;

17-0810 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

17-0810 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 7 August 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.

[No items of interest noted today.] 

  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS Prepares for 30th Annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy
  3. DHS/CBP Updates ACE AESTIR Appendices
  4. State/DDTC: DTAS Information Systems Unavailable on 11-13 Aug
  5. Treasury/OFAC Announces Settlement Agreement With IPSA International Services, Inc.
  6. UK/HM R&C Releases Customs Information Paper Concerning the EU Export Control System Upgrade
  1. CBC News: “New Video Purports to Show Canadian-made LAVs Being Used in Saudi Crackdown”
  2. Express Newsline: “Ukraine Halts Deal With Russian Federation on Military Exports to Third States”
  3. Global Trade News: “New Trade Reforms for Norfolk Island”
  4. Reuters: “EU Adds Nine People, Four Entities to North Korea Sanctions List”
  5. Reuters: “U.S. Slaps New Sanctions on Venezuela”
  1. M. Volkov: “Get Your Board on Board”
  2. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  3. R.C. Burns: “If A U.S. Attorney Can’t Get Export Law Right, Why Should Anyone Else?”
  1. NAITA Presents 2017 Export Control Update (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) on 18-19 Sept in Huntsville, AL 
  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 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1 

[No items interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

[No items of interest noted today.]  

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

OGS_a22.

Commerce/BIS Prepares for 30th Annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy

The Bureau of Industry and Security Presents Update 2017 Conference on Export Controls and Policy
 
  Proposed dates: 3-5 Oct 2017.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is preparing for the 30th annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy in Washington, D.C. This major outreach activity draws business and government representatives from around the world to learn and exchange ideas about export control issues. It is one of the Department’s most notable international trade events.
 
The proposed dates for Update 2017 will be at the Washington Hilton Hotel. A conference room rate will be available to registered attendees when registration opens. Detailed registration and program information will be available in the coming days.
 
For additional, information on Update 2017, you may contact the Outreach and Educational Services Division at: UpdateConference@bis.doc.gov or (202) 482

6031.

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

OGS_a33.

DHS/CBP Updates ACE AESTIR Appendices

(Source:
CSMS# 17-000481, 10 Aug 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has updated three Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) Appendices posted on CBP.gov/ACE. The updated appendices include:
 
  – Appendix A – Commodity Filing Response Messages;
  – Appendix X – HTS and Schedule B Codes for PGAs; and
  – Appendix D – Export Port Codes … 

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

OGS_a44
. State/DDTC: DTAS Information Systems Unavailable on 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.

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

OGS_a55.

Treasury/OFAC Announces Settlement Agreement With IPSA International Services, Inc.

 
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a $259,200 settlement with IPSA International Services, Inc. (IPSA) of Phoenix, Arizona.  IPSA agreed to settle its potential civil liability for 72 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560 (ITSR).  The apparent violations involve, on 44 separate occasions, IPSA’s importation of Iranian-origin services into the United States in apparent violation of § 560.201 of the ITSR, and on 28 separate occasions, IPSA’s engagement in transactions or dealings related to Iranian-origin services by approving and facilitating its foreign subsidiaries’ payments to providers of Iranian-origin services in apparent violation of §§ 560.206 and 560.208 of the ITSR.  OFAC determined that IPSA did not voluntarily disclose the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case.
 
OFAC’s web notice is included below.

  ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION FOR AUGUST 10, 2017
 
Information concerning the civil penalties process can be found in the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations governing each sanctions program; the Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 501; and the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A. These references, as well as recent final civil penalties and enforcement information, can be found on OFAC’s Web site.
 
  ENTITIES – 31 CFR 501.805(d)(1)(i)
 
IPSA International Services, Inc. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations: IPSA International Services, Inc. (IPSA), Phoenix, Arizona, has agreed to pay $259,200 to settle its potential civil liability for 72 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560 (ITSR). [FN/1] The apparent violations involve, on 44 separate occasions, IPSA’s importation of Iranian-origin services into the United States in apparent violation of § 560.201 of the ITSR, and on 28 separate occasions, IPSA’s engagement in transactions or dealings related to Iranian-origin services by approving and facilitating its foreign subsidiaries’ payments to providers of Iranian- origin services in apparent violation of §§ 560.206 and 560.208 of the ITSR.
 
OFAC determined that IPSA did not voluntarily disclose the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case. The total transaction value of the apparent violations was $290,784. The statutory maximum civil penalty amount in this case was $18,000,000, and the base civil penalty amount was $720,000.
 
IPSA is a global business investigative and regulatory risk mitigation firm that provides due diligence services for various countries and their citizenship by investment programs. In March 2012, IPSA entered into an engagement letter and fee agreement with a third country with respect to its citizenship by investment program (“Contract No. 1”). In October 2012, IPSA’s subsidiary in Vancouver, Canada (“IPSA Canada”) entered into a similar contract with a government-owned financial institution in a separate third country (“Contract No. 2”). While the majority of the applicants to both of these programs were nationals from countries not subject to OFAC sanctions, some were Iranian nationals. Since most of the information about Iranian applicants could not be checked or verified by sources outside Iran, IPSA Canada and IPSA’s subsidiary in Dubai, United Arab Emirates subsequently hired subcontractors to conduct the necessary due diligence in Iran, and those subcontractors in turn hired third parties to validate information that could only be obtained or verified within Iran. Although it was IPSA’s foreign subsidiaries that managed and performed both Contract No. 1 and Contract No. 2, with regard to Contract No. 1, IPSA appears to have imported Iranian-origin services into the United States because the foreign subsidiaries conducted the due diligence in Iran on behalf of and for the benefit of IPSA. With regard to Contract No. 2, IPSA also appears to have engaged in transactions or dealings related to Iranian-origin services and facilitated the foreign subsidiaries’ engagement in such transactions or dealings because IPSA reviewed, approved, and initiated the foreign subsidiaries’ payments to providers of the Iranian-origin services.
 
The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following facts and circumstances, pursuant to the General Factors under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A. OFAC considered the following to be aggravating factors: (1) IPSA failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care when it imported background investigation services of Iranian origin into the United States and when it reviewed, approved, and initiated its foreign subsidiaries’ payments to providers of Iranian-origin services, and the frequency and duration of the apparent violations constitute a pattern or practice of conduct; (2) at least one of IPSA’s senior management knew or had reason to know that it was importing and/or engaging in transactions or dealings related to services of Iranian origin; (3) the transactions giving rise to the apparent violations resulted in economic benefits to Iran, and the conduct underlying the apparent violations is not eligible for OFAC authorization under existing licensing policy [FN/2]; (4) IPSA is a commercially sophisticated company operating internationally with experience in U.S. sanctions; and (5) IPSA’s OFAC compliance program was ineffective in that it did not recognize or react to the risks presented by engaging in transactions that involved Iranian-origin background investigation services.
 
OFAC considered the following to be mitigating factors: (1) IPSA has no prior OFAC sanctions history in the five years preceding the earliest date of the transactions giving rise to the apparent violations; (2) IPSA undertook significant remedial measures by taking swift action to cease the prohibited activities, conducting an investigation to discover the causes and extent of the apparent violations, and adopting new internal controls and procedures to prevent reoccurrence of the apparent violations; and (3) IPSA substantially cooperated with OFAC’s investigation by conducting an internal look-back investigation for potential sanctions violations and submitting an investigation report to OFAC without receiving an administrative subpoena, promptly providing detailed additional information and documentation in a well-organized manner in response to OFAC’s multiple requests for information, and entering into a statute of limitations tolling agreement.
 
For more information regarding OFAC regulations, please go here.

——–
  [FN/1] On October 22, 2012, OFAC changed the heading of 31 C.F.R. part 560 from the Iranian Transactions Regulations to the ITSR, amended the renamed ITSR, and reissued them in their entirety. See 77 Fed. Reg. 64,664 (Oct. 22, 2012). For the sake of clarity, all references herein to the ITSR shall mean the regulations in 31 C.F.R. part 560 in effect at the time of the activity, regardless of whether such activity occurred before or after the regulations were renamed.
  [FN/2] On January 16, 2016, OFAC issued General License H: Authorizing Certain Transactions Relating to Foreign Entities Owned or Controlled by a United States Person (“GL H”). GL H authorizes, subject to certain conditions, an entity owned or controlled by a U.S. person and established or maintained outside the United States to engage in transactions with any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran that would otherwise be prohibited by 31 C.F.R. § 560.215. Under GL H, however, U.S. persons are authorized to engage only in limited activities with regard to U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign entities, and the general prohibition of facilitation remains in place. In addition, OFAC’s January 12, 2017 Guidance on the Provision of Certain Services Relating to the Requirements of U.S. Sanctions Laws notes that U.S. persons may solicit information from covered persons and conduct research to make a determination as to the legality of transactions under U.S. sanctions laws only if “there is no importation of services where the importation of services is prohibited by any part of 31 C.F.R. chapter V.” 

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

OGS_a66.

UK/HM R&C Releases Customs Information Paper Concerning the EU Export Control System Upgrade

 
Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs Department (HM R&C) has released the “Customs Information Paper 14 (2017): Upgrade to [EU] Export Control System”.
 
This Customs Information Paper has been issued to inform all those involved in submitting export declarations through CHIEF (Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight) and includes:
 
  – the changes that will impact declarants
  – the downtime required
  – where more detailed information can be found if required
 
The paper is available
here.

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a17.

CBC News: “New Video Purports to Show Canadian-made LAVs Being Used in Saudi Crackdown”

(Source:
CBC News, 8 Aug 2017.) [Excerpts.] 
 
New video footage obtained by Radio Canada International appears to show for the first time Canadian-made light armoured vehicles being deployed by Saudi security forces in an operation against militants in the Shia-populated eastern part of the kingdom.
 
The nine-second video is putting additional pressure on the Liberal government to cancel a multi-billion contract to supply the Saudi Arabia’s royal family with newer and more lethal models of these same vehicles. …
 
It’s not clear whether the vehicles shown in the video were bought from Canada or the U.S.
 
A spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada who was shown the video would neither confirm nor deny that the vehicles shown in the video are in fact LAVs, saying it was up to their “government customers to identify their vehicles.”
 
  “General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada exports in full compliance with the laws of Canada,” Doug Wilson-Hodge, the company’s manager of corporate affairs, said in brief statement sent to RCI and CBC.
 
Officials at Global Affairs Canada, the federal department that deals with export permits for military, strategic and dual-use goods, said they could not comment on the new video until its authenticity is confirmed. …  

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

NWS_a28.

Express Newsline: “Ukraine Halts Deal With Russian Federation on Military Exports to Third States”

 
Ukraine has decided to suspend an intergovernmental agreement with Russian Federation on cooperation in exports of military products to third countries. The relevant decision was adopted at a government session on Wednesday.
 
In 2014, Kiev launched a military operation against self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and neighboring People’s Republic of Luhansk, when they refused to recognize the new Ukrainian government that came to power in what the region’s residents perceive as a coup. Both the countries agreed on cooperation in such areas as the export of military products to third countries, joint marketing and licensing studies of world defense products markets, exchange of information on these issues, consultations to agree on export prices and tariffs for the supply of military products to third-party countries, among others.
 
The aim of the new agreement was to establish interaction between the parties in the export of military goods to third countries. The document involved military objective products developed jointly or updated after January 1, 1992.
 
Ukraine has suspended the shipments of military goods to Russian Federation since late March 2014 and on June 16 that year Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko fully prohibited cooperation with Russian Federation in the defense sector.
 
On August 27, 2014, the Council for National Security and Defense instructed the Cabinet of Ministers to take measures to stop exports to Russian Federation of military goods and dual-use products with the exception of space hardware used for research and peaceful uses of outer space within the framework of global space projects.

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

NWS_a39.

Global Trade News: “New Trade Reforms for Norfolk Island”

 
The Australian Government integrated Norfolk Island with Australia’s tax, health, and social security systems and began delivering essential national functions such as immigration, customs, and biosecurity in Norfolk Island.
 
The Norfolk Island Customs Ordinance 2016 applies a modified version of previous Customs Acts (Customs Act 1901, Customs Regulation 2015, and International Obligations).  For customs purposes, people and goods arriving in and leaving from Norfolk Island will remain international movements. There are no customs duties, GST, or other indirect taxes (for example, Luxury Car Tax) on goods arriving in Norfolk Island.  Goods are entered using the product description of the goods rather than their harmonized tariff schedule, which has been repealed.
 
While Norfolk Island no longer uses a tariff schedule, they do still enforce the controls in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958.
 
The current mainland Australia requirements for goods exported to and imported from Norfolk Island have not changed, and import declarations are still required. Implementation of customs functions in Norfolk Island is consistent with existing arrangements in the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

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

NWS_a410.

Reuters: “EU Adds Nine People, Four Entities to North Korea Sanctions List”

(Source:
Reuters, 10 Aug 2017)
 
The European Union said on Thursday it added nine people and four entities to its North Korea sanctions list, as part of new United Nations measures in the wake of Pyongyang’s latest missile tests.
 
The European Council of EU governments said the new sanctions included the state-owned Foreign Trade Bank (FTB).
 
  “The decision brings the total number of persons under restrictive measures (…) to 62 persons and 50 entities as listed by the UN. In addition, 41 persons and 7 entities are designated by the EU autonomously,” the Council said on its website. 

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

NWS_a511.

Reuters: “U.S. Slaps New Sanctions on Venezuela”

(Source:
Reuters, 10 Aug 2017) [Excerpts.]
 
Washington imposed sanctions on eight Venezuelan officials on Wednesday for their role in creating an all-powerful legislative body loyal to President Nicolas Maduro, while a mayor-turned-fugitive called for more anti-government protests.
 
The new U.S. sanctions targeted politicians and security figures but stopped short of actions against Venezuela’s vital oil industry. Energy sector sanctions, which could cripple Venezuela’s already ailing economy, are still being considered, U.S. officials said.
 
The sanctions followed Friday’s installation of a legislative superbody known as the constituent assembly, made up entirely of allies of the ruling Socialist Party and armed with the power to re-write the constitution.
 
The assembly’s first action was to fire Venezuela’s chief prosecutor, who had accused Maduro of human rights abuses, confirming opposition fears that the assembly would purge the government of dissenting voices. …
 
The sanctions unveiled Wednesday will freeze U.S. assets of the officials targeted, ban them from travel to the United States and prohibit Americans from doing business with them. Among those named was constituent assembly member Adan Chavez, brother of the late socialist leader Hugo Chavez. …
 
Washington clamped sanctions on Maduro himself last week following actions against 13 Venezuelan figures last month.
 
Experts say individual sanctions have had little or no impact on Maduro’s policies and that broader oil-sector and financial sanctions may be the only way to make the Venezuelan government feel economic pain. …  

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a01
12. M. Volkov: “Get Your Board on Board”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
Sometimes my references to Seinfeld episodes or Curb Your Enthusiasm vignettes do not work or can charitably be characterized as a little off. Nonetheless, I press on.
 
In Season 4 of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Mel Brooks explained to Larry what a famous Greek actor explained to Mel Brooks about talent – “Or you got it. Or you ain’t” (watch it here).
 
The same applies to your board of directors. They either “got it,” or they “ain’t.” In other words, there is no real question of degree on this issue – your board either understands the importance of ethics and compliance programs and makes the commitment needed to implement a successful program, or your board does not understand the importance of ethics and compliance. There is no in between on this question – your board is either on board or not on board.
 
Not to be too dramatic, but a CCO without the support of a board is in dangerous waters. I would not condemn the program to certain failure but without some high level support from the CEO or COO, a company’s compliance program will face numerous obstacles. A CCO has to act and cannot put his or her head in the sand and continue to devote time and energy to a program that will suffer resource and authority deficiencies, almost by definition.
 
With all this introductory background, the issue then boils down to one important question – what, if anything, can a Chief Compliance Officer do to change the situation? Or how can the CCO get the board on board?
 
There is no one answer to the issue, but I have a number of ideas on what to do.
 
Before giving up or continuing with a compliance program restricted from ultimate success, the CCO has to make efforts to reverse the situation.
 
  Look for an Alliance
 
A CCO needs to find a natural ally on the Audit/Compliance Committee. If the board of directors does not understand compliance, a CCO needs to educate the board through a natural ally, a board member who understands the importance of compliance, either from experiences at another company or his/her experience in a senior executive position. It only takes one director to change the dynamic in a boardroom. If necessary, the CCO should seek to meet with the targeted board member, or even meet informally for coffee or a meal. The CCO needs to break down the barrier and get the single board member to support the CCO’s efforts.
 
  Conduct “Training”
 
A CCO should seek/demand the opportunity to “train” the board. If necessary, the CCO should cite the increasing importance of board training and request between 45 minutes to one hour. This is important so that the CCO can make hiss or her case. I have placed quotes around “training” to make a point – it is not so much a training session but an opportunity to explain to the board its unique legal responsibility for conducting oversight and monitoring of a company’s compliance program, and to educate the board on how to do so. I have rarely seen a board that knows how to supervise and monitor an ethics and compliance program, and no one should ever assume that a corporate board knows how to oversee a compliance program.
 
  Enlist the Compliance Committee’s Support
 
One of the important benefits of creating and operating a senior ethics and compliance committee as part of corporate governance is the ability to enlist the committee to bring issues to the attention of the board. When the compliance committee speaks, it brings gravitas to the communication and the importance of the issue being raised. The delicate dance here is to bring the issue to the board’s attention in a positive way – to couch it in terms of best practices for board oversight of a compliance program. A CCO should orchestrate this strategy and enlist the support of the committee to bring this issue to the board’s attention.

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

COMM_a2
13. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
.

ITAR § 126.3 provides that in a case of exceptional or undue hardship, or when it is otherwise in the interest of the United States Government, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls may make an exception to the provisions of the ITAR. 

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

COMM_a3
14R.C. Burns: “If A U.S. Attorney Can’t Get Export Law Right, Why Should Anyone Else?”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067).
 
Rasheed Al Jijakli, the owner of Orange Check Cashing in Orange, California, has been indicted for illegal exports of tactical flashlights, rifle scopes, cameras, radios, voltmeters and laser boresighters to Syria. According to the indictment, Jijakli allegedly took the items with him on flights to Turkey, crossed the border from Turkey to Syria and gave the items to rebel groups in Syria. He was arrested on August 1 and released on a $250,000 bond pending trial.
 
Of course, for the criminal indictment to succeed the U.S. Government must prove that Jijakli knew that supplying these items to persons in Syria was illegal. The indictment alleges that Jijakli told an un-indicted co-conspirator “about a technique he used to smuggle goods into Turkey without being detected by law enforcement.” It also alleges that he asked the same unindicted co-conspirator if he “needed an alias in the event law enforcement questioned [him] about the purchases.” The trial and any conviction may well turn on whether a jury decides the un-indicted co-conspirator is telling the truth about these statements by Jijakli.
 
But the prosecution’s efforts to prove that Jijakli understood the complexities of export law sufficiently to have criminal intent will be hindered by the prosecution’s own inability to understand the relevant export laws. Paragraph 6 of the indictment says this:
 
6. With certain limited exceptions not applicable here, U.S. sanctions against Syria prohibited, among other things, the export, re-export, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, of U.S.-origin goods from the United States or by a United States person wherever located, to Syria without prior authorization from the Secretary of the Treasury.
 
Nope. The Syrian Sanctions Regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) in the Treasury Department do not prohibit the export of goods to Syria. Section 542.207 which regulates exports to Syria only prohibits unlicensed exports of services from the United States or by a U.S. person. The export of goods to Syria is instead controlled by the Export Administration Regulations. Only a license from BIS is required for export of goods to Syria; no license from OFAC or the Secretary of Treasury, as the indictment would have it, is required.
 
If a prosecutor with a law degree can’t get U.S. export laws right, how can we expect a guy who owns a check cashing place in a strip mall to get it right?

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a215. NAITA Presents 2017 Export Control Update (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) on 18-19 Sept in Huntsville, AL

(Source: Amanda Berkey;
apberkey@madisoncountyal.gov
)
 
* What: NAITA 2017 Export Control Update (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) in Huntsville, AL.
* When: 18-19 September 2017.
* Where: The Westin Huntsville; 6800 Governors West, Huntsville, AL 35806.
* Sponsor: North Alabama International Trade Association (NAITA) and Maynard Cooper & Gale PC.
* Speakers Include:  Kevin Wolf, Candace Goforth, Michael Laychak, and Jim Bartlett.
* Credits: Approved by the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Commission of the Alabama State Bar for 12.5 CLEs.
* Register: Click here for details & registration link or contact Amanda Berkey/NAITA at 256-532-3505,
apberkey@madisoncountyal.gov
 or 
naita@naita.org

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

 

* Camillo di Cavour (Camillo Paolo Filippo Giulio Benso, Count of Cavour, Isolabella and Leri; 10 Aug 1810 – 6 Jun 1861; was an Italian statesman and a leading figure in the movement toward Italian unification.)
  – “I have discovered the art of deceiving diplomats. I tell them the truth and they never believe me.”
  – “Lotteries are a tax upon imbeciles.”

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

EN_a317
. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  Changes to applicable regulations are listed below.
 
*
ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
 
*
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 28 Jul 2017: 82 FR 35064-35065: Technical Corrections to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations
 
* 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 cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM  (Summary here.)


EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR)
: 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. 

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 16 Jun 2017: 82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations 
 
*
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 (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.
 
*
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: 25 Jul 2017: Harmonized System Update 1706, containing 834 ABI records and 157 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.
  – 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.

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

EN_a0318. 
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., 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