;

17-1103 Friday ” Daily Bugle”

17-1103 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 3 November 2017

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

  1. DHS/CBP Announces 2017 East Coast Trade Symposium on 5-6 Dec in Atlanta
  2. State/DDTC Announces DTAG Meeting on 7 Dec in Washington DC
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage, Releases Update Concerning Entry Summaries of 25-26 Oct
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Publishes Ukraine-/Russia-Related CAATSA Guidance
  6. Canada Imposes Sanctions on Individuals Linked to Human Rights Violations and Corruption
  1. Reuters: “U.S. Lawmakers Target Myanmar Military with New Sanctions”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Global Import Restrictions on Solar Cells and Modules Recommended by ITC”
  1. J.C. Poling, M.B. Fadlallah, & J. Helder: “Iran: Following President Trump’s ‘Decertification,’ New U.S. Sanctions on Iranian Entities and All Eyes on the U.S. Congress”
  2. N. Dahlvang: “State Department Requires Form DSP-83 for Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings”
  3. R.C Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas, M.M. Shomali: “Changes to Export Controls in October 2017”
  4. S. Landau: “Real Security Requires Strong Encryption – Even if Investigators Get Blocked”
  5. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  1. ICPA Presents Annual Asia Conferences, Next Week in Singapore (5-7 Nov) and Shanghai (9-10 Nov)
  2. Friday List of Approaching Events: 115 Events Posted, 12 New Events
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (28 Sep 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (1 Nov 2017), FACR/OFAC (31 Oct 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (20 Oct 2017), ITAR (30 Aug 2017)
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

(Source:
Federal Register, 3 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 51285: U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2017 East Coast Trade Symposium
 
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
* ACTION: Notice of trade symposium. …
 
* DATES: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 (opening remarks and general sessions, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST), and Wednesday, December 6, 2017 (break-out sessions, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
 
Registration for Symposium: Registration will be open from 12:00 p.m. EDT on October 26, 2017, to 4:00 p.m. EST on November 17, 2017.
* ADDRESSES: Location of Symposium: The CBP 2017 ECTS will be held at the Marriott Marquis at 265 Peachtree Center Ave., Atlanta, GA 30303. Registration Address: All registrations must be made online at the CBP Web site (here) and will be confirmed with payment by credit card only. …
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …  The format of the 2017 ECTS will be general sessions on the first day and breakout sessions on the second day. The 2017 ECTS will feature panel discussions involving agency personnel, members of the trade community, and other government agencies on the agency’s role in international trade initiatives and programs. The symposium will include discussions regarding Modernization of Imports and Exports, Intelligent Enforcement, Western Hemisphere Customs issues, and Border Interagency Executive Council.
 
The agenda for the 2017 ECTS can be found on the CBP Web site (here).
 
 
Registration will be open from 12:00 p.m. EDT on October 26, 2017, to 4:00 p.m. EST on November 17, 2017. The registration fee is $139.00 per person. Interested parties are requested to register immediately, as space is limited. All registrations must be made online at the CBP Web site (here) and will be confirmed with payment by credit card only. Members of the public who are pre-registered to attend and later need to cancel, please do so by utilizing the following link: tradeevents@dhs.gov. Please include your confirmation number with your cancellation request. …
 
   
Dated: October 30, 2017.
Bradley F. Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.

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

(Source:
Federal Register, 3 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 51329: Defense Trade Advisory Group
 
* ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
* ANNOUNCEMENT: The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) will meet in open session from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 1777 F Street NW., Washington DC, 20006. Entry and registration will begin at 12:30 p.m. The membership of this advisory committee consists of private sector defense trade representatives, appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, who advise the Department on policies, regulations, and technical issues affecting defense trade. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss current defense trade issues and topics for further study. The following agenda topics will be discussed and final reports presented:
 
 
(1) One-Form electronic filing, review and discuss recommendations for making electronic filing more cost-effective and efficient for industry;
 
(2) Identify key areas of concern with the proposed definition for defense services;
 
 
(3) Review and provide feedback to assist in accurately and effectively defining “manufacturing” and distinguishing it from other related activities like assembly, integration, installment and various services; and
 
 
(4) Examine and discuss the current rules regarding the release of technical data to foreign dual-nationals and identify alternative options that sufficiently facilitate risk assessment and risk mitigation.
 
Members of the public may attend this open session and will be permitted to participate in the discussion in accordance with the Chair’s instructions. Members of the public may, if they wish, submit a brief statement to the committee in writing.
 
As seating is limited to 125 persons, each member of the public or DTAG member that wishes to attend this plenary session should provide: his/her name and contact information such as email address and/or phone number and any request for reasonable accommodation to the DTAG Alternate Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Anthony Dearth, via email at DTAG@state.gov by COB Monday, November 27, 2017. If notified after this date, the Department might be unable to accommodate requests due to requirements at the meeting location. One of the following forms of valid photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting: U.S. driver’s license, passport, U.S. Government ID or other valid photo ID. …
 
 
Brian H. Nilsson, Designated Federal Officer, Defense Trade Advisory Group, Department of
 
State.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a13
. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 

* U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; NOTICES; Meetings: 2017 Annual Report to Congress [Publication Date: 6 Nov 2017.]

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


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

OGS_a3
5.

DHS/CBP Announces ACE Production Outage, Releases Update Concerning Entry Summaries of 25-26 Oct

 
ACE Production Outage
 
There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, November 4, 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, November 5, 2017 for ACE infrastructure maintenance. Included in this weekend’s outage will be a temporary stoppage to processing of ACS Statements EDI messages during the outage window. These messages will be queued up for processing until the application becomes available again.
 
Update Concerning Entry Summaries of 25-26 Oct
 
Summaries submitted between October 25th at 10:30 AM Eastern and October 26th at Noon Eastern were impacted by an issue that is causing summaries submitted during that window to not appear on statement or to appear with incorrect amounts.
 
Any summaries transmitted during this window (October 25, 2017, 10:30 AM Eastern to October 26, 2017, Noon Eastern) should be retransmitted, EXCEPT for (a) those summaries that are already on statement or paid OR (b) those summaries that were already retransmitted after October 26th at Noon Eastern.
 
CBP will consider all mitigating circumstances for these specific scenarios during this timeframe. 
If issues persist after retransmission, please contact your ABI Client Representative.

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

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

OGS_a5
7.

Treasury/OFAC Publishes Ukraine-/Russia-Related CAATSA Guidance

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC, 31 Oct 2017.)
 
Today (31 Oct 2017), in accordance with section 223(d) of Title II of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing
amended Ukraine-/Russia-Related Directive 4
. Certain CAATSA-related prohibitions in amended Directive 4 have a delayed effective date of January 29, 2018. OFAC is also publishing
new and updated FAQs
relating to the amended Directive.
 
Additionally, OFAC is publishing
new FAQs related to CAATSA
sections 223(a), 226, 228, and 233. These FAQs are the latest OFAC actions to implement the responsibilities assigned and delegated to it under CAATSA. They reflect close interagency consultation and coordination, as well as careful consideration of issues raised by Congress, industry, and international allies and partners.

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

OGS_a6
8.

Canada Imposes Sanctions on Individuals Linked to Human Rights Violations and Corruption

(Source:
Canada Global Affairs, 3 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
Under the new Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today (3 Nov 2017) announced targeted sanctions against 52 individuals.
 
The sanctions target individuals who are, in the opinion of the Government of Canada, responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or acts of significant corruption.
 
These sanctions place an asset freeze in Canada on all listed people, and render listed persons as inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. …
 
Quick Facts
 
The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act entered into force on October 18, 2017.
 
Related Products
 
  – Backgrounder – Case 1
  – Backgrounder – Case 2
  – Backgrounder – Case 3 … 

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_1
9.

Reuters: “U.S. Lawmakers Target Myanmar Military with New Sanctions”

(Source:
Reuters, 2 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
U.S. lawmakers proposed targeted sanctions and travel restrictions on Myanmar military officials on Thursday over the treatment of the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority, one of the strongest efforts yet for Washington to intervene in the humanitarian crisis.
 
Introduced the day before Republican Donald Trump leaves on his first trip to Asia as president, the legislation would reimpose some sanctions lifted last year as Myanmar returned to democracy. It also would bar the United States from supplying most assistance to the country’s military until perpetrators of atrocities against the Rohingya are held accountable.
 
The measure does not target Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, head of Myanmar’s civilian-led government and a Nobel peace laureate who still enjoys strong support among some U.S. officials.
 
But congressional aides said it is intended to underscore a strong desire among many members of Congress for her to do more to help the Rohingya.
 
The legislation is sponsored by lawmakers including the Republican Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain, and Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
 
  “This bill will allow Congress to strengthen the president’s hand by making it clear to Burmese officials that there will be consequences for their crimes against humanity,” Cardin said in a statement.
 
Among other things, it re-imposes a ban on jade and rubies from Myanmar and requires a report on which individuals should be subjected to sanctions, and instructs the U.S. Treasury Department not to support international financial assistance programs that partner with enterprises owned by the Myanmar military. … 

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

NWS_a2
10.

ST&R Trade Report: “Global Import Restrictions on Solar Cells and Modules Recommended by ITC”

 
The International Trade Commission has announced its commissioners’ recommendations for import restrictions on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (whether or not fully assembled into other products) following the ITC’s determination in a section 201 global safeguard investigation that increased imports of such products are injuring U.S. producers.
 
These recommendations will be forwarded by Nov. 13 to President Trump, who faces a Jan. 12 deadline for making a final decision on which, if any, to implement. In this context it is worth noting that one of the two U.S. manufacturers that brought this case, which has urged a tougher set of remedies, called the ITC’s recommendations “disappointing” and “weak” and said they will result “very shortly [in] the extinction of what remains of this manufacturing sector.”
 
CSPV
Cells. One commissioner recommend a four-year tariff-rate quota on CSPV cells that initially provides for a 10 percent tariff on a volume up to 0.5 gigawatts and a 30 percent tariff thereafter. Each year the in-quota tariff rate would decline by 0.5 percentage points, the in-quota volume level would decrease by one percentage point, and the over-quota tariff rate would decrease by one percentage point.
 
Two commissioners recommended a TRQ under which up to one gigawatt in volume would remain subject to existing duty rates and imports in excess of that volume would be subject to an additional 30 percent tariff. For each year of the four-year TRQ period the over-quota tariff rate would decrease by five percentage points and the in-quota volume would increase by 0.2 gigawatts.
 
One commissioner recommended a quota on imports of both cells and modules that would start at 8.9 gigawatts and increase by 1.4 gigawatts each year for four years. At least 720 megawatts would be allocated to Mexico in the first year, increasing by 115 megawatts each year. This commissioner said the president should administer these limitations by selling import licenses at public auction at a minimum price of one cent per watt and use the resulting revenues to provide development assistance to domestic CSPV product manufacturers.
 
CSPV
Modules. For CSPV modules, one commissioner recommend an additional tariff of 35 percent that would decline by one percentage point per year for four years. Two commissioners said the additional tariff should be 30 percent, to be phased down by five percentage points per year.
 
Exceptions
. All the commissioners recommended excluding Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and beneficiary countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act from the recommended measures. Two commissioners said Canada should be excluded as well.
 
One commissioner said the president should consider the product exclusions requested by the respondents to which the petitioners have not objected and have indicated they would work to draft appropriate product-specific exclusions.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a211
.

J.C. Poling, M.B. Fadlallah, & J. Helder: “Iran: Following President Trump’s ‘Decertification,’ New U.S. Sanctions on Iranian Entities and All Eyes on the U.S. Congress”

 
* Authors: Jonathan C. Poling, Esq., jpoling@akingump.com; Mahmoud Baki Fadlallah, Esq., mfadlallah@akingump.com; and Jasper Helder, Esq., jasper.helder@akingump.com. All of Aking Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LPP, Washington DC, Dubai, and London, respectively.
 
Key Points
 
  – Effective October 13, 2017, President Trump declined to provide certification that the JCPOA is in the United States’ national interest. Following this “decertification,” the U.S. Congress has 60 days in which to introduce expedited, filibuster-proof legislation to reinstate nuclear sanctions against Iran, and it remains to be seen what Congress will do by mid-December.
  – President Trump and key members of Congress have called for legislative amendments to provide a basis for automatic snapback of U.S. sanctions that are currently suspended under the JCPOA under certain circumstances and unilateral U.S. elimination of sunset provisions in the Iran nuclear deal.
  – In conjunction with nonrecertification of the JCPOA, the President also announced his administration’s new policy on Iran, which emphasizes aggressive enforcement of established U.S. sanctions and implementation of additional measures against Iran. Consistent with this policy, on October 13, 2017, OFAC announced the imposition of new sanctions designations against the IRGC and four other Iranian entities under U.S. antiterrorism-related sanctions measures.
  – These actions signal the Trump administration’s implementation of a more confrontational U.S. posture toward Iran, aligned with the President’s election campaign rhetoric, and indicates a greater U.S. willingness to enforce and increase U.S. sanctions against the country.
 
Introduction
 
On October 13, 2017, President Trump announced a new policy toward Iran that includes not recertifying the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or the Iran Nuclear Deal), seeking amendments to domestic U.S. legislation providing congressional oversight over the JCPOA, i.e., the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA), and imposing new sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and related parties. The President’s determination to not recertify alignment of the JCPOA with broader U.S. interests now allows either house of Congress to “fast-track” legislation to re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran that were suspended in conjunction with U.S. ratification of the JCPOA. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated the IRGC under terrorism-related sanctions and blacklisted four other entities under weapons proliferation-related sanctions. While this action against the IRGC is more symbolic than substantive, given that core OFAC sanctions already generally prohibited U.S. persons from engaging in activities involving the IRGC, it clearly reflects the more confrontational approach to Iran articulated by President Trump.
 
It is important to note that President Trump has not asserted that Iran has violated the agreement, which would trigger an international dispute resolution process by a joint commission consisting of the JCPOA members. Moreover, President Trump has not terminated, or withdrawn the United States from, the JCPOA, or otherwise re-imposed sanctions. Officials in the Trump administration assert that the JCPOA is a nonbinding political commitment. On this basis, the President could act to reinstate suspended sanctions while claiming that he is not violating an international commitment. However, such action would be expected to trigger a significant and critical reaction from U.S. allied countries in Europe and other parties to the JCPOA, including China and Russia, as well as Iran, who view the JCPOA as a binding agreement subject to the Vienna Convention disciplines, which would complicate other areas of priority in U.S. trade, national security and foreign policy.
 
Background on the Iran Nuclear Deal
 
In July 2015, following years of negotiations, the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council-China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States-plus Germany) and Iran signed the JCPOA. The agreement, which went into effect in January 2016, required Iran to dismantle much of its nuclear program and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear-related facilities. In exchange, the United States, European Union and United Nations agreed to lift nuclear-related sanctions that had crippled the Iranian economy. The implementation of the complex deal has been tied to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) periodic evaluations of Iran’s adherence to its JCPOA obligations.
 
Importantly, the JCPOA contains a sanctions “snapback” provision to reverse and terminate U.S., U.N., and EU sanctions relief in the event that Iran violates the agreement. If any member of the P5+1 believes that Iran has not met its commitments under the JCPOA, that party can refer the matter to a joint commission, consisting of all members to the agreement, to resolve the matter over a 30-day period. If the joint commission fails to resolve the issue, the complaining party may re-impose sanctions, as well as notify the U.N. Security Council that Iran has failed to perform its commitments under the JCPOA. Such action would trigger the automatic reimposition of U.N. sanctions against Iran after 30 days, unless the U.N. Security Council passes a resolution blocking the reimposition of sanctions. In this regard, it is worth noting that, given its veto power, the United States could block a U.N. Security Council resolution that would continue the lifting of sanctions.
 
U.S. Implementation of the JCPOA
 
As part of its JCPOA sanctions relief, the United States lifted most of its extraterritorial sanctions targeting non-U.S. individuals and entities that are not owned or controlled by U.S. persons. It also removed more than 400 individuals and entities from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”). Significantly, the United States suspended sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program only while preserving the core U.S. embargo administered by OFAC. U.S. sanctions against Iran related to activities involving terrorism, human rights abuses, and weapons proliferation activities were generally unaffected and remain in place.
 
The Obama administration negotiated and entered into the JCPOA at the international level. Congress oversees U.S. commitments under the JCPOA through INARA, which was enacted on May 22, 2015. Among other provisions, INARA requires the President to certify every 90 days that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and that continued suspension of sanctions is vital to U.S. national security interests. The most recent 90-day period ended on Sunday, October 15, 2017.
 
Consequences of Noncertification by the Trump Administration
 
On October 13, 2017, the President announced that he would not certify that the JCPOA was in the national interest of the United States. Under INARA, this decision not to recertify the deal triggers a 60-day period (running through mid-December) in which either house of Congress may propose “qualifying legislation” under “expedited consideration.” INARA defines qualifying legislation as a bill reinstating statutory sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program. Only congressional leadership (the House majority or minority leader, or the Senate majority or minority leader) can initiate the process for reimposition of sanctions under the expedited procedures. The expedited procedures limit the timeline for congressional review and disallow procedural motions and filibusters that might otherwise stall passage of legislation.
 
Following this determination by President Trump, congressional leaders now face a choice as to whether to introduce and pass legislation reimposing nuclear-related sanctions. Despite President Trump’s decision not to recertify and claim that “the Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into,” a number of key officials in the administration have stated that they are not seeking to re-impose nuclear sanctions at this time. In close proximity to the administration’s announcement of its decision, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said on Meet the Press that “I think, right now, you’re going to see us stay in the deal.”  Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also stated “We’re going to stay in,” but added that “we’re going to work with our European partners and allies to see if we can’t address these concerns.”  In his speech, however, President Trump raised questions and concerns regarding what future actions his administration might take by stating that this could change at any time, saying that the JCPOA “is under continuous review, and our participation can be canceled by me, as president, at any time.”
 
The Trump administration appears to be signaling that the intention of declining to certify that the JCPOA is in U.S. national security interest was to set in motion a process to possibly renegotiate the terms of the deal. Specifically, President Trump directed the administration “to work with our allies to fully enforce the agreement while addressing the deal’s many flaws.”
 
The international ramifications of a potential U.S. repudiation are unclear. Other members of the P5+1 have stated that they will not re-impose sanctions if the United States breaks the accord. Immediately after the President’s October 13 remarks, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement of concern regarding President Trump’s decision, noting that they “stand committed to the JCPOA and its full implementation by all sides.” Additionally, key leaders of the EU have announced their intention to continue complying with the terms of the JCPOA. This includes statements by the EU Foreign Ministers, as well as EU Foreign Affairs Chief Federica Mogherini. Mogherini intends to visit Washington, D.C., in early November to address the sharp disagreement between European countries and President Trump over Iran’s compliance with the deal.
 
Further, if the United States re-imposes nuclear sanctions without following the JCPOA protocols (described above), the U.N. procedures for a snapback of sanctions would not be triggered, and the United States’ reimposition of suspended sanctions could be interpreted as a basis on which Iran would no longer be bound by the agreement and could cease performing its commitments under the terms of the JCPOA. Ultimately, Iran’s response to any act by the United States to re-impose sanctions will likely depend very much on whether the U.S. acts in isolation; whether or not the EU and U.N. re-impose sanctions; and, importantly, whether non-U.S. companies cease doing business with Iran as a result of the threat or reality of reinstated U.S. extraterritorial sanctions.
 
Proposed Legislation in the U.S. Congress
 
In addition to not recertifying the agreement, President Trump called on Congress to amend INARA. Specifically, the administration is seeking to amend the legislation to include the imposition of sanctions related to Iranian ballistic missile development ,as well as alleged support for terrorist groups if certain “trigger points” are met. While Secretary Tillerson stated that the trigger points would draw lines for Iran separate from the nuclear deal, he did not specify what the actual trigger points would be. In addition, the White House would like to address sunset clauses that allow Iran to begin engaging in certain nuclear activities beginning eight years after the deal went into effect in 2015.
 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R- AK) have released a summary of their goals for INARA amendment. These include the automatic snap back of sanctions if Iran comes within one year of nuclear weapons capability, bolstering IAEA oversight, and preventing the United States from recognizing the sunset provisions of the JCPOA. Sen. Corker stated that he plans to introduce the bill as early as this week and intends to “develop a legislative strategy to address bipartisan concerns about the JCPOA without violating U.S. commitments.”  Nevertheless, the administration may face an uphill battle, since this legislation would not be subject to fast-track authority, and, as such, the bill would need at least some Democratic support in the Senate and would be susceptible to filibuster.
 
Additionally, reports indicate that Secretary Tillerson is considering alternatives to having the administration certify that Iran is meeting its technical commitments under the deal. One option is that the administration would report to Congress regularly about broader Iranian behavior, such as support for terrorism and its ballistic missile program, and what the administration is doing to counter it. This approach would allow the JCPOA to remain intact but eliminate the requirement for the President to affirmatively recertify that the agreement is aligned with U.S. interests every 90 days. On October 4, 2017, Secretary Tillerson added that the State Department will recommend “a couple of options” to the President regarding a workaround to certification, noting that the relationship between the United States and Iran should not be “defined solely by that nuclear agreement.”
 
New Iran-Related Sanctions Designations
 
Section 105 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) requires the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the global terrorism Executive Order (EO) 13224 on the IRGC and non-U.S. persons that are officials, agents or affiliates of the IRGC. Consistent with that requirement of CAATSA, on October 13, 2017, OFAC designated the IRGC and four other entities under EO 13224. According to the Treasury Department press release, the IRGC was designated for “activities it undertakes to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the [IRGC-Qods Force].”  While the IRGC was already designated under sanctions related to weapons proliferation and human rights abuses, the new designation carries additional consequences. Specifically, the IRGC may not avail itself of the so-called “Berman exemptions” under the International Emergency Economic Power Act, which generally exempt transactions related to personal communications, humanitarian donations, information and informational materials, and travel from regulation.
 
OFAC also designated three Iran-based entities-Shahid Alamolhoda Industries, Rastafann Ertebat Engineering Company and Fanamoj Company- and China-based Wuhan Sanjiang Import and Export Co. LTD, pursuant to EO 13382 (weapons proliferation-related sanctions) for their activities related to Iran’s military.
 
In addition, President Trump has authorized the Treasury Department to take additional action against IRGC officials, agents and affiliates. In a speech on October 16, 2017, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker stated that “as part of the new Iran policy, Treasury will use its executive authority to place additional sanctions on the Iranian government, targeting its financing of terrorism and other destabilizing activity.”  This signals that the United States will aggressively apply its secondary sanctions authority to designate non-U.S. parties engaging in sanctionable conduct under the various existing authorities that were not waived under the Iran Nuclear Deal.
 
Consistent with this stated policy and approach of the Trump administration, effective October 31, 2017, OFAC amended the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, pursuant to Section 105(b) of CAATSA, to block the property and interests in property of  foreign persons that have been identified by OFAC as officials, agents or affiliates of the IRGC. It remains to be seen what additional actions of this kind will be taken by the administration in the months ahead, but further action of this kind would be consistent with President Trump’s general rhetoric and stated approach to Iran.
 
Practical Implications
 
While the decision by the Trump administration not to certify consistency of the JCPOA with U.S. national interest does not have any immediate consequences as a matter of U.S. adherence to the agreement, in terms of the continuation of corresponding U.S. sanctions relief, it creates greater uncertainty for companies with existing or potential business interests in Iran. Even with nuclear sanctions suspended, and prior to the President’s statements, many commercial lenders and companies in other sectors have been wary of engaging in business activities associated with Iran for fear of incurring fines or being barred from dealing with the United States and based on related business risk concerns.
 
Given President Trump’s continued combative rhetoric regarding Iran, and based on stated priorities of U.S. officials at key agencies charged with U.S. sanctions enforcement, it is foreseeable that investigations and enforcement of established U.S. sanctions on Iran will continue and can be expected to only increase in the months ahead, regardless of whether the U.S. Congress takes action to re-impose extraterritorial U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran that have been suspended under the JCPOA. Separately, the U.S. Congress is considering enactment of new U.S. sanctions, focusing on concerns regarding Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, support for international terrorism and human rights concerns, which could impose additional new U.S. sanctions challenges even while the United States does not walk away from the JCPOA. A snapback of the suspended sanctions measures that would result from termination of U.S. adherence to the JCPOA would result in a greater divergence between the sanctions regimes of the United States and other countries, including U.S. allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, posing even more substantial challenges for companies with Iran-related interests that span this geography.
 
In this context, it will be increasingly important for companies with a global footprint and interests in Iran to carefully evaluate the potential intersection of their interests and operations with U.S. jurisdiction, including related business and legal risk exposure, in evaluating and managing Iran-related opportunities and activities. To the extent that potential changes in U.S. sanctions could impact operational, financial or other dimensions of Iran-related activities, these are factors that should be built into related contingency planning, strategy, business projections, and the development and implementation of effective sanctions compliance safeguards necessary to protect related commercial interests.

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

COMM_JEB
12.

N. Dahlvang: “State Department Requires Form DSP-83 for Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings”

 
* Author: Niclas Dahlvang, Export Compliance Solutions, nick@exportcompliancesolutions.com, 410-757-1919
 
The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has published a web notice on Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC):
 
Web Notice
: Category XIV(f)(7), including Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC): (11.01.17)

Consistent with 81 FR 49531 (July 28, 2016), Category XIV(f)(7) defense articles are designated as Significant Military Equipment. Accordingly, any application to export Category XIV(f)(7) defense articles requires a DSP-83 non-transfer and use certificate.
 
The notice is consistent with the organization of the United States Munitions List (USML) where all of Category XIV(f) is designated Significant Military Equipment (SME), but reverses long-standing policies, including those announced in September 2009 and February 2017 web notices.
 
Specifically, XIV(f)(7) controls “Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings that have been qualified to military specifications (MIL-PRF-32348, MIL-DTL-64159, MIL-C-46168, or MIL-DTL-53039).”
 
A related Export Control Reform (ECR) FAQ continues to state that application of Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) does not necessarily subject an item to the USML:
 
Q: Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) in its most basic form is controlled under USML Category XIV(f)(5). When it is applied to an item subject to either the ITAR or EAR, will the item to which it is being applied now be controlled as Category XIV(f)(5)? To the USML, at a minimum?
 
A: No. CARC coating on an item, in and of itself, does not provide a military capability warranting USML control. Hence, items that are subject to the EAR and classified on the Commerce Control List, to include vehicles and equipment, do not become subject to the ITAR simply due to the application of CARC paint.
 
The 2009 and 2017 web notices stated that “CARC paint does not possess ‘substantial military utility or capability,'” but ongoing Export Control Reform (ECR) revisions have not yet removed the SME designation from XIV(f)(7).

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

COMM_a3
13.

R.C Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas, M.M. Shomali: “Changes to Export Controls in October 2017”


(Source: Editor) [Excerpts.]
 

* Authors: Roszel C. Thomsen II, Esq.,
roz@t-b.com
; Antoinette D. Paytas, Esq.,
toni@t-b.com
; and Maher M. Shomali, Esq.,
maher@t-b.com
. All of Thomsen & Burke LLP.
 
This memo summarizes the regulatory, legislative, and enforcement developments with respect to U.S. and multilateral export controls during the month of October 2017. …
 
REGULATORY CHANGES
 
Export Controls Still Apply to Sudan!
 
As we described in our
Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Update
earlier in the month,the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) revoked certain sanctions with respect to Sudan and the Government of Sudan. With this removal, there has been some confusion over whether sales to Sudan are now permitted.
 
In general, any item or technology classified under the Commerce Control List (CCL) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) still requires export authorization from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Typically, this means that a license is required when exporting these items to Sudan.
 
There are some exemptions for narrow cases. For example, items designated as EAR99 are generally outside of the scope of BIS’s licensing requirements when exported to Sudan. There are also some License Exceptions available for exports to Sudan, including License Exception CCD, which authorizes the export of certain mass-market communications-related devices to Sudan.
 
Sudan is still considered a state-sponsor of terrorism and therefore remains subject to Anti-Terrorism controls under the EAR, and is identified in Country Group E:1 of Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR.
 
The removal of OFAC-administered sanctions on Sudan will have a greater impact on businesses that either do not export controlled products, that only operate a service from the United States (e.g., a cloud-based web service), or that are foreign companies reexporting certain U.S.-origin items.
 
Web Links:
 
 
We would be happy to discuss any of these changes with you in more detail.
 
Update on Russian Sanctions
 
Earlier this month, the Trump administration turned over to Congress a list of Russia-connected entities it will use to determine new sanctions meant to rebuke Russia for actions in Eastern Europe, Syria and the 2016 United States presidential election. Administration officials made clear to lawmakers that they intended to impose sanctions on individuals in the United States and elsewhere who did “significant” business with the Russian entities, sending an early warning that such deals must soon end.
 
According to the
State Department Press Briefing
, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in accordance with Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) has authorized the department to issue guidance to the public specifying the persons or entities that are part of or operating on behalf of the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation. What that means is that Secretary Tillerson has signed off on this and is now with – being held by Capitol Hill.
 
OFAC, in accordance with section 223(d) of Title II of the CAATSA, amended Directive 4 of the Russia/Ukraine-Related Sanctions. The new Directive 4 prohibits the following activities by a U.S. person or within the United States with entities subject to Directive 4 pursuant to OFAC’s Sectoral Sanctions Identifications (SSI) List:
 
The provision, exportation, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects:
 
(1) that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation, or in maritime area claimed by the Russian Federation and extending from its territory, and that involve any person determined to be subject to this Directive or any earlier version thereof, their property, or their interests in property; or
(2) that are initiated on or after January 29, 2018, that have the potential to produce oil in any location, and in which any person determined to be subject to this Directive or any earlier version thereof, their property, or their interests in property has (a) a 33 percent or greater ownership interest, or (b) ownership of a majority of the voting interests.
 
Useful Documents:
 
 
We will keep you posted on the implementation of these sanctions.
 
BIS Revises Validated End-User List for China
 
BIS amended the EAR this month to revise the existing Validated End-User (VEU) list for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by updating the list of eligible destinations (facilities) and eligible items in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 for Lam Research Service Co., Ltd. (Lam). The End-User Review Committee (ERC) reviewed and authorized the amendments to the eligible facilities in response to a request made by Lam and in accordance with established procedures. Changes to the list of eligible items are technical corrections intended to improve clarity. As a consequence of these amendments, the EAR will include an updated and accurate list of eligible items (items that may be exported, reexported and transferred (in-country)), and eligible Lam facilities in the PRC. … 
 
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
 
 
Three Miami-Dade County, Florida residents, Ali Caby, aka “Alex Caby,” 40, Arash Caby, aka “Axel Caby,” 43, and Marjan Caby, 34, pleaded guilty on Oct. 3 to Count 1 of an Indictment charging them with conspiracy to defraud the United States and to illegally export aviation parts and equipment to Syria in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The exports were sent to Syrian Arab Airlines, aka “Syrian Air,” which had been designated as a Specially Designated National (SDN) by the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). U.S. persons and entities are prohibited from doing business with SDNs, such as Syrian Air, without obtaining a license from OFAC.
 
The defendants were indicted for their alleged participation in a conspiracy to violate the IEEPA by exporting dual-use goods, that is, articles that have both civilian and military application. The dual-use goods were exported without a license to Syrian Air, the Syrian government’s airline, which is an entity designated and blocked by OFAC for transporting weapons and ammunition to Syria in conjunction with Hizballah, a terrorist organization, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
 
According to court documents, Ali Caby ran the Bulgaria office of AW-Tronics, a Miami export company that was managed by Arash Caby, and which shipped and exported various aircraft parts and equipment to Syrian Air. Ali Caby and Arash Caby closely supervised and encouraged subordinate employees of AW-Tronics in the willful exportation of the parts and equipment to SDN Syrian Air, whose activities have assisted the Syrian government’s violent crackdown on its people. Marjan Caby, as AW-Tronics’ export compliance officer and auditor, facilitated these exports by submitting false and misleading electronic export information to federal agencies.
 
 
White Birch USA, a company headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, has agreed to pay $372,465 to settle its potential civil liability for three apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 538 (SSR). Specifically, White Birch USA appears to have violated §§ 538.205 and 538.206 of the SSR when it facilitated the sale and shipment of 543.952 metric tons of Canadian-origin paper from Canada to Sudan with a value of $354,602.26. The export transactions occurred in April and December 2013. Various personnel within White Birch USA and its Canadian subsidiary, White Birch Paper Canada Company NSULC (“White Birch Canada”), were actively involved in discussing, arranging, and executing the export transactions to Sudan.
 
OFAC determined that White Birch USA did not voluntarily disclose the apparent violations to OFAC, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case. The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty amount for the apparent violations was $853,746, and the base civil monetary penalty amount for the apparent violations was $445,000.
 
 
A partial owner of several Florida-based energy companies pleaded guilty today to foreign bribery charges for his role in a scheme to corruptly secure contracts from Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). Fernando Ardila Rueda (Ardila), 49, of Miami, pleaded guilty in federal court in Houston, to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and one count of violating the FCPA. U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller of the Southern District of Texas accepted the guilty plea.
 
According to admissions made in connection with his plea, Ardila conspired with U.S.-based businessmen Abraham Jose Shiera Bastidas (Shiera) and Roberto Enrique Rincon Fernandez (Rincon) to pay bribes and other things of value to PDVSA purchasing analysts. The bribes were paid to ensure that Shiera’s and Rincon’s companies were placed on PDVSA bidding panels and in order to obtain or retain business with PDVSA. From 2008 through 2014, while he was sales director, manager and partial owner of several of Shiera’s companies, Ardila provided entertainment and offered bribes to PDVSA officials based on a percentage of the value of contracts the officials helped to award to Shiera’s companies. Rincon, Shiera and two other former employees of Shiera’s companies have also pleaded guilty in the case.  Including Ardila, the Justice Department has announced a total of 10 individuals have pleaded guilty and are pending sentencing as part of a larger, ongoing investigation by the U.S. government into bribery at PDVSA.

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

COMM_a4
14. 
S. Landau: “Real Security Requires Strong Encryption – Even if Investigators Get Blocked”
(Source: The Conversation, 1 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Author: Susan Landau, Professor of Computer Science, Law and Diplomacy and Cybersecurity, Tufts University.
 
The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice have been fighting against easy, widespread public access to encryption technologies for 25 years. Since the bureau’s dispute with Apple in 2016 over access to the encrypted iPhone of one of the two people who shot 14 victims in San Bernardino, California, this battle has become more pitched.
 
This dispute is not about whether regular people can or should use encryption: The U.S. government is in favor of using encryption to secure data. Rather, it’s about the FBI’s demand that encryption systems include “exceptional access,” enabling police who get a warrant to circumvent the encryption on a device or on an encrypted call.
 

Nearly every element of American society is a potential target for sophisticated hackers. That makes the conflict complicated; giving law enforcement officers a way into secure systems makes breaking in easier for others as well. … 

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

COMM_a5
15.

Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
 gstanley@glstrade.com
.
 
A consultant’s business, which is registered as a broker subject to U.S. jurisdiction, who subsequently hires an independent contractor, would be able to have the contractor covered under the consultant’s broker registration to the extent the contractor meets the regular employee definition under ITAR Section 120.39. This would mean that the contractor is in a long-term contractual relationship (one year or more), the contractor works at the U.S. company’s facility and under the direction and control of the consultant, works full-time exclusively for the consultant, and executes a non-disclosure certification, etc. If the contractor does not meet the regular employee definition, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and will be performing brokering activity, then the contractor would need to have its own separate broker registration. If the contractor is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction per ITAR § 129.2(a), the contractor would not have to register as a broker under the ITAR.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TEC_a116
ICPA Presents Annual Asia Conferences, Next Week in Singapore (5-7 Nov) and Shanghai (9-10 Nov)

(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:
  – Singapore: View
here
.
  – Shanghai: View
here
.
* Register: 
  – Singapore:
SGD
here
; or USD
here
.
  – Shanghai: RMB
here
; or USD
here

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

TE_a215
. Friday List of Approaching Events: 115 Events Posted This Week, 12 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: “
US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls
;” Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com
 
* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness;” Export Compliance Solutions; spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com 
* On-Line: “
Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)
;” Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “
Webinars On-Demand Library
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
 
Training by Date:

 

* Nov 5-7: Singapore; ”
ICPA Singapore Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org
*
 Nov 6: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “
Awareness Training Export Control, Dual-Use, and Sanctions
” day 3/3 [in Dutch]; Fenex

* Nov 6-8: Chicago, IL; “Basics of Government Contracting;” Federal Publications Seminars


Nov 6-8: London, UK: “
Decoding Trade Controls, Sanctions, and Regulations on Dual-Use Goods
;” Global Trade Controls

* Nov 7: Norfolk, VA; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;
” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau; 
itmd.outreach@census.gov

# Nov 7: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification;” Global Trade Academy
* Nov 8: London UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Nov 8: London, UK; ”
Annual General Meeting of the Institute of Export & International Trade;” Institute of Export and International Trade
*
 Nov 8: London, UK; “
Member’s Annual Dinner
;” Institute of Export and International Trade 
* Nov 8: Webinar; “
Introduction to the National Firearms Act
;” Reeves & Dola LLP; Teresa Ficaretta;
tficaretta@reevesdola.com
; 202-715-9183

* Nov 9: Westborough, Massachusetts; ”
Advanced International Letters of Credit;” Massachusetts Export Center, 
617-973-8664

* Nov 9: London UK; ”
Making Better Licence Applications;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 9: Brussels, Belgium; ”
What European Companies Need to Know About U.S. Sanctions Export Controls, and FCPA Compliance;” Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

* Nov 9: Tysons Corner, VA; ITAR for the Empowered Official; FD Associates

* Nov 9: Webinar; ”
Export Compliance Best Practices: Beyond the Basics;” Professional Association of Exporters and Importers

* Nov 9-10: Shanghai, China; “ICPA China Conference;” International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 13: San Diego, CA; 
 “
Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar
;” International Business Training

* Nov 13-16: Wash DC; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Nov 14-15; Schöllkrippen, Germany; ”
Fundamentals of Export Controls” (in German); FALEX
* Nov 14-15; Schöllkrippen, Germany; ”
Export Controls Refresher Course” (in German); FALEX
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; ”
Post-Brexit Planning Workshop;” 

* Nov 15: Leeds, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade  
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Nijkerk, the Netherlands; “Training Export Control” [in Dutch];

Fenedex

* Nov 16: Chicago, IL;
 “
Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar
;” International Business Training
* Nov 16-17; Schöllkrippen, Germany; “Workshop Export Controls” (in German); FALEX 

*
 Nov 17: Kowloon, Hong Kong; “Hong Kong-Japan Joint Industry Outreach Seminar on Strategic Trade Control;” Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government

*
 Nov 17: Chicago, IL; “
Import Audit Compliance Seminar
;” International Business Training
* Nov 22: London, UK; ”
International Documentation and Customs Compliance;” Institute of Export and International Trade
* 28-29 Nov: Munich, Germany; ”
US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” Institute of Export and International Trade

* Nov 29: Wash DC; ”
4th U.S. Customs Compliance Boot Camp, Washington, DC;” American Conference Institute


* Nov 29: Manchester, UK: ”
International Business Essentials;” IOEx


* Nov 30: Free Webinar; ”
Exporting Vehicles to Canada;” U.S. Census Bureau

* Dec 4: NYC; ”
8th Annual New York Forum on Economic Sanctions, New York“, American Conference Institute

* Dec 4-7: Miami FL; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977 

* Dec 5: Manchester, UK; ”
An Introduction to Exporting – Physical Goods;” IOEx

*
Dec 5
: Free Webinar; “
ACE AESDirect Demonstration
;
” U.S. Census Bureau

* Dec 5: Webinar; ”
NAFTA Rules of Origin;” International Business Training

* Dec 5: Brussels, Belgium; ”
Dual Use For Beginners
” [In Dutch]; Flemish Department of Foreign Affairs

* Dec 5: San Juan, PR; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov

* Dec 5-6: New York, NY; ”
8th Annual Forum on Economic Sanctions;” American Conference Institute
*
 Dec 5-6: London, UK; “Customs Compliance in Partnership with HMRC;” IOEx 

* Dec 6: London UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Dec 6: Webinar; ”
Introduction to Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET);” Reeves & Dola LLP; Teresa Ficaretta;
tficaretta@reevesdola.com; 202-715-9183

* Dec 6: Wood Ridge, NJ; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 7: Laredo, TX; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 7: London UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Dec 7: London UK; ”
Licences Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Dec 8: Boston, MA; ”
Export Expo;” Compliance Alliance and Massachusets Export Center
* Dec 8: Minneapolis, MN; ”
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar;” International Business Training
* Dec 8: Washington, D.C.; ”
2017 SIA Holiday Party;” Society for International Affairs (SIA)

* Dec 11-13: Sterling, VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Dec 12: London, UK; ”
International Documentation & Customs Compliance;” IOEx

* Dec 12: London, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;  
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Dec 12-13: Los Angeles, CA; ”
Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber;” Global Trade Academy

* Dec 13: Washington, DC; “DDTC In-House Seminar;”

*
 Dec 14: Minneapolis, MN; “
Import Audit Compliance Seminar
;” International Business Training

* Dec 14: Manchester, UK; ”
UK & US Export Controls: A Basic Understanding;” Institute of Export and International Trade

* Dec 14: London, UK; ”
UK & US Export Controls: A Basic Understanding;” IOEx

* Dec 15: Atlanta, GA; ”
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar;” International Business Training


* Dec 19: Brussels, Belgium; ”
2017 Export Control Forum;” European Commission
* Dec 20: London, UK; ”
An Introduction to Exporting;” Institute of Export and International Trade

 
2018
 

* Jan 17: Bristol UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jan 18: Bristol UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jan 18: Bristol UK; ”
Licences Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jan 18: Bristol UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jan 22-25: San Diego CA; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

*
Jan 23: London, UK; “International Documentations and Customs Compliance;” Institute of Export and International Trade

# Jan 27: Indian Harbor Beach, FL (Melbourne area); “Global Challenges: A Conversation with James Clapper;” Rotary Club of Indialantic;
 
http://www.indialanticrotary.org/

321-952-2978.


Jan 29-30: Toronto, Canada;
7th Industry Forum on Export and Re-Export Compliance for Canadian Operations;”
American Conference Institute
# Jan 30: Miami, FL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification;” Global Trade Academy
* Jan 31: Washington, D.C.; “4th National Forum on CFIUS and Team Telecom;” American Conference Institute

* Feb 6: Las Vegas, NV;
 “
Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar
;” International Business Training

* Feb 13-14: Orlando FL; “
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp
;” Export Compliance Solutions; 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018

* Feb 19-22: Huntsville AL; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Feb 21: Newcastle UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Feb 22: Newcastle UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Feb 22: Newcastle UK; ”
Licences Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Feb 22: Newcastle UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Mar 5-7: Sugar Land, TX; ”
2018 Winter Basics Conference;” Society for International Affairs (SIA)
* Mar 6-8: Orlando, FL; “
‘Partnering for Compliance’ East Export/Import Control Training and Education Program
;” Partnering for Compliance
# Mar 7: London, UK; “Operations and Maintenance for Offshore Wind;” ACI
* Mar 9: Dallas, TX; “Customs/Import Boot Camp;” Partnering for Compliance 
* Mar 11-14: San Diego, CA; “ICPA Annual Conference;” International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org

* Mar 14-15: Austin, TX; “
Establishing an ITAR/EAR Export Compliance Program
” Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
;
866-238-4018 

* Mar 14: Birmingham UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Mar 15: Birmingham UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Mar 15: Birmingham UK; ”
Licences Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Mar 15: Birmingham UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

#
 Mar 26: East Rutherford, NJ; “
Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber
;” Global Trade Academy

* Apr 16-19: Las Vegas NV; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977
# Apr 24: Los Angeles, CA; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification;” Global Trade Academy
* Apr 30-May 3: Wash DC; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* May 6-8: Toronto, Canada; ”
2018 ICPA Canadian Conference;” ICPA
* May 7-8: Denver, CO; ”
2018 Spring Advanced Conference;” Society for International Affairs (SIA)

* May 16-17: National Harbor, MD; “
ITAR/EAR Compliance: An Industry Perspective
;” Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
;
 866-238-4018 

* Jul 10-11: Long Beach, CA; ”
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;”  Export Compliance Solutions; 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018

# Jul 17:
 Los Angeles, CA; “
Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber
;” Global Trade Academy

* Sep 12-13: Annapolis, MD; “
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp
;” Export Compliance Solutions; 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018

*
Oct 22-23; Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference;” Society for International Affairs (SIA)
# Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales;” Global Trade Academy
# Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification;” Global Trade Academy

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a11
8. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

 
William C. Bryant (William Cullen Bryant; 3 Nov 1794 – 12 Jun 1878; was an American romantic poet, journalist, and long-time editor of the New York Evening Post.)
  – “A sculptor wields The chisel, and the stricken marble grows To beauty.”
  – “Difficulty, my brethren, is the nurse of greatness — a harsh nurse, who roughly rocks her foster-children into strength and athletic proportion.” 
 
Will Rogers (William Penn Adair Rogers; 4 Nov 1879 – 15 Aug 1935; was a stage and motion picture actor, vaudeville performer, American cowboy, humorist, newspaper columnist, and social commentator.)
  – “Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.”
  – “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”
 
Friday Funnies:
 
Two guards were the night watch on the wall of a castle. Suddenly, in the distant dark, war drums were heard. “BOOM boom boom, BOOM boom boom.”  One guard yelled to the other, and said, “I sure don’t like the sound of those drums!” From the distance, a voice shouted out, “He’s not our regular drummer!” 
  — Richard Strahm, Medford, Oregon

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

EN_a219. 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 Sep 2017: 82 FR 45366-45408: Changes to the In-Bond Process [Effective Date: 27 Nov 2017.] 
 
DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M

  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2
: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary 
here
.)


EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 

  – Last Amendment: 1 Nov 2017:
82 FR 50511-50517
: Export Administration Regulations for Use of License Exceptions; Clarifications
 

  

FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders

  – Last Amendment: 31 Oct 2017:
82 FR 50313-50315
: Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations

 

FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30
  –
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.
 

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: 20 Oct 2017: 
Harmonized System Update 1707, c
ontaining 
27,291 ABI records and 5,164 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: 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: 1 Nov 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_a320
. 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.

Scroll to Top