;

18-0420 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-0420 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 20 April 2018

TOPThe 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/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Adds Class Code 672 to HTS Codes in ACE Certification
  4. DHS/CBP Reinstates Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
  5. OMB/OIRA Reviews of Proposed Ex/Im Regulations
  6. State Releases Factsheet Concerning UAS Export Policy
  7. State/DDTC Welcomes Industry Feedback on Electronic Disclosure Form
  8. EU Amends North Korea Sanctions, Publishes Implementing Regulation Concerning the Combined Nomenclature
  9. Australia Amends Regulation 13E of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958, Reviews Defense Trade Controls Act 2012
  10. Singapore Customs Publishes Update Concerning NTP
  1. Bloomberg: “A Top Senate Republican Slams Tech Lobby’s CFIUS Bill Push”
  2. Caixin Global: “ZTE Calls U.S. Sanctions ‘Unacceptable,’ Complains of Unfair Treatment”
  3. Expeditors News: “Commissioner of CBP Requests Additional Funding for ACE”
  4. De Limburger: “Three Individuals Prosecuted After 8 Years in ‘Euroturbine’ Case”
  5. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Classification, Origin Ruling, Aluminum, Export Controls, Import Fee”
  6. ST&R Trade Report: “Import and Export Restrictions on Two Opioid-Like Substances Finalized”
  7. The Washington Post: “A New U.S. Policy Makes it (Somewhat) Easier to Export Drones”
  1. C.M. Shaw: “Surveillance Hawks Plan New Legislative Attacks on Encryption”
  2. J.A. LeBeau, M. Mannino & A. Seymour:” ZTE Corporation Sanctioned Again-Prohibitions on Transactions Involving U.S.-Origin Items Effective Immediately”
  3. S. Sloat: “3D-Printed Gun in ‘Lost in Space’ Isn’t Futuristic, It’s Already Here”
  1. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” in Annapolis, MD, on 22-23 May
  2. ECTI Presents “The Essentials and Challenges of Exporting Firearms and Ammunition Webinar on 7 Jun
  3. List of Approaching Events
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (12 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (5 Apr 2018), FACR/OFAC (19 Mar 2018), FTR (20 Sep 2017), HTSUS (16 Apr 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_33. 
DHS/CBP Adds Class Code 672 to HTS Codes in ACE Certification

(Source: 
CSMS# 18-000291
, 20 Apr 2018.) 
 
In order to support the additional duties assessed on any coffee imports into Puerto Rico (19 USC 1319), ACE Production will be updated with a new, separate class code on April 28, 2018. At this time, the new class code, 672, has been added to the associated harmonized tariff schedule codes in the ACE Certification environment.
 
  – Related CSMS No. 18-000251, 18-000281. 

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

OGS_a44. 
DHS/CBP Reinstates Generalized System of Preferences

(Source: 
CSMS# 18-000296
, 20 Apr 2018.) 
On Friday, March 23, 2018, the President signed into law H.R. 1625 (Public Law 115-141), the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,” which in addition to providing full-year federal appropriations through September 30, 2018, extended GSP with retroactivity, for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The new law, effective April 22, 2018, also provided for the retroactive refund of all duties (without interest) to the importer of record (IOR) on GSP-eligible goods entered during the January 1, 2018 through April 21, 2018 lapse period.  
GSP through April 21, 2018
Importers should continue to flag GSP-eligible importations with the Special Program Indicator (SPI) “A” and pay normal trade relations (column 1) duty rates until the effective date of the Act, April 22, 2018, at which time Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) programming will obviate the duty payment. 
GSP Retroactive Refund  
    GSP-eligible formal and informal entries summaries filed electronically via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) using SPI “A” as a prefix to the tariff number will be processed automatically by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and no further action by the filer is required to initiate the refund process. 
    GSP-eligible Non-ABI filers, and ABI filers that did not include SPI “A” on the entry summary may submit a duty refund request to CBP no later than September 19, 2018. For more information on refund requests, see Post Summary Correction (PSC) instructions below. 

    To facilitate expeditious refund processing, importers should insure that their mailing address is up-to-date in ACE, to include the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) number, for ACH program participants.  
Phased GSP Refund Processing
CBP will be processing GSP claims in three phases, as follows: 
  • Phase 1: The Trade Transformation Office (TTO) will batch process all GSP entry summaries submitted during the lapse period with the SPI “A”. Barring unforeseen matters, importers should receive all such refunds by mid-July 2018. 
  • Phase 2: CBP HQ will distribute spreadsheets to Field personnel for the manual processing of those entry summaries that could not be batch processed (AD/CVD, Section 232, other). These spreadsheets will cover importations with the following characteristics: If AD/CVD and GSP are on the same line, then no GSP refund will be issued until the AD/CVD liquidation order has been issued. 
    • If AD/CVD and GSP are on different entry lines, then the GSP administrative refund should be processed manually by the field. 
    • If Section 232 duties and GSP are on the same entry line, then no GSP refund will be issued, issued since 19 USC 2463(b)(2) precludes GSP program benefits accruing to Section 232 goods (see below for more information). 
    • If Section 232 and GSP are on different entry lines, then the GSP administrative refund should be processed manually.  
  • Phase 3: Importer-initiated claims for which the SPI “A” was not flagged at entry summary, but requested in accordance with the following post-summary correction claim instructions, will be processed by Field personnel after the completion of Phase 1. 
Post Summary Correction GSP Claims for Importations during the Lapse
  • Importers have until September 19, 2018 to submit post-importation GSP claims for goods imported during the GSP lapse on which the SPI “A” was not transmitted at entry summary. 
  • GSP refund requests should be submitted as PSCs. If an entry has already liquidated, the refund request should be submitted as a protest.
  • GSP refund requests for importations made during the lapse but submitted subsequent to September 19, 2018 will be denied.
  • An importer’s failure to submit a post-importation GSP claim on or before September 19, 2018 will not be remediable via protest. 
GSP Goods Subject to Section 232 (aluminum and steel) 
  • As of March 23, 2018, GSP-eligible goods that are subject to Section 232 duties may not receive GSP duty preference in accordance with 19 USC 2463(b)(2). 
  • On imports subject to Section 232 duties, importers should pay the normal trade relations (column 1) duty rates and not submit the GSP Special Program Indicator (SPI) “A”. 
  • Although Brazil and Argentina are GSP countries, they are exempt from Section 232 per the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Notes 16(a) and 19(a); therefore they may claim GSP.  
  • For importations during the lapse, see Phased GSP Refund Processing, Phase 2, above.  
Post-Importation GSP Claims on Importations Prior to Expiration
Importations made on or before December 31, 2017, remain unaffected by the aforementioned instructions. Importers may continue to make post-importation GSP claims in accordance with applicable PSC and protest procedures (19 USC 1514, 19 CFR 174). 
GSP Mail Entry Refunds
The addressees on mail entries made during the lapse period must request a refund of GSP duties in writing, along with a copy of the CBP Form 3419A, to the appropriate International Mail Branch (address listed on bottom right hand corner of CBP Form 3419A). It is essential that a copy of the CBP Form 3419A be included, as this is the only means of identifying whether GSP goods have been entered and the estimated duties and fees paid. 
African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and ACE Programming of SPI “A” 
The expiration and subsequent reauthorization of GSP has no effect on goods entered under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Although ACE programming currently allows the submission of AGOA claims with either SPI “A” or “D,” future ACE functionality will limit AGOA claims to SPI “D”.

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

OGS_4
5. 
OMB/OIRA Reviews of Proposed Ex/Im Regulations

(Source: 
OMB/OIRA
, 20 Apr 2018.)     
 
* TITLE: Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations Based on the 2017 Missile Technology Control Regime Plenary Agreements 
  – AGENCY: DOC-BIS
  – STAGE: Finale Rule
  – RECEIVED DATE: 19 Apr 2018
  – RIN: 0694-AH46
  – STATUS: Pending Review
 
* TITLE: Drawback Amendments 
  – AGENCY: TREAS-CUSTOMS
  – STAGE: Proposed Rule
  – RECEIVED DATE: 6 Apr 2018
  – RIN: 1515-AE23

  – STATUS: Pending Review

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

OGS_5
6.

State Releases Factsheet Concerning UAS Export Policy 

(Source: 
State
, 19 Apr 2018.)
 
The President has approved a new policy on the export of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). This policy updates and replaces the previous policy announced February 17, 2015. This policy will apply to all U.S.-origin UAS transfers, whether under the authority of the United States Munitions List (USML) or the Commerce Control List (CCL).
 
This policy advances five primary objectives with respect to UAS transfers:
 
  (1) Increases trade opportunities for U.S. companies: We 
will remove barriers to the global UAS market and avoid ceding export opportunities to competitors where such self-imposed restrictions are unwarranted.
  (2) Bolsters partner security and counterterrorism capabilities:
 We will facilitate international partners’ access to U.S. UAS in situations where it will enhance those partners’ security and their ability to advance shared security or counterterrorism objectives.
  (3) Strengthens bilateral relationships:
 We will use UAS transfers as a means to strengthen U.S. security relationships when stronger bilateral ties and greater interoperability serve broader U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.
  (4) Preserves U.S. military advantage:
 We will work to prevent state or non-state actors from gaining capabilities that would undermine the safety and security of the United States and our allies and partners.
  (5) Prevents the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) delivery systems:
 We will protect the integrity of international nonproliferation agreements and arrangements that prevent proliferators, non-state actors, and other programs of concern from acquiring missile technology and other technologies that would substantively advance their ability to deliver WMD, or otherwise lead to a transfer to potential adversaries of capabilities that would threaten the superiority of the U.S. military or the shared security or counterterrorism objectives of our allies and partners.
 
All potential military UAS transfers will be subject to Department of State-led assessment under the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy and Department of Defense (DOD)-led assessment regarding technology security, as applicable. All UAS transfers, to include military UAS transfers, will be reviewed consistent with U.S. international nonproliferation commitments, including under the Missile Technology Control Regime.
 
Transfer Conditions
 
  – Armed UAS:
 Transfers of armed UAS may be made via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) or Foreign Military Sales (FMS), unless other guidance or restrictions relevant to that particular case requires the transfer to take place using FMS. Recipients must agree as a condition of transfer not to arm armed UAS with a foreign system or unauthorized U.S. system without prior U.S. government authorization.
   – Unarmed UAS:
 Transfers of unarmed UAS may be made via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) or Foreign Military Sales (FMS), unless other guidance or restrictions relevant to that particular case requires the transfer to take place using FMS. Recipients must agree as a condition of transfer not to arm, whether with U.S. or foreign equipment, a U.S.-origin UAS without United States Government permission.
  – Civil UAS:
 All Civil UAS will continue to be subject to the licensing requirements and policies of the Export Administration Regulations and will take into account the objectives outlined in this policy and the six non-proliferation factors in section 3 of the MTCR Guidelines.
 
Provisions to Guard Against Proliferation and Ensure Proper Use
 
End-Use Assurances for Military UAS:
 Each recipient state shall agree to use U.S.-origin military UAS in accordance with applicable international law, applicable provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulation, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), other relevant provisions of U.S. law, and for FMS cases, the transfer agreement. Specifically, each recipient state must agree not to transfer title to or possession of any defense article or related training or other defense service associated with a U.S.-origin military UAS so furnished to it to anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of that country.
 
Recipient nations must agree not to use or permit the use of a U.S.-origin military UAS for purposes other than those for which the UAS was furnished unless the consent of the United States Government has first been obtained. Prior to a potential transfer, the recipient country shall have agreed that it will maintain the security of the military UAS and its related components and will provide substantially the same degree of security protection afforded to such article or service by the United States Government. All military UAS systems will also be transferred only with appropriate technology security measures.
 
End-Use Monitoring and Additional Security Conditions:
 all military UAS transfers may be subject to enhanced end-use monitoring and may also be subject to additional security conditions. Transfers of U.S.-origin armed and MTCR Category I UAS shall require periodic consultations with the United States Government on their use of U.S.-origin UAS systems.
 
Principles of Proper Use
 
To promote and ensure proper use of U.S.-origin military UAS, all FMS and DCS sales or transfers must include the following principles related to use:
 
  (1) Recipients are to use these systems in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as applicable.
  (2) Armed UAS are to be used in operations involving the use of force only when there is a lawful basis for resorting to the use of force under international law, such as national self-defense.
  (3) Recipients are not to use UAS to conduct unlawful surveillance or use unlawful force against their domestic populations.
  (4) As appropriate, recipients must provide UAS operators technical and doctrinal training on the use of such systems to reduce the risk of unintended injury or damage.

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

OGS_6
7.

State/DDTC Welcomes Industry Feedback on Electronic Disclosure Form 

(Source: 
State/DDTC
, 16 Apr 2018.) 
 
DDTC is developing an electronic version of the current DS-7787: Disclosure of Violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) form, also known as Disclosures.
 
As an alternative to paper and mail, the online version will allow Industry personnel to submit Disclosures directly through DDTC’s Defense Export Compliance and Control System (DECCS).
 
In an effort to improve this electronic form, DDTC is enabling a test version of the new online process for Industry feedback between April 16, 2018 – April 30, 2018, prior to it being publicly available online. 
If you are interested in participating, please go 
here 
for more information on how to access and use the test version. Once you have completed testing, you can submit feedback or comments through the “Provide feedback” button in DECCS. 
 
Thank you in advance for your participation, and we look forward to your feedback!

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

OGS_7
8.

EU Amends North Korea Sanctions, Publishes Implementing Regulation Concerning the Combined Nomenclature

(Source: 
Official Journal of the European Union
, 20 Apr 2018.)
 
Regulations
 

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/602 
of 19 April 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/603 
of 12 April 2018 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
 
Decisions
 

Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/611 
of 19 April 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

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

OGS_8
9.

 Australia Amends Regulation 13E of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958, Reviews Defense Trade Controls Act 2012 

(Source: 
Australian DoD
, 20 Apr 2018.) 
 
Amendments to Regulation 13E of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958
 
Amendments to regulation 13E of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 will come into force on 21 April 2018. These amendments will bring the provisions for physical exports under regulation 13E into line with the more modern regulatory powers contained in the Defense Trade Controls Act 2012 which covers intangible exports.
 
Broadly, the key updates include:
  – an exception to export goods constituting controlled technology (e.g. printed blueprints) or containing controlled technology (e.g. blueprints on a USB) for personal use; 
 – an exception to export goods constituting or containing controlled technology back to where it was imported from;
  – new ministerial powers to revoke a permit where the export would prejudice the security, defense or international relations of Australia; 
  – the inclusion of specific criteria for decisions made under regulation 13E; 
  – a requirement to disclose to applicants the reasons for specific decisions; and
  – the addition of both internal and external mechanisms to review decisions.
 
Review of Defense Trade Controls Act
 
The Minister has appointed an independent reviewer, Dr. Vivienne Thom AM, to conduct a review of the Defense Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth), which will be guided by the Terms of Reference. 
 
Dr. Thom will conduct consultation through a public submission process and individual consultations where required. Stakeholders can provide submissions to Dr. Thom by email to 
dtcact.review@defence.gov.au
 
Overview
 
The Defense Trade Controls Act introduced offences which commenced operation on 2 April 2016 for the unauthorized supply, and in certain instances publication, of defense technology, and for the brokering of defense goods and technology without a permit. The Act also provided for a review of its operation to begin as soon as possible after 2 April 2018.
 
The review will include an assessment of whether the Act is fit for purpose, particularly whether it adequately safeguards national defense capability and prevents trade and collaboration that could unwittingly advance the military capabilities of potential adversaries. The Review will also identify gaps in the Act’s controls, any unintended consequences arising from the Act, such as unnecessary regulatory burden, and other relevant matters.
 
Consultation
 
Interested parties are invited to submit written comment during the consultation period. The closing date for submissions is 31 May 2018
 
While submissions may be made electronically or by post, electronic lodgment is preferred. Submissions will be published on this website as they are received. Comments on submissions can be made to Dr. Thom by email to 
dtcact.review@defence.gov.au
 

All information (including name and address details) contained in submissions will be uploaded to this website and publicly available, unless you indicate you would like all or part of your submission to remain in confidence. Automatically generated confidentiality statements in emails do not suffice for this purpose. Respondents who would like all or part of their submission to remain in confidence should provide this information marked as such in a separate attachment. The Secretariat may edit submissions before publishing where they contain offensive material. … 

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

OGS_9
10.

 Singapore Customs Publishes Update Concerning NTP

(Source: 
Singapore Customs
, Notice 05/2018, 20 Apr 2018.)
 
Singapore Customs has published on its website 
Notice No. 05/2018
concerning the National Trade Platform (NTP), business-to-business tier of services.  

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_111. 
Bloomberg: “A Top Senate Republican Slams Tech Lobby’s CFIUS Bill Push”

(Source: 
Bloomberg
, 20 Apr 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
The Senate’s No. 2 Republican on Thursday used a floor speech to try to beat back efforts by IBM and a tech trade group to gut a bill that would expand the powers of a secretive national security panel.
 
The section of the bipartisan legislation that Senator John Cornyn of Texas is trying to preserve would strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, and grant it the authority to review joint ventures with foreign firms. … 
 
International Business Machines Corp., the Information Technology Industry Council trade group and others want to remove the bill’s emphasis on joint ventures and instead counter transfers of U.S. intellectual property to China that are deemed harmful by using export controls. … 

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

(Source: 
Caixin Global
, 20 Apr 2018.) 
 
* Telecom equipment-maker ZTE says U.S. ban threatens its survival 
* Company poses the possibility of taking judicial measures to protect its interests
 
Telecom equipment-maker ZTE Corp. on Friday called U.S. sanctions against it “unacceptable” and potentially life-threatening, but said it will still try to resolve the matter through talks with Washington.
 
In its 
first detailed response
 since Washington banned the company this week from buying U.S.-made components for seven years, ZTE said the move will “severely impact the survival and development of ZTE.” The case has drawn international attention because it comes as U.S. President Donald Trump spars with Beijing over accusations that China steals American intellectual property and that products like ZTE’s smartphones could pose a national security risk.
 
  “In any case, ZTE will not give up its efforts to resolve the issue through communication, and we are also determined, if necessary, to take judicial measures to protect the legal rights and interests of our company, our employees and our shareholders, and to fulfill obligations and take responsibilities to our global customers, end-users, partners and suppliers,” ZTE said in its statement.
 
The case dates back for at least six years, when Washington began investigating ZTE for selling equipment containing U.S.-made parts to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions at that time. Washington later found ZTE guilty of such sales, but the two sides reached an agreement last year that let the Chinese firm avoid a threatened seven-year ban on buying U.S. components.
 
Earlier this week 
Washington announced
 that ZTE had failed to comply with some terms of that agreement, and that it would re-impose the seven-year ban on the company. Specifically, Washington said that ZTE had failed to reprimand certain employees as required by the earlier settlement. ZTE initially responded saying 
it was assessing the situation
, and suspended trading of its Hong Kong- and Shenzhen-listed shares.
 
Its latest statement complained of unfair treatment, pointing out the company had been forthcoming about its past actions and had worked hard to comply with other elements of the settlement. It also noted the U.S. agency that conducted the investigation imposed the new ban “even before the completion of investigation of facts, ignoring the continuous diligent work of ZTE and the progress we have made on export compliance.” It pointed out that last year alone it spent more than $50 million on its export compliance program, and is planning to boost that level this year.
 
  “Since April 2016, ZTE Corp. has continuously reflected on lessons from its past experience in export control compliance and has attached great importance to export control compliance,” it said. “Within ZTE, compliance is regarded as the foundation and bottom-line of the company’s operation.”
 
The case has drawn widespread attention in China due to ongoing trade frictions with the U.S. Trump has recently vetoed several sales of U.S. high-tech firms to Chinese buyers. Washington has also pressured U.S. companies not to buy networking equipment and smartphones from ZTE and rival Huawei over concerns they could pose a national security risk due to potential for spying by Beijing. 
 
Following announcement of the latest ZTE sanctions, official Chinese media have said the U.S. is trying to 
stifle China’s high-tech development
, and called for the country to become more self-reliant in key areas like the manufacturing of cutting-edge microchips.

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

NWS_a3
13
Expeditors News: “Commissioner of CBP Requests Additional Funding for ACE” 

(Source: 
Expeditors News
, 19 Apr 2018.)
 
On April 12, 2018, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Kevin McAleenan, requested additional funding from Congress for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
 
Citing an “ongoing demand for additional and enhanced ACE capabilities,” the Commissioner requested an increase of $5.5 million to develop and deploy Post-Core functionality for ACE in fiscal year 2019. The focus of CBP includes e-commerce and high-volume, low value shipments.
 
The Commissioner’s testimony to the House Appropriations Committee may be found 
here
.

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

NWS_a414. 
De Limburger: “Three Individuals Prosecuted After 8 Years in ‘Euroturbine’ Case”

(Source: 
De Limburger
, 12 Apr 2018.) [Translated from Dutch.]
 
It has taken eight years, but the Public Prosecution Service has decided to prosecute three individuals in the case of the Venlo company Euroturbine B.V. 
It concerns the manager from Venlo and two employees.
 
Fraud
 
The trio is suspected of fraud in the export of gas turbine components to Iran. That would have happened between 2008 and 2010. It concerns so-called ‘dual-use goods’, products that can be used in two ways. Normally they are meant for civil applications, but they can also be used in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
 
Permit
 
A license is required for the export of these goods. According to the Public Prosecutor, the trio frauded with that. The three are in court in October of this year.

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

NWS_a515. 
ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Classification, Origin Ruling, Aluminum, Export Controls, Import Fee” 

(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report
, 20 Apr 2018.)
 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  April 23 – termination of 
blanket import declaration program for plant products
  April 23 – deadline for comments to BIS on 
section 232 information collection
  April 23 – deadline for comments to FTZ Board on 
reorganization of Florida zone
  April 23 – effective date of CBP 
revocation or modification of classification and other rulings
  April 23 – deadline for comments to OFAC on 
licensing procedures for food and medicine exports to Sudan and Iran
  April 23 – deadline to request judicial review of CBP 
origin ruling on printers and toner cartridges
  April 25 – meeting of BIS 
Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee
  April 26 – meeting of 
Trade Finance Advisory Council
  April 27 – deadline for comments to EPA on proposal for 
new user fees on importers

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

NWS_a616. 
ST&R Trade Report: “Import and Export Restrictions on Two Opioid-Like Substances Finalized” 

(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report
, 20 Apr 2018.)
 

The Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a final order that maintains the placement of the substances butyryl fentanyl (N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylbutanamide) and U-47700 (3,4-dichloro-N-[2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]-N-methylbenzamide), including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This order continues to impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research or conduct instructional activities with, or possess these substances.

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

NWS_a717. 
The Washington Post: “A New U.S. Policy Makes it (Somewhat) Easier to Export Drones”

(Source: The Washington Post, 20 Apr 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
The Trump administration just announced a new drone export policy designed to make it easier for U.S. companies to export drones, including armed drones. Given concerns about the proliferation of these lethal systems, what explains this policy shift?
 
U.S. drone export policy is determined both by domestic policy and U.S. obligations as a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a voluntary export control regime with 35 member states. Created in 1987, the MTCR was designed to prevent the spread of missiles with the potential to carry weapons of mass destruction.
 
Even though drones are more akin to airplanes than missiles, drones that can travel more than 300 kilometers and carry a payload of more than 500 kilograms are subject to the “strong presumption of denial” for export by MTCR members. As a result, U.S. armed drones have only been approved for sale to the Britain, Italy and France. … 

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source: 
New American
, 18 Apr 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
* Author: C. Mitchell Shaw, New American journalist.
 
The battle over privacy and encryption is heating up. Again. Following FBI director Christopher Wray’s January calls for legislation that would put an end to any meaningful encryption standard, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is planning to keep her promise to reintroduce the anti-encryption bill she and Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) tried to pass in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting.
 
The Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 co-authored by Feinstein and Burr never really got off the ground. In fact, fresh on the heels of the failed FBI attempt to get Apple to build in a backdoor to the encryption on their products, the bill could not even gain enough traction to make it out of committee for a vote. There was simply not enough support for the legislation.
 
According to a report by Reuters, not even the Obama White House would support the bill. In late May 2016, Burr and Feinstein announced that the bill was dead. They said they had not given up, though. Reuters reported that Burr said, “There was no timeline for the bill” and “Feinstein said she planned to talk to more tech stakeholders.” Burr reportedly said, “Be patient,” indicating that the pair had plans to try again. So, the bill fizzled and failed, but that has never stopped the surveillance hawks before, and this is no different. As always, the surveillance hawks in Congress – with the support of the surveillance hawks in law enforcement – will simply reboot the bill and try again.
 
When Wray – new on the job – 
called for this new round of legislation,he claimed that the FBI was in possession of nearly 8,000 devices that could not be searched due to the encryption of those devices. As ZDNet 
reported in January:
 
Wray said that each device was tied to a specific subject or threat, but did not say how many investigations were affected by the lack of access.
 
ZDNet filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October to seek answers on the number of investigations impacted, but has not yet received a response beyond an initial acknowledgement.
 
This is not the first time Wray as FBI director, like his predecessors, has argued that encryption gets in the way of investigations. The so-called “going dark” issue, referring to the inability to gain access to criminals’ devices and data, remains a key challenge for the FBI.
 
What Wray was hinting at – though without as much subtlety as he may think – is the creation of a “backdoor” to encryption. A backdoor is an idea that has been 
proposed by surveillance hawks – and 
rejected by privacy advocates – for years. The battle over encryption – known as the Crypto Wars – has been going on since the early 1990s.
 
Wray claimed that the FBI’s interest in unlocking encrypted devices is narrow and limited, saying, “We’re not interested in the millions of devices of everyday citizens. We’re interested in the devices that are used to plan or execute terrorist or criminal activity.”
 
Of course, the surveillance hawks that have built their careers building and expanding the surveillance state have always claimed to have a specific focus. And they have lied. Given that record – including the denials of the NSA, ODNI, FBI, and other overreaching government agencies – it would be foolish to believe that this time is any different.
 
As the Apple case demonstrated, the desire to unlock a particular device (or pile of particular devices) is merely a smokescreen to put an end to the one type of technology that stands in the way of the surveillance state. Powerful encryption is a major part of protecting privacy in the digital era. In fact, it is essential. When used properly, it guarantees that no unauthorized person can access your data.
 
It is that protection in the hands of private citizens – acting as a counterbalance to the surveillance state’s ability to spy on those private citizens – that is the real reason for attacks on encryption. As this writer explained in an article that originally appeared in print (in our July 18, 2016 issue) and was later 
published online:
 
To understand what is at stake here, it is important to look at the first round of what have been called the “Crypto Wars.” In 1991, a 37-year-old software engineer named Phil Zimmermann wrote an encryption program called Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). PGP allowed anyone with a fairly modern computer and the ability to follow instructions to encrypt their e-mails in such a way that (1) the e-mail could be read only by the intended recipient, and (2) the e-mail could be digitally “signed” in such a way that the recipient could be sure it was sent by the sender and not by an imposter. He made it available for download on the Internet – which was fairly young, but quickly growing. He also published the source code of the program in old-fashioned book form and directly exported that book all over the world.
 
Zimmermann – and those using his new encryption standard – quickly ran into a problem. The U.S. government classified as a munition any encryption program strong enough to actually work, and banned its export. Since the Internet made it possible for anyone in the world to get their hands on a copy of the program (and also made it 
impossible to prevent them from doing so), Zimmermann soon found himself under criminal investigation by the U.S. Customs Service for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act.

 
In the book 
PGP & GPG: Email for the Practical Paranoid, Michael W. Lucas explains that Zimmerman – by directly exporting the source code in book form – managed to turn what the U.S. government had treated as a 
software issue into a 
free speech issue.
 
As the case moved through the courts, Uncle Sam realized that the courts were likely to consider the dissemination of the written code behind the software as protected speech. Rather than risk a verdict – and a precedent – that might make the export of encryption software legally acceptable in almost any case, the federal government dropped the case and relaxed the standards for exporting software used for encryption. In 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13026, essentially removing encryption from the munitions list.
 
But the Crypto Wars were far from over. While encryption has been the standard in business for more than 20 years (you use it without even seeing it when you transfer money or log in to certain websites), it has not been largely adopted by the average citizen for much of anything, including e-mail. Until recently.
The upswing in the use of powerful encryption to protect data-at-rest (data stored on a device such as a computer, mobile device, external hard drive, or USB stick) and data-in-motion (data being sent from one device to another over mobile towers, the Internet, or another network) is the direct result of people reacting to what Edward Snowden revealed to the world in May 2013: U.S. government agencies routinely spy on everyone, including American citizens.
 
So, while Wray (and Comey before him) as well as other surveillance hawks 
cry and 
whine that 
encryption in the hands of private citizens is – in Wray’s words – “an urgent public safety issue,” the reality is that they hate it because it pulls the plug on huge portions of the surveillance machine.
 
As this writer said in that previous article:
 
For all the ostensible reasons that the intelligence and law-enforcement communities give for wanting to limit the ability of ordinary citizens to encrypt their data and communications, the real reason is that those in power love power and want a monopoly on it. Government officials – who use encrypted systems for both data storage and communications – don’t want private citizens to use that same technology. These are the same individuals who go about their daily lives surrounded by armed police officers, military personnel, and private security guards while decrying the evils of an armed society. This double standard is more than mere hypocrisy; it is tyranny.
 
And while surveillance hawks love to repeat the mantra that encryption is “the tool of choice” for terrorists and other criminals, they pretend not to know that it is also the tool of choice for average citizens who want to protect their data from those who would spy on them – whether those who would spy on them work for a nosy corporation, a criminal organization, or an overreaching government agency.
 
Another favorite argument of the surveillance hawks is that encryption keeps law enforcement out of devices even when there is a warrant. This argument ignores the fact that warrants aren’t what they used to be. This is illustrated by the case of a federal judge issuing a warrant for an intrusive search of a family’s home based on no more probable cause than the facts that 
the husband and daughter shopped at a gardening store and the wife drank herbal tea.
 
Average citizens who use encryption to protect their data did not start the Crypto Wars; The surveillance state did. The use of powerful encryption is merely a reaction to the crimes of the state. 

And – par for the course – the surveillance state is posturing once again to take away the one tool that truly levels the playing field. While no date has been set for the re-introduction of the Feinstein/Burr anti-encryption bill, freedom-loving Americans need to brace themselves for the next round of this ongoing battle. The next few weeks and months will likely show an increase in test-cases, claims, and statements by surveillance hawks about the evils of encryption as they attempt to psychologically seduce the people to accept yet another encroachment on their God-given rights.

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

 
* Authors: Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Esq., 
jalebeau@wsgr.com; Melissa Mannino, Esq., 
mmannino@wsgr.com; and Anne Seymour, Esq., 
aseymour@wsgr.com. All of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
 
On April 15, 2018, Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (ZTE Corporation) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. (ZTE Kangxun) (collectively “ZTE”) were added to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS’s) List of Denied Persons. As a result, ZTE cannot receive or participate in any way in a transaction involving virtually any commercial items exported from the U.S. until March 13, 2025, and third persons are prohibited from participating in most transactions involving U.S.-origin items and ZTE until March 13, 2025. BIS imposed this seven-year denial of export privileges against ZTE due to the fact that ZTE breached BIS’s March 23, 2017, order and related settlement agreement regarding ZTE’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the export control laws administered and enforced by BIS. 
 
Seven-Year Denial of Export Privileges-What Does It Mean?
 
BIS imposed the most severe penalty in its arsenal on ZTE. While BIS was willing to suspend its denial order in prior years, despite issuing a record-high penalty of $1.19 billion for violating the U.S. trade embargo against Iran, BIS activated the denial order on April 15. BIS found, and ZTE acknowledged, that ZTE made repeated false statements to BIS, including during settlement negotiations and as part of its obligations under the March 23, 2017, order. These false statements relate to ZTE’s failure to reprimand and withhold bonuses from employees who participated in ZTE’s unlawful transactions involving Iran. ZTE did not proactively disclose the false statements to BIS. Accordingly, BIS activated the denial order, which includes various prohibitions, including: 
 
  – ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun “may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software, or technology…exported or to be exported from the U.S. that is subject to the [EAR], or in any other activity that is subject to the [EAR]….”[FN/1]
  – No person may, directly or indirectly, take any action to export or reexport an item subject to the EAR to ZTE or participate in any way in a transaction that would facilitate ZTE use or acquisition of any item subject to the EAR.[FN/2]
  – No person may participate in any transaction to service an item subject to the EAR that has or will be exported from the U.S. that ZTE Corporation or ZTE Kangxun owns, controls, or possesses.[FN/3]
 
Items subject to the EAR include dual-use or commercial items commodities, technology, and software that are exported from the U.S. 
 
Summary of Prohibitions: What Can and Cannot Be Done
 
The denial of export privileges is broad, and the general rules include the following:
 
  – Shipments of virtually any commercial commodity, technology, or software from the U.S. to ZTE are prohibited as of April 15, 2018. 
     (i) For instance, no updates, bug fixes, and patches, among others, for any software subject to the EAR may be sent to ZTE notwithstanding the fact that the underlying software was exported to ZTE in compliance with the EAR.
  – Third persons are prohibited from participating in any way in a transaction involving any item subject to the EAR exported from the U.S. and ZTE, including servicing an item subject to the EAR or facilitating service of such an item that is owned, controlled, or possessed by ZTE or is otherwise for ZTE’s benefit. 
    (i) For instance, companies may not accept returns, including for repairs, of any item subject to the EAR from ZTE.
  – Companies may still collect payments from ZTE for shipments of items subject to the EAR that were made prior to April 15. 
 
Conclusion
 
Effective April 15, 2018, ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun are on BIS’s List of Denied Persons. No person, U.S. or foreign, may send ZTE any items subject to the EAR or facilitate any such transaction. ZTE may not directly or indirectly participate in any transaction involving an item subject to the EAR that will be or has been exported from the U.S. No license exceptions are available, and to obtain authorization to engage in any prohibited transactions, a person must submit a written request to BIS’s Office of Exporter Services as described in the EAR.

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

(Source: 
Inverse.com, 19 Apr 2018.) 
 
* Author: Sarah Sloat, contributor at Inverse. Ms. Sloat previously wrote for the New Republic, and the Pacific Standard, among others. 
 
The technology is controversial in our world too.
 
In the new 
Netflix series 
Lost in Space, the space-colonizing Robinson family confronts the dangerous and strange, encountering entities like alien robots, fuel-consuming eels, and deceptively inhospitable 
new planets. However, the Robinsons also face potential threats that very much exist in the real world. Some of the most dangerous things they encounter, arguably, are actually human-made. Danger, dear reader! Spoilers for episode three are below.
 
In the third installment of 
Lost in Space, we learn that the 
3D printer onboard the 
Jupiter 2 is incapable of spitting out guns after John Robinson’s failed attempt to print one. Sanctions in this world prohibit the printing of firearms – a key difference between the 
fictional show and ours that we’ll get into later. Yet by the end of the episode, it’s clear that the printer has been hacked and a gun has been printed, not by the accused John or the suspicious Dr. Smith, but by a morally questionable robot who gives 
the gun to the young Will Robinson as a means of protection. Though the show takes place 30 years into the future, the problematic scenario it presents is hardly fictional: Technically, we can 
3D-print guns now, and it’s already 
very controversial.

A real 3D-printed single shot handgun, named the ‘Liberator.’
The world’s first 3D-printed gun was successfully fired 
in 2013, about 
18 years after 3D printing entered the mass market. The gun was created by a controversial group called Defense Distributed, which made the gun on a printer the organization bought on eBay for $8,000. At the time, the group’s founder Cody Wilson, then 25, told 
the BBC that the technology let him see “a world where technology says you can pretty much be able to have whatever you want.”
 
The U.S. Department of State, however, didn’t see it the same way and ordered Wilson to take down the blueprints for the “Liberator” pistol. Blueprints, technically called computer-aided design (CAD) files, are at the heart of 3D printing and 
the controversy around it. CAD files, once uploaded into the printer, contain the coding that instructs the printer what to create. Layer by layer of plastic is laid down on a tray until the solid object – the design outlined in the CAD files – is complete.
 
The State Department claimed that the availability of the gun CAD files violated federal export laws. Wilson, in turn, said the government was violating his 
first and 
second amendment. It’s been an ongoing legal battle ever since: Today, anyone with internet access can still download 
gun CAD files, and it’s legal for anyone to 
make a gun at home.
 

Whether or not this should be legal is up in the air. Guns made at home, also known as ‘ghost guns’, are now illegal in California, and other states are considering the same. In January 2018, the Supreme Court decided not to weigh in on whether the banning of CAD files was a violation of free speech, but Wilson says he’s still determined to prove that sharing gun designs online is his right. Meanwhile, in Lost in Space, it looks like that right has been revoked – but the ruling doesn’t carry any weight for a robot.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
21. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” in Annapolis, MD, on May 22-23

(Sources: Suzanne Palmer, ECS.) 
 
* What: Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges, Annapolis, MD
* When: 22-23 May 2018
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel: Suzanne Palmer; Lisa Bencivenga; Timothy Mooney, Commerce/BIS; Matt Doyle, Lockheed; Matt McGrath, McGrath Law, Debi Davis, Esterline
* Register 
here or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail

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

TE_a2
22. ECTI Presents “The Essentials and Challenges of Exporting Firearms and Ammunition” Webinar on 7 Jun

 
* What: The Essentials and Challenges of Exporting Firearms and Ammunition Webinar
* When: 7 June, 2018, 1 p.m. EST
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Johanna Reeves
* Register 
here or by calling Danielle Hatch (
540-433-3977)
 or e-mail

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

TE_a3
23.
List of Approaching Events 
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

Published every Friday or last publication day of the week. Please, send event announcements to John Bartlett, Events & Jobs Editor. (email: 
jwbartlett@fullcirclecompliance.eu), composed in the below format:

# DATE: LOCATION; “EVENT TITLE”; SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number)
 

#” New or updated listing this week  

 
Continuously Available Training:
 
* E-Seminars: “US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls“; Export Compliance Training Institute; danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* Webinar: ”
Company-Wide US Export Controls Awareness Program“; Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness“; Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
*Online: “Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)“; Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “Webinars On-Demand Library“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
* Online: “International Trade Webinars“; Global Training Center
*
 
Online: “On-Demand Webinars“; “General Training“; Center for Development of Security Excellence; Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Online: “ACE Reports Training and User Guide“; DHS/CBP

* Online: ”
Increase Your International Sales – Webinar Archive“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Web Form: “Compliance Snapshot Assessment“; Commonwealth Trading Partners (CTP)
* Online: “
Customs Broker Exam Prep Course
“; The Exam Center
 
Training by Date:

* Apr 23: Commodity Webinar; “April Series: Aircraft and Aircraft Parts“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Apr 23: Copenhagen, Denmark; “Anti-Bribery Roundtable“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Apr 23-27: Dallas, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 

# Apr 24: Free Webcast; ”
Managing Rising Import Tariffs with GTM Technology“; Integration Point

* Apr 24: Commodity Webinar; “April Series: Organic Chemicals”; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Apr 24: Los Angeles, CA; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Apr 24-25: Dubai, UAE; “Trade Compliance in the Middle East“; NeilsonSmith
* Apr 25: Webinar; “Understanding Classification“; NAFTZ
* Apr 25: Commodity Webinar; “April Series: Articles Designed for Demonstrational Purposes“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Apr 25-26: Berlin, Gernamy; “Global Anti-Bribery In-House Network (GAIN)“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Apr 25-26: West Middlesex, PA; “
Export Compliance Conference
“; Ohio-Pennsylvania Export Initiative
* Apr 25-26: Costa Mesa, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Apr 25-26: Washington, D.C.; “11th Conference on Economic Sanctions Enforcement & Compliance“; American Conference Institute
* Apr 26: Webinar; “Export Control Reform“; Foreign Trade Association
* Apr 30: Commodity Webinar; “April Series: Role of Material in Classification“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Apr 30-May 2: Kansas City, MO; “Discover Global Markets“; U.S. Department of Commerce
* May 1: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Blouses and Other Garments of Heading 6211“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 1: Boston, MA; “
Blockchain Technologies for the Warfighter
“; NDIA
* May 2-3: Scottsdale, AZ; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security 

* May 3: ”
Sanctions & Export Controls: Focus on Medical Devices“; Winston & Strawn LLP

* May 3-4: Milan, Italy; “Trade Compliance Southern Europe“; C5 Group
* May 6-8: Toronto, Canada; “2018 ICPA Canadian Conference“; ICPA
* May 6-11: Miami, FL; “U.S. Commercial Service Trade Mission to the Carribean Region“; (Additional dates are available for B2B meetings in listed countries.)
*
 May 7: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: ‘Textile Articles: Basket Provision’“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 7-8: Denver, CO; “2018 Spring Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)
May 8: New York, NY; “Advanced Classification – Textiles“; Amber Road
May 8: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Monumental and Building Stone“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)
* May 8: Webinar; “U.S. Harmonized Tariff Classification Numbers“; U.S. Commercial Service
* May 8: Mexico City, Mexico; “Anti-Bribery Workshop“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* May 9: “Wednesday Webinar: Demonstrations and Plant Visits“; Reeves & Dola LLP
* May 9: London, UK; “Advanced Financing of International Trade“; IOEx
May 9: Commodity Webinar; “
May Series: Festive Articles
“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD)
 
May 10: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Inorganic Chemicals, Fertilizers, and Surfactants“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 10: North Reading; “Best Practices for Integrating Export Compliance Operations in a Global Organization“; Massachusetts Export Center
* May 11: Webinar; “Customs Valuation and Documentation for Tricky Transactions“; Massachusetts Export Center
May 14: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Ribbons and Trimmings“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 14-15: Washington, D.C.; “
BIS Update 2018 Conference on Export Controls and Policy
“; BIS
May 15: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Hair Accessories of Heading 9615“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 15: Long Beach, California; “
92 Annual World Trade Week & International Delegate Luncheon and Trade Fair
“; Foreign Trade Association
May 15: San Diego, CA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road
* May 15-16: Cleveland, OH; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
May 16: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Pharmaceutical Products“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 16: Webinar; “Russia Sanctions Update & Complying with the OFAC 50% Rule“; Massachusetts Export Center
* May 16-17: Amsterdam, Netherlands; “Digital Utilities Europe 2018“; American Conference Institute
* May 16-17: National Harbor, MD; “ITAR/EAR Compliance: An Industry Perspective“; Export Compliance Solutions
* May 16: Southampton, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 17: Southampton, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 17: Southampton, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 17: Southampton, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 18: Fall River, MA; “Managing Export Operations & Compliance“; Massachusetts Export Center
* May 20-22: Portland, OR; “Spring 2018 Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
May 22: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Sweaters and Articles of Heading 6110“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Mar 22: Webinar; “Brexit Update: Implications for U.S. Exports to the U.K. and E.U. Webinar“; U.S. Commercial Service

* May 22-23: Miami, FL; “Export Compliance Seminar and Workshop“; 
South Florida District Export Council / U.S. Commercial Service, at University of Miami
* May 22-23: Annapolis, MD; ”
May 2018 Seminar Level III-Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges“; Export Compliance Solutions

* May 22-23: London, UK; “Upstream Oil and Gas Legal Forum“; C5 Group
* May 22-24: Las Vegas, NV; “Licensing Expo 2018: The Meeting Place for the Global Licensing Industry“; U.S. Commercial Service
May 23: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Coated and Down Garments“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 23: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* May 23-24: Berlin, Germany; “12th Annual Exporters’ Forum on Global Economic Sanctions“; C5 Group
May 24: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Plywood, Veneered Panels, and Similar Laminated Wood“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 24: Tewksbury, MA; “DFARS Cybersecurity 2.0: The Year of Continuous Monitoring“; NDIA New England
* May 24: London, UK; “Making Better License Applications“; UK Department for International Trade
May 29: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Cameras of Subheading 8525.80“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* May 29-31: Hong Kong; “Hong Kong Summit on Economic Sanctions and Compliance Enforcement“; American Conference Institute
May 30: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Bitcoin Miners“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 

# May 31: Webinar; ”
Exporting Under NAFTA“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

May 31: Commodity Webinar; “May Series: Women’s Knit Tank Tops“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 4: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Wafers, Transformers, and PCBAs“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 5: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Alcoholic Beverages“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 5-6: Chicago, IL; “EAR Boot Camp“; American Conference Institute
Jun 6: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Self-Adhesives of Heading 3919“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 7: Chicago, IL; “ITAR Boot Camp“; American Conference Institute
* Jun 7: Webinar; “Resource Guide on Trade Actions“; NAFTZ
* Jun 6-7: Seattle, WA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Jun 6-7: Munich, Germany; “US Trade Controls Compliance in Europe“; NielsonSmith
* Jun 6-7: Munich, Germany; “Pharma Patent Term Extensions“; C5 Group
* Jun 6-8: Baltimore, MD; “97th Annual AAEI Conference and Expo“; American Association of Importers and Exporters
* Jun 8: Stafford, VA; “Spring Golf Outing“; Society for International Affairs;
Jun 12: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Glass Containers: Headings 7010 and 7013“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 12: Webinar; “Duty Drawback and Refunds“; U.S. Commercial Service
* June 12-13; Stockholm, Sweden; “Trade Compliance Nordics“; C5 Group
Jun 13: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Ornaments, Boxes, and Furniture of Heading 4420“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 13: San Diego, CA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Jun 13: Derby, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
Jun 14: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Medical Instruments and Appliances“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 14: Boston, MA; “Export Regulatory Compliance Update“; Massachusetts Export Center
* Jun 14: Webinar; “ACE for Importers and Exporters“; Foreign Trade Association
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 14: Derby, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 17-19: Amsterdam, Netherlands; “2018 ICPA European Conference“; International Compliance Professionals Association
Jun 18: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Heating and Cooling Treatment Facilities“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Global Trade Academy
Jun 19: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Sanitary Ware of Iron or Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 20: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Polymer Basics“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 20-21: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
Jun 21: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Antidumping on Diamond Sawblades“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 25: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Gloves“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 26: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Bed Linens“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
Jun 27: Commodity Webinar; “June Series: Fundamentals of Footwear“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jun 27: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jun 27-28: London, UK; “12th Annual Conference on Anti-Corruption“; C5
* Jun 28: London, UK; “
Making Better License Applications
“; UK Department for International Trade
 
* Jul 4: Cambridge, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Jul 5: Cambridge, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
Jul 7: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: What’s a Toy?“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 10: Chicago, IL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
Jul 10: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Food Incorporating Alcohol“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 10-11: Columbia, SC; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* July 10-12: Chicago, IL; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road 
* Jul 11-14: Laredo, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 
* Jul 12: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Understanding Types of Woven Fabric“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 16: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Electromechanical Domestic Appliances“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 16-18: National Harbor, Maryland; “2018 Summer Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs
* Jul 17: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Other Articles of Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Advanced Classification of Plastics and Rubber“; Global Trade Academy
* Jul 19: Commodity Webinar; “July Series: Tubes and Pipes of Iron or Steel“; National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD) 
* Jul 19: McLean, VA; “ITAR for the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Jul 19-20: Torrance, CA; “
Customs Compliance For Import Personnel
“; Foreign Trade Association
* Aug 1-3: Washington, D.C.; “NSSF and Fair Trade Import/Export Conference“; NSSF
* Aug 6: Detroit, MI; “Export Compliance and Controls“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Aug 14-15: Milpitas, CA; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Aug 16: Milpitas, CA; “Encryption Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 12-13: Springfield, RI; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 13-17: Galveston, TX (Cruise); “ICPA @ SEA!“; International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Sep 16-19: Atlanta, GA; “2018 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* Sep 17: Los Angeles, CA; “Import Compliance“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 17-20: Columbus, OH; “University Export Controls Seminar at The Ohio State University in Columbus“; Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI); jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Sep 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy  
* Sep 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Tariff Classification for Importers and Exporters“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 19: Los Angeles, CA; “NAFTA and Trade Agreements“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 19-20: Rome, Italy; “Defense Exports 2018“; SMi
* Sep 20: Los Angeles, CA; “Country and Rules of Origin“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21: Los Angeles, CA; “Customs Valuation – The Essentials“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 21-24: Detroit, Michigan; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 
* Sep 26: McLean, VA; “EAR Basics“; FD Associates 
* Sep 26: Oxford, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 16-18: Dallas, TX; “Partnering for Compliance West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program“; Partnering for Compliance 
* Oct 18-19: McLean, VA; “ITAR Fundamentals“; FD Associates
* Oct 19: Dallas TX; “
Customs/Import Boot Camp
“; Partnering for Compliance
* Oct 21-23: Grapevine, TX; “2018 Fall Conference“; ICPA
* Oct 22-26: Dallas, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys
* Oct 22-23: Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)
* Oct 24: Leeds, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 29 – Nov 1: Phoenix, AZ; ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Seattle, WA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 6: Detroit, MI; “Classification: How to Classify Parts“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 7-9: London, UK; “TRACE European Forum, 2018“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Nov 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Advanced Classification for Machinery & Electronics“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 12-15: Washington, D.C.; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 14: Manchester, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 14-15: London, UK; “Economic Sanctions & Financial Crime“; C5 Group
* Nov 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy
* Dec 3-7: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy 
* Dec 4-5: Frankfurt, Germany; “US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” C5 Group
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
* Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Export Controls and Licenses
“; 
* Dec 11: Manchester, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade
 
2019
 

* Jan 6-7: Long Beach, CA; ”
Fundamentals of FTZ Seminar“;

* May 5-7: Savannah, GA; “2019 Spring Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
* Sep 8-11: Chicago, IL; “2019 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a124
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

Charlotte Bronte (21 Apr 1816 – 31 March 1855) was an English novelist and poet, the eldest of the three Brontë sisters who survived into adulthood and whose novels have become classics of English literature. She first published her works, including her best known novel, Jane Eyre, under the pen name Currer Bell.
  – “Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow firm there, firm as weeds among stones.”

Catherine the Great (born Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst; 21 Apr 1729 – 17 Nov 1796;  was Empress of Russia from 1762 until 1796, the country’s longest-ruling female leader. She came to power when her husband, Peter III, was assassinated. Under her reign, Russia was revitalized, grew larger and stronger, and was recognized as one of the great powers of Europe.)
  – “I praise loudly. I blame softly.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
* Buffy was in a job interview, and the executive asked, “If you could have a conversation with any person, living or dead, who would that be?”  Buffy quickly responded, “The living one.”
 
* Buffy’s next door neighbor decided to redecorate her bedroom. She wasn’t sure how many rolls of wallpaper she would need, but she knew that Buffy had recently done the same job in home, and the two rooms were identical in size.  “Buffy, How many rolls of wallpaper did you buy for your bedroom?”  “Ten,” said Buffy.  So her neighbor bought the ten rolls of paper and did the job, but she had two rolls left over.  “Buffy,” she said. “I bought ten rolls of wallpaper like you did, but I’ve got two rolls left over!”  “Yes,” said Buffy. “So did I.”
 

* One day, Buffy’s husband came home from the office and found her looking sad. “I feel terrible,” she told him. “I was pressing your best suit and I burned a big hole in the seat of the trousers.”  “Don’t worry about it,” consoled her husband. “Remember that I bought an extra pair of trousers for that suit.”  “Yes, and it’s a good thing that you did,” said Buffy.  “I used them to patch the hole.”

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

EN_a225. 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: 
12 Apr 2018: 
83 FR 15736-15740
: CBP Decision No. 18-04; Definition of Importer Security Filing Importer
DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M

  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2
: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary 
here
.)


EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 

  –
Last Amendment(s): 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 
website
BITAR 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: 16 Apr 2018: 
Harmonized System Update 1805 
[contains 267 ABI records and 60 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_a326
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, John Bartlett. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 8,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, 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 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