;

18-0112 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-0112 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 12 January 2018

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.

[No items of interest noted today.] 

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts New ACE Monthly Trade Update
  4. DHS/CBP Posts Notice on ACE Statements, PF Generated in Advance of Schedule
  5. GAO: “Nuclear Security: CBP Needs to Take Action to Ensure Imported Radiological Material Is Properly Licensed”
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  7. EU Amends for the 280th Time Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL and Al-Qaida, Corrects North Korea Restrictive Measures
  1. The Hill: “Planned Shift on Gun Exports Kicks up Storm”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Customs Enforcement, Imports, Trade Actions, Supply Chains”
  3. Washington Times: “Trump Looks to Slash Government Red Tape on Overseas Sale of U.S. Made Weapons”
  1. J. Helder, C. Klaui & L.E.A. Hjelm: “European Court of Justice: Intercompany Pricing Cannot Be Used for EU Import/Customs Purposes If Subject to Adjustments”
  2. R.C. Burns: “BIS Website Rolls Out Exciting New Feature”
  1. Full Circle Compliance and the Netherlands Defense Academy Will Present “Winter School at the Castle”, 5-9 Feb 2018 in Breda, the Netherlands
  2. ECTI Presents “United States Export Control (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) Seminar” in Singapore, 21-22 Mar
  3. List of Approaching Events – 27 New Events Listed
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (8 Dec 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (8 Jan 2018), FACR/OFAC (28 Dec 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (1 Jan 2018), ITAR (3 Jan 2018)
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1
[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11
. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
 
[No items of interest noted today.]

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

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

(Source:
CSMS #18-000038, 11 Jan 2018.)
 
A new ACE Monthly Trade Update is now available. This issue contains an update on the latest news on ACE deployments, ACE Portal Reminders, Tips of the Month and a Recap of the 2017 East Coast Trade Symposium.
 
Please visit https://www.cbp.gov/ace to access the full version.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
CSMS #18-000039, 11 Jan 2018.)
 
ACE Statement’s preliminary statement process was inadvertently executed ahead of the scheduled time today. This includes statements processing in ACE, interfacing to ACS, and generation of PF messages to the trade. To avoid potential downstream impacts by stopping the processing midstream, ACE will complete the processing that was initiated at 8:30 pm, and execute the preliminary statement processing again during the regularly scheduled run to capture the remaining Entry Summaries that should have been included in the Preliminary Statement, but were not submitted until after 8:30 pm. This means the trade may receive two preliminary statements for 1/12/18 if they submitted AEs after 8:30 pm. The second statement will only include summaries submitted after 8:30 pm. CBP does not intend to resend the initial statements that were run at 8:30 pm; however, if necessary, you may request messages be resent through your client representative, or by using the ACE MO functionality.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
What GAO Found
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency officials at U.S. airports have not verified the legitimacy of all licenses for imported radiological materials as required by CBP’s policy. The policy requires CBP officials, when alerted, to verify licenses by calling experts in a centralized CBP office. CBP officials at two of four airports GAO visited said they were calling as required. 

However, CBP officials at the other two airports did not verify many licenses from January 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, and headquarters officials were unaware of non-compliance with CBP policy. Also, GAO found that during this time frame nationwide, CBP officials were alerted to verify licenses for a significant number of shipments of licensable radiological material for all U.S. airports, but they did not make all the required calls-leaving numerous shipments potentially unverified over this 21-month period. This situation occurred because CBP does not have a monitoring system to ensure that officials make license verification calls as required. Until CBP develops a monitoring system for license verification, it will not have reasonable assurance that it can identify activities inconsistent with its policy and take corrective action.
 
CBP procedures cannot effectively implement the agency’s policy that its officials verify all radiological material shipments imported into the United States. The procedures are not effective for this policy in part because they rely on automated alerts that are based on some but not all relevant information that could indicate potentially dangerous radiological material. Consequently, CBP’s current system and procedures cannot ensure that all such materials will be identified. Under federal internal control standards, agencies are to design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. However, CBP does not have the information it needs to develop a robust system or revise its procedures because it has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the information not included in its automated alert system. In particular, CBP has not assessed relevant information not currently included in the automated alert or how to create a more risk-based approach that distinguishes between higher- and lower-risk quantities of radiological materials. Without such an assessment, CBP may be unable to develop a system or procedures that best support its policy for verifying imported radiological materials.
 
This is a public version of a sensitive report GAO issued in September 2017. Information CBP deemed sensitive has been omitted.
 
Why GAO Did This Study
 
Thousands of shipments containing radiological material enter the United States each year through airports across the country. Radiological material is used in various medical and industrial applications, and possession requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or one of the 37 states to which NRC has relinquished licensing authority. Failure to verify the licenses could allow terrorists to acquire radiological material for a dirty bomb, which uses explosives to disperse the material.
 
GAO was asked to review CBP policies and procedures related to license verification. This report examines, among other things, (1) the extent to which CBP follows its policies and procedures, and (2) the effectiveness of these policies and procedures. GAO reviewed relevant policies and procedures, analyzed CBP data related to radiological material shipments and license verification, interviewed CBP and NRC officials, and selected four airports to visit based on expected traffic of radiological shipments.
 
What GAO Recommends
 
GAO recommends that CBP develop a monitoring system to help ensure that CBP officials comply with the agency’s license verification policy, conduct an assessment to determine relevant information that is not included in the automated alerts, and develop a system that allows it to identify shipments of greatest risk. CBP concurred with GAO’s three recommendations and outlined actions to implement those recommendations.
 
For more information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov.
 
[Editor’s Note: The entire report can be found
here.] 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

 
Regulations:
* Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/50 of 11 January 2018 amending for the 280th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
 
Corrigenda:
* Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (OJ L 224, 31.8.2017)

 

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

NWSNEWS

(Source:
The Hill, 11 Jan 2018.)
 
The Trump administration’s expected plan to transfer the licensing of gun exports from the State Department to the Commerce Department has Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy advocates readying for a fight.
 
The proposal under review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has yet to be made public, but experts fear it will lead to less oversight of commercial sales of assault weapons like submachine guns and flame throwers to foreign buyers.
 
Less oversight, they warn, could make it easier for deadly weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists and drug cartels.
 
  “It’s a major change,” said Colby Goodman, director of the Security Assistance Monitor program at the Center for International Policy. “It’s opening up a lot more risk and a lot more opportunity for illegal and illicit trafficking.”
 
The State Department said it is shifting responsibility to Commerce for approving exports of nonmilitary firearms and ammunition that are already commercially available – those under Categories I, II and III on the U.S. Munitions List. The goal is to reduce regulatory burdens on manufacturers and exporters.   
 
Under the proposed rules, an administration official told The Hill, firearms and related articles that are uniquely military or that are not otherwise widely available for commercial sale would remain under State Department export licensing controls.
 
In shifting oversight, exporters and manufacturers, including small gunsmiths, would no longer have to register with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and pay the $2,250 annual registration fee.
 
But experts say if exporters aren’t forced to register with the federal government, there will be no way to track and no one to prosecute when weapons end up in the wrong hands.
 
  “There are plenty of cases when in regular processes weapons have been lost,” said Jeff Abramson, a nonresident senior fellow at the Arms Control Association, adding that these are the weapons often used in human rights abuses.
 
Democrats are particularly upset with one potential change in the proposal. Shifting oversight from the State Department to the Commerce Department, they say, would eliminate congressional review that’s now required under the Arms Export Control Act for any commercial sales of lethal weapons worth $1 million or more. 
 
  “As you are aware, combat firearms and ammunition are uniquely lethal; they are easily spread and easily modified, and are the primary means of injury, death and destruction in civil and military conflicts throughout the world,” Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in September opposing the planned move. “As such, they should be subject to more – not less – rigorous export controls and oversight.”
 
In the House, Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) planned to introduce legislation Wednesday to block President Trump from transferring oversight of “significant military equipment” like automatic firearms and sniper rifles; their parts, accessories and components; flame throwers; and attachments or devices for launching ordnance to the Commerce Department. In an interview with The Hill, Torres said the Commerce Department has a very different role than the State Department, which leads on foreign affairs.  
“[Commerce’s] interest is selling U.S.-made goods,” she said. “They aren’t looking at things from a public safety point of view.”
 
Torres said the types of weapons being sold could cause a lot of problems in countries where democracy is fragile. “The State Department has more knowledge about what’s happening on the ground,” she said.
 
The administration, however, disagrees.  
“The Commerce Department is uniquely qualified to handle these rule changes,” the administration official said in an email to The Hill. “In fact, the Department of Commerce has decades of experience in licensing firearms for export under the Export Administration Regulations. This involves the export, re-export, and transfer (in-country) of 12-gauge shotguns, optical sighting devices for firearms, and crime control equipment.”
 
The official said each export license would go through a rigorous interagency review process that includes the Defense and State departments to ensure national security and human rights concerns are addressed. “The proposed changes will allow the Commerce Department to use its expertise and resources through its in-agency law enforcement unit, and its robust end use verification program,” the official said. “This transfer will not create opportunities to put weapons in the hands of bad actors.”
 
Gun manufacturers and former Obama administration officials say the hysteria over the rule is overblown and premature. The rule, after all, has been in the works since 2012 and is expected to mimic an Obama-era proposal that was slated for release, but stalled after 20 children and six adults were killed in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
 
Kevin Wolf, the former assistant secretary of Commerce for export administration, said gun rights and gun control groups should relax until they’ve seen the actual wording of the rule. “Everybody just chill,” he said. “Anyone who has any concerns should just relax until they see an actual rule to comment on.”
 
Larry Keane, senior vice president for government and public affairs and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said he’s been told the current rule isn’t significantly or materially different than the Obama-era proposal. “It is disingenuous for people like Sen. Cardin and other Democrats to now complain about the policy when the rules were over at [the Office of Management and Budget] and within hours of being published” under Obama, he said.
 
A former administration official familiar with the rule discussions said export licenses still would have been required for assault weapons under the Obama-era rule. Licensing requirements would have been eased, however, for the less sensitive gun parts like screws and springs.  “The assumption is the Commerce Department is less restrictive, but the difference is less sensitive items can be treated less sensitively, but more lethal items can be treated more aggressively,” the former official said.
 
The push to change the rules is supported by the National Rifle Association, which says many people who never intend to export a firearm or firearm accessories, like gunsmiths and parts manufacturers, are now required to register with the State Department and pay high fees to operate their business. “The NRA supports the Trump administration’s efforts to complete the reforms and transfer law-abiding firearms and ammunition manufacturers from an export system designed for nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles into one designed around lawful commercial products,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.
 
The State Department’s proposed rule was sent to OIRA on Sept. 26 and is marked as pending review. The office has 90 days to review the rule, but that deadline can be extended indefinitely by the head of the rulemaking agency. The Office of Management and Budget, which oversees OIRA, said it has a longstanding policy of not commenting on rules under review.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week. …
 
  – 16 Jan: effective date of CBP final rule allowing donations to help identify infringing imports
  – 17 Jan: deadline for comments on USDA information collections on imports of mangoes, blueberries, wood
  – 17 Jan: meeting of Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
Washington Times, 11 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
The Trump administration is taking aim at another U.S. industry it says it being held back by overregulation and government red tape, moving to reduce federal rules and restrictions governing overseas sales of weapons and armament, in a bid to accelerate American arms deals to a growing international clientele eager to field the latest generation of U.S.-made weaponry.
 
American arms manufacturers anticipate the policy changes spearheaded by the Trump White House under the so-called “Buy America” initiative will even the playing field with their less regulated foreign competitors and result in billions of dollars in new deals. U.S. diplomats and military attaches will be tasked with talking up U.S. military products as part of a plan still being developed by the administration.
 
Far more than any of his predecessors, Mr. Trump likes to talk up publicly the quality of the U.S. defense products and the need for foreign militaries to consider buying American, as he did in a bilateral meeting with visiting Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg in the Oval Office on Wednesday. He praised Oslo’s recent order for 40 F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin.
 
  “We make the greatest military equipment in the world, and you buy a lot of it and we appreciate that,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s called jobs.”
 
Defense industry officials have publicly and privately chafed at the interagency process governing U.S. weapon exports, a cumbersome effort overseen in equal parts by the Defense Department, State Department and Commerce Department.
 
Critics say less regulated competitors from China, Russia and Israel have been able to undercut American firms, in both speed of sales and range of products, to global markets. U.S. firms also face stringent federal statutes dictating foreign weapons sales under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
 
Looking abroad
 
While the U.S. remains the world’s biggest arms exporter, foreign defense firms in recent years have been able to challenge American dominance in certain military technology sectors, including cyberwarfare and unmanned weapon systems, because they don’t face the same government regulations that confront American weapons makers.
 
Facing stagnant military budgets at home, leading U.S. defense giants such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon have been forced to look to new markets in Asia and the Middle East.  . . . 
 
Aside from pressing for a more expedited federal approval process for U.S. weapons sales, the White House is also calling upon American diplomats overseas to press partner nations to consider new weapons deals with Washington, administration officials told Reuters on Monday. Under the new plan, officials from the Pentagon, State Department and Commerce Department will press ahead with an overhaul of ITAR regulations, in order to facilitate the White House’s new strategy, Reuters reported.
 
The weapons deregulatory push is widely seen as the White House trying to deliver on Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to re-energize all sectors of the American economy and shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Industry sources tell The Washington Times that U.S. defense firms are bullish the administration’s deregulation initiatives on overseas weapons sales could open the door to sales of weapons technologies to countries who had been barred from buying such capabilities under existing laws and rules.
 
While White House officials and their agency and industry counterparts continue to hammer out the final details of the “Buy America” initiative, the changes will not be the free-for-all defense industry experts and critics of the plan claim, a State Department official said.
 
The crux of the initiative will be to streamline the weapons export process and speed up the pace of deals, the source said. Administration officials “want adaptability in the international marketplace [by] … cutting the red tape” associated with U.S. weapons deals overseas.
 
It’s unlikely the current overhaul will allow defense firms to sell American weapons technologies overseas that are currently banned from export. Washington will continue to “secure critical technologies” while “maintaining America’s military edge” over near-peer competitors such as Russia and China, the source said.
 
Expanding markets
 
Despite a shrinking domestic market, U.S. defense firms still provide nearly one-third of all military-grade arms and equipment fielded by international forces.  . . .
 
Efforts by U.S. defense industry to appeal more to international markets comes as American defense firms face increasing pressure from China and other economic competitors. Of all foreign nations posing a serious challenge to American dominance in the arms market, Beijing has made the greatest strides.  . . .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a1
11. J. Helder, C. Klaui & L.E.A. Hjelm: “European Court of Justice: Intercompany Pricing Cannot Be Used for EU Import/Customs Purposes If Subject to Adjustments”

(Source: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 11 Jan 2018.)
 
* Authors: Jasper Helder, Esq., jasper.helder@akingump.com,
+44 20.7661.5308; Chiara Klaui, Esq., chiara.klaui@akingump.com, +44 20.7661.5342; and Lars-Erik A. Hjelm, Esq., lhjelm@akingump.com, +1 202.887.4175. All of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
 
Key Points:
 
  – A recent judgment of the European Court of Justice for bars the use of intercompany transfer prices for EU imports and EU customs duty purposes if (as is commonly the case) these are subject to retroactive adjustments.
  – This means that EU importers who buy from related vendors may have to change the basis for valuation of their EU imports.
  – The judgment increases uncertainty concerning past imports, and EU importers may want to review their customs valuation of past imports to assess their risks.
 
On December 20, 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued an important decision in respect of the use of intercompany transfer pricing for customs valuation for imports in the EU. The judgment bars the use of intercompany transfer prices for EU imports if (as is commonly the case) these are subject to retroactive adjustments. This means that EU importers who buy from related vendors may have to change the basis for valuation of their EU imports, as discussed in more detail below.
 
Transfer Pricing and Customs Valuation
 
The EU Union Customs Code (UCC) implements the World Trade Organization (WTO) Valuation Agreement. As such, the preferred (and default) method of customs valuation of EU imports is based on the price actually paid or payable (“transaction value”). Transaction value can also be applied in respect of EU imports in “intra-company” sales between related companies, provided that the price (or transaction value) is not influenced by the relationship between the parties to the transaction.
 
For corporate taxation purposes, many groups of companies rely on transfer pricing for their intracompany sales. By means of reference to comparable sales flows between unrelated companies (as documented in transfer-pricing documentation), groups confirm that the aggregated profit margins of their group companies resulting from such intracompany sales are “at arm’s length” (i.e., not influenced by the relation between the companies engaged in the transactions). Contrary to corporate income taxation of aggregated profits, customs duties are levied over each individual sale/import and the transaction value of that sale/import. Nonetheless, some EU Customs authorities accept such transfer-pricing documentation to support, for customs valuation purposes, that the intragroup transfer prices are not influenced by the fact that buyers and sellers in transactions in which EU imports are made are related, and are thus acceptable as transaction value for EU customs duties.
 
In practice, such transfer-pricing strategies are often implemented by periodical monitoring of profit margins of group companies. Where a margin is outside the “at arm’s length” range as supported by transfer-pricing documentation, additional charges or repayments are made between group companies, so-called ‘transfer-pricing adjustments.” The amount of such transfer-pricing adjustments typically is determined by the desired profit margin of the group company to whom the adjustment is addressed.
 
For customs valuation purposes, the question is whether such transfer-pricing adjustments are part of the “price actually paid or payable” or transaction value. If so, this would require retroactive adjustment of the transaction value of goods previously imported.
 
Companies and customs specialists, as well as Customs authorities, struggle with the application of such retroactive adjustments in practice. EU customs rules do not offer a practical and comprehensive solution, other than reopening and amending previous individual import declarations. Where companies import frequently, this poses a massive administrative burden. In some EU countries, Customs authorities have been open to more practical solutions, such as consolidated periodical reconciliation where individual imports are made on the basis of a provisional transaction value. However, scholars and customs experts are divided about the justification of such approaches under EU customs legislation.
 
The Hamamatsu Judgment
 
The December 20, 2017 judgment of the ECJ in the Hamamatsu case confirms that, if such transfer-pricing adjustments are made (as is commonly the case), the intercompany sales price (i.e., sales price between related companies) cannot be used for customs value.
 
Hamamatsu imported products acquired from a related supplier. In line with group transfer-pricing policies, a transfer-pricing adjustment was applied, which resulted in (retroactively) the transaction value of the imports being reduced. Hamamatsu applied to German Customs authorities for repayment of duties previously paid. The matter resulted in an appeal to a German court.
 
The German court considered that (par. 21 of the ECJ judgment) “The referring court considers that the final annual amount constitutes the final transfer pricing, established in accordance with the arm’s-length principle provided for by the OECD Guidelines. There was thus no point in basing the transfer-pricing exclusively on the provisional pricing in the context of an advance transfer-pricing agreement concluded with the tax authorities which does not reflect the real value of the goods. Thus, the price declared to the customs authority was only a fictitious pricing and not the price payable for the imported goods pursuant to Article 29 of the Customs Code.
 
Based on that, the German court then raised the following question to the ECJ as the highest authority on interpretation of EU Customs regulations: “Do the provisions of (..) [the Customs Code] permit an agreed transfer price, which is composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, using an allocation key, regardless of whether a subsequent debit charge or credit is made to the declarant at the end of the accounting period?”
 
Based on the factual decision by the referring German court, the ECJ considers (paragraph 23) “whether Articles 28 to 31 of the Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that they permit the adoption, as the customs value, of an agreed transaction value which consists partly of an amount initially invoiced and declared and partly of a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.”
 
In answering the question, the ECJ emphasizes (paragraph 28), “The transaction value must reflect the real economic value of imported goods and take into account all the elements of those goods that have economic value.” The ECJ then considers (in paragraphs 30 to 35) that, for customs valuation, the only permissible post-import adjustments are those in relation to hidden defects or damages to the goods imported. This is also set out in Article 145 Paragraph 2 of the (old) Implementing Regulation 2454/93 to the (old) Community Customs Code, as applied to the case decided by the ECJ.
 
The ECJ then concludes that:
 
  (a) there is no obligation on importers to retroactively adjust transaction value in case of transfer pricing adjustments
  (b) the applicable provisions of the Community Customs Code “do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.”
 
Consequences of the Judgment
 
In summary: If retroactive transfer-pricing adjustments are made, they need not be disclosed to Customs authorities for prior imports, but the fact that they are made does mean that the intercompany transfer price cannot be used as transaction value for customs purposes.
 
If the intercompany transfer price cannot be used as transaction value, the taxable base for customs duties must be determined by another method. These alternative methods are, in mandatory order of application:
 
  (2) Transaction value of identical goods (sold between unrelated parties)
  (3) Transaction value of similar goods (sold between unrelated parties)
  (4) Deductive value (“re-sale minus”)
  (5) Computed value.
 
where Methods 4 and 5 are interchangeable.
 
In practice, Methods 2 and 3 will be difficult to apply, since individual transactions in which identical or similar goods are sold between unrelated parties in the same economic, commercial and factual circumstances will be difficult to find. From an audit perspective, such comparable individual transactions will be difficult to find and demonstrate to Customs authorities in a verifiable and auditable manner.
 
The most likely method to be applied would either be method 4 or 5. Method 4 is based on the price of sale after importation, from which elements that need not be included in the taxable base for customs duties (i.e., profits and costs incurred after importation) are deducted. Method 5 requires that an importer demonstrate that the overall cost of production, including materials, design, royalties, general sales and administration cost, adds up to the price as declared for import. In other words, the cost of all individual inputs for the products as set out in the bill of materials, as well as additional costs of transport (up to the EU border) and intangible assists related to the product must be justified on an item-by-item basis. This poses a challenge to importers, as well as to Customs authorities, since this requires extensive (internal) audit and verification.
 
With this judgment, the ECJ has essentially cut off the connection between transfer pricing for corporate tax purposes and the transactional taxable base for customs duties. Reliance on the transfer-pricing documentation as prepared for corporate tax purposes to justify customs valuation is, at least according to the judgment, not sufficient. Importers should consider building a separate justification of their intercompany transfer prices on a cost basis or on a resale minus basis, if only as an audit defense for future audits by Customs authorities.

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

COMM_a2
12. R.C. Burns: “BIS Website Rolls Out Exciting New Feature”

(Source:
Export Law Blog
, 11 Jan 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067).
 
The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), apparently concerned that its website is not quite entertaining enough, has rolled out a new feature, which we can call “When Lawyers Go Bad.” The purpose of this new feature is, apparently, to highlight criminal activity by lawyers even if that criminal activity is wholly unrelated to export violations of any kind and wholly outside of BIS’s jurisdiction.
 
To roll out this new feature, BIS brings us,
from the front page banner of its site
, the
case
of Staten Island lawyer Richard Luthmann.  Mr. Luthmann is pictured at left with a sword and a shield.  He used this relatively bizarre image to illustrate a
Tweet
where he exhorts potential clients: “Don’t be a #WIMP! Hire a #LawWarrior that will #Vanquish your legal woes.” Sadly, Mr. Luthmann has had to hire his own “LawWarrior” to vanquish his own legal woes as he was
indicted
in December for, among other things, wire fraud, kidnapping, identity theft, access device fraud, and money laundering (but not, oddly, export violations).
 
The indictment alleges that Luthmann and a client cooked up a scheme where they would sell scrap metal to various customers but pack the shipments with a little bit of scrap metal and a bunch of worthless filler. If customers complained, they would say the shipment was full of scrap metal when it left the warehouse and that some nefarious type had obviously tampered with the shipment. If that didn’t work, they planned on using the supposed organized crime connections of another one of the co-conspirators to intimidate the disgruntled customers to shut up. (You know, with horse heads in beds, threats of sleeping with the fishes and all that).
 
The company engaged in these sales was set up by Luthmann. He then installed another client of his, who was blind and on disability, as the alleged president of the company. When the blind guy worried he’d get in trouble, Luthmann, according to the indictment, assured him that the government would never find out. Famous last words.
 
Oh, and there’s more. Luthmann allegedly demanded legal fees from one of his co-conspirators in the short-fill scheme in connection with un-invoiced legal services he was allegedly providing the client. The “client” borrowed the sums to pay these fees from another of the co-conspirators who later kidnapped the “client” and threatened him with a weapon to have the loan repaid. Fun times.
 
As I explained above, I can’t for the life of me see what this case, however entertaining, has to do with anything within the jurisdiction of BIS. The word “export” does not appear even once in the indictment. But, as this blog has a number of readers who are much smarter than I am, I propose a contest. I will award a prize of my choosing, worth at least $2.99, to the first person who can offer a credible explanation of why BIS has enough interest in this case to feature it on its website. This offer is void in any states where it might be illegal and in any states, including Alabama and Utah, where fun is prohibited.

 

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TEC_a13.

Full Circle Compliance and the Netherlands Defense Academy Will Present “Winter School at the Castle”, 5-9 Feb 2018 in Breda, the Netherlands

 
The Netherlands Defense Academy presents a winter seminar, “Compliance and Integrity in International Military Trade,” 5-9 February 2018, in the charming town of Breda, the Netherlands, an hour’s drive south of Amsterdam. Many hotels and restaurants are within walking distance of the Defense Academy, which is the Dutch equivalent of the U.S. military academies. The course is designed for NATO+ military officers, government employees, and employees of NATO+ defense contractors. Participants will receive certificates of completion from the Academy.
 
* Course Contents:
  – Day 1: International Trade in Defense Markets and Relevance of Trade Compliance.
  – Day 2: U.S. Export Control Regulations (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), and the EU Perspective.
  – Day 3: U.S. Export Control Regulations (Export Administration Regulations), and EU Export Control Regulations (Military and Dual-Use).
  – Day 4: Compliance & Integrity / Ethics, and Setting up an Internal Compliance Program.
  – Day 5: Setting up an Internal Compliance Program
* When: 5-9 February 2018.
* Where: the Netherlands Defense Academy (“The Castle”), Breda, the Netherlands.
* Event Sponsors: Full Circle Compliance & the Netherlands Defense Academy, Faculty of Military Sciences.
* Speakers include: Prof. dr. J.M. Beeres; Col. Dr. Robert M.M. Bertrand, RA RC RO; Drs. Ghislaine C.Y. Gillessen, RA; James E. Bartlett III, JD, LL.M; Michael E. Farrell; and Drs. Alexander P. Bosch.

Registration & Information: please, complete the seminar registration form and send a copy to events@fullcirclecompliance.eu. More information is available at the Full Circle Compliance website or via events@fullcirclecompliance.eu

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

TEC_a114. ECTI Presents “United States Export Control (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) Seminar” in Singapore, 21-22 Mar
(Source: Jill Kincaid; jill@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: United States Export Control (ITAR/EAR/OFAC) Seminar Series in Singapore (for Asia-Pacific and other non-US Companies)
* When: ITAR Seminar: March 19-20, 2018; EAR/OFAC Seminar: March 21-22, 2018
* Where: Singapore, Novatel Clarke Quay; 177A River Valley Road, Singapore
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker Panel: John Black, Scott Gearity, Scott Anderson, and Tatman Savio
* Register: Here, or Jessica Lemon, 540-433-3977, jessica@learnexportcompliance.com

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

TE_a215
. List of Approaching Events – 27 New Events Listed
(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 
* Online: “Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)“; Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “Webinars On-Demand Library“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

* Online: ”
International Trade Webinars“; Global Training Center

*
 
Online: “On-Demand Webinars“; “General Training“; Center for Development of Security Excellence; Defense Security Service (DSS)

* Online: ”
ACE Reports Training and User Guide“; DHS/CBP

# Online: “Increase Your International Sales – Webinar Archive;” U.S. Commercial Service
 
Training by Date:
 

* On-Demand Webinar; ”
Is Your Organization Ready for the Challenges of Global Trade?“; Amber Road

* Jan 17: Melbourne, FL; “Global Challenges: A Conversation with James Clapper“; Indialantic Rotary Club; info@partneringforcompliance.org; 321-952-2978
* Jan 17: Bristol UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade; denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Jan 17: Dusseldorf, Germany; “Recent Developments in U.S., E.U., and German Export Control: Promoting Global Trade in Challenging Times;” (Event will be held in English); U.S. Commercial Service
* 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 18: Webinar/Lunch; San Jose, CA; ”
Compliance Audit: An Executive Tool for 2018“; PAEI

* Jan 22-23: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Jan 22-23: Frankfurt, Germany; ”
U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions – 2018 Update“; Aussenwirtschafts Akademie; Contact  
Kristina.Brueffer@awa-seminare.de to register.

* Jan 23: London, UK; “International Documentations and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
* Jan 23-24: Houston, TX; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jan 23-24: Houston, TX; ”
12th Annual Forum on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;” American Conference Institute (ACI)

* Jan 24: Frankfurt, Germany; “International Compliance, Legal Risks & Corporate Integrity“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Jan 24: London, UK; “An Introduction to Exporting – Physical Goods“; IOEx 
* Jan 24-25: San Diego, CA: “EAR and OFAC Controls“; ECTI; 

* Jan 25: Houston, TX; ”
Africa Anti-Corruption Roundtable“; ACI
* Jan 25: Hong Kong, China; ”
Anti-Bribery Roundtable“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions

* Jan 25: Houston TX; “Technology Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jan 25: Webinar; ”
Roadmap to a Successful Voluntary Disclosure“; Census Bureau

* Jan 25: London, UK; “International Documentation & Customs Compliance“; IOEx
* 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: Webinar; “Fundamentals of US Reexport Controls“; ECTI; 540-433-3977
* Jan 31: Washington, D.C.; “4th National Forum on CFIUS and Team Telecom“; American Conference Institute
* Feb 1: Birmingham, UK; International Documentation & Customs Compliance“; IOEx

# Feb 1: Lagos, Nigeria; ”
West Africa Trade & Export Finance Conference 2018“; IOEx

# Feb 5: Singapore; “Singapore Airshow Breakfast Briefing;” U.S. Embassy in Singapore
* Feb 5-8: Orlando FL; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI; 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
;
 540-433-3977
* Feb 6: Las Vegas, NV; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training
* Feb 6: Birmingham, UK; “An Introduction to Exporting – Physical Goods“; IOEx
* Feb 6-7: San Diego, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Feb 7-8: Munich, Germany; “Export Compliance in Europe, 2018“;
* Feb 8: McLean, VA; “EAR Basics“; FD Associates

* Feb 13: 
Webinar; “
Exporting Mechanics Webinar Series: Export Licenses
“; NCBFAA

# Feb 13: Webinar; ”
What Exporters Need to Know About VAT Overseas“; IOEx

* Feb 13-14: Miami, FL; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security 
* Feb 13-14: Orlando FL; “
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp
“; Export Compliance Solutions; 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018
* Feb 13-16: London, UK; “Certified Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) Specialist“; Global Trade Academy

* Feb 14: ”
Wednesday Webinar: Temporary Imports of NFA Firearms“; Reeves & Dola LLP

* Feb 14: London, UK; “Post-Brexit Planning Workshop“; IOEx
* Feb 19: Tysons Corner, VA; “Export Compliance and Controls 101“; Global Trade Academy
* Feb 19-21: Tysons Corner, VA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
# Feb 21: Webinar; “Cybersecurity Opportunities in Europe Webinar“; U.S. Commercial Service
* 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 
*
 
Feb 27: London, UK; “International Documentation & Customs Compliance“; IOEx
# Feb 27-28: London, UK; “ITAR and the EAR US Trade Controls Compliance in Europe“; C5 Group
* Feb 28-Mar 1: Dubai, UAE; “GESS Dubai 2018“; Global Educational Supplies and Solutions
* Mar 1: Manchester, UK; “An Introduction to Exporting – Physical Goods“; IOEx
* Mar 1: Dubai, UAE; “Anti-Bribery Workshop“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Mar 5-7: Sugar Land, TX; “2018 Winter Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)
# Mar 6: Webinar; “Legal Aspects of Doing Business in Canada“; U.S. Commercial Service
* Mar 7: London, UK; “Operations and Maintenance for Offshore Wind“; ACI 
* Mar 7-8: Portland, OR; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Mar 8: Manchester, UK; “International Documentation & Customs Compliance“; IOEx

* Mar 8-9: Washington, D.C.; ”
14th Annual TRACE Forum“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions

* Mar 9: Orlando, FL; “Customs/Import Boot Camp“; Partnering for Compliance

* Mar 9: Webinar; ”
ECCN Classification Numbers“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Mar 11-14: San Diego, CA; “
ICPA Annual Conference“; International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org
# Mar 13: Webinar; “Canada’s Non-Resident Importer Program“; U.S. Commercial Service
* Mar 13: London, UK; “International Documentation & Customs Compliance“; IOEx

* Mar 14: ”
Wednesday Webinar: Due Diligence for Exports;” Reeves & Dola LLP

* Mar 14; London, UK; “Letters of Credit“; IOEx
* Mar 14: Birmingham UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade; denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Mar 14-15: Austin, TX; “Establishing an ITAR/EAR Export Compliance Program“; Export Compliance Solutions;  spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com;  866-238-4018 
* 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 15-16: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates

# Mar 20: Webinar; ”
Sending Temporary Workers to Canada“; U.S. Commercial Service
# Mar 20: Webinar; ”
Tax Avoidance in the U.S. – Lessons for Canada“; The Conference Board of Canada

* Mar 20: Zurich, Switzerland; “Anti-Corruption in Switzerland“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Mar 20: London, UK; “An Introduction to Importing“; IOEx
* Mar 20: London, UK; “UK & US Export Controls: A Basic Understanding“; IOEx
* Mar 20-22: Nashville, TN; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
# Mar 21-22: London, UK; “Women in Compliance Conference“; C5 Group
* Mar 23; Nashville, TN; “How to Build an Export Compliance Program“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Mar 26: East Rutherford, NJ; “Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber“; Global Trade Academy 
# Mar 27-28: Brussels, Belgium; “Global Customs Compliance Forum“; C5 Group
* Mar 27-28: Santa Clara, CA; “Export Control Forum“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Apr 5-6: Des Moines, IA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security 
* Apr 10: Webinar; “Letters of Credit“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Apr 11: ”
Wednesday Webinar: Anatomy of a Compliance Program;” Reeves & Dola LLP

* Apr 11-12: Denver, CO; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security

* Apr 16-17: Los Angeles, CA; ”
APBO Conference, 2018“; Asia Pacific Business Outlook

* Apr 16-19: Las Vegas NV; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI;
 
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
# Apr 16-20: Washington, D.C.; “Excellence in Anti-Corruption – ISO Standards 37001 and 19600“; ETHIC Intelligence
# Apr 17-19: Kansas City, MO; NNSA Export Control Coordinators Org Annual Training; Kimberly.galloway@pnnl.gov; 509-372-6184
Apr 18: Ottowa, Canada; “U.S. Ocean Tech Innovation Showcase“; U.S. Embassy in Canada
# Apr 18: Melbourne, Australia; “Australia/North Asia FTA Training Session for SMEs: Cultural Awareness – Negotiating Business in South Korea“; Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
* Apr 19: McLean, VA; “ITAR for the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Apr 23: Copenhagen, Denmark; “Anti-Bribery Roundtable“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Apr 24: Los Angeles, CA; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Apr 24-25: Dubai, UAE; “Trade Compliance in the Middle East“; NeilsonSmith
* Apr 25-26: Berlin, Gernamy; “Global Anti-Bribery In-House Network (GAIN)“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Apr 25-26: Costa Mesa, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* May 2-3; Scottsdale, AZ; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security 
# May 3-4: Milan, Italy; “Trade Compliance Southern Europe“; C5 Group
* 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 8: Webinar; “U.S. Harmonized Tariff Classification Numbers“; U.S. Commercial Service
* May 8: Mexico City, Mexico; “Anti-Bribery Workshop“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* May 9: ”
Wednesday Webinar: Demonstrations and Plant Visits“; Reeves & Dola LLP

* May 9: London, UK; “Advanced Financing of International Trade“; IOEx
* May 15-16; Cleveland, OH; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* May 16-17: National Harbor, MD; “ITAR/EAR Compliance: An Industry Perspective“; Export Compliance Solutions; spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
;
 866-238-4018 

# May 23-24: Berlin, Germany; ”
12th Annual Exporters’ Forum on Global Economic Sanctions“; C5 Group

* Jun 5-9: Baltimore, MD; ”
AAEI Annual Conference“; AAEI

* Jun 6-7: Seattle, WA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Jun 6-7: Munich, Germany; “US Trade Controls Compliance in Europe“; NielsonSmith

* Jun 8: Stafford, VA; ”
Spring Golf Outing“; Society for International Affairs;

* Jun 12: Webinar; “Duty Drawback and Refunds“; U.S. Commercial Service
# June 12-13; Stockholm, Sweden; “Trade Compliance Nordics“; C5 Group

* Jun 13: San Diego, CA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Jun 13-14: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
* Jun 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Global Trade Academy
# Jun 27-28: London, UK; “12th Annual Conference on Anti-Corruption“; C5
* Jul 10: Chicago, IL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Jul 10-11: Columbia, SC; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Jul 10-11: Long Beach, CA; “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp“;  Export Compliance Solutions; spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018

* Jul 16-18: National Harbor, Maryland; ”
2018 Summer Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs

* Jul 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber“; Global Trade Academy
* Jul 19: McLean, VA; “ITAR for the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Aug 1-3: Washington, D.C.; “NSSF and Fair Trade Import/Export Conference“; NSSF
* Aug 6: Detroit, MI; “Export Compliance and Controls“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 14-15: Milpitas, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Aug 16: Milpitas, CA; “Encryption Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 12-13: Annapolis, MD; “
ITAR/EAR Boot Camp
“; Export Compliance Solutions; 
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
; 866-238-4018
* Sep 12-13: Springfield, RI; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 13: McLean, VA; “EAR Basics“; FD Associates
* Sep 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Import Compliance“; Global Trade Academy

* Sep 17-20: Columbus, OH; ”
3rd Annual University Export Controls Conference“; Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)

* Sep 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy  
* Sep 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Tariff Classification for Importers and Exporters“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 19: Los Angeles, CA; “NAFTA and Trade Agreements“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 20: Los Angeles, CA; “Country and Rules of Origin“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21: Los Angeles, CA; “Customs Valuation – The Essentials“; Global Trade Academy
* Oct 18-19: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
* Oct 22-23: Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)
* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Seattle, WA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 6: Detroit, MI; “Classification: How to Classify Parts“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 7-9: London, UK; “TRACE European Forum, 2018“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Nov 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Advanced Classification for Machinery & Electronics“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
# Dec 4-5: Frankfurt, Germany; “US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” C5 Group
* Dec 3-7: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy
* Dec 6: London, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
* Dec 11: Manchester, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a116
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
 

Howard Stern (Howard Allan Stern; born January 12, 1954) is an American radio and television personality, producer, author, actor, and photographer. He is best known for his radio show The Howard Stern Show, which gained popularity when it was nationally syndicated on terrestrial radio from 1986 to 2005. Stern has broadcast on Sirius XM Radio since 2006.)
  – “You’ve got to be a little vicious. You’ve got to be narcissistic. You’ve got to be on fire about your career.”
 
* Rush Limbaugh (Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, born 12 Jan 1951; is an American radio talk show host and conservative political commentator. He currently resides in Palm Beach, Florida, where he broadcasts The Rush Limbaugh Show. According to December 2015 estimates by Talkers Magazine, Rush Limbaugh has a cumulative weekly audience of around 13.25 million unique listeners, making his show the most listened-to talk-radio program in the US.)
  – “No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.”
  – The more dependent you are, the more ignorant you must be, and that’s how they want you.”

 

* Jack London (born John Griffith Chaney; 12 Jan 1876 – 22 Nov 1916 was an American novelist, journalist, and social activist. A pioneer in the world of commercial magazine fiction, he was one of the first writers to become a worldwide celebrity and earn a large fortune from writing.  Some of his most famous works include The Call of the Wild and White Fang, both set in the Klondike Gold Rush, as well as the short stories “To Build a Fire”, “An Odyssey of the North”, and “Love of Life”.)
  – “Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but sometimes, playing a poor hand well.”
 
* Edmund Burke (12 Jan 1730 – 9 July 1797; was an Irish statesman, as well as an author, orator, political theorist and philosopher.)
  – “Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
“There are three kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can’t.”
  — David Warner, Georgetown, Texas

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

EN_a217. 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.  The latest amendments 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: 8 Dec 2017:
82 FR 57821-57825: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation 
 
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(s): 8 Jan 2018:
83 FR 709-711
: Revisions, Clarifications, and Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations; Correction; and
83 FR 706-709
: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation 

  

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

  – Last Amendment: 28 Dec 2017: 
82 FR 61450-61451: Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency 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 (1 Jan 2018) 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 2018: 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: 1 Jan 2018: Updated HTS for 2018.
  – 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: 3 Jan 2018: 83 FR 234-237: Department of State 2018 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 3 Jan 2018) 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_a318
. 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, provided attribution is given to “The Export/Import Daily Bugle of (date)”. 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