18-0131 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

18-0131 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

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, FAR/DFARS FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events.  Subscribe 
here for free subscription. Contact us
for advertising inquiries and rates

  1. DoD/DFAR Amends DFARS to Implement Designation of North Korea as State Sponsor of Terrorism
  2. State Imposes Missile Proliferation Sanctions on Two North Korean Entities
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE Certification Outage for Tonight
  4. GAO: “Foreign Military Sales: DOD Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Process for Assessing Potential Recovery of Certain Acquisition Costs”
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. UK DIT/ECO Updates List of Embargoed Destinations
  1. Law.com: “DOJ’s New FCPA Enforcement Policy: Clarity for Companies and a Warning for Individuals”
  2. Reuters: “Trade Rules Mean Even Soft Brexit May Hit Investment into UK – Expert”
  1. Gibson Dunn: “International Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Outlook and Review – 2018”
  2. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday: What Is the Impact of a Government Shutdown on the Trade Community?”
  3. O. Torres & D. Kyle: “Should I File a Customs Prior Disclosure?”
  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 



1. DoD/DFAR Amends DFARS to Implement Designation of North Korea as State Sponsor of Terrorism
(Source: Federal Register, 31 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 4447-4449: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: State Sponsor of Terrorism–North Korea (DFARS Case 2018-D004)
* AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the designation by the Department of State of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
* DATES: Effective January 31, 2018.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.
  This rule only updates the list of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism in the definition of “state sponsors of terrorism” in paragraph (a) of the DFARS provisions 252.225-7049, Prohibition on Acquisition of Commercial Satellite Services from Certain Foreign Entities–Representation; and DFARS 252.225-7050, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This revision does not impact use of clauses, their applicability to contracts or subcontracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, or their applicability to contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items. …
  Government procurement.
Jennifer L. Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. …

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


2. State Imposes Missile Proliferation Sanctions on Two North Korean Entities
(Source: Federal Register, 31 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 4536: Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Imposition of Missile Proliferation Sanctions on Two North Korean Entities
* AGENCY: Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State.
* ACTION: Notice. …
* DATES: Applicable Date: January 31, 2018.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930). On import ban issues, Susan Demske, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Treasury (202-622-4855). On U.S. Government procurement ban issues, Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of State (703-875-4079).
  – Chilsong Trading Corporation (North Korea) and its sub-units and successors.
  – Korea Kuryonggang Trading Corporation (North Korea) and its sub-units and successors.
   Accordingly, the following sanctions are being imposed on these entities for two years:
   (A) Denial of all new individual licenses for the transfer to the sanctioned entities of all items on the U.S. Munitions List and all items the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act;
   (B) Denial of all U.S. Government contracts with the sanctioned entities; and
   (C) Prohibition on the importation into the U.S. of all products produced by the sanctioned entities.
   With respect to items controlled pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, the above export sanction only applies to exports made pursuant to individual export licenses.
   Additionally, because North Korea is a country with a non-market economy that is not a former member of the Warsaw Pact (as referenced in the definition of “person” in section 74(8)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act), the following sanctions shall be applied for two years to all activities of the North Korean government relating to the development or production of missile equipment or technology and all activities of the North Korean government affecting the development or production of electronics, space systems or equipment, and military aircraft:
   (A) Denial of all new individual licenses for the transfer to the government activities described above of all items on the U.S. Munitions List;
   (B) Denial of all U.S. Government contracts with the government activities described above; and
   (C) Prohibition on the importation into the U.S. of all products produced by the government activities described above.
  C.S. Eliot Kang, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.

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


OGS_a13. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register

* Treasury; Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 1 February 2018.]  
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

CSMS #18-000102, 30 Jan 2018.)
There will be an ACE CERTIFICATION Outage Wednesday evening, January 31, 2018 from 1700 ET to 2145 ET for Infrastructure maintenance.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

OGS_a46. GAO: “Foreign Military Sales: DOD Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Process for Assessing Potential Recovery of Certain Acquisition Costs”
GAO Reports and Testimonies
, 31 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
What GAO Found
In the past 6 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) approved waivers valued at nearly $16 billion that it might otherwise have collected from foreign governments as part of its sales of major defense equipment through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The Arms Export Control Act, as delegated, authorizes the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) within DOD to waive nonrecurring costs under certain circumstances, such as to standardize equipment with allies. From fiscal years 2012 through 2017, DSCA reviewed 813 waivers and denied 3, resulting in an approval rate of 99 percent. As shown in the figure below, the value of approved waivers significantly increased to nearly $6 billion last year, which is due to 2 waivers totaling nearly $3.5 billion for sales of missiles and related support systems. …
When reviewing waivers, DSCA considers foreign policy and national security factors, such as interoperability with allies, and economic factors, such as support for the U.S. defense industrial base. Agency officials stated that approving waivers helps ensure sales go through and such broader benefits are realized. DSCA’s practice to approve waivers is consistent with the authority it has been delegated under the Arms Export Control Act and is influenced by these benefits.
The process DOD has established to consider waivers is, at times, inefficient and repetitive. DSCA has final approval authority; however, multiple DOD offices must review and provide input on each waiver, with some offices reviewing waivers for the same purpose. Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to allocate resources and assign responsibilities to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. DOD has already taken steps to improve the efficiency of the waiver review process; for example, by reducing the time a few offices take to review the waivers. Nonrecurring cost waivers are one part of the larger FMS process, and continuing to streamline the waiver review process would better position DSCA and the military departments to identify opportunities to maximize efficiencies.
Why GAO Did This Study
Under the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, DOD is required to recover nonrecurring costs-unique one-time program-wide expenditures-for certain major defense equipment sold under the FMS program. These costs include research, development, and one-time production costs, such as expenses for testing equipment. The Act also permits those costs to be waived under certain circumstances, such as to standardize equipment with select allies or to avoid a loss of sale.
GAO was asked to review DOD’s use of nonrecurring cost waivers. This report addresses the (1) nonrecurring cost waivers approved by DOD from fiscal years 2012 through 2017, (2) factors DOD considers when reviewing waivers, and (3) efficiency of the waiver review process.
To conduct this work, GAO analyzed DOD data of nonrecurring cost waivers for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, the most recent and complete data, to identify the value of waivers. GAO then reviewed a non-generalizable sample of 24 of these waivers that included a mix of justifications and geographic regions. GAO reviewed relevant DOD policy and interviewed DOD officials about the process to assess these waivers.
What GAO Recommends
DSCA should continue to identify opportunities to streamline the waiver review process. DSCA concurred with GAO’s recommendation.
For more information, contact Marie A. Mak at (202) 512-4841 or MakM@gao.gov.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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


UK DIT/ECO, 31 Jan 2018.)
List of embargoed destinations has been updated concerning the export of military or dual use goods, services or technology:
Burma/Myanmar, Central African Republic and Venezuela added. Republic of Guinea and Sierra Leone removed.

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


9. Law.com: “DOJ’s New FCPA Enforcement Policy: Clarity for Companies and a Warning for Individuals”
(Source: Law.com, 30 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.]
The new FCPA policy provides the much-needed assurance that fulsome voluntary self-disclosure of FCPA violations will likely serve to avoid criminal prosecution. At the same time, the new FCPA policy signals that the government will continue to combat corporate misconduct by focusing on individual misconduct.
Telia Company AB was fined more than $730 million for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations in 2017, Haliburton, nearly $30 million and Mondelez International, $13 million. Other examples abound. Given these staggering penalties, the announcement late last year that the Department of Justice was issuing a revised FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy creating a presumption in favor of declination for companies voluntarily disclosing FCPA violations was welcome news. The new FCPA policy provides the much-needed assurance that fulsome voluntary self-disclosure of FCPA violations will likely serve to avoid criminal prosecution. At the same time, the new FCPA policy signals that the government will continue to combat corporate misconduct by focusing on individual misconduct, an approach unveiled during the previous administration through the “Yates Memo.” Finally, by clearly recognizing the benefits of incentivizing voluntary disclosure, the DOJ (and perhaps other federal agencies) may be moving closer to a formal nonprosecution policy in other areas, thus eliminating the existing uncertainty about the benefits of a voluntary disclosure. …

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

10. Reuters: “Trade Rules Mean Even Soft Brexit May Hit Investment into UK”
(Source: Reuters, 31 Jan 2018.)
The fine print of any future trade agreement between Britain and the European Union will have to be very carefully managed if London wants to avoid losing investment, a leading researcher on “rules of origin” in trade deals said on Wednesday.
Rules of origin – the eligibility criteria for goods to get preferential treatment within international trade deals – can have a similar effect to tariffs in distorting the flow of trade, said Paola Conconi, professor of economics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
But they are little understood and present a potential pitfall for UK negotiators as they go it alone after Brexit, said Conconi, who was presenting research to trade negotiators and experts at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva.
Rules of origin will come into play if Britain opts for a trade agreement with the EU rather than a customs union.
Even following the Norway model, widely seen as a relatively “soft” Brexit because of Oslo’s membership of the European Free Trade Agreement, would risk a loss of investment.
Despite its close ties to the EU, Norway loses potential foreign direct investment (FDI) to Sweden because investors want to avoid having to comply with the rules of origin, she said.
  “They are similar economies, but one is in the customs union with no rules of origin. So if you can set up your complex manufacturing in Sweden, then you get zero tariff, no rules of origin. If you decide instead to go to Norway, you get zero tariff, conditional on all this sourcing.”
The lack of investment meant Norway’s exports to the EU were basically raw materials such as fish and oil.
  “There’s very little complex manufacturing, which is a concern for the UK now, which has attracted a lot of these kind of downstream industries, and now it may lose it as a result of this move,” she said.
Conconi said British members of parliament were unaware of how investment could be affected by the choice between a customs union and a free trade agreement, while Brussels had many trade experts who understood the “nitty gritty”.
  “If you are the EU-27 negotiating with the UK on the FTA, you will say: ‘Okay they don’t know very much… Let me put more stringent rules so all the multinationals that come through here are going to come to me’.”
Britain, which is due to leave the EU in March 2019 and is eyeing a two-year transition period thereafter to give businesses and individuals time to adapt, should seek the most flexible rules possible, Conconi said.
  “But I’m not sure this is going to be the outcome. And I’m not sure they are going to do it in two years,” she said.

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


In honor of Data Privacy Day-an international effort to raise awareness and promote privacy and data protection best practices-we recently offered Gibson Dunn’s sixth annual Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Outlook and Review.  This year again, in addition to that U.S.-focused report, we offer this separate International Outlook and Review, available HERE.
I.     European Union
  A.   Privacy Shield
1.   Reviews of the European Commission and the WP29
         2.   Challenges to Privacy Shield
  B.   EU Data Protection Regulation and Reform
1.   GDPR
2.   Principal Elements of the GDPR
3.   National Data Protection Reforms Implementing the GDPR
  C.   EU Cyber Security Directive
1.   Digital Service Providers
2.   Member State Obligations
3.   Minimum Harmonization and Coordination Among EU Member States
  D.   Other EU Developments
1.   Reform of the ePrivacy Directive – the Draft EU ePrivacy Regulation
2.   CJEU Case Law
3.   Article 29 Working Party (WP29) Opinions
II.   Asia-Pacific and Other Notable International Developments

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

Integration Point
Blog, 31 Jan 2018.)
Welcome to Weise Wednesday! Every week we will share a brief Q&A with the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise. Please send questions to AskGeorge@IntegrationPoint.com.
Q. What is the impact of a government shutdown on the trade community? How likely is another shutdown?
A. The good news is that the recent shutdown of the government had virtually no impact on trade because it lasted only three days and occurred over a weekend. The bad news is that the Continuing Resolution (CR) that ended the shutdown expires soon, and if a bipartisan agreement is not reached on a number of difficult issues, we could be looking at another government shutdown on February 8.
Why government shutdowns occur
A government shutdown is not a new phenomenon. There have been 19 government shutdowns since 1974. Before last week’s shutdown, the most recent was in September 2013. The longest running shutdown occurred in 1995 when I was Commissioner and lasted for 21 days.
A government shutdown occurs when the Congress and the President fail to pass legislation in a timely manner to fund government operations and services. If appropriations for the government are not enacted, the Anti-deficiency Act requires the government to shutdown affected activities, furlough “non-essential” personnel, and curtail agency actions and services.
How CBP operates during shutdowns
Fortunately, past shutdowns had limited adverse impact on trade because CBP designated nearly 90% of its employees as “essential.” During last week’s shutdown, CBP made a similar commitment on the designation of “essential” employees. It kept its personnel in place at land, air, and sea borders and between our ports of entry to carry out its important responsibility of securing our borders and keeping legitimate goods and people moving.
In a call with the trade community on January 22, CBP announced its intention to conduct daily calls with them to respond to their questions and address issues impacting shipments. CBP said it would work closely with their partner government agencies (PGAs) to reduce the risk that issues related to those agencies would adversely impact the clearance of import and export shipments. The expectation is that CBP would take similar steps if a new shutdown occurs.
Administrative and headquarters personnel are usually deemed “non-essential” and are furloughed. Under a future shutdown, it would not be surprising to see delays in areas such as responses to requests for rulings and resolution of protests.
While CBP’s commitment is reassuring to the trade community, it is doubtful that other PGAs involved in trade compliance will designate such a high percentage of their employees as essential. Consequently, some shipments that are dependent on these PGAs for release could experience some delays.
A word on the budget process
It is difficult to predict whether the political issues that resulted in the most recent shutdown will be resolved before the next deadline of February 8. If another CR is not passed then, a second shutdown will occur.
It is clear that our flawed budget process has been a significant contributing factor in past government shutdowns. One of the most important responsibilities of the Congress is to fund the government. Each year, the budget process begins when the President submits a proposed budget to Congress. The Congress then is supposed to prepare a budget resolution outlining its priorities. The final step is for Congress to pass a number of appropriations bills funding the various agencies of Government.
Unfortunately, in the partisan political environment of the past 20 years, appropriations bills are rarely enacted, and the Congress has come to rely on CRs to fund the government on a temporary basis. The pending expiration of CRs creates a temptation for amendments not directly related to the budget to be tied to legislation to extend the CRs. Over the years, both parties have been guilty of this practice. Until the budget process is fixed, this practice is likely to continue.
Watch carefully as this process continues to unfold and stay informed on steps that CBP and other PGAs are taking in the event another shutdown occurs.

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

13. O. Torres & D. Kyle: “Should I File a Customs Prior Disclosure?”
(Source: Torres Law PLLC, 31 Jan 2018.)
* Authors: Olga Torres, Esq.; and Dick Kyle, Esq.. Both of Torres Law PLLC. Contact information: 214-593-7120, info@torrestradelaw.com.
Many importers have experienced, at one time or another, that horrible, stomach-turning feeling that comes with the realization that merchandise they have been importing has been entered under the wrong HTS code or with the incorrect value. These and similar errors constitute violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and upon such discovery, the importer must ask, “Should I submit a Prior Disclosure to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)?” The answer to that question will depend on a variety of factors, which will be discussed in this article.
Any party, including importers, custom brokers, shippers, and foreign suppliers/manufacturers, involved in the business of importing into the U.S. can file a prior disclosure with CBP. A valid prior disclosure discloses the circumstances of §1592 violations to CBP before, or without knowledge of, the commencement of a formal investigation. Common examples of a §1592 violation include: undervaluation, misdescription of merchandise, misclassification, overvaluation, evasion of antidumping/countervailing duty. A valid prior disclosure also includes the tender of any loss of actual duties associated with the violation. Importantly, a party is not required to make a prior disclosure but can elect to make one.
If prior disclosures are not required, why would anyone choose to reveal this information to the government? The biggest reason to file a prior disclosure is the mitigation of potential penalties. When CBP discovers §1592 violations, it imposes penalties based on three levels of culpability: negligence, gross negligence, and fraud. (For further information regarding penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592, see our previous article, Import Violations: What You Need to Know about 19 USC 1592.) In most cases, a valid prior disclosure will result in substantial mitigation of those penalties. If a party discloses negligent or grossly negligent violations, the mitigated penalty will be the interest that has accrued on the owed duties from the date of liquidation until the submission of the owed duties. [FN/1] In prior disclosures of fraudulent violations (i.e., a knowing or intentional violation of the law) the maximum penalty is reduced to 100% of the duty loss. [FN/2] However, it is important to note that a prior disclosure for fraudulent violations does not prevent CBP from recommending the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, so a party that has committed fraudulent violations should be very careful when deciding to submit a prior disclosure. In general, a party deciding whether to submit a prior disclosure must make this decision based on the potential costs of the disclosure, the mitigation afforded from the disclosure, and the risk of CBP conducting an investigation into the party’s violations and assessing penalties.
Before an importer decides to disclose errors that reside in a gray area of Customs law, it is important to note that CBP cannot meet the culpability requirements to support a penalty action if the importer exercised “reasonable care” in making the entry. Whether a party acts with “reasonable care” is ascertained on a case-by-case basis, but CBP has provided some guidance to assist parties in making that determination. [FN/3] If a party believes it has acted with reasonable care, and can support that assertion, a prior disclosure may not be necessary.
The regulations provide four elements that must be included in a prior disclosure. These elements are (1) the type of merchandise involved; (2) the entry number, the dates of import or export, and the port(s) of import or export; (3) the materially false statements, omissions, or acts, and an explanation of how they occurred; and (4) the true information that should have been provided. [FN/4] The decision of whether or not to disclose will also therefore depend on the party’s ability to compile historical import data and documentation. Some of the required information can be gathered from Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) import reports. However, the deciding factor may be a party’s ability to provide the correct information that should have been declared to CBP upon importation. If an importer has not maintained, or cannot retrieve, sufficient records to provide correct information regarding its violating imports, the importer will have a difficult time preparing its prior disclosure. Common disclosed errors relate to HTS classifications, or valuation errors which may require analysis of a number of product SKUs, company entry records, invoices, proof of payment and other information.
It is also important to point out that the statute of limitations for negligent or grossly negligent violations of §1592 is five years from the date of the violation. [FN/5] In other words, if all the violations occurred more than five years ago, no prior disclosure is necessary. [FN/6] Assuming the violations are within the statute of limitations, a party that has decided to disclose should submit the prior disclosure as soon as possible. The longer a party waits, the higher the likelihood that CBP could launch a formal investigation, after which time the party will no longer be able to file a prior disclosure. If the disclosing party has not gathered all relevant information or documents related to the violations, CBP allows for the submission of an “initial disclosure,” from which point the disclosing party has thirty days to “perfect” the disclosure by providing all required information. If additional time is needed, the disclosing party may request extensions of the original thirty-day period from CBP. [FN/7]
Figuring out what to do once a potential violation has been discovered can be difficult. Generally, you should stop the errors right away and consider consulting with counsel regarding your options. If you have any questions regarding the preparation of prior disclosures, do not hesitate to contact us.

  [FN/1] 15 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(4)(B). Per CBP guidance, if the prior disclosure involves only unliquidated (i.e., open) entries, there will be no penalty enforced, though the disclosing party will still be required to tender owed duties. What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know: Prior Disclosure, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 8, Aug. 2017, available
here (last visited Jan. 19, 2018).

  [FN/2] 15 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(4)(A). The disclosing party will be liable to pay the owed duties as well as the penalty of 100% of owed duties.
  [FN/3] What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know: Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Sept. 2017, available here (last visited Jan. 18, 2018).
  [FN/4] 19 C.F.R. §164.74(b).
  [FN/5] 19 U.S.C. § 1621(1).
  [FN/6] The statute of limitations for fraudulent violations of §1592 is five years from the date CBP discovers the violation. So, if an importer discloses a fraudulent violation, the statute of limitations may not begin to run until CBP receives the disclosure. 19 U.S.C. § 1621(1).
  [FN/7] 19 C.F.R. § 162.74(b)(4).

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


Franz Schubert (Franz Peter Schubert; 31 Jan 1797 – 19 Nov 1828; was an Austrian composer.  Schubert died at age 31 but was prolific during his short lifetime. Schubert was remarkably prolific, writing over 1,500 works in his short career, consisting of over 600 secular vocal works, seven complete symphonies, sacred music, operas, incidental music, and a large body of chamber and piano music.)
  – “There are eight girls in the house in which I am living, and practically all of them are good looking. You can realize that I am kept busy.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

. 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.
: 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. 
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 8 Dec 2017: 82 FR 57821-57825: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation

  – 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 

: 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

: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 28 Dec 2017: 
82 FR 61450-61451: Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency Sanctions Regulations

: 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
  – 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.
, 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.

  – 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 

, 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
. BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please
contact us
to receive your discount code.

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

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 

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


* 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