;

17-1107 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

17-1107 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

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

[No items of interest noted today.]

  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DoD/DSS Releases New DD Form 254: DoD Contract Security Classification Specification
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. White House Continues the National Emergencies with Respect to Burundi, Iran, and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
  6. Canada TID Releases Notice to Importers Concerning Carbon Steel and Specialty Steel
  7. Hong Kong List of Officers Authorized to Sign on Strategic Commodities Licenses and Delivery Verification Certificates
  1. ST&R Trade Report: “Legislative Update: GSP, Air Cargo, Outsourcing, Ports, Product Safety”
  1. G.R. Tuttle III: “WCO Publishes Its Second Case Study on Transfer Pricing and its Impact on Customs Valuation”
  2. M. O’Kane: “No Government Policy Yet on Sanctions Relationship with EU Post-Brexit”
  3. M. Volkov: “Ominous Signs for the Future of the Compliance Profession”
  4. P. LeCour & T. Carlile: “Revocation of U.S. Sudan Sanctions Regulations”
  5. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  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

EXIM_a1

[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS:
  – Burundi; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 6, 2017) [Publication Date: 8 Nov 2017; included in today’s Daily Bugle under the “Other Government Sources” section.]
  – Iran; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 6, 2017) [Publication Date: 8 Nov 2017; included in today’s Daily Bugle under the “Other Government Sources” section.]
  – Weapons of Mass Destruction; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 6, 2017) [Publication Date: 8 Nov 2017; included in today’s Daily Bugle under the “Other Government Sources” section.]
 
* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Automated Commercial Environments:
Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange System for Generating, Transmitting and Updating Daily and Monthly Statements [Publication Date: 8 Nov 2017.]

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

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

OGS_a33.

DoD/DSS Releases New DD Form 254: DoD Contract Security Classification Specification

(Source:
DoD/DSS, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
A new DD Form 254, “Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification,” has been published. On 1 November 2017, Washington Headquarters Services posted the new DD Form 254 and supporting instructions to the “DoD Forms Management Program,” website.

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


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

OGS_a55
.

White House Continues the National Emergencies with Respect to Burundi, Iran, and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction   

(Source:
The White House, 6 Nov 2017.) [Excerpts.]
 
On 6 November 2017, the White House has released notices concerning the continuation of the national emergencies with respect to Burundi, Iran, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, respectively.
 
The notices are available here (Burundi), here (Iran), and here (proliferation of weapons of mass destruction). Excerpts are included below.

 
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO BURUNDI
 
On November 22, 2015, by Executive Order 13712, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi and the region.
 
The situation in Burundi continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on November 22, 2015, to deal with that threat must continue in effect beyond November 22, 2017.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712. …
 
  DONALD J. TRUMP
 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 6, 2017.
 
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN
 
On November 14, 1979, in Executive Order 12170, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
  Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2017.  In accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12170. 
  The emergency declared in Executive Order 12170 is distinct from the emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 on March 15, 1995.  This renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of January 13, 2017. …
 
  DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 6, 2017.
 
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT 
TO THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
 
On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. On July 28, 1998, by Executive Order 13094, the President amended Executive Order 12938 to respond more effectively to the worldwide threat of proliferation activities related to weapons of mass destruction. On June 28, 2005, by Executive Order 13382, the President, among other things, further amended Executive Order 12938 to improve our ability to combat proliferation activities related to weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938 with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such weapons must continue beyond November 14, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended by Executive Orders 13094 and 13382. …
 
  DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 6, 2017.

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

OGS_a66
.

Canada TID Releases Notice to Importers Concerning Carbon Steel and Specialty Steel

(Source:
Canada TID, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
The Trade Controls Bureau (TID) of Global Affairs (GA) Canada (formerly Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada) has released a notice to importers concerning carbon steel and specialty steel. The notice is available here

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

OGS_a77
.

Hong Kong List of Officers Authorized to Sign on Strategic Commodities Licenses and Delivery Verification Certificates

(Source:
Hong Kong TID, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
The
list provides an overview of specimen signatures of officers in the Hong Kong Trade and Industry Department (TID) who are authorized to sign on and issue Delivery Verification Certificates and import and export licenses covering strategic commodities under the Import and Export Ordinance. 

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
8.
ST&R Trade Report: “Legislative Update: GSP, Air Cargo, Outsourcing, Ports, Product Safety”

 
GSP
. The GSP Footwear Act (S. 2032, introduced Oct. 30 by Sen. Cantwell, D-Wash.), would make certain footwear eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences. According to a Footwear News article, the bill covers footwear considered “noncontroversial” because it is not manufactured domestically, “including some categories of athletic shoes and boots for women, men, youth, and toddlers.”
 
The Competitive Need Limitations Modernization Act (S. 2036, introduced Oct. 31 by Sen. Donnelly, D-Ind.) would modernize a waiver process that allows the U.S. trade representative to provide GSP duty-free treatment to certain items as long as current domestic production of those items is taken into account. A press release from Donnelly’s office states that this bill would change what is considered “current production” from 1995 to the most recent three calendar years. It would also move the deadline for annual waiver decisions from July 1 to Oct. 15 to allow for the review of full-year trade data in making determinations.
 
Air Cargo Security
. The Air Cargo Security Improvement Act (H.R. 4176, introduced Oct. 31 by Rep. Thompson, D-Miss.) would (1) establish an air cargo security office within the Transportation Security Administration, (2) require TSA to conduct a pilot program to test the expanded use of screening equipment using computed tomography technology to screen air cargo on passenger aircraft, (3) require TSA to report on actions to improve the Certified Cargo Screening Program, (4) require the Department of Homeland Security to issue within six months a final rule establishing the Air Cargo Advance Screening program (which has been in pilot status for many years), (5) require DHS to develop and issue standards for the use of third-party explosives detection canine assets for air cargo, and (6) require a comprehensive review and security assessment of the known shipper program that recommends whether to modify or eliminate this program.
 
Outsourcing
. The End Outsourcing Act (H.R. 4139, introduced Oct. 26 by Rep. Pocan, D-Wis.) would update the U.S. tax code to prohibit companies from receiving tax breaks for outsourcing jobs and factories, claw back tax credits and grants related to the operation and maintenance of a facility closing to relocate abroad, establish tax incentives for companies that relocate foreign jobs to rural and impoverished communities in the U.S., and ensure that federal contracting policy takes into consideration whether companies have outsourced domestic jobs.
 
Ports
. The Clean Ports Act (H.R. 4147, introduced Oct. 26 by Rep. Nadler, D-N.Y.) would update federal law to ensure that ports can enact and enforce clean truck programs and take appropriate measures to improve operations at port facilities.
 
Product
Safety. H.R. 4220 (introduced Nov. 2 by Rep. Griffith, R-Va.) would adopt a certain California flammability standard as a federal flammability standard to protect against the risk of upholstered furniture flammability.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a01
9.
G.R. Tuttle III: “
WCO Publishes Its Second Case Study on 
Transfer Pricing and its Impact on Customs Valuation”

(Source: Tuttle Law Offices Newsletter, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
* Author: George R. Tuttle III, Esq., Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, george.tuttle.iii@tuttlelaw.com, 415-986-8780.
 
U.S. importers and exporters will be interested to know that the World Customs Organization (“WCO”) has published (October 30, 2017) its second case study on intercompany transfer pricing and its effect on customs valuation.
 
The WCO is an international body that is responsible for the development of international conventions, instruments and tools on topics such as commodity classification, valuation and rules of origin. The WCO maintains the international Harmonized System (HS) goods nomenclature and administers the technical aspects of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements on Customs Valuation (the WTO Valuation Agreement), which is formally known as the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO Valuation Agreement replaced the GATT Valuation Code in 1994 as a result of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, which created the WTO.
 
The WTO Valuation Agreement provides a customs valuation system that primarily bases the customs value on the “transaction value” of the imported goods, which is defined as the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the country of importation with certain adjustments. The WTO Valuation Agreement has been adopted and codified into law by most, if not all, major trading nations. The Agreement provides predictability, stability and transparency for trade, thus facilitating international trade while at the same time ensuring compliance with national laws and regulations.
 
As noted, a key feature of the WTO Valuation Agreement is the use of “transaction value” as the primary method of establishing the customs value of imported goods. Other methods of valuation put forth in the agreement may apply but only if transaction value is found not to apply. An important caveat, however, is that the transaction value applies only if the buyer and seller are not related, or the buyer and seller are related but the transaction value is acceptable based on the application of “test values,” or an examination of the circumstances of sale of the imported merchandise indicates that the relationship between the related buyer and seller did not influence the price actually paid or payable.
 
A common issue that many related exporters and importers have in international transactions involving the sale of goods is establishing to the satisfaction of the national customs authorities that the intercompany transfer price is sufficient to establish that the relationship between the parties did not influence the price actually paid or payable for the goods imported in the specific transaction. If the national customs authorities conclude that the intercompany transfer price is not sufficient to establish that the relationship between the parties did not influence the price, they will apply another basis of appraisement authorized under the Agreement. This alternative method of appraisement may result in a higher appraised value and the resulting assessment of increased duties and fees.
 
The WCO Committee on Customs Valuation is responsible for issuing guidance and interpretations on the proper application of the WTO Valuation Agreement, which national customs authorities from participating countries may take note of and follow.
 
In this second case study on transfer pricing, the Committee considered a submission presented by China. The new case study provides an example of Customs making use of transfer pricing information based on the resale price method. The resale price method compares the importer’s gross margin with the gross margins earned by comparable companies in their transactions with unrelated parties (i.e., the comparable uncontrolled transactions) in the sale of similar goods. The transfer pricing report is prepared by an independent firm following the process set out in accordance with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
 
In the example provided, the importer earned a higher gross profit on the sale of the goods than the companies that were used for the comparison. In other words, the intercompany transfer price (resulting customs value) should have been higher.
 
On the basis of the information provided, it was concluded that in this particular case the declared import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry and, thus, had been influenced by the relationship between the buyer and seller. It was therefore concluded that the Customs value should be determined by application of the alternative methods of appraisement, applied in a sequential order.
 
The new case study (Case Study 14.2) is available here.  Additionally, further information on this topic can be found in the WCO Guide to Customs Valuation and Transfer Pricing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has published its own guide to customs valuation and transfer pricing, which can be found on its website under tab “informed compliance publications,” and should be consulted with when related parties import into the United States. A white paper on “Customs Valuation Issues for Related Party Transactions” is also available on our website.

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

COMM_a2
10. M. O’Kane: “No Government Policy Yet on Sanctions Relationship with EU Post-Brexit”

(Source: European Sanctions Blog, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
* Author: Michael O’Kane, Esq., Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP, mokane@petersandpeters.com.
 
The form of future relationship between the UK and EU on sanctions post-Brexit has yet to be decided on / negotiated:
 
  (1) Boris Johnson, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, gave evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (see previous blog here) on 1 November 2017 saying “at the moment, there is no Government position – we have not decided what we want to seek”.
  (2) Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon likewise said in the Second reading debate on the UK Sanctions Bill on 1 November 2017 that this would “still need to be determined”.
  (3) Sir John Sawers, former Chief of MI6, suggested in his evidence to the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee of the House of Lords on 19 October 2017 that there might need to be “new mechanisms whereby the principal capitals in Europe get together and agree a common approach, which is then reflected in a common EU position”.
  (4) Sir Alan Duncan in his evidence to that Sub-Committee on 26 October 2017 said whether the relationship between the UK and EU “needs to be part of an agreement is… not openly stated at the moment”.

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

COMM_a3
11. M. Volkov: “Ominous Signs for the Future of the Compliance Profession”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog, 5 Nov 2017. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
As we celebrate Ethics and Compliance Week in 2017, I wanted to offer my own assessment of where the compliance profession stands and the challenges facing the profession for the future.
 
I am an eternal optimist – I will never fall to the dark side of cynicism and pessimism. Over the last ten years, the compliance profession has made great strides as a profession and in the corporate governance landscape.
 
Chief compliance offices have broken out of the backwater, and achieved independence, autonomy and amassed increased influence and resources. But there are some ominous concerns for the future.
 
Chief compliance officers have separated from the legal function in increasing numbers. CCOs have been elevated in the corporate governance world to achieve line of sight across the overall business operations. In other words, they have become part of senior leadership.
 
More professionals are entering the ethics and compliance field. Pay is increasing for compliance professionals and more attention is being paid to professional development, professional standards and accountability.
 
So, why do I see ominous signs for the future?
 
Let me take a step back – corporate leaders and the business community are not often leaders when it comes to significant change in business conduct and corporate governance. In other words, corporate leaders and businesses often move in reaction to trends and avoid proactive strategies. In this respect, many commentators and business leaders would admit (if given truth serum) that the rise of the compliance profession reflects primarily a response to an aggressive global enforcement environment, particularly in response to anti-corruption enforcement.
 
If the past is a harbinger of the future, we should acknowledge that the rise of the CFO and the Internal Audit functions were directly the result of a new federal law, Sarbanes-Oxley. The specific requirements imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley transformed the financial accounting governance and compliance requirements, including specific requirements concerning the implementation of effective internal controls.
 
In the absence of specific federal laws addressing the compliance profession, I believe that there is a limit as to what corporate leaders and businesses intend to implement with regard to the compliance function. My view is somewhat pessimistic, and I hate to admit that, but my opinion reflects years of observing corporate actors, cultures and effective leadership.
 
There will always be a small percentage of corporations with  innovative and ethical CEOs, who understand the importance of ethics and compliance to sustainable growth, profitability and legal compliance. However, the larger percentage of companies will only commit to ethics and compliance as a minimum requirement, meaning checking off basic elements without fully embracing the benefits and importance of ethics and compliance.
 
My concerns reflect my own observations and trends showing that, in the absence of a government investigation: (1) CCOs are often unable to secure adequate resources to implement appropriate policies, procedures and controls; (2) CCOs are not given the appropriate recognition and access to corporate boards and senior leadership needed to carry out their obligations; and (3) top management and boards continue to avoid compliance responsibility and accountability for corporate conduct.  CCOs have to avoid and speak up when they view their stature in a business as mere window dressing, meant to provide a pro forma defense or insurance against a possible future government enforcement action.  Until top management and corporate leaders embrace ethics and compliance as a critical intangible asset contributing to sustainable growth and profitability, corporate governance will only rely on ethics and compliance as a band-aid and protection against government enforcement actions.
 
My view is tempered by the extraordinary global movement behind ethics and compliance, corporate governance improvements, and re-examination of corporate boards and their accountability for corporate conduct. Nonetheless, the corporate forces against significant change will resist the next series of reforms needed to instill greater accountability and further reform of the corporate governance world, including ethics and compliance programs.
 
In the end, I hope I am wrong, but I am concerned that the only way to complete the ethics and compliance revolution may depend on federal mandates and legislation that will come in response to the next series of major corporate scandals that impact our financial system and economy. My fingers are crossed and my optimistic approach will continue but in the back of mind are these ominous worries and signs of limitations in the rise of the ethics and compliance function.

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

COMM_a4
12. P. LeCour & T. Carlile: “Revocation of U.S. Sudan Sanctions Regulations”

(Source:
Deloitte
, 6 Nov 2017.)
 
* Authors: Pablo LeCour, Esq.,
plecour@deloitte.co.uk
; and Romain Broner, Esq.,
rbroner@deloitte.co.uk
. Both of Deloitte, London, UK.
 
On 12 October 2017, the U.S. revoked part of its financial sanctions against Sudan.
 
On 13 January 2017, former President Barack Obama issued Executive Order No.13761 paving the way for the revocation of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR), 31 CFR part 538, should the Government of Sudan continue to take positive actions to maintain the cessation of hostilities within Sudan (the Blue Nile state and the South Kordofan State) and improve humanitarian access for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Following a report from the U.S. Department of State confirming the positive steps taken by Sudan, President Donald Trump ordered the permanent lifting of part of the U.S. sanctions in force against Sudan.
 
Consequently, the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations are revoked, allowing most activities with Sudan involving U.S. persons and/or U.S.-origin products (i.e. goods, services, software and technology), as well as transactions with a U.S. nexus (such as U.S.-currency transactions). This change will enable not only U.S. companies but also all companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction to resume trade activities with Sudan.
 
Companies contemplating doing business with Sudan should nonetheless remain cautious. The U.S. Department of State did not remove its designation of Sudan as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, which has some important consequences including:
 
  – Many Sudanese entities remain listed on the Specially Designated Nationals list maintained by the Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as they are covered by different sanctions programmes. Therefore, any company contemplating business with Sudan or with Sudanese entities should ensure that they have the proper due diligence, screening and Know Your Customer (KYC) processes in place as part of their Internal Compliance Programme (ICP) to avoid entering into any relationship with such entities;
  – The U.S. Department of Commerce will maintain strict export controls with regards to dual-use goods that would be exported to Sudan, under the Export Administrations Regulations (EAR). Most products on the Commerce Control List (CCL) will probably be subject to stringent licensing requirements;
  – The U.S. Department of State will maintain its arms embargo against Sudan under the International Traffic in Arms regulations (ITAR) §126.1.
 
Companies seeking to do business with Sudan should ensure that they meet their compliance requirements under both the Export Administration Regulations and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
 
The European Union also has sanctions against Sudan (EU Council Decision No.2014/450/CFSP of 11 July 2014 and EU Council Regulation No.247/2014 of 11 July 2014). The EU sanctions remain in force and include the following:
 
  – Arms embargo (including related services or technical assistance), with some limited exceptions;
  – Visa ban for listed individuals; and
  – An asset freeze for listed natural and legal entities, as well as any entity owned or controlled directly or indirectly by listed entities. 

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

COMM_a5
13. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
.)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
.
 
The deadline for full compliance with DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 – Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting is 31 December 2017. That clause defines the term “covered defense information” as unclassified controlled technical information or other information, as described in the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Registry (here), that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with law, regulations, and Government-wide policies, and is-
 
  – Marked or otherwise identified in the contract, task order, or delivery order and provided to the contractor by or on behalf of DoD in support of the performance of the contract; or
  – Collected, developed, received, transmitted, used, or stored by or on behalf of the contractor in support of the performance of the contract.
 
The DFARS Clause further defines the term “controlled technical information” as technical information with military or space application that is subject to controls on the access, use, reproduction, modification, performance, display, release, disclosure, or dissemination. Controlled technical information would meet the criteria, if disseminated, for distribution statements B through F using the criteria set forth in DoD Instruction 5230.24, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents. The term does not include information that is lawfully publicly available without restrictions.
 
DoD’s FAQ 10 notes that if export-controlled information is related to the DoD activity, it requires protection as covered defense information. The FAQ does not draw a line at just ITAR-controlled or “600 series” technical data, so even EAR99 data could be in play!

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

 

*
Marie Curie
(Marie Skłodowska Curie; 7 Nov 1867 – 4 Jul 1934; was a Polish and naturalized-French physicist and chemist who conducted pioneering research on radioactivity. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first person and only woman to win twice, the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences, and was part of the Curie family legacy of five Nobel Prizes.)

  – “Life is not easy for any of us. But what of that? We must have perseverance and above all confidence in ourselves. We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained.”

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

EN_a315
. 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, Census/AES guidance, and to many errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR.
 
*
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA)
, 1 Jan 2017: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 20 Oct 2017: Harmonized System Update 1707, containing 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: 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_a0316. 
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, John Bartlett. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 8,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

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

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

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

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top