;

18-0409 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-0409 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 9 April 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, FAR/DFARS, 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/Census: “Filing Repairs and Replacements in the Automated Export System”
  3. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  4. DoD/DSS Provides Summary of FY17 Industry Reporting
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. EU Amends North Korea Sanctions, Regulations Concerning Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff
  1. Reuters: “China Bans Exports of ‘Dual-Use’ Items to North Korea”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Sanctions on Russian Entities Expanded”
  1. A. De Busk, M. Duffy & S. Kane: “New Russia Sanctions: What You Need to Know to Manage Risks”
  2. The Export Compliance Journal: “Trade Compliance 101: An Introduction to Restricted Party Screening” (Part I of II)
  3. Global Trade News Releases Q&A Following Brexit Webcast
  4. P. LeCour, T. Carlile & Ziyu Chin: “U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Enhanced Security Plan Sets Best Practices for Use of Cloud Services for Sensitive Data”
  5. Gary Stanley’s EC Tip of the Day
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 176 Jobs Posted, Including 10 New Jobs
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (22 Feb 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (5 Apr 2018), FACR/OFAC (19 Mar 2018), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (30 Mar 2018), ITAR (14 Feb 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.]

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

OGS_a22.

Commerce/Census: “Filing Repairs and Replacements in the Automated Export System”

(Source: 
Global Reach Blog, 9 Apr 2018.)  
 
Have you ever needed to export a product that was imported for repair or replacement?  Do you understand the requirements to export the product back to the customer? The 
Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), Section 30.29 outlines how to report repairs and replacements in the 
Automated Export System (AES).
 
Let’s take a quick look at what the U.S. Census Bureau views as a repair or replacement. For example, a U.S. company sells an engine to a Mexican buyer and after one year the engine breaks. The Mexican company sends the engine back to the U.S. company to be repaired. The U.S. company repairs the original engine and sends it back to the Mexican buyer. Because the same engine was sent back to the Mexican buyer, this is considered a repair.
 
Now, let’s say the same U.S. company sells the engine to the Mexican buyer. After one year the engine breaks, and it’s sent back to the U.S. company. The U.S. company decides that the engine cannot be repaired, so they send a replacement engine back to the Mexican buyer. Due to the fact that a different engine was sent back to the Mexican customer, this is considered a replacement.
 
Below is a snapshot of guidance from the FTR, Section 30.29 on what to report in the AES for repairs and replacements.  
 
Section 30.29 Reporting of repairs and replacements
 
The return of goods previously imported only for repair and alteration:
(1) Non-Licensed 
(2) Licensed or ITAR Controlled
Schedule B: 9801.10.0000
Schedule B: 9801.10.0000
Value: Parts & labor plus inland or domestic freight, insurance, and other charges to the U.S. seaport, airport, or land border port of export. 
Value: Parts & labor plus inland or domestic freight, insurance, and other charges to the U.S. seaport, airport, or land border port of export.
License Value: Value on export license that corresponds to the commodity being exported. 
File EEI if parts & labor is over $2,500 per Schedule B.
File EEI regardless of value.
Goods covered under warranty:

(1) Reexported After Repair Under Warranty
(2) Replaced Under Warranty at No Charge 
Schedule B: Follow Section 30.29(a)(1) for non-licensed goods 
or 30.29(a)(2) for licensed or ITAR controlled goods as stated above.
Schedule B/HTS: Commodity classification number of the replacement parts.
Value: Follow Section 30.29(a)(1) for non-licensed goods 
or 30.29(a)(2) for licensed or ITAR controlled goods as stated above.
Value: Replacement value of the good.  Report the cost of the good, if not sold.
 
License Value: Value on export license that corresponds to the commodity being exported.
File EEI if an export license is required or the value is over $2,500 per Schedule B.
File EEI if an export license is required or the value is over $2,500 per Schedule B.
*Note: For items repaired/replaced under warranty, include the appropriate statement on the commercial loading documents:
If repaired: “This product was repaired under warranty.”
If replaced: “Product replaced under warranty, value for EEI purposes.”
 
Now that we have identified the filing requirements for repairs and replacements, let’s take a deeper look at the examples from earlier. A U.S. company sells an engine to Mexico for $80,000, which includes inland freight and insurance; however, the engine breaks after one year. The company in Mexico sends the engine back to the U.S. company to be repaired. The engine can be repaired for $3,000, which consists of parts and labor. When the engine is exported back to the Mexican customer, the value reported in the AES will be the $3,000, plus inland or domestic freight, insurance, and other charges to the U.S. seaport, airport, or land border port of export, and the Schedule B number reported will be 9801.10.0000.
 
Now, let’s say the engine cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Additionally, the engine is under warranty. When the replacement engine is exported back to the Mexican customer, the Schedule B number or Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) classification number of the actual engine will be reported, NOT 9801.10.0000, as listed in the previous example. The engine costs $65,000 to replace, which is the sum of expenses for the USPPI to acquire/produce the engine. Therefore, the value to be reported is $65,000, plus inland or domestic freight, insurance, and other charges to the U.S. seaport, airport, or land border port of export. Since the engine is replaced under warranty at no cost to the customer, the commercial loading documents should have the following statement: “Product replaced under warranty, value for EEI purposes only.”
 
The information in this blog will assist you in filing your export information for repaired or replaced products. It is important that the Census Bureau continue to capture accurate export statistics, which are used to publish the U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services report.  For further questions, please contact the Trade Regulations Branch at 800-549-0595, option 3 or email 
itmd.askregs@census.gov.

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

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

OGS_a4
4. DoD/DSS Provides Summary of F17 Industry Reporting

(Source: 
DoD/DSS, 9 Apr 2018.)

The Summary of FY17 Industry Reporting provides summary details of foreign intelligence entities’ (FIE) targeting U.S. technologies as reported by cleared industry to the DSS during fiscal year 2017. This information sheet identifies the seven most commonly targeted technology categories of the Industrial Based Technology List, specific technology subcategories targeted, and FIE methodologies. 
 
You can find the summary 
here
 

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

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

OGS_a66. E
U Amends North Korea Sanctions, Regulations Concerning Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff
 
Regulations
 

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/548 of 6 April 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/549 of 6 April 2018 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
  
Decisions
 

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/551 of 6 April 2018 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/552 of 6 April 2018 updating the references in Council Directive 2003/96/EC to the codes of the Combined Nomenclature for certain products

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a1
7.
Reuters: “China Bans Exports of ‘Dual Use’ Items to North Korea”

(Source: 
Reuters, 9 Apr 2018.) 
 
China has banned the export to North Korea of some items with potential dual use in weapons of mass destruction, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on its website.
 
The list of items reflects a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted unanimously in September over North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
 
The ministry gave details of 32 materials, technologies and forms of equipment with potential use related to weapons of mass destruction, including particle accelerators and centrifuges.
 
In addition, it outlined bans on items with potential dual use in conventional weapons.
 
The announcement of the export bans comes amid a tightening of exports from China to North Korea. China’s exports of fuel to North Korea slowed to a trickle in February.
 
North Korea has told the United States that it is prepared to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula when its leader, Kim Jong Un, meets U.S. President Donald Trump. 

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

NWS_a2
8.
ST&R Trade Report: “Sanctions on Russian Entities Expanded” 

(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 9 Apr 2018.)
 
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control 
has added seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control, along with 17 senior Russian government officials, to its Specially Designated Nationals list. OFAC has also added a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank, to the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications lists.
 
OFAC states that all assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the designated individuals and entities, and of any other entities blocked by operation of law as a result of their ownership by a sanctioned party, are frozen and that U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealings with them. Additionally, non-U.S. persons could face sanctions for knowingly facilitating significant transactions for or on behalf of the blocked individuals or entities. However, OFAC has issued two general licenses to minimize immediate disruptions to U.S. persons, partners, and allies.
 
The accelerating addition of companies to the SDN and SSI lists can pose significant challenges for U.S. exporters, particularly due to the 50 percent rule, under which OFAC considers a subsidiary that is 50 percent or more owned by an SDN or SSI list entity to be subject to the same restrictions even if the subsidiary itself is not listed. Companies should thus ensure that their compliance programs continually screen business partners and customers against the SDN, SSI, and other U.S. government restricted party lists to avoid potential violations.
 
OFAC notes that a U.S. company that has ordered goods from a blocked entity may still accept the goods provided the importation is in accordance with the requirements and limitations specified in new General License 12. For the limited period of time specified, this general license authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements, which includes authorization for U.S. persons to import goods into the U.S. from the blocked entities listed in General License 12, provided that any outstanding payment for the goods is deposited in a blocked account at a U.S. financial institution.
 
In addition, OFAC states, if one or more blocked persons hold an ownership interest of less than 50 percent in a U.S. company, the U.S. company is not itself blocked but must block all property and interests in property in which the blocked person has an interest. Depending on the nature of such property, the U.S. company may be able to continue operating, but any payments, dividends, or disbursement of profits to the blocked person would be prohibited and, to the extent such payments are required, must be placed in a blocked account at a U.S. financial institution. U.S. companies in such a scenario are encouraged to contact OFAC to determine whether a license or other authorization is required.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a0
9. 
A. De Busk, M. Duffy & S. Kane: “New Russia Sanctions: What You Need to Know to Manage Risks”

(Source: Amanda DeBusk, 9 Apr 2018.) 
 
* Authors: Amanda DeBusk, Esq. 
amanda.debusk@hugheshubbard.com
(202) 721 4790; 
Melissa Duffy, Esq., 
melissa.duffy@hugheshubbard.com,  
(202) 721-4669; Sean Kane, 
sean.kane@hugheshubbard.com,  
(202) 721-4602. All of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP. 
 
On April 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced its most significant Russia sanctions action in years, adding to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List seven prominent and politically connected Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank.  The sanctions came closely on the heels of OFAC’s March designation of five entities and 19 individuals in connection with Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, as well as the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats following Moscow’s alleged involvement in the poisoning of a former intelligence officer in the United Kingdom.  The actions also came after months of criticism from Congress, which accused the Trump Administration of failing to faithfully implement the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”).
 
As discussed below, U.S. companies now face heightened primary sanctions risks when doing business in Russia or with Russian business partners anywhere in the world.  OFAC’s actions on April 6 are especially notable for using long-existing authorities in a new way, signaling that virtually any individual or entity operating in Russia – and especially in the financial, defense, and energy sectors – could potentially find themselves a sanctions target going forward.   In announcing the new actions, OFAC also went out of its way to remind non-U.S persons that they remain subject to the imposition of secondary sanctions under CAATSA for engaging in “significant” transactions with sanctioned Russian persons.  Accordingly, non-U.S. persons may want to consider the potential CAATSA implications of their future dealings with sanctioned Russian persons.
 
New Designations
 
The Oligarchs
 
The Russian oligarchs and senior officials designated by OFAC on April 6 include many of those named 
by Treasury as “significant senior political figures and oligarchs” in the January report submitted to Congress pursuant to CAATSA section 241, fulfilling a pledge by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to use that report as the basis for future 
sanctions.
 
They include many high-profile individuals close to Vladimir Putin and who maintain significant business holdings in and outside of Russia.  Notable designations include: Kirill Shamalov, who married Putin’s daughter in 2013 and is a major shareholder in the gas and petrochemicals company Sibur; Oleg Deripaska, the billionaire owner of a Russian industrial group with sprawling business interests; Viktor Vekselberg, an investment fund manager; Alexey Miller, the deputy chairman of state-owned energy firm Gazprom (Russia’s largest company); and Andrey Kostin, the president and chairman of state-owned VTB Bank.  While neither Sibur, Gazprom, nor VTB Bank is blocked as a consequence, the designations of Miller and Kostin pose particular compliance challenges for companies dealing with these companies, as demonstrated by OFAC’s 2017 enforcement action against Exxon for signing agreements with the SDN CEO representing the non-blocked Rosneft.
 
Designated Companies
 
OFAC also designated 12 of the “most prominent” companies owned or controlled by those individuals, including the Deripaska-linked RUSAL PLC, which is one of the world’s largest aluminum producers, and Vekselberg’s Renova Group, which owns several energy companies.  Russia’s state-owned weapons trading company, Rosoboronoeksport (ROE) and the Russian Financial Corporation Bank (RFC Bank), which is owned by ROE, were also added to the SDN List.  Russia, which remains the world’s second largest arms exporter after the United States, uses ROE to facilitate its exports and imports of defense related and dual-use products.  This means that ROE has significant contracts and business relationships around the world, including in Europe, India, and China.  Such deals will now be impacted to the extent they involve U.S. persons, U.S. dollar financing, or potentially any U.S. goods, services, and technology.
 
Companies should also pay close attention to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which typically follows OFAC’s designations of Russian companies by adding them to its Entity List.  Such a listing imposes additional restrictions on the re-exportation of U.S. origin goods and technology to those companies.
 
Inclusion of Subsidiaries
 
In its press release, OFAC stressed that the list of 12 designated companies “should not be viewed as exhaustive.”  Pursuant to OFAC’s 50 Percent Rule, any entities that are 50% or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more SDNs are blocked, whether or not OFAC formally identifies them.  Also, given the extensive reach the designated oligarchs have throughout the Russian economy, it would not be surprising if OFAC designates additional entities owned or controlled by those individuals in the coming months. 
 
Authorizations for Wind-downs and Divestitures
 
OFAC issued two general licenses (GLs) to help mitigate the immediate impact of its April 6 designations on U.S. persons.  GL 12 authorizes activities necessary to maintain or wind-down operations, contracts, or other agreements that were in effect 
prior to April 6, 2018, and that involve the blocked entities listed in GL 12.  Importantly, GL 12 only authorizes such transactions through June 5, 2018, and only with the entities specified in GL 12 or any entity in which those specified entities own a 50% or greater interest.  In other words, GL 12 would not appear to authorize the wind-down of operations with, for instance, an entity 50% or more owned by Oleg Deripaska but that is not identified in the general license itself.  GL 12 also requires that any payment made to or directly or indirectly for the benefit of the blocked entities listed in GL 12 be deposited in a blocked account at a U.S. financial institution, and that U.S. persons engaging in transactions pursuant to the general license file a report with OFAC by June 19, 2018. 
 
Companies should also note that the activities authorized by GL 12 are themselves limited.  In general, GL 12 authorizes all transactions “ordinarily incident and necessary” to the continuity of operations or to facilitate a wind-down of covered operations or contracts.  This includes the receipt of salary payments, pension payments, or other benefits from the blocked entities listed in GL 12, the provision of services by a U.S. person employee to such blocked entities, or the acceptance of goods ordered from such blocked entities prior to April 6, 2018.  It does not authorize the exportation of goods from the United States to any of the listed entities, nor entering into any new contracts or agreements for the provision of goods or services with those entities.  
 
Similarly, GL 13 authorizes a time-limited divestiture or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in EN+ Group PLC, GAZ Group, and RUSAL PLC 
to a non-U.S. person.  In general, GL 13 authorizes all transactions “ordinarily incident and necessary” to such transactions – including facilitating, clearing, or settling transactions to divest such debt or equity to a non-U.S. person on behalf of U.S. 
or non-U.S. persons – through May 7, 2018.  Importantly, the general license authorizes U.S. financial institutions to process, rather than block, such transactions even if the buyer and seller of such debt or equity are both non-U.S. persons. However, GL 13 does not authorize U.S. persons to sell, purchase, or invest in such debt or equity and, like GL 12, it is limited only to transactions involving the SDNs specified in the general license itself (
i.e., it is applicable to fewer than all of the entities blocked as a result of the April 6 designations).
 
Takeaways
 
The immediate practical impact of the April 6 designations is significant.  Numerous U.S. companies are likely to have existing contracts, joint venture agreements, or equity investments in or from some of the sanctioned individuals or entities, as reflected by the general licenses and guidance issued by OFAC in connection with the action.  Notably, OFAC appears to have foreseen circumstances where U.S. companies are owned, in significant part, by sanctioned entities – advising that, while such U.S. companies are not themselves blocked if the SDN interest is below 50% and thus 
may be able to continue operating, any payments, dividends, or disbursement of profits to the blocked person would be 
prohibited. U.S. companies should carefully consider whether a license or other authorization might be required for any activities or payments involving persons designated on April 6.
 
The implications are less clear, but no less concerning, for foreign companies impacted by OFAC’s action. While non-U.S. persons are not generally subject to U.S. primary sanctions, they do face the possibility of secondary sanctions if they engage in transactions with the individuals or entities designated on April 6 (or blocked pursuant to OFAC’s 50 Percent Rule).  Pursuant to sections 226 and 228 of CAATSA, foreign financial institutions and businesses are subject to sanctions if they facilitate certain “significant” transactions on behalf of individuals or entities sanctioned under authorities related to Russia.  OFAC has explained that a transaction by a foreign person is 
not “significant” if U.S. persons would not require a specific license from OFAC to participate in 
it.
 This suggests that foreign persons engaged in an activity that would otherwise be authorized by GL 12 or GL 13 if they were U.S. persons – 
e.g., the maintenance or wind-down of existing contracts with certain entities through June 5, 2018 – would 
not be facilitating a “significant” transaction.  Foreign companies engaged in other transactions that would be prohibited for U.S. persons – such as the payment of dividends to SDN joint venture partners – are operating in more ambiguous territory, and will need to assess such transactions against the seven factors OFAC has identified to determine ”
significance.”
 
Finally, the April 6 designations suggest a newly aggressive approach by OFAC in using its sanctions authorities to target Russian actors. The use of Executive Order (E.O.) 13661 to target Russian government officials was typical, but OFAC also used E.O. 13582 – which is a Syria-related authority targeting support to the Assad regime – to designate ROE.   Most notably, OFAC made liberal use of E.O. 13662 to, for the first time, block both individuals and entities operating in Russia’s financial, defense, and energy sectors.  E.O. 13662 remains the legal authority under which OFAC has imposed more limited, non-blocking sanctions against major Russian entities identified on the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications (SSI) List.  However, by its literal terms, it allows OFAC to block any individual or entity simply for “operating” in a sector of the Russian economy.  While OFAC will likely remain constrained by the financial and political repercussions of blocking a major Russian firm like Gazprom (absent a major escalation in tensions), the expansive authority provided by E.O. 13662 suggests that virtually anyone of prominence in Russia could become a sanctions target.
 
Conclusion
 
The new sanctions represent a major escalation of Russia sanctions.  They strike a wide swath of Russian oligarchs, their companies, and the defense industry.  Under the 50 Percent Rule that flows down sanctions to subsidiaries, so the full impact of these sanctions goes further than the SDN designations.  Companies engaging in business with Russia need to exercise caution and carefully comply with the wind-down and divestiture provisions as needed.

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

COMM_a01
10.
The Export Compliance Journal: “Trade Compliance 101: An Introduction to Restricted Party Screening” (Part I of II)

(Source:
The Export Compliance Journal, 6 Apr 2018.)
 
For export, trade and financial (OFAC) compliance professionals, Restricted Party Screening-also known as Denied Party Screening, SDN screening, and sanctions screening, among others-is second nature.
 
However, unless you breathe, eat and sleep export compliance, there is often confusion about even the most basic fundamentals of Restricted Party Screening-including “why do we screen,” who do we screen,” and “what’s our screening process.”
 
In this two-part series, we’ll discuss some of the essentials of Restricted Party Screening for those just getting started, and throw in some short tales from our own experiences in serving the good people involved in this mandatory area of export, trade and financial compliance.
 
We begin at the beginning: why must an organization screen for restricted parties?
 
To put it simply, there are people out there that the US and international governments do not want you doing business with, for a variety of reasons. If you do business with these people, there’s a genuine likelihood that the government will come knocking on your door. If found to be non-compliant, an organization may be subject to fines, penalties, denial of export privileges, even negative media coverage.
 
Denied Party Screening, Restricted Party Screening, or Sanctioned Party Lists: what is the correct term?
 
The honest answer is, “All of the above.” Some of these terms are context specific. When you see the word “Screening” you are reading about the processes. The word “lists,” refers to the various sources of the data that fuels the screening process, and subsequent screening results.
 
The interchangeability of these terms has sometimes led to the fallacy that these are, in fact, different things. The truth is that these terms are subjective, and often depend on the preference of the speaker or organization.
 
The term “debarred party” is also common, and is often used interchangeably when speaking about a restricted, denied, or sanctioned party. This refers to an individual or organization that appears on a list.
 
What are the sources of these lists?
 
The primary list for US businesses are: The Bureau of Industry and Security, or BIS (pronounced Be Eye Ess, not, ”
biss“), the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC (you can pronounce this one as ”
Oh-Fak“), and the Department of State/Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC). Others common lists screened include (but are certainly not limited to) the General Services Administration (GSA, found on the System for Awards Management site; SAM.GOV), various Federal Law Enforcement lists (FBI, DEA, etc.), and the United Nations or European Union. There are more available lists than one could possibly name, but that is a topic for another day.
 
Who should be screened?
 
In short-everyone, and whenever a transaction-be it an exchange of tangible goods and services, or finances, takes place. Generally, screening should be performed on any party to which a product or information is distributed, the final end user, and the chain of individuals and businesses in-between. Screening can also be used for contacts, visitors, and employees-though the lists screened may vary for each of these purposes. For example, the General Services Administration list may not be applicable for organizations that do not engage in business with the US government.
 
Who should be doing the screening?
 
This really depends on the organization. Some have centralized trade compliance persons who review all information entered, such as at the order-entry level by Customer Service Reps, Sales, or Procurement persons. Some companies leverage existing business systems, and have chosen to integrate screening at one or more points in their workflow.
One thing our experience has shown us is that companies with the most effective trade compliance programs emphasize the basic rules and regulations of compliance at all levels of the business. This sets a business standard and enforces best practices across the organization.
 
When should screening take place?
 
Again, this is subjective to the organization. Businesses may choose to screen potential customers or vendors at first contact. Some screen again when orders or finances change hands, and repeat this process with each order. Other organizations will have automated rescreening take place instead of rescreening manually. Visitors may be screened when they sign up for a tour, or on the spot when they arrive. What is really important about when screening takes place is that it should fit the regulatory goals of the organization-ensuring that goods, technology, information, or finances are not transferred in violation of export regulations.
 
A cautionary tale: when screening comes too little, too late
 
While attending a conference on Export Control a few years back, the discussion-which included a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, and experienced trade compliance professionals from a Fortune 500 company and several smaller organizations-turned to an extreme case of export compliance negligence.
 
The attendees were told a tale of an organization that unwittingly committed violations in the mid-2000s. This organization had an automated screening system in place, including one that facilitated IP location searching. Despite having these measures in place, no one had bothered to research the basics about which lists they needed to screen against. As such, they opted to only use a small set of US-based watch lists.
 
This organization found itself in deep water, discovering only after having shipped its product that the company to which it shipped was on a restricted party watch list. How did this happen?
 
In an attempt at efficiency, individuals at the company chose to screen for restricted parties at the point of shipment, i.e., when the warehouse personnel logged the daily shipments. At the time, management dismissed the idea that the timing would be too late. They then made a second critical error, which likely impacted the earlier decision to screen late in the shipping process: they assumed that their freight forwarder would screen and stop an order themselves if it violated any export laws. It’s worth noting that the freight forwarder also lacked a robust export compliance program, though the responsibility ultimately lay with the shipper.
 
In the end, the violations were pled down to relatively minor fines, with the promise to improve the Trade Compliance program within the organization. The whole ordeal cost time and money-and the inconvenience of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid on their offices. …  
 
Stay tuned for Part 2 in our 
Trade Compliance 101
 series coming soon.
 
A Glossary of Ideas in this article:
 
 – Restricted / Denied / Sanctioned Party Screening: The process of reviewing customers, vendors, visitors, and any other business partners and related parties through a search engine designed to match those entities against restricted or denied parties. These are often referred to as; RPS, DPS, DPL, SPL and SDN Screening.
  – Restricted / Denied / Sanctioned Party List: The sources of the entity lists that screening will match against. There are often referred to as RPL, DPL, SDN or SPL.
  – Restricted / Denied / Sanctioned/Debarred Party: These terms describe the individuals or organizations that appears on the restricted party lists.
  – Bureau of Industry and Security: A branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, responsible for ensuring export control and compliance.
  – Office of Foreign Assets Control: A branch of the Department of the Treasury that administrates and polices financial and trade regulations.
  – Directorate of Defense Trade Control: An organization with the U.S. Department of State responsible for enforcing the International Traffic and Arms Regulations.

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

COMM_a2
11.

Global Trade News Releases Q&A Following Brexit Webcast

 
On March 22, 2018, Integration Point held a free webcast on ”
Brexit: The Volatile Phase.” We discussed what we currently know about Brexit, how we can make educated assumptions to prepare for the change, and how Brexit will affect customs and export control.
 
During the webcast, some questions were unanswered due to time constraints. Our speaker, John Grayston of Grayston & Company, will answer them here.
 
(1) For the extended period of March 2019 to December 2020, the benefits of FTAs signed by the EU will no longer apply to the UK, correct? Example: EU-Chile, EU-Mexico.
 
This is a complex question, and we should at least agree that the position is not totally clear right now and that some uncertainty may remain for some time! The current position is that the current draft withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK clearly intends that EU-UK trade will be as close to the same as possible. The intention goes further that trading relationships should remain the same between the EU and UK and all other countries. In a footnote to Article 124 of the Draft Agreement, the text confirms: “The Union will notify the other parties to these agreements that during the transition period, the United Kingdom is to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of these agreements.” 
 
But clearly the terms of the draft withdrawal agreement cannot bind these same third parties. In simple terms, the UK will no longer be a Member State of the EU and if the benefits of third country agreements only apply to EU Member States (or EU original products), there is at the very least a potential problem.
We could take a positive approach and conclude that these third countries would not oppose such notification. But at the least there is risk involved, and most international trade experts will say that even reaching an agreement simply to maintain the status quo is not nearly as easy as it sounds. 
That leaves open the other option that, for countries that seek to reject the EU approach, the UK with EU support could seek to agree this bilaterally. But this would be a mess and would take time, longer perhaps than the transition.
 
So unhelpfully, the answer is – the EU and UK would want such FTAs to be available to the UK. But the reality may well be that there is no uniform position, and the position would need to be assessed on an agreement by agreement basis.
 
(2) How will goods move between the UK and other EU countries? Will a customs declaration be required?
 
Article 37 of the Draft UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, provides for a continued circulation of the goods placed on the EU Single Market until the end of the transition period. The conclusion is that during the transitional period, the intention is that customs declarations will not be required for trade between the EU and UK.
 
(3) Is the transition period until December 31, 2020, already agreed to?
 
No. The draft text published by the EU on Monday, March 19 represents a significant step forward towards reaching an agreement. However, substantial issues remain to be negotiated (Ireland and the role of the EU Courts of Justice).
These negotiations will need to be concluded by the end of October/November 2018. If there are problems and no withdrawal text is agreed, the UK would leave the EU on March 29, 2019, with a hard Brexit.
 
(4) At what stage (if any) are we looking at unique HTS UK customs codes instead of using existing HTS EU codes when trading with the UK?
 
HTS codes are generally negotiated and clarified within the World Customs Organization (WCO) and then implemented in the EU Member States.
 
Post March 2019, if a transitional deal is agreed in the form currently under discussion, the UK would continue to apply and adapt its customs schedules in line with the EU. 
From 2021, the UK will then need to take these decisions autonomously. The extent to which changes are made would then depend on the status of any post transition negotiations.
 
(5) Will the UK need to create its own AEO program?
 
First point is that the EU AEO rules will be carried across into UK law as acquired law. The UK can then decide whether to make changes.
 
Post Brexit, the scope of UK AEO certification could become of value if the UK and EU agree on short or long term mutual recognition procedures to encourage trade. With AEO being an international creation of the WCO, there could be some value to obtaining UK AEO while the UK is part of the EU.

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

COMM_a3
12. 
P. LeCour, T. Carlile & Ziyu Chin: “U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Enhanced Security Plan Sets Best Practices for Use of Cloud Services for Sensitive Data”

 
* Authors: Pablo LeCour, Partner,
plecour@deloitte.co.uk; Tina Carlile, Senior Manager,
ticarlile@deloitte.co.uk; and Ziyu Chin, Senior Consultant,
ziyu.chin@deloitte.co.uk. All of Deloitte.
 
In December 2017 a global software company serving the telecommunications industry settled charges with the U.S. Department of Justice for violating U.S. controls on foreign access to sensitive data, including export-controlled information. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to implement an Enhanced Security Plan designed to increase information security by regulating remote access to company networks and transfers of sensitive data.
 
The Enhanced Security Plan is a helpful benchmark for network providers seeking to protect sensitive information about U.S. telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.
Many tech companies develop software using foreign technical personnel both inside and outside of the U.S. The use of a global technical workforce increases the risk of unauthorized access to U.S. controlled information, including sensitive network data and data critical to the U.S. domestic communications infrastructure. Unauthorized access has consequences from an export controls perspective – under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) licenses might be required to store U.S. sensitive data in overseas servers or for non-U.S. persons to handle, transmit or access controlled software, technology or technical data that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Enhanced Security Plan provides an example of how these information security requirements can be met by:
 
  – Requiring authentication and tracking of changes to systems software through code-signing and other means;
  – Restricting access, transmission and storage of certain sensitive data to U.S.-based servers and U.S.-based network infrastructure; and
  – Controlling access by non-U.S. persons and implementing procedures for the proper vetting and licensing of non-U.S. employees and agents.
  – Additionally, the Enhanced Security Plan recommends an effective compliance program that includes the following:
  – Appointing a Security Director with appropriate authority, reporting lines, independence, skills, and resources to ensure compliance;
  – Implementing a Security Policy that describes the management of user identity and access, and building systems that monitor unauthorized attempts to access and screen personnel;
  – Conducting periodic third-party audits of the security procedures and their implementation; and
  – Engaging a third-party auditor to ensure compliance.
 
Companies doing business with the U.S. government or in connection with critical U.S. infrastructure, as well as companies that handle or use export-controlled technology, software, technical data, and cloud or network services, should review the DOJ Enhanced Security Plan requirements and consider including them within their own compliance programs.

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

COMM_a4
13. 
Gary Stanley’s EC Tip of the Day

(Source: Defense and Export-Import Update; 6 Apr 2018.  Available by subscription from
gstanley@glstrade.com.)
 
* Author: Gary Stanley, Esq., Global Legal Services, PC, (202) 352-3059,
gstanley@glstrade.com.
 
If you disagree with a final Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination and have additional facts not included in the original submission, you may submit a new CJ request. If you disagree with the determination and have no additional facts to present, then you may appeal the determination in accordance with ITAR §120.4(g) for review by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls. The Deputy Assistant Secretary’s decision can be appealed to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a214. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 176 Jobs Posted This Week, Including 10 New Jobs

(Source: Editor)  
 

Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please, send job openings in the following format to 
jobs@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.

 
* COMPANY; LOCATION; POSITION TITLE (WEBLINK); CONTACT INFORMATION; REQUISITION ID
 

#
” New or amended listing this week (
10 New Jobs
)

* Abaco Systems, Inc.; Huntsville, AL; Trade Compliance Manager;
* Aerovironment; Simi Valley, CA; Trade Compliance Specialist II; Job ID: 18-017

* Aerovironment; Simi Valley, CA;
Trade Compliance Director
; Job ID: 18-018

*
AJC Logistics; Atlanta, GA; NVOCC Export Specialist;

*
 Allports Forwarding Inc.; Portland, OR;
Import Entry Specialist

* Arent Fox LLP; Washington, D.C.; International Trade Associate;

* Arent Fox LLP; Los Angeles, CA;
International Trade Associate
;

*
 BAE Systems; Los Angeles, CA; 
Program Manager, International and Offset
; Requisition ID: 33778BR

* Boeing; St. Louis, MO; Trade Control Specialist – Mid Career; Requisition ID: 1700022214

*
 BMW North America; Woodcliff Lake, NJ;
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 170004RD
* Buehler; Lake Bluff, IL;
Manager, Compliance and Logistics
; Requisition ID: 2018-004

* Crown Corporation; New Bremen, Ohio; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 45311

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Mid-Level FMS Case Analyst
; Requisition ID: RQ 3035

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Mid-level Case Analyst for MIDS FMS Program
; Requisition ID: RQ6975
 

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA; 
Senior Case Analyst for MIDS FMS Program
; RQ6763 

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA;
Senior FMS Case Analyst
; Requisition ID: 3004

*
 CSRA; San Diego, CA; 
Senior FMS Financial Analyst
; Requisition ID: 
RQ3010

* Curtiss-Wright Corporation; Los Angeles, CA;
Director, Trade Compliance
;

* Danaher Science and Technology; United States; Senior Global Trade Compliance ManagerJob ID: COR000942
 

* Danaher Science and Technology;
Biberach an der Riß, Germany
;
European Trade Compliance Specialist

Job ID: KAV001714 

* Danaher Science and Technology; Nationwide, India; Manager, International Regulatory Affairs
Job ID: CEP000339

* Dorman Products; Colmar, PA; Global Trade Compliance Specialist;
* DSJ Global; Minneapolis, MN; Director of International Logistics;
*
 DynCorp International; Tampa, FL; Foreign Disclosure Officer; Requisition ID: PR1701977

*
 Eaton; Syracuse, NY;
Global Logistics Manager
; Requisition ID: 036620

*
 Eaton; Shanghai Shi, China;
Global Ethics and Compliance Director, APAC
; Requisition ID: 039260
* Eaton; Mississagua, Canada; Global Trade & Compliance Manager;

* Elbit Systems of America; Fort Worth, TX or Merrimack, NH;
Trade Compliance Manager
; 2018-5916

* Elbit Systems of America; Fort Worth, TX or Merrimack, NH;
Trade Compliance Officer
; 2018-5917

* EMD Serono; Milan, Italy;
Trade Compliance Associate Internship
;

* EMD Serono; Shanghai, China; Import Export Supervisor;

* Emerson; Mexico City, Mexico; Export and Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 18001203
* Esterline; Xenia, OH; Manager, International Trade Compliance;

* Esterline; Hong Kong;
Regional ITC Manager
;
* Esterline; Singapore; Regional ITC Manager; 

* Esterline; Brea, CA; 
Senior Trade Compliance Specialist
;

*
 EoTech Technologies; Ann Arbor, MI;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 092335

*
 Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA;
Customs Compliance Supervisor
;


*
 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk Import / Export
 ;
*
 Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom;
Customs Brokerage Clerk
;
*
 Expeditors; Birmingham, UK;
Customs Brokerage Agent
;

*
 Expeditors; Dusseldorf, Germany;
Clerk, Airfreight Import
;


* Export Solutions Inc.; Melbourne FL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
info@exportsolutionsinc.com

*
 EY; Belgium; 
Senior Consultant, Global Trade
; Requisition ID: BEL000PT

*
 FD Associates; Tysons Corner, VA; 
Senior Export Compliance Associate;
 Send 
resume to and salary requirements to 
jobs@fdassociates.net 

*
 FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;
*
 FLIR; Wilsonville, OR; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;

* FLIR; Nashua, NH; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;
*
 FLIR; Elkridge, MD; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst,Traffic
;

*
 FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Licensing
;
*
 FLIR; Arlington, VA;
Senior Analyst, Licensing
*
 FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Senior Analyst, Licensing
;
* Floor and Decor; Smyrna, GA; Customs Compliance Manager;
* Full Circle Compliance; Bruchem, Netherlands;
Legal Analyst, Manager

* FusionStorm; Newark, CA; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 2018-2350
* Garmin; Olathe, Kansas; International Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 1800006

*
 General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Internship, Import/Export, Summer 2018
; Requisition ID: 15731BR 

* General Dynamics; Fairfax, VA; Export Policy Analyst; Job ID: 2018-36089 
* General Dynamics; Arlington, VA; Analyst, Export Control; Job ID: 2018-36963

* General Dynamics; Falls Church, VA;
Director, Trade Control
; Job ID: 2018-1122

* General Motors; Pontiac, MI; 
GM Defense Sub Export Compliance Officer
 (Full Time or Flex time)
; Requisition ID: GPS0003372
*
 Georgia-Pacific; Atlanta, GA; 
Sr. Analyst, International Trade
; Requisition ID: 052010

* GHY International; Manitoba, Canada; Trade Analyst;
* GHY International; Pembina, ND (or remote); Ocean & Air Import Coordinator
* Gilead Sciences; Foster City, CA; Manager, Global Trade Compliance; R0001742

# Harris Corporation; Roanoke, VA;
Trade Compliance Intern;
# Harris Corporation; Beaverton, OR;
Manager, International Government Relations;

* H.B. Fuller; St. Paul, MN; Global Trade Compliance Director;
* Henderson Group Unlimited; Inc; Washington, DC; 
Process Improvement Mgr

* Henderson Group Unlimited; Inc; Washington, DC; 
Defense Control Analyst

* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; Washington, DC; 
Compliance Analyst
;

Hexcel Corporation; Dublin, CA or Salt Lake City, UT
; International Trade Compliance Analyst
Requisition ID: R011590

* Hubbell, Incorporated; Greenville, SC; Export Compliance Specialist;
* Hubbell, Incorporated; Shelton, CT; Export Compliance Specialist;
* Hubbell, Incorporated; Centralia, MO; Export Compliance Specialist;
*
 Honda of America Manufacturing; Marysvile, OH;
Import Specialist

# Illumina; San Diego, CA; Export Specialist;
*
 Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany;
Experte Export Control (w/m)
; Requisition ID: 22825

*
 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA; 
ITAR Compliance Official / Deputy Facility Security Officer
;

*
 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA;
ITAR Compliance Official
;

* JABIL; St. Petersburg, FL;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 207029
* JABIL; St. Petersburg, FL;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 206581
* JABIL; Guadalajara, Mexico;
Classification & Export Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 207594

# Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, MD;
Assistant Director, Export Control and Facility Security;

* KPMG U.S.; San Francisco, CA; Associate, Trade & Customs;

* Leonardo DRS; Arlington, VA;
Senior Customs & Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 87488
*
 Lockheed Martin; Stratford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Specialist
; Requisition ID: 415922BR

*
 Lockheed Martin; Ft Worth, TX;
International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 416747BR

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; Export Licensing Staff
Requisition ID 419903BR
* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; International Trade Compliance Staff; Requisition ID 418761BR

# Luminar Technologies; Orlando, FL; Import/Export Trade Compliance Specialist;
*
 L-3 LINK Division; Tulsa, OK; 
Contracts Administrator 1
; Requisition ID: 091686
*
 L-3 ALST; Orlando, FL;
Contracts Manager / Empowered Official
; Requisition ID: 093069
*
 L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Middle East;
International Business Development Manager – Middle East Region
; Requisition ID: 093343
* L-3; Ann Arbor, MI; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335
* L-3; Greenville, TX; International Trade Compliance Administrator 3; Requisition ID: 095830
* L-3; Greenville, TX; Import/Export Administrator 3; Requisition ID: 095921
* L-3; Arlington, TX; Trade Compliance Practitioner, Empowered Official; Requisition ID: 089915
* Maersk/DAMCO; Agent de transit IMPORT – EXPORT; Job Ref.: DC-164022
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 16000DYY
* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer
;
stacy.m.johnson@medtronic.com
; Requisition ID: 170002ON

* Mitchell Martin, Inc.; Dallas, Texas; Export Regulatory Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 104405
* MTS Systems; Eden Prairie, MN;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 37841
* NORDHAM; Tulsa, OK;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 14080BR
* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2

Requisition ID
:
17022803
 
 

*
 Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2
; Requisition ID: 17022805
*
 Northrop Grumman; Huntsville, AL;
International Trade Compliance 3
; Requisition ID: 17026172
* Northrop Grumman; El Segundo, CA; Supply Chain Logistics Spec 3; Requisition ID: 18004948

* Office of the Director of National Intelligence; McLean, VA;
Associate General Counsel
;
* Oracle; United States;
Senior Customs Compliance Specialist
; Job ID: 170018FJ

* Oracle; United States;
Customs Compliance Specialist
; Job ID: 17001CBG

* Oracle; Bejing, China;
Senior Customs Compliance Specialist – APAC
; Job ID: 17001CBI

# PerkinElmer, Inc.; Shelton, CT; International Trade Compliance – Export Coordinator;
* PwC; Portland, OR; Compliance Senior Manager
;
* Raytheon Company; Doha, Qatar;
Global Trade Compliance Consulting Analyst
; Requisition ID: 110234BR

* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA; Senior Analyst, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 111121BR
* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA; Global Trade Manager; Requisition ID: 108227BR

* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA;
Principal, Global Trade Licensing
; Requisition ID: 
108230BR
 

* Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ;
Sr. Export Licensing Specialist
;
 Requisition ID: 
108970BR; 
ryan.murphy@raytheon.com
 

* Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ;
Export Licensing Specialist
; Requisition 


ID: 108960BR; 
ryan.murphy@raytheon.com
  

* Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ;
Export License & Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 
108961BR

*
Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ;
Trade Compliance Principal Investigator
; Requisition ID: 
110444BR

* Raytheon Company; Tewksbury, MA;
Licensing Manager
; Requisition ID: 
110837BR

* Raytheon Company; Waltham, MA; 
Licensing Manager
; Requisition ID: 
110837BR 
* Raytheon Company; El Segundo, CA; Licensing Director; Requisition ID: 110838BR

* Raytheon Company; Richardson, TX;  
Licensing Director
; Requisition ID: 110838BR 

* REDCOM Laboratories; Victor NY;  
Director of Trade Compliance
; Contact 
Chad Boehly 

*
 Rolls-Royce; Indianapolis, IN;Export Control Specialist; Req ID:
  
 
 

JR6025484 

*
 SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
;
Danielle.Cannata@sabic.com
; Requisition ID: 8411BR

* SABIC; Houston, TX; Senior Analyst, International Trade Compliance

Requisition ID 8655; OR Contact: Jason Washington
* SABIC; Houston, TX;
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8644BR

*
 SAFRAN Group; United Kingdom;
Trade Compliance Specialist
;

* Sig Sauer; Newington, New Hampshire; Trade Compliance Manager
* The Spaceship Company; Mojave, CA; Export Compliance Officer;
* Spirent; San Jose, CA;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 4088

* TE Connectivity; Middletown, PA; Manager II, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 17361
# Teledyne Benthos; Falmouth, MA; Export Compliance Manager
* Teledyne Geophysical; Houston, TX; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 2017-5459

* Teledyne Microwave Solutions; Mountain View, CA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2018-6089

*
 Teledyne Imaging; Chestnut Ridge, NY; 
Director of International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
*
 Teledyne Imaging; Billerica, MA; Director of International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2017-5558 

*
 Teledyne Imaging; Tarrytown, NY; 
Director of International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
*
 Teledyne Imaging; Kiln, MS; 
Director of International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 2017-5558
*
 Teledyne Imaging; Fredricton, NB; 
Director of International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 2017-5558 

* Tenneco, Inc.; Lake Forest, IL;
Americas Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 178693-846

* Tenneco, Inc.; Lake Forest, IL; Customs & Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 178353-846
# Terumo Medical Corporation; Somerset, NJ; Senior Global Trade Compliance Specialist;
*
 Textron; Hunt Valley, MD;
Senior Manager – Export Compliance
;

*
 Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, MA;
Director, Global Trade Compliance
;

* Thermo Fisher Scientific; Shanghai, China; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Job ID: 57953BR 

* T
hermo Fisher Scientific; Franklin, MA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Job ID: 
61435BR

* T
hermo Fisher Scientific; Carlsbad, CA; 
Compliance Specialist II
; Job ID: 
60951BR

* T
hermo Fisher Scientific; Suwanee, GA;
Export Compliance Specialist III
; Job ID:
60224BR

*
TLR; San Fransisco, CA;
Import CSR
 ; Requisition ID: 1040

# Toyota North America; Dallas, TX; Export Control Analyst
*
 Tradewin; Portland, OR;
U.S. Export Compliance Consultant

* Trek; Waterloo, WI; Global Trade & Logistics Specialist;

* United Technologies Corp, Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Manager
; Requisition ID: 51863BR

* United Technologies Corp, Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
ITC & ACE Compliance Program Manager, ASC
; Requisition ID: 58388BR

* 
University of Colorado, LASP; Boulder CO; 
Export Compliance Administrator

hrads@lasp.colorado.edu
; Requisition ID: 12298
* Varian; Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, or UK; EMEIA Trade Lead – Senior Manager Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 12301BR; Contact 
Gavin Tickner at 
Gavin.Tickner@varian.com
 
* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 12735BR; Contact 
Uyen Tran at
Uyen.Tran@varian.com
* Varian; Beijing, China;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 
12297BR; Contact 
Susan Lin at
WeiZhen.Lin@varian.com
  
* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst
;

* Virgin Galactic; Mojave, CA; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 2018-3440
* Virgin Galactic; Las Cruces, NM; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 2018-3558
* Virgin Galactic; Las Cruces, NM; Director of Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2018-3349
* Virgin Galactic; Washington, D.C.; Director of Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2018-3349
* Williams International; Pontiac, MI; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 17-0275

* World Wide Technology; Hong Kong;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 005

* World Wide Technology; Edwardsville, IL; International Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 6110
*
 Xylem, Inc.; Remote, United States;
Manager, Global Ethics & Compliance
;

* Zeiss Group; Thornwood, NY;
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
* Zimmer Biomet; Warsaw, IN; Trade Compliance Manager

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES


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

EN_a316
. 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: 22 Feb 2018: 83 FR 7608-7610: Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Name Changes of Several Airports and the Addition of Five Airports
 
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: 
2 Apr 2018:
83 FR 13849-13862
: Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG [Amendment of EAR Parts 738, 740, 745, and 774.]; and 5 Apr 2018: 83 FR 14580-14583: Reclassification of Targets for the Production of Tritium and Related Development and Production Technology Initially Classified Under the 0Y521 Series [Imposes License Requirements on Transfers of Specified Target Assemblies and Components for the Production of Tritium, and Related “Development” and “Production” Technology.]

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

  – Last Amendment: 19 Mar 2018:
83 FR 11876-11881: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties 

 
*
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 (16 March 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 approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance websiteBITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu.  
 
*
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: 30 Mar 2018:
Harmonized System Update 1804, containing 710 ABI records and 166 harmonized tariff records.
  – HTS codes for AES are available 
here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.

 
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130.

  – Last Amendment: 14 Feb 2018: 83 FR 6457-6458: Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Addition of South Sudan [Amends ITAR Part 126.] 

  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 14 Feb 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_a0317
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, FAR/DFARS, 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

* BACK ISSUES: An archive of Daily Bugle publications from 2005 to present is available HERE.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top