 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.] | | | - Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
- Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
- DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage on 28 Oct
- DoD/DSCA Posts DSCA Policy Memos, 22-28 Oct
- State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
- Germany/BAFA Releases New Export Control Newsletter, Amendments of EU Dual-Use Regulation and Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance Amongst Updates
| | | - Dutch News: “Dutch Technology May Have Been Used in Weapons of Mass Destruction: Ministers”
- Expeditors News: “Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security Agree on E-Commerce Cooperation”
- Manila Bulletin: “Customs Bureau Authorized Anew to Examine Transaction Records of Importers and Brokers”
- ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: ACE Reports, Customs Enforcement, Made in USA, Wood Packaging”
| | | - D.M. Edelman: “Sudan Sanctions 2017”
- M. Volkov: “FCPA Enforcement and Credit for an Effective Compliance Program”
- W.J. Wagner: “Guide to Doing Business in Canada: International Trade”
| | | - ICPA Presents Annual Asia Conferences: 5-7 Nov in Singapore and 9-10 Nov in Shanghai
- Friday List of Approaching Events: 124 Events Posted This Week, 16 New Events
| | | - Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations
- Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Sep 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (23 Oct 2017), FACR/OFAC (16 Jun 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (20 Oct 2017), ITAR (30 Aug 2017)
- Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
|  | | EX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER |
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES |
1 . Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions * Commerce; International Trade Administration; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report from Foreign – Trade Zones [Publication Date: 30 October 2017.] * Treasury; Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 30 October 2017.] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, October 28, 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, October 29, 2017 for ACE Infrastructure Maintenance. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) has released the October/November Issue of its Export Control Newsletter. The content of the newsletter is included below. European Union Law/Embargo Measures Mali The Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1770 of 28 September 2017 (OJ L 251 of 29.9.2017, page 1) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali implements the Resolution 2374 (2017) of the United Nations Security Council. The Resolution provides for travel restrictions and the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons designated by the United Nations Security Council or the relevant United Nations Sanctions Committee as responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security or stability of Mali. The persons and entities whose funds and economic resources shall be frozen will be listed in Annex I to the Regulation that is not completed yet. North Korea In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1548 of 14 September 2017 (OJ L 237 of 15.9.2017, page 39) amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, new prohibitions were introduced with regard to the import, purchase and transport of fish and seafood as well as lead and lead ores, and the existing restrictions on investments were tightened. In accordance with the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1568 of 15 September 2017 (OJ L 238 of 16.9.2017, page 10) implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, one person and three entities were added to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures contained in Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509. The amendments implement Resolution 2375 (2017) adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 11 September 2017. The Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1836 of 10 October 2017 (OJ L 261 of 11.10.2017, page 1) amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea imposed new prohibitions with regard to imports, purchase or transfer of DPRK textiles and exports of petroleum products to DPRK; restrictions on investments and the maritime sector were extended. The amendments implement Resolution 2375 (2017) adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 11 September 2017. Syria The Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1751 of 25 September 2017 (OJ L 246 of 26.9.2017, page 1) implementing the Regulation (EU) No. 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria amended the information related to four persons and one entity in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No. 36/2012. Ukraine – Measures in view of threats to the territorial integrity of Ukraine In accordance with the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1549 of 14 September 2017 (OJ L 237 of 15.9.2017, page 44) implementing the Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, the information related to 19 persons and 17 entities were amended in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014, the information related to four persons and three entities was deleted and one entity was added to the list. The Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1547 of 14 September 2017 (OJ L 237 of 15.9.2017, page 37) amending Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine included a derogation to authorize payments to Crimean Sea Ports for services provided at the ports Kerch Fishery Port, Yalta Commercial Port and Evpatoria Commercial Port, and services provided by Gosgidrografiya and by Port-Terminal branches of the Crimean Sea Ports. Al Qaida and ISIL (Da´esh) In accordance with the Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/1488 of 18 August 2017 (OJ L 215 of 19.8.2017, page 1), (EU) 2017/1500 of 23 August 2017 (OJ L 219 of 25.8.2017, page 5), (EU) 2017/1516 of 31 August 2017 (OJ L 226 of 1.9.2017, page 24), (EU) 2017/1571 of 15 September 2017 (OJ L 238 of 16.9.2017, page 42), (EU) 2017/1773 of 28 September 2017 (OJ L 251 of 29.9.2017, page 19) and (EU) 2017/1834 of 9 October 2017 (OJ L 260 of 10.10.2017, page 3) amending for the 274th to 279th times Regulation (EC) No. 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da´esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, the information related to eight persons was amended, one person was added and one natural person was deleted from the list in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No. 881/2002. The amendments implement the decisions adopted by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council on 9, 18 and 27 August as well as on 12 and 22 September and 4 October 2017. National Law 10th Amendment of AWV The tenth ordinance amending the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (AWV) of 22 September 2017 amended section 82 AWV in order to adjust the existing regulations on administrative fines to the current legal basis with regard to fines in case of violations of the provisions, imposed by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 329/2007 (OJ L 224 of 31.8.2017, page 1). Inside BAFA Update of Annexes to EC Dual-use Regulation This year the Information Day on Export Control will be held on Thursday, 7 December 2017, in the Marriott Hotel, Hamburger Allee 2, 60486 Frankfurt/Main. BAFA continues its successful series of events with this 9th information day. Further details on the programme will follow soon. Registration is possible from 27 September 2017 at our Website. On 26 September 2017 the EU Commission published the envisaged Delegated Act to amend the Annexes to Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. Please note that this publication is only for the purpose of prior information. Therefore, the published list of goods has not yet entered into force. It could become effective at the end of November. The delegated legal act is available at BAFA’s web sites. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| |
NEWS |
| It is possible that Dutch technology was used in weapons of mass destruction or rocket programmes developed by Iran, Pakistan and Syria, outgoing ministers Lilianne Ploumen (foreign trade), Bert Koenders (foreign affairs) and Klaas Dijkhoff (defence) told MPs in a letter, NU.nl reports. The letter comes as a reaction to questions from VVD MPs about comments made to news agency ANP last month by the head of Dutch military intelligence and security service MIVD, major general Onno Eichelsheim. Eichelsheim claimed the Dutch secret services are frustrating a ‘substantial’ number of attempts each year by foreign groups to acquire knowledge and material to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, for instance by advising the foreign office to refuse an export license. According to Eichelsheim the Netherlands is “a supermarket for countries that want to develop this sort of weapon. Businesses and knowledge institutions are not sufficiently aware of the fact that ‘countries of risk’ want to get their hands on Dutch technology,” Nu.nl quotes him as saying. According to the letter the matter will be investigated by the customs office after which the public prosecution office can open proceedings against the perpetrators. … * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| On October 19, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a memorandum of agreement for both agencies to work together on e-commerce enforcement and laws. With the rise of e-commerce in the markets, DHS and DOC will work together to address challenges in the digital marketplace. The partnership will work together to: – Promote multi-agency coordination; – Promote public-private dialogue; – Promote compliance with U.S. trade laws; – Identify and seek to address international cross-border capacity and operating constraints; – Measure e-commerce-based supply chain and goods movement; – Share relevant statistical trade data. Ultimately, the cooperation of the two departments hopes to remove trade barriers, assist U.S. businesses in growing e-commerce shipments, and to focus on enforcement of U.S. laws. The memorandum of agreement can be found here. The press release from the International Trade Administration may be found here. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
(Source: Manila Bulletin, 24 Oct 2017.) [Excerpts.] The Bureau of Customs (BoC) is authorized anew to conduct post clearance audit or audit-based controls to ensure the importers’ compliance with customs laws and regulations. In Executive Order 46, the President transferred back the power to examine transaction records of importers and brokers to the customs bureau from the Department of Finance (DOF). “For this purpose, the operations of the BOC-PEAG (Post Entry Audit Group) are hereby revived and such group is renamed as the Post Clearance Audit Group (PCAG) under the supervision of the Commissioner of Customs,” the order read. The President effectively reversed his predecessor’s order that gave such audit function to the DOF’s Fiscal Intelligence Unit back in 2013. The customs originally had the post clearance audit authority through an Executive Order 160 issued in 2003. … * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
| Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week. – 30 Oct: deadline for comments to ITC on potential remedial orders on personal transporters – 1 Nov: effective date of tougher CBP policy on wood packaging material requirements – 2 Nov: effective date of EPA final rule requiring advance notice for imports of chemical substance – 3 Nov: deadline for comments to ITC on potential IPR infringement investigation of glucosylated steviol glycosides * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
COMMENTARY |
11 . D.M. Edelman: “Sudan Sanctions 2017” * Author: Doreen M. Edelman, Esq., Baker Donelson LLP, 202-508-3460, dedelman@bakerdonelson.com . On October 6, the US government announced that it will revoke its economic sanctions regime with respect to Sudan and the Government of Sudan. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a frequently asked questions as a guideline with respect to the revocation, as well as a new general license authorizing certain agricultural and medical-related exports. (This development does not affect sanctions on South Sudan, as discussed below.) The US State Department provided a report on the Government of Sudan’s sustained positive actions for the mandated reporting period spanning the last nine months, recognizing Sudan’s improved humanitarian access and its cooperation with the US in addressing regional conflict and threats of terrorism. In exchange for ending the sanctions program, the US also said it had secured a commitment from Sudan that it would not engage in weapons trade with North Korea. … [Editor’s Note: due to copyright restrictions, we are not authorized to include the entire article. To read the remaining sections, click on the source link below the item title.] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
12. M. Volkov: “
FCPA Enforcement and Credit for an Effective Compliance Program
“ (Source: Volkov Law Group Blog , 25 Oct 2017. Reprinted by permission.) * Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992. The Justice Department has touted its efforts to bring greater transparency to FCPA enforcement. There is no question that in the last five years the Justice Department has moved the needle – the FCPA Guidance issued in 2012; the release of the April 5, 2016 Pilot Program; the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs issued in February 2017; the release of letters confirming declinations awarded to companies under the FCPA Pilot Program; and more information disclosed in FCPA enforcement actions. A significant question has been raised as to whether a company that violates the FCPA can (or has) receive(d) credit for an effective compliance program notwithstanding the fact that the company paid illegal bribes? The issue focuses on the state of the company’s compliance program at the time the FCPA violation occurred. This is a separate issue from the related question of what steps did the company take to remediate its compliance program in response to the FCPA violations. Andy Spalding, a Senior Editor to the FCPA Blog, raised this issue in an interesting post on the FCPA Blog (available here) and in his related law review article (available here). Andy makes the valid point that DOJ does not appear to be awarding credit for pre-existing anti-corruption compliance programs. I would recommend that practitioners and compliance professionals read Andy’s excellent law review article. DOJ’s failure to award credit for pre-existing compliance programs is inconsistent with DOJ’s historical approach to encouraging investment in compliance programs and specific statements made in the FCPA Guidance. DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program requires companies to: (i) voluntarily disclose a potential FCPA violation; (ii) cooperate in the investigation; (3) remediate its compliance program to prevent the recurrence of an FCPA violation; and (4) disgorge any ill-gotten gains from the illegal bribery conduct. The FCPA Pilot Program does not require nor credit any company for maintaining a pre-existing effective compliance program when the violations occurred. DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program does not take into account the company’s existing compliance program at the time the violations occurred. This apparent omission is inconsistent with DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations and specific statements contained in the FCPA Guidance. The United States Attorneys’ Manual includes specific policies concerning corporate prosecution guidelines. Specifically, whether to criminally charge a corporation is governed by USAM 9-27.280 (available here), which sets out what is referred to as the “Filip Factors,” referring to former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip (who I had the honor of serving with at DOJ during the Bush Administration). As set forth below, the Filip Factors include two specific factors focused on corporate compliance programs – one for the existence of a corporate compliance program at the time the wrongdoing occurred (number 5, USAM 9-28.800), and another focused on remedial actions taken by the company to enhance its compliance program in response to the misconduct (number 7, USAM 9-28.1000). The FCPA Guidance at page 56 includes the following specific statement: [A] company’s failure to prevent every single violation does not necessarily mean that a particular company’s compliance program was not generally effective. DOJ and SEC understand that ‘no compliance program can ever prevent all criminal activity by a corporation’s employees,’ [citation omitted] and they do not hold companies to a standard of perfection. An assessment of a company’s compliance program, including its design and good faith implementation and enforcement, is an important part of the government’s assessment of whether a violation occurred, and if so, what action should be taken. In appropriate circumstances, DOJ and SEC may decline to pursue charges against a company based on the company’s effective compliance program, or may otherwise seek to reward a company for its program, even when that program did not prevent the particular underlying FCPA violation that gave rise to the investigation. (emphasis added; citation omitted). Notwithstanding this clear language and policy statement, DOJ omitted consideration of a company’s compliance program for consideration under the FCPA Pilot Program. DOJ’s earlier statement in 2012 provided a clear incentive to companies to implement an effective compliance program in the hopes of preserving the ability to earn a declination even when the company suffers FCPA violations. DOJ is conducting yet another review and revision of its corporate prosecution policies, including the FCPA Pilot Program. Hopefully, DOJ will reiterate the importance of pre-existing compliance programs and affirm this important incentive. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
13. W.J. Wagner: “Guide to Doing Business in Canada: International Trade” * Author: Wendy J. Wagner, Esq., wendy.wagner@gowlingwlg.com, 613-786-0213; Gowling WLG. In recent years, Canada has aggressively negotiated and concluded numerous new trade agreements that were built upon, and have gone beyond, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) model. On September 21, 2017, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) provisionally entered into force, effectively removing trade barriers on over 98% of trade in goods and services between Canada and the EU. The renegotiation of NAFTA in 2017 seeks to build upon perceived gains or clarifications negotiated in recent multilateral trade agreements and negotiations, for example, by providing for more robust regulatory harmonization and addressing new issues such as e-commerce and the digital economy. In addition, Canada continues to activity negotiate, finalize and conclude bilateral investment treaties designed to protect Canadian investors abroad. While integration provides enhanced opportunities, it also emphasizes the need to comply with the legal framework for trade and customs within Canada, including rules relating to importation, the use of trade agreements, export controls and sanctions regimes. Strategic use of free trade and investment agreements also highlights the necessity to understand the recourses available when disputes arise. (1) Importation of Goods (a) Duties and Tax In Canada, customs duties are levied on imported goods that are classified under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, in accordance with the harmonized system of customs classification. Duties represent the principal tax levied on goods imported into Canada. In addition to customs duties, imported goods and some services are subject to the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST), and Provincial Sales Tax (PST) or, in certain provinces and territories, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). For more information on the GST, see the chapter on taxation. While tariff classification is based on the harmonized system, goods may be classified differently in Canada compared to other countries. In addition, not all countries have identical tariff codes, meaning an item listed under one tariff code in the U.S. may be listed under a completely different code in Canada. This often raises the question of whether the components within an imported product undergo the necessary tariff shift to claim preferential treatment under a trade agreement such as NAFTA. There are many special tariff items under the Customs Tariff that allow for duty relief, such as goods destined for particular end uses. Canada also has duty-relief programs for temporary importations, as well as duty drawbacks and deferrals. (b) Valuation Classification of a product under the Customs Tariff determines the rate of duty, which is then applied to the value for duty to calculate the duty payable. Canada’s system of customs valuation is based on the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Customs Valuation Code, which has been implemented into Canada’s Customs Act. Transaction value is the primary valuation method for imported goods. It is the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold for export to a purchaser in Canada, subject to certain upward and downward adjustments. Issues relating to transaction-value methodology often arise in related-party transactions due to the requirement that the value for duty reflect an arm’s-length transaction. For instance, there is often tension between transfer-pricing objectives from tax and customs perspectives: a balance must be achieved to establish a transfer price that satisfies customs while maximizing tax-planning objectives. (c) Rules of Origin Preferential rates of duty are accorded to products that originate in a country with which Canada has a free trade agreement, such as NAFTA or CETA, or agreements between Canada and Panama, Peru, Israel, Chile and other states. (Canada currently has free trade agreements with 13 countries or regions, and is in the process of ratifying one additional agreement and exploring at least six new agreements.) Whether a product “originates,” so as to benefit from a trade agreement, is determined by rules of origin, which may involve complex calculations and analysis of both the tariff classification and value of the components that make up an imported product. (d) Appeals Tariff classification, valuation and origin issues may all be appealed at the first level internally with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and then to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT), an independent tribunal. (e) Import Restrictions Canada maintains quantitative restrictions in the form of tariff rate quotas, which are primarily applied to sensitive agricultural products under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA), which authorizes an import control list. A permit must be obtained to import these products unless a permit exemption applies. (2) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties The Special Import Measures Act (Canada) deals with dumping by foreign manufacturers and exporters, as well as subsidies received by foreign manufacturers. Dumping occurs when goods are sold for export at a price lower than that at which they are domestically sold in the country of origin under comparable conditions and terms of sale. The difference between the “normal” value and the export price is the margin of dumping. A subsidy is a financial or other benefit that is granted by the country of origin’s administration to a manufacturer of exported goods. Subsidies may be subject to countervailing duties. While the CBSA determines the amount of dumping or subsidy, Canada does not impose duties on the dumped or subsidized goods unless the CITT finds that the dumping or subsidization has caused, or threatens to cause, material injury to a domestic producer. In recent years, dumping and subsidy actions before the CITT have often resulted in success for foreign manufacturers; however, anti-dumping and countervailing orders remain in place on a number of products, and, in particular, on steel and other primary commodities. (3) Export Controls and Sanctions (a) Export controls Canada has a comprehensive regime for export controls and sanctions administered primarily by Global Affairs Canada (GAC), with enforcement assistance from the CBSA. Three lists established under the authority of the EIPA govern exports of goods and technology from Canada to various destinations: – The Export Control List; – The Area Control List; and – The Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Under the EIPA, it is an offence to export or transfer goods or technology included on the Export Control List, or export or transfer goods to a destination on the Area Control List, except under the authority of a permit. Canada does not have a “licensing” system similar to the U.S., which makes it necessary for each exporter of a controlled good or technology to apply for a permit where one is required. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has issued several general export permits (GEPs) that allow exports of controlled goods or technology to specific destinations without the requirement to apply for an exporter-specific permit (assuming certain conditions are met). For example, in an effort to streamline the process for the export of certain controlled goods and technology, GAC has introduced a GEP authorizing the export of most controlled dual-use goods and technology (with some exceptions) to certain eligible destinations, provided the exporter complies with specific conditions. GEPs also exist with respect to export of cryptographic goods and technology, including for technology related to the development and production of such products. In the absence of an applicable GEP, exporters must apply for an individual export permit (IEP) to export controlled goods or technology, or to export to a controlled destination. “Broad base” categories of permits are available to authorize multiple shipments to multiple destinations over a certain time period. Detailed schedules to the Export Control List, which itemize the specific controlled goods and technology, are included in the Government of Canada’s A Guide to Canada’s Export Controls, which is available here. While Canada’s export control regime focuses on “export or transfer” rather than “origin,” item 5400 of the Export Control List respects U.S. controls on the re-export of U.S.-origin goods by requiring a permit to export U.S.-origin goods and technology from Canada. GEP No. 12 allows the export or transfer of U.S.-origin goods and technology without an individual export permit, except to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any destination on Canada’s Area Control List. Export permits are not required for most controlled goods or technology destined to a final consignee in the U.S. Items that do require an export permit to the U.S. are identified on the Export Control List with a statement indicating that the control applies to “all destinations.” No goods or technology may be exported or transferred from Canada to a country on the Area Control List without an individual export permit. The only country currently listed on the Area Control List is North Korea. A number of specific export controls are imposed by legislation administered by government departments other than GAC. These controlled products include wheat and barley, certain cultural property, rough diamonds, endangered species, ozone-depleting substances, nuclear substances, select equipment and information, hazardous waste, and certain wild plants and animals. (b) Sanctions Canada has two main statutes that authorize the imposition of trade and economic sanctions: the United Nations Act and the Special Export Measures Act. In addition to export controls under the EIPA, regulations passed pursuant to these acts impose various other measures, such as limitations on official and diplomatic contacts, and restrictions on economic activity between Canada and states that are the targets of sanctions, and the creation of “designated persons” lists – and the seizure or freezing of their property situated in Canada as well as a prohibition on doing business with them anywhere in the world. Export controls are normally limited to arms and related material and technical assistance, but may be broader for a particular state, such as Canada’s very extensive sanctions on Syria and sector-specific sanctions on Russia. (4) Controlled Goods Regime Public Works and Government Services Canada manages the Controlled Goods Program (CGP), which requires mandatory registration and regulation of persons and entities who examine, possess or transfer defence goods as defined in Canada’s Defence Production Act. The CGP was created in 2001 to strengthen the Canada-U.S. agreement on defence trade controls, and is essential for maintaining the Canadian exemption with respect to the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) regime. In October 2011, the CGP began implementing the Enhanced Security Strategy, which imposes heightened security requirements on registered persons and entities. These requirements were adopted to allow Canadian registrants to make use of the new ITAR dual-national rule, which amends the treatment of dual- and third-country nationals in a manner that resolves the conflict that existed between ITAR restrictions and Canadian human rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on nationality. In addition to the above, Canada announced that it plans to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and has tabled legislation in Parliament to make the required changes to the EIPA and Canada’s Criminal Code to bring it into compliance with the Treaty’s obligations. If the draft legislation is passed, it would prohibit those captured by the legislation from brokering transactions involving the movement of arms from one foreign country to another foreign country, without a permit. The United States signed the ATT in September 2013. (5) Investor-State Disputes Canada is party to a number of trade and investment agreements that allow foreign investors to bring claims against the Canadian government for a breach of an obligation owed to the investor (by either the federal or provincial governments) under one of Canada’s investment treaties. NAFTA’s investor-state provisions have given rise to a number of claims brought against Canada. Obligations owed to investors under Canada’s investment treaties include: – The requirement to accord national treatment and a minimum standard of treatment – The prohibition against the adoption of certain performance requirements (e.g., domestic content requirements) – The commitment to pay compensation for expropriation Canadian investors abroad can also bring similar claims against their host country’s government under the numerous investment treaties between Canada and foreign countries. (6) Canada’s Blocking Legislation: The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (FEMA) provides for the enactment of orders to prevent Canadian companies from complying with extraterritorial measures of other countries. There is currently only one order in force under FEMA: the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures (United States) Order. This Order creates a dangerous “catch-22” for related Canadian and American companies by prohibiting a Canadian company from complying with American extraterritorial measures that restrict trade between Canada and Cuba. If the company complies with U.S. law, it faces serious sanctions under FEMA. On the other hand, if it does not comply with U.S. law, it may face serious sanctions under U.S. laws that prohibit trade with Cuba. The FEMA order also imposes an obligation on Canadian companies to “report” communications received that relate to an extraterritorial measure of the U.S. pertaining to Cuba, and imposes strict penalties for non-compliance to this obligation. FEMA applies to any company incorporated and carrying out work in Canada, meaning that a subsidiary of a U.S. company registered in Canada and carrying on activities in Canada, even if minor, would be captured under the FEMA order and subject to its reporting and compliance obligations. As a result, FEMA issues often arise in the context of mergers between Canadian and U.S. companies where the Canadian companies have existing Cuban businesses or when a U.S. company establishes a Canadian affiliate or subsidiary. (7) Proactive Trade Compliance Failure to comply with the numerous laws and regulations governing trade with Canada can result in serious penalties and prosecution, as well as disruptions to business operations. It is important for companies intending to do business in Canada to retain experienced trade counsel, both to ensure compliance and to identify strategies that enhance their ability to operate competitively in the Canadian market. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| |
EX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES |
14 . ICPA Presents Annual Asia Conferences: 5-7 Nov in Singapore and 9-10 Nov in Shanghai (Source: Ann Lister, Anngelfire@yahoo.com)
* What: ICPA Annual Asia Conferences 2017 * When: Singapore: 5-7 Nov 2017; Shanghai: 9-10 Nov 2017. * Where: – Singapore: Grand Copthorne, Singapore. Book here . – Shanghai: Four Seasons Hotel Shanghai. Book here . * Sponsor: International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA). * Speakers: Large number of experienced, knowledgeable professionals (see agendas). * Agenda: * Register: – Singapore: SGD here ; or USD here . – Shanghai: RMB here ; or USD here . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * |
15 . Friday List of Approaching Events: 124 Events Posted This Week, 16 New Events (Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors) Published every Friday or last publication day of the week. Please, send event announcements to jwbartlett@fullcirclecompliance.eu , composed in the below format: # DATE: LOCATION; “EVENT TITLE;” SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number) ”
#” New listing this week Continuously Available Training: * E-Seminars: “ Webinars On-Demand Library ;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. Training by Date: * Nov 16: Nijkerk, the Netherlands; “Training Export Control” [in Dutch]; # Nov 30: Birmingham, UK; “Letters of Credit;” Institute of Export and International Trade * Dec 4-7: Miami FL; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977 * Dec 5: San Juan, PR; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov * Dec 8: Boston, MA; ” Export Expo;” Compliance Alliance and Massachusets Export Center 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | |
| EDITOR’S NOTES |
1 6. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations (Source: Editor) *
Dylan Thomas
(
Dylan Marlais Thomas; 27 Oct 1914 – 9 Nov 1953; was a Welsh poet and writer whose works include the poems “
Do not go gentle into that good night
”
and “
And death shall have no dominion
“
. He became widely popular in his lifetime and remained so after his death at the age of 39 in New York City. By then Thomas had acquired a reputation, which he had encouraged, as a “roistering, drunken, and doomed poet”.) – “He who seeks rest finds boredom. He who seeks work finds rest.” *
Niccolo Paganini
(
27 Oct 1782 – 27 May 1840; was an Italian violinist,
violist
, guitarist, and composer. He was the most celebrated violin
virtuoso
of his time, and left his mark as one of the pillars of modern violin technique.) – “I am not handsome, but when women hear me play, they come crawling to my feet.” *
James Cook
(
Captain
James Cook FRS; 27 Oct 1728 – 14 Feb 1779; was a British explorer, navigator, cartographer, and captain in the
Royal Navy
. Cook
achieved the first recorded European contact with the eastern coastline of
Australia
and the
Hawaiian Islands
, and the first recorded circumnavigation of
New Zealand
.) – “Ambition leads me not only farther than any other man has gone before me, but farther than I think it possible for man to go
.” Friday Funnies: There were two bears in the northern Minnesota woods talking to one another. One bear says, “I don’t like the taste of these Norwegian deer hunters — they taste kinda bitter.” To which the other bear replies, “Ya gotta sit on ’em first and squeeze the beer out of ’em.” — Dave Anderson, San Jose, California * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
17. 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. – 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. – Last Amendment: 28 Sep 2017: 82 FR 45366-45408: Changes to the In-Bond Process [Effective Date: 27 Nov 2017.] – Last Amendment: 23 Oct 2017: 82 FR 48925-48931: Amendments to Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the People’s Republic of China: Lam Research Service Co., Ltd – Last Amendment: 16 Jun 2017: 82 FR 27613-27614: Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations – Last Amendment: 20 Sep 2017: 82 FR 43842-43844 : Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements; Correction – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here. – The latest edition (20 Sep 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. – HTS codes for AES are available here. – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here. – Last Amendment: Last Amendment: 30 Aug 2017: 82 FR 41172-41173: Temporary Modification of Category XI of the United States Munitions List
– The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 12 Sep 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
18 . Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories (Source: Editor) Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of Daily Bugle Top Stories” posted here. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
| |
| * 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 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. |
Stay Connected
 |
| | | |
Copyright © 2017. All Rights Reserved. | | | |
