;

18-0130 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

18-0130 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

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

  1. US-China Economic and Security Review Commission to Meet on 15 Feb in Wash DC
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Updates Drawback CATAIR and Error Dictionary
  4. OMB/OIRA Reviews of Proposed Ex/Im Regulations
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. Treasury/OFAC Posts New Ukraine-/Russia-related CAATSA Frequently Asked Question
  7. Australia DFAT Announces New Defense Export Strategy
  8. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning Tunisia
  9. Hong Kong Releases Guidance on Internal Compliance Programs
  1. Reuters: “Trump Administration Holds off on New Russia Sanctions, despite Law”
  1. M. Volkov: “Renewing Corporate Vows to the Chief Compliance Officer”
  2. O.F. Kittrie: “Irish Bill to Boycott Israeli Settlements Runs Afoul of Us Laws”
  3. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day
  4. R.C. Burns: ” Another Reason not to Hire the Russian Mob”
  1. ECTI Presents “The ABC’s of Embargoes & Sanctions: A Two Part Webinar Series,” 27 Feb & 27 March
  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 (26 Jan 2018), FACR/OFAC (28 Dec 2017), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (1 Jan 2018), ITAR (19 Jan 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. US-China Economic and Security Review Commission to Meet on 15 Feb in Wash DC


(Source: Federal Register, 30 Jan 2018.)
 
83 FR 4402: Notice of Open Public Hearing
* AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
* ACTION: Notice of open public hearing.
* SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
  The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on February 15, 2018 on “China’s Military Reforms and Modernization: Implications for the United States.”
* DATES: The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, February 15, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:20 p.m.
* ADDRESSES: TBD, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted on the Commission’s website at www.uscc.gov. Also, please check the Commission’s website for possible changes to the hearing schedule. Reservations are not required to attend the hearing.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at ltisdale@uscc.gov. Reservations are not required to attend the hearing.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: This is the second public hearing the Commission will hold during its 2018 report cycle. This hearing will provide insight into how China’s ongoing military reform efforts are shaping the People’s Liberation Army’s long-term defense planning, weapons development, and acquisition programs. The hearing will specifically look at the political and security drivers shaping China’s military modernization efforts, how the new Central Military Commission structure coordinates modernization priorities with the military services, examine the development of forces capable of conducting joint operations, and identify implications for the United States. The hearing will be co-chaired by Vice Chairman Carolyn Bartholomew and Senator James Talent. Any interested party may file a written statement by February 15, 2018, by mailing to the contact above. A portion of each panel will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses. …
 
  Dated: January 24, 2018.
Kathleen Wilson, Finance and Operations Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security, Review Commission.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register

 

* Defense; Defense Acquisition Regulations System; RULES; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: State Sponsor of Terrorism-North Korea (DFARS Case 2018-D004) [Publication Date: 31 January 2018.]
 
* Treasury; Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 31 January 2018.]
 
* State; NOTICES; Imposition of Missile Proliferation Sanctions on Two North Korean Entities [Publication Date: 31 January 2018.]

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

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

(Source:
OMB/OIRA
, 29 Jan 2018.)
 
* Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings
  – AGENCY: DOC-BIS
  – STAGE: Final Rule
  – RECEIVED DATE: 01/29/2018
  – RIN: 0694-AH37
  – STATUS: Pending Review

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

OGS_a45. DHS/CBP Updates Drawback CATAIR and Error Dictionary

(Source: CSMS #18-000101, 30 Jan 2018.)
 
Updated Drawback documentation has been posted to CBP.gov.

An updated Drawback CATAIR can be found on the CATAIR page of CBP.gov (https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair) under the “Chapters: Drafts for Future Capabilities” tab, or at the link here.

A new ACE Drawback Error Dictionary can be found on the CATAIR page of CBP.gov (https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair) under the “Supporting Documents” tab, or at the link here.

These documents are available in CERT now and will be available in PROD on February 24, 2018.

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

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

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC, 30 Jan 2018.)
 
OFAC is publishing a Frequently Asked Question regarding the Treasury Department report on oligarchs and parastatal entities of the Russian Federation as required by section 241 of the Counter America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

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

(Source:
Australia DFAT, 29 Jan 2018.)
 
The Turnbull Government is unlocking more jobs and investment in Australia’s defense sector, with the release of the new Defense Export Strategy from Australia’s D
epartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“DFAT”)
.
 
The landmark document sets out the policy and strategy to make Australia one of the top ten global defense exporters within the next decade.
 
It is an ambitious, positive plan to boost Australian industry, increase investment, and create more jobs for Australian businesses.
 
A strong, exporting defense industry in Australia will provide greater certainty of investment, support high-end manufacturing jobs and support the capability of the Australian Defense Force.  
It will complement the Turnbull Government’s record $200 billion investment in Australian Defense Force capability and continue Australia’s record performance in job creation.
 
The Defense Export Strategy includes several new initiatives and investments, such as:
 
  – A new Australian Defense Export Office. The Office will work hand-in-hand with Austrade and the Centre for Defense Industry Capability to coordinate our whole-of-government efforts, providing a focal point for defense exports.
  – A new Australian Defense Export Advocate to provide high-level advocacy for defense exports and work across industry and government to ensure our efforts are coordinated.
  – A $3.8 billion Defense Export Facility administered by Efic, Australia’s export credit agency. This will help Australian companies get the finance they need to underpin the sales of their equipment overseas. It will provide confidence to Australian Defense industry to identify and pursue new export opportunities knowing Efic’s support is available when there is a market gap for defense finance.
  – $20 million per year to implement the Defense Export Strategy and support defense industry exports, including $6.35 million to develop and implement strategic multi-year export campaigns, an additional $3.2 million to enhance and expand the Global Supply Chain program, and an additional $4.1 million for grants to help build the capability of small and medium enterprises to compete internationally.
 
This strategy is about job creation. It will give Australian defense companies the support they need to grow, invest and deliver defense capability. It will make Australian defense exports among the best in the world.
 
Australia has so many defense industry success stories: Thales’ Bushmaster, Hawkei and sonars, Austal’s ships and engineering and CEA’s world beating radar, amongst many others.  
 
This Strategy sets the conditions for even more success, and more defense industry jobs in the future.
 
The Defense Export Strategy can be downloaded here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 
Regulations:
* Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/137 of 29 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia
 
Decisions:
* Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia

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

 
Maintaining effective controls to prevent the diversion of materials and equipment capable of producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) involves responsibility on both the Government as well as individual traders. Since Hong Kong is a major international commercial and trading center through which large quantity of high technology goods are imported and exported every day, traders must share responsibility in ensuring that goods passing through Hong Kong are not involved in WMD program. In the event that traders feel uneasy about any potentially sensitive or unusual order or approach for materials, information or scientific liaison, they should contact the Strategic Trade Controls Branch of the Trade and Industry Department for advice.
 
Laws have been enacted to forestall activities related to the development of WMD. All companies have an obligation to strictly comply with the Laws of Hong Kong. The establishment of an effective internal compliance program, or Code of Practice, provides companies with a method of routinely screening transactions in order to eliminate suspicious approaches, thereby ensuring that only legitimate business transactions proceed and the risk of breaching the law in this area is minimized.
 
An internal compliance program involves a company’s commitment that its products will not be diverted to or used in weapons of mass destruction program. Vast majority of traders have no desire that their products be so used and wish to avoid such a possibility as much as they can. Implementation of an effective internal compliance program is one way to demonstrate and ensure that this is the case.
 
Internal compliance program differs from one company to another given the nature and size of the company concerned. Traders may refer to the following webpages for the core elements and guidance note on internal compliance program:
 
 
Traders may also browse through the guidelines on Internal Compliance Programs published by certain foreign control authorities for reference:
 
  –
Japan (METI, Internal Compliance Program)
  –
the UK (Compliance Code of Practice)
  –
the U.S. (Commerce/BIS Export Compliance Guidelines)
 
Programs Initiated by Trade and Industry Department
 
The Trade and Industry Department organizes seminars regularly, and when substantial changes are made to the legislation and the control lists, to brief traders (including exporters, importers and carriers) of the strategic trade control system. In addition, circulars explaining license application procedures are updated from time to time and are available to traders free of charge and can be downloaded from our website. Advice on licensing and decisions with regard to classification are also given readily by officers of the Trade and Industry Department either by telephone, in writing or in person.
 
In addition, the Trade and Industry Department welcomes traders to maintain a regular interaction with the Department so as to receive updates on any changes to the control lists by the international export control regimes and information on the licensing procedures maintained by the Trade and Industry Department.

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
11. Reuters: “Trump Administration Holds off on New Russia Sanctions, Despite Law”

(Source: Reuters, 30 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
The Trump administration said on Monday it would not immediately impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite a new law designed to punish Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, insisting the measure was already hitting Russian companies.
 
 “Today, we have informed Congress that this legislation and its implementation are deterring Russian defense sales,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement. “Since the enactment of the … legislation, we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions.”
 
Seeking to press President Donald Trump to clamp down on Russia, the U.S. Congress voted nearly unanimously last year to pass a law setting sweeping new sanctions on Moscow.
 
Trump, who wanted warmer ties with Moscow and had opposed the legislation as it worked its way through Congress, signed it reluctantly in August, just six months into his presidency.
 
Under the measure, the administration faced a deadline on Monday to impose sanctions on anyone determined to conduct significant business with Russian defense and intelligence sectors, already sanctioned for their alleged role in the election.
 
But citing long time frames associated with major defense deals, Nauert said it was better to wait to impose those sanctions.
 
  “From that perspective, if the law is working, sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not need to be imposed because the legislation is, in fact, serving as a deterrent,” she said in a statement.
 
The measure, known as the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” or CAATSA, required the administration to list “oligarchs” close to President Vladimir Putin’s government and issue a report detailing possible consequences of penalizing Russia’s sovereign debt. …

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 21 Jan 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
“Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously act. There is no other route to success”
– Pablo Picasso
 
The chief compliance officer is at an important professional juncture – 2018 is an important year for the profession. In this era of growth, and after corporate tax relief, companies have an opportunity to invest increased resources in their ethical culture and compliance program. This is an important point in the compliance officers’ journey up the corporate ladder.
 
By nature, I am an optimist. But I cannot espouse optimistic views in the face of growing concerns about corporate governance and leadership. We all want to believe that corporate boards and senior executives recognize the value of an effective ethical culture and compliance program. For many of us in the field, it is a no-brainer. Yet, moving corporate thinking and action is a difficult task. Our history has proven that over and over – most companies only embrace change when forced to by economic circumstances or government intervention.
 
The countervailing consideration to my pessimistic view, however, is the increased knowledge and research that has evolved over the last 20 years regarding the value of a robust ethics and compliance program. Some (or hopefully many) corporate leaders have embraced and promoted the value of an ethics and compliance program, citing the fact that an effective ethics and compliance program contributes to a company’s financial profitability and sustained growth. These leaders recognize that compliance has transformed itself into a bottom-line contributor instead of a separate cost center.
 
Companies need to re-examine their relationships with CCOs, and look to make changes – elevating the role and stature of CCOs, and most importantly, increase the resources allocated to the compliance function. All too often we see paper compliance programs with inadequate resources, struggling to accomplish important, and sometimes critical, tasks.
 
Corporate leaders need to take this opportunity to renew their vows and commitment to a robust ethics and compliance program. Corporate boards have to push this issue as a priority and dedicate time and resources to the compliance function so that compliance can contribute in economic good times and downturns. We appear to be entering a time of economic growth and this is the perfect time for corporations to begin that investment.
 
CCOs have to revitalize their own advocacy efforts. CCOs have enjoyed their rise in the corporate governance world, but now they have more to do. CCOs have to begin to advocate for entry and acceptance in the C-Suite, along with continued financial commitments from corporate leaders. CCOs have a long list of risks, projects, and tasks that need to be completed. But more importantly, CCOs need the respect (more than Rodney Dangerfield) in the corporate governance world.
 
Many corporate leaders have an unrealistic or narrow view of the importance and benefits of compliance programs. Too many corporate leaders continue to view compliance as a check-the-box exercise, a program with few benefits and necessary only to “keep the company out of trouble.”
 
CCOs have a mission – to educate and train their boards and senior executive teams. As part of this mission, they have to explicitly educate their boards and senior executives on the value of a robust ethics and compliance program, not as an insurance policy against violations of law, but as an economic driver, a contributor to the company’s overall success.
 
Forward-thinking directors and senior executives will understand and embrace the message and will ask the CCO what he/she needs to get the job done. CCOs have to be honest and let directors and senior executives know what the costs will be. Honesty is a must, and only with a candid back and forth, can a CCO’s relationship with the company survive. It all sounds familiar to any healthy human relationship, and that is why CCOs and corporations need to renew their vows of commitment to trust and integrity.

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

(Source:
The Hill, 29 Jan 2018.)
 
* Author: Orde F. Kittrie, Law Professor, Arizona State University, orde.kittrie@asu.edu, +1 480-727-8572.
 
A bill to be considered by Ireland’s Senate on Tuesday would criminalize trade with Israeli settlements. If enacted, it could put leading U.S. companies with Irish subsidiaries to a choice between violating the Irish law or violating the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, which require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction.
 
In addition to running afoul of U.S. federal law, the bill would subject companies to U.S. state-level sanctions, violate European Union and international law, threaten Ireland’s vital economic links to the United States, and hinder the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
 
The bill, titled “Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, would make it a violation of Irish criminal law for Irish persons and companies to import or sell items, or to provide services, produced in the Israeli settlements. It would punish violators with up to five years in prison. The senator who introduced the bill, Frances Black, previously signed a letter calling for a boycott of all Israeli products and services.
 
While the bill does not mention Israel or Palestine by name, Black and its other sponsors have announced that it was designed to effectively prohibit Irish transactions relating to Israeli settlers and settlements, including in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. The bill would punish Irish citizens and residents, as well as companies incorporated in Ireland, which engage in such transactions, regardless of whether the violation occurs in or outside Ireland. While there are several contentious occupations closer to Europe – including Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus, Armenia’s occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara – its sponsors suggest that the Irish bill is carefully drafted to apply only to territories occupied by Israel.
 
To this author’s knowledge, no such law criminally prohibiting trade with Israeli settlements has been enacted in any other European country. Indeed, the Irish bill, if enacted, would be inconsistent with EU and international law. For example, the EU has exclusive competence for the common commercial policy and member states are not permitted to adopt unilateral restrictions on imports into the EU.  
 
The bill is also inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the international agreement covering trade in goods. As Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, accurately put it in June 2017:
 
“Blacklisting companies without even looking at their employment practices or their contributions to local empowerment, but rather based entirely on their location in areas of conflict, is contrary to the laws of international trade and to any reasonable definition of human rights.”
 
The bill, if enacted, would gravely undermine Ireland’s economic links to the United States, which are vital to Irish prosperity. U.S. investment in 2016 accounted for 67 percent of all foreign direct investment in Ireland. Yet this bill would make U.S. companies with subsidiaries in Ireland, Irish companies with subsidiaries in the U.S., and their employees who are Irish or resident in Ireland, choose between violating the Irish law or violating the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. Violations of these U.S. antiboycott laws are punishable by fines and by imprisonment for up to 10 years.
 
According to the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, some 700 U.S. companies employ over 150,000 people in Ireland. The companies include Apple, Dell, Facebook, Google, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, and Twitter. In addition, some 227 Irish companies employ an estimated 120,000 people in the United States.
 
These companies would also be forced by Irish law to run afoul of some or all of the two dozen U.S. state laws which impose sanctions on companies that boycott Israel. For example, Illinois law requires that Illinois’ state-funded retirement systems divest from “companies that boycott Israel.” “Boycott Israel” is defined to include:
 
“Engaging in actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel.”
 
Aside from its legal and economic implications for Ireland, the bill would hinder the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. By trying to impose a one-sided “solution” on Israel, this and other boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) measures undermine the possibility of a lasting peace by relieving the Palestinians of responsibility for the absence of peace. This is both wrong and counterproductive. The Palestinian government is paralyzed by the fracture between Hamas-ruled Gaza and the PLO-ruled West Bank.
 
Designated by the EU as a terrorist group, Hamas is virulently anti-Semitic and hostile to Israel, and rejects the existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, let alone the possibility of a lasting future compromise. Relieving Palestinians of responsibility for the absence of peace is particularly ironic coming only two weeks after Mahmoud Abbas, the usually more moderate leader of the West Bank Palestinians, gave a speech to the UN in which he falsely asserted that the Jewish connection to the land of Israel “has been made up.”
 
By blaming only Israel for the absence of peace, the Irish bill and other BDS measures contribute to Palestinians believing they might not need to negotiate with Israel. Such measures also promote demands (such as a complete evacuation of the occupied territories) that forgo any expectation of compromise and go beyond what Abbas himself offered in 2008.  
While this Irish bill may be amongst the first of its kind in Europe, it seems unlikely to be the last. The anti-Israel BDS movement has been working to tee up such legislation across the continent.
 
Congress should quickly and systematically reach out to its counterparts in Europe’s parliaments to make sure they understand that boycotts of the U.S.’s close ally Israel run afoul of U.S. federal and state anti-boycott laws, and what that could mean for their countries’ economies.  The U.S. Commerce Department has a small office focused on enforcing compliance with the U.S. federal laws that require American companies to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction.  
 
While the office has traditionally focused on countering Arab government boycotts of Israel, its statutory authority and mission are applicable to any relevant foreign governments, including European ones. When foreign parliaments consider such legislation, the U.S. Commerce Department should reach out and warn them of the implications.
 
At the same time, European parliaments should step more carefully as they try to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Rather than such a careful step, the Irish bill would be a reckless stomp that could squash Palestinian incentives to compromise with Israel, run afoul of U.S. federal and state laws, break EU and international law, and trample Ireland’s vital economic links to the United States.  

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

COMM_a3
14. Gary Stanley’s ECR Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update, 29 Jan 2018; available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com
)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com
.
 
Technology or software resulting from U.S. government funded research that is subject to government-imposed access and dissemination or other specific national security controls qualifies as technology or software resulting from fundamental research, provided that all government-imposed national security controls have been satisfied and the researchers are free to publish the technology or software contained in the research without restriction.

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

(Source:
Export Law Blog
, 29 Jan 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067).
 
This story is on some month-old news that I missed at the time of the announcement. But without much else going on right now, I thought it worthy of a belated mention. Back in December, OFAC designated Thieves in Law («Вор в закoне»), a Russian organized crime group, under the agency’s Transnational Criminal Organization Sanctions Regulations (“TCO Sanctions”). The Thieves in Law apparently originated in the Russian gulags after the Russian Revolution. Unlike the Mafia, you could not belong to the group unless you had already been in jail. And like the Boy Scouts, they have their own code of conduct which, unlike the Boy Scout Code, forbids marriage and work. They sound like The Lost Boys in Peter Pan, except with tattoos and machine guns.
 
On one level, it seems somewhat odd to designate an organized crime organization since it is more a concept than a legal entity. It is not like the Thieves in Law own property, want to open a checking account for the group, or want to enter into legal contracts (as opposed to, say, the hit “contracts” often entered into by criminal gangs). Designating an unorganized group is rather like designating, say, the Beliebers, although on further reflection I might actually be completely in favor of blocking the Beliebers.
 
Of course, at the same time that OFAC designated Thieves in Law, it also designated some of the groups more visible adherents and supporter, which seems more logical since they will own property that can be blocked and may seek to do business with others. As a result, the Vesna Hotel and Spa, which is in Sochi and which is owned by Ruben Tatulian, was also blocked and added to the SDN List. Tatulian was designated for allegedly providing material support to Thieves in Law.
 
Although I doubt many Americans are traveling to Sochi these days, this designation might create a trap for unwary travelers. Executive Order 13581, which serves as the basis for the TCO Sanctions, was promulgated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, meaning that the travel exemption in section 1702(b)(4) of that Act would apply.  The travel exemption permits “any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country.” It seems to me that, even though the exemption would on its face cover travel by U.S. persons which involved staying in that hotel, it could also be argued that staying at that hotel is not ordinarily incident to travel to Russia.  This would be because there are plenty of other places to stay in Sochi not to mention within Russia. Moreover, a broad reading of the travel exemption would completely negate the designation of the hotel, so there is a good chance that OFAC would take the position that the exemption would not apply.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

 
* What: The ABC’s of Embargoes & Sanctions (Two Part Webinar Series)
* When: February 27 & March 27, 2018; 1:00 p.m. (EST)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Melissa Proctor
* Register: Here or Danielle Hatch, 540-433-3977, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

 
Saul Alinsky (Saul David Alinsky; 30 Jan 1909 – 12 Jun 1972; was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. His ideas were adapted in the 1960s by some U.S. college students and other young counterculture-era organizers, who used them as part of their strategies for organizing on campus and beyond. According to Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer.)
  – “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
  – “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.” 
 
Walter Savage Landor (30 Jan 1775 – 17 Sep 1864; was an English writer and poet. His best-known works were the prose Imaginary Conversations and the poem Rose Aylmer.)
  – “We are no longer happy so soon as we wish to be happier.”
  – “In argument, truth always prevails finally; in politics, falsehood always.”
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EN_a318
. 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: 26 Jan 2018: 83 FR 3577-3583: Addition of Certain Entities; Removal of Certain Entities; and Revisions of Entries on the Entity List

  
*
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, 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 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: 19 Jan 2018: 83 FR 2738: Department of State 2018 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment; Correction
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 19 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_a0319
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, DOE/NRC, 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 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