual; and
  – The Chamber of Commerce of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Other actions of the U.S. government with respect to sanctioned destinations and parties this past week include the following:  the designation of more than a dozen parties in Venezuela as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs), and the invalidation of U.S. passports for travel to North Korea.

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


MS_a212. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings

(Source: Editor)  
Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please send openings in the following format to jobs@fullcirclecompliance.eu.
#” New listing this week:
* Acteon Group Ltd.; Norwich, Suffolk, or London, UK;
Head of Compliance; or email
Mike Pay
* Advanced Micro Devices (AMD); Austin TX; 
Import/Export Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 24061

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Washington DC; 
International Trade and Customs Specialist
; Requisition ID: 147

* Amazon; Mexico City, Mexico; Mexico Trade Compliance Program Manager; Requisition ID: 520481 
* Amazon; Seattle WA;
NA Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 256357

* Ansell; Iselin NJ;
Senior Specialist NA Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: IRC6513

* Berry Plastics Corporation; Evansville IN;
International Trade Compliance Administrator
; Requisition ID: 4054

* Boeing; Saint Louis MO (and other locations);
Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1700011280

* Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions; Exeter, NH, Plainview, NY, Eatontown, NJ, or Lansdale, PA;
Export Compliance Manager
; Charles Trokey

DRS Technologies; Dayton OH;
Senior Trade Compliance Manager 

* Eaton; Titchfield, United Kingdom;
Global Trade Manager (Trade Compliance); Requisition ID: 020681

 Esterline Technologies Corporation;
Bellevue, WA;
Manager, Trade Compliance Investigations and Disclosures

* Expeditors; Sunnyvale CA;
Customs Compliance Specialist
* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; Trade Compliance Specialist;

* Fluke; Everett WA; 
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: FLU005544

* General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.; San Diego CA; 

International Trade Compliance Analyst (ITC) / Export Import Specialist / Global Trade Administrator
; Requisition ID: 12252BR

General Dynamics Land Systems; Sterling Heights, MI; Compliance Officer


* George Washington University; Washington DC;

Research Compliance Officer, Export Control
; Requisition ID: PI97906765

Harsco; Columbia, SC; 
Import/Export Specialist

* Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.; Westfield, IN;
International Trade Compliance Manager 

Intel Corporation; Gdansk, Poland or Swindon/High Wycombe, England, UK;
EMEA Export Project Manager / Trade Specialist
; Job ID JR0033212; OR contact 
Joy Robins

* Johnson and Johnson; Skillman, NJ;
Export Trade Compliance Lead

* KPMG; Antwerp, Brussels;
Manager Global Trade & Customs – SAP GTS
; 122756BR

* Lutron; Coopersburg PA;
Trade Manager-Export
; Requisition ID: 2926
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requsition ID: 16000DYY

* Medtronic; Wash DC; Global Trade Lawyer;  
; Requisition ID: 170002ON

# Meggitt PLC; Simi Valley, CA;
Trade Compliance Officer
# Meggitt PLC; Akron, OH;
Import Specialist;

NetApp; Singapore; Trade Compliance Mananger – APAC; Requisition ID 43338BR

* North Dakota State University; Fargo ND;
Director for Research Integrity Compliance; Requisition ID: 1700372

* Northrop Grumman Corporation; Herndon VA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 3/4; Requisition ID: 17001180

* Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine; New Malden, UK;
Trade Compliance Coordinator
# Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
International Trade Compliance 5; Requisition ID: 17018159

* Premier Farnell Organisation; Leeds, UK;
Trade Compliance Specialist – Europe
; Requisition ID: 4301
* Raytheon; (El Segundo CA, McKinney TX, Dallas TX, Marlborough MA, or Washington D.C.);
Senior Manager of Global Trade Management
; Requisition ID: 98724BR

* Raytheon; Rosslyn, VA; 
Export Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 97978BR

* Saab Defense and Security USA LLC; Syracuse NY;
Senior Import/Export Analyst
; Requisition ID: USA_00413

* Science and Engineering Services, LLC; Huntsville AL;
Export Compliance Specialist
bob.davis@ses-i.com; Requisition ID: 157
* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst II; Req ID: R0003259

* SIRE: Noord-Brabant province, the Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Expert; Requisition ID: 33934

* Tesla Motors; Fremont CA; 
Global Supply Manager – International Logistics
; Requisition ID: 49362

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Breda, the Netherlands;
Import/Export Specialist – EMEA CMD Commercial Offices
; Requisition ID: 44930BR

* UBC; Monheim, Germany;
Manager Customs and Trade Compliance 
* Ultra Electronics; Greater London, United Kingdom;
International Trade and Export Compliance Specialist

# United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Chula Vista CA;
ITC Operational Excellence Manager
; Requisition ID: 49904BR

* United Technologies Corporation, UTC Aerospace Systems; Troy OH;
Sr. Manager, Intl Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 44065BR 

* University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, NC;
Export Control Officer 

* VAG; Mannheim, Germany;
Trade Compliance Manager (m/w)
; Contact: Mr. Florian Uhl, +49 621 749 – 1870

Vertiv (formerly Emerson Network Power); Columbus, OH,  
International Trade Management (ITM) Senior Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1700001087

* Vigilant; Unknown location in the U.S.;
BioTech/Pharmaceutical Global Trade Analyst

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



* Luc de Clapiers (Luc de Clapiers, Marquis de Vauvenargues; 6 Aug 1715 – 28 May 1747; was a French writer and moralist. He died at age 31, in broken health, having published a collection of essays and aphorisms with the encouragement of Voltaire, his friend.)
  – “One promises much, to avoid giving little.”
  – “To achieve great things we must live as though we were never going to die.”
Monday is pun day.
A lady went to her doctor and said, “Doctor! Doctor! You’ve to help me…I’m shrinking! I’m shrinking!” The doctor replied, “Madam, you’ll just have to be a little patient.”
— Ben Vercellone, Montvale, NJ

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

. 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.
: 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. 
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 28 Jul 2017: 82 FR 35064-35065: Technical Corrections to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations
  – 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 cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM  (Summary here.)

: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774

  – Last Amendment: 7 July 2017: 
82 FR 31442-31449: Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations Based on the 
2016 Missile Technology Control Regime Plenary Agreements. 

: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 16 Jun 2017: 82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations 
: 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
  – The latest edition (18 July 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, Census/AES guidance, and to many errors contained in the official text. 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.
, 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: 25 Jul 2017: Harmonized System Update 1706, containing 834 ABI records and 157 harmonized tariff records.
  – HTS codes for AES are available
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
  – Last Amendment: 11 Jan 2017: 82 FR 3168-3170: 2017 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 10 Jun 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 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, 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.

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

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 

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


* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, John Bartlett. The Ex/Im Daily Update is 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