18-0423 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-0423 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 23 April 2018

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

  1. Commerce/BIS Publishes ZTE Denial Order in Federal Register 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS Announces 2018 Annual Conference on Export Controls and Policy, 14-15 May in Washington DC
  3. DoD/DSCA Publishes Policy Memo 19-23 and 19-24
  4. State/DDTC Welcomes Industry Feedback on Electronic Disclosure Form
  5. Treasury/OFAC Issues General License to Mitigate Impact on Parties Affected by Deripaska Designation
  6. White House Releases Memorandum Concerning the Furnishing of Defense Articles and Defense Services to the OCCAR
  7. EU Posts Corrigendum Concerning North Korea Sanctions
  8. German BAFA Overview of English Publications
  1. Android Central: “ZTE Vows to Fight Government’s Denial Order, May Take Legal Action”
  2. Defense News: “Do New Trump Arms Export Rules Live up to the Hype?”
  3. Expeditors News: “CBP Publishes GSP Refund Procedures”
  4. Quartz: “Behind the Scenes, China’s Actually Kind of Mad at its Telecoms Giant ZTE”
  5. Reuters: “U.S. Regulator Permits China’s ZTE to Submit More Evidence”
  6. WorldECR: “Russia Proposes Tough Counter-Sanctions to Recent U.S. Action”
  1. M. Proctor: “U.S. Suspends Export Privileges of Chinese Tech Giant ZTE”
  2. O. Coulon & J. Vankerckhoven: “Belgian Companies Brought to Court for Illegal Exports of Chemicals to Syria”
  3. SIPRI Releases Papers on the Proliferation Challenges Associated with Transfers of Software and Technology and 3D Printing
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 191 Jobs Posted
  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 



1. Commerce/BIS Publishes ZTE Denial Order in Federal Register

Federal Register
, 23 Apr 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 17644-17648: In the Matter of: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South Hi-Tech Industrial Park Nanshan District, Shenzhen China; ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. 2/3 Floor, Suite A, Zte Communication Mansion Keji (S) Road Hi-New Shenzhen, 518057 China Respondent’; Order Activating Suspended Denial Order Relating to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and Zte Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. 
* Background: On March 23, 2017, I signed an Order approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into in early March 2017, between the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”) and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”), hereinafter the “March 23, 2017 Order.” Under the terms of the settlement, ZTE agreed to a record-high combined civil and criminal penalty of $1.19 billion, after engaging in a multi-year conspiracy to violate the U.S. trade embargo against Iran to obtain contracts to supply, build, operate, and maintain telecommunications networks in Iran using U.S.-origin equipment, and also illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to North Korea in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017)) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). ZTE also admitted to engaging in an elaborate scheme to hide the unlicensed transactions from the U.S. Government, by deleting, destroying, removing, or sanitizing materials and information. 
  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order, BIS imposed against ZTE a civil penalty totaling $661,000,000, with $300,000,000 of that amount suspended for a probationary period of seven years from the date of the Order. [FN/1] This suspension was subject to several probationary conditions stated in the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order, including that ZTE commit no other violation of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015)), the Regulations, or the March 23, 2017 Order. The March 23, 2017 Order also imposed, as agreed to by ZTE, a seven-year denial of ZTE’s export privileges under the EAR that was suspended subject to the same probationary conditions. The March 23, 2017 Order, like the Settlement Agreement, provided that should ZTE fail to comply with any of the probationary conditions, the $300 million suspended portion of the civil penalty could immediately become due and owing in full, as well as that BIS could modify or revoke the suspension of the denial order and activate a denial order of up to seven years.  
  The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order require that during the probationary period, ZTE is to, among other things, complete and submit six audit reports regarding ZTE’s compliance with U.S. export control laws. The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order also include a broad cooperation provision during the period of the suspended denial order. This cooperation provision specifically requires that ZTE make truthful disclosures of any requested factual information. The Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order thus, by their terms, essentially incorporate the prohibition set forth in Section 764.2(g) of the EAR against making any false or misleading representation or statement to BIS during, inter alia, the course of an investigation or other action subject to the EAR.
  On February 2, 2018, acting pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order, BIS requested, among other things, that ZTE provide a status report on all individuals named or otherwise identified in two letters sent by ZTE, through its outside counsel, to the U.S. Government, dated November 30, 2016, and July 20, 2017, respectively. The status report was to include, among other things, current title, position, responsibilities, and pay and bonus information from March 7, 2017 to the present. The first of those two letters, dated November 30, 2016, was sent during BIS’s investigation of the violations alleged in the Proposed Charging Letter and referenced in the Settlement Agreement and March 23, 2017 Order. In that letter, ZTE described “self-initiated” employee disciplinary actions it asserted that it had taken to date and additional actions that the company said it would take in the near future because they were “necessary to achieve the Company’s goals of disciplining those involved and sending a strong message to ZTE employees about the Company’s commitment to compliance.” The letter focused on ZTE’s asserted commitment to compliance, including from the highest levels of management.
  The July 20, 2017 letter, sent on ZTE’s behalf during the March 23, 2017 Order’s seven-year probationary period, also asserted ZTE’s commitment to compliance and claimed that the disciplinary actions taken had sent a very strong message to ZTE employees. The letter was sent “to confirm that the measures detailed by ZTE with respect to discipline have been implemented” against nine named ZTE employees identified during the U.S. Government’s investigation. The employee disciplinary actions-actions that ZTE told the U.S. Government that it had already taken-were in ZTE’s words a showing of ZTE’s “overall approach to discipline and commitment to compliance,” which the company described as “significant and sufficient to prevent past misconduct from occurring again at ZTE.” Nearly all of the employees named in the July 20, 2017 letter had been specifically identified to ZTE by the U.S. Government as individuals that U.S. law enforcement agents wanted to interview during the investigation, either because they were signatories on an internal ZTE memorandum discussing how to evade U.S. export controls, were identified on that memorandum as a “project core member” of that evasion scheme, and/or had met with ZTE’s then-CEO to discuss means to continue evading U.S. law. Three were members of the “Contract Data Induction Team” involved in extensive efforts to destroy and conceal evidence described in more detail below and in the PCL.
  In sum, through those two letters, ZTE informed the U.S. Government that the company had taken or would take action against 39 employees and officials that ZTE identified as having a role in the violations that led to the criminal plea agreement and the settlement agreements with BIS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. In fact, and as ZTE now admits, the letters of reprimand described in the November 30, 2016 letter were never issued until approximately a month after BIS’s February 2, 2018 request for information, and all but one of the pertinent individuals identified in the November 30, 2016 or July 20, 2017 letters received his or her 2016 bonus. [FN/2] These false statements were not corrected by ZTE even in part until March 2018, more than 15 months from ZTE’s November 30, 2016 letter, approximately a year from the Settlement Agreement (which ZTE executed on March 2, 2017) and the March 23, 2017 Order, and nearly eight months from the July 20, 2017 letter. During a conference call on March 6, 2018, ZTE indicated, via outside counsel, that it had made false statements in the November 30, 2016 and the July 20, 2017 letters. As discussed below, ZTE’s first detailed notification occurred on March 16, 2018. … 
  Based on the totality of circumstances here, I have determined within my discretion that it is appropriate to activate the suspended denial order in full and to suspend the export privileges of ZTE for a period of seven years, until March 13, 2025. [FN/7]

It is therefore ordered:
  First, from the date of this Order until March 13, 2025, ZTE Corporation, with a last known address of ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China, and ZTE Kangxun, with a last known address of 2/3 Floor, Suite A, Zte Communication Mansion, Keji (S) Road, Hi-New Shenzhen, 518057 China, and when acting for or on their behalf, their successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, representatives, or agents (hereinafter each a “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
  Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
  Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.
  Fourth, that this Order shall be served on ZTE, and shall be published in the Federal Register.
  This Order is effective immediately.
Issued this 15th day of April 2018.
Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
  [FN/1] In addition to the BIS-ZTE settlement, ZTE Corporation entered into a plea agreement with the Justice Department’s National Security Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, and entered into a settlement agreement with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. The civil penalties (including the $661 million civil penalty imposed by BIS) and the criminal fine and forfeiture totaled, when combined, approximately $1.19 billion.
  [FN/2] Some of the disciplinary actions ZTE discussed in its November 30, 2016 letter relate to employees who resigned from ZTE well before the date of that letter, including some even as far back as 2012 and 2013. ZTE asserted that such employees left the company by “mutual understanding.” Including these employees allowed ZTE to inflate the number of employees listed as subject to disciplinary action, and the material provided by ZTE to date does not establish that they were, in fact, subject to such action. The false statements discussed as violations in this order do not include, however, ZTE’s statements relating to the circumstances under which these employees left the company. Nor do the false statements at issue relate to an employee referenced in the July 20, 2017 letter, concerning whom ZTE did not clearly state that disciplinary action had been taken. This order also does not relate to any issues relating to the termination of four officials addressed as part of the criminal plea agreement. … 
  [FN/6] As discussed supra and in the March 13, 2018 notice letter, ZTE did provide some notice by telephone on March 6, 2018.
  [FN/7] This date is seven years from the date of BIS’s March 13, 2018 Notice of Proposed Activation of Suspended Sanctions and Opportunity to Respond in this matter.

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


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

* Treasury/OFAC; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 24 Apr 2018.]

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

Commerce/BIS, 23 Apr 2018.) 

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will hold the 31st annual BIS Annual Conference on Export Controls and Policy in Washington, D.C. May 14-15, 2018. This major outreach activity draws business and government representatives from around the world to learn and exchange ideas about export control issues. It is one of the Department’s most notable international trade events.
BIS Annual Conference 2018 will be at the Marriott Marquis Hotel. A conference room rate is available to attendees. For registration and program information please click on the links below.

For additional, information on BIS Annual Conference 2018, you may contact the Outreach and Educational Services Division at:

UpdateConference@bis.doc.gov or (202) 4826031. 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DoD/DSCA Publishes Policy Memo 19-23 and 19-24

DoD/DSCA, 23 Apr 2018)

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

, 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 
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!

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

Treasury/OFAC, 23 Apr 2018.)
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today issued 
General License 14 in the Ukraine-/Russia-related sanctions program. 
General License 14 authorizes U.S. persons to engage in specified transactions related to winding down or maintaining business with United Company RUSAL PLC (RUSAL) and its subsidiaries until October 23, 2018.  In accordance with preexisting OFAC guidance, OFAC will not impose secondary sanctions on non-U.S. persons for engaging in the same activity involving RUSAL or its subsidiaries that 
General License 14 authorizes U.S. persons to engage in.
  “RUSAL has felt the impact of U.S. sanctions because of its entanglement with Oleg Deripaska, but the U.S. government is not targeting the hardworking people who depend on RUSAL and its subsidiaries,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “RUSAL has approached us to petition for delisting.  Given the impact on our partners and allies, we are issuing a general license extending the maintenance and wind-down period while we consider RUSAL’s petition.” 
In addition to 
General License 14, today OFAC also 
published several FAQs regarding to the general license’s authorizations and limitations, and issued an amended 
General License 12A.
On April 6, 2018, OFAC designated RUSAL for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, EN+ Group. In that same action, OFAC designated EN+ Group for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, Oleg Deripaska and other entities he owns or controls.  RUSAL is based in the Bailiwick of Jersey and is one of the world’s largest aluminum producers.

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

The White House, 20 Apr 2018.)
SUBJECT: Eligibility of the 
Organisation Conjointe 
de Cooperation en matiere d’Armement 
Receive Defense Articles and Defense Services 
Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
Amended, and the Arms Export Control Act, as 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 3(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the 
Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation en matiere d’Armement(OCCAR) will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.
You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and publish this determination in the Federal Register.
[Editor’s Note: The OCCAR is a European intergovernmental organization which facilitates and manages collaborative armament programs through their lifecycle between the nations of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.]

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

EU Posts Corrigendum Concerning North Korea Sanctions
Official Journal of the European Union, 23 Apr 2018.)

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/286 of 26 February 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ( OJ L 55, 27.2.2018)

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

German BAFA Overview of English Publications 

German BAFA, 20 Apr 2018.) 
The German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) regularly releases an English publication on its website. Below an actual overview of publications, regulations (non-official translations), and forms: 
Publications (Instructions, Guides, Information Leaflets, Circulars, and Manuals)
Regulations (Non-Official Translations)
War Weapons List

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


Android Central: “ZTE Vows to Fight Government’s Denial Order, May Take Legal Action”

Android Central, 20 Apr 2018.) 
Earlier this week, the United States Department of Commerce announced that the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) had 
issued a Suspended
Denial Order against ZTE –– effectively banning the company from using any exported hardware or software from the U.S. in its products for the next seven years.
The move came as a result of ZTE not staying true to promises it made to the Department following a violation of export control in 2016, but according to ZTE, this simply isn’t true.
ZTE has been working diligently on Export Control Compliance program and has invested tremendous resources in export compliance and has made significant progress since 2016. It is unacceptable that BIS insists on unfairly imposing the most severe penalty on ZTE even before the completion of investigation of facts, ignoring the continuous diligent work of ZTE and the progress we have made on export compliance…
ZTE highlights four moves it’s made to work with the Department since 2016, including:
  (1) ZTE self-identified the issues in the correspondence and self-reported by ZTE immediately
  (2) The Company has taken measures against the employees who might have been responsible for this incident
  (3) Corrective measures have been taken immediately
  (4) A prestigious U.S. law firm has been engaged to conduct independent investigation
ZTE goes on to say that the Denial Order will not only hurt it, but “also cause damages to all partners of ZTE including a large number of U.S. companies.” Even so –
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.
Shortly after the BIS announced the Denial Order, it was later revealed that Alphabet was considering revoking ZTE’s Android license. Should that happen, ZTE would no longer be able to use Android on its smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.
I’m not sure how this will all turn out, but I can’t imagine ZTE will take this lying down. We’re likely going to be looking at a few months of legal back-and-forth, so be sure to grab your popcorn and get comfy.

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

Defense News: “Do New Trump Arms Export Rules Live up to the Hype?”

Defense News, 23 Apr 2018.) 
For the greater part of a year, the defense industry has been eagerly awaiting a wave of new rules for defense exports that would ease regulations and open up potential sales for U.S. weaponry, particularly for drones.
While the new policy, released April 19, does indeed ease the way for drone manufacturers to sell more of their wares abroad, it falls short of what had been anticipated by industry.
And when it comes to the conventional arms transfer policy, analysts are struggling to find major differences between the Trump policy and that of his predecessors.
Peter Navarro, White House National Trade Council head, said the new language will allow allies and partners “to more easily obtain” American security goods, which in turn improves the security of the United States while “reducing” the need for them to buy Chinese and Russian systems.
  “For too long we have hamstrung ourselves and limited our ability to provide our allies and partners with the defensive capabilities they require, even when in the U.S.,” Navarro said.
Rhetorically, the conventional arms policy does indeed emphasize the industrial base more than previous documents — a welcome change for industry, which is looking toward using a 60-day feedback period to push for their top priorities.
  “This is a really big deal. These are issues that had typically been relegated to the second tier,” said Remy Nathan, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, which is planning to push for, among other things, an all-of-government National Security Cooperation strategy.
But where major growth for the defense industry could come from is unclear to analysts. According to numbers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, America accounted for 34 percent of total arms exports from 2013-17, with 98 countries buying American goods. The second-largest exporter in the world, Russia, accounted for 22 percent of weapon exports during that same period, with 47 countries as clients; China, the fifth-ranked exporter, represented only 5.7 percent of global exports, with 48 countries.
Joel Johnson, an industry analyst with the Teal Group, said the conventional arms policy looks less like a game-changer and more “simply an extension of U.S. policy since [President] Jimmy Carter.”
  “I don’t see anything dramatic here, nor do I see any great untapped demand out there for additional sales — the current U.S. backlog is huge,” Johnson added.
Said Rachel Stohl of the Stimson Center: “What does it actually do that will change anything? I’m unclear because we were already selling more weapons than ever before, the Trump administration has already put human rights on the back burner. So, in practical terms, I don’t know what the impact will be or what will actually change.”
And Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners said he suspects any impact from the new policy will be “below the radar screen,” with small goods like communications gear or munitions. “It’s a sentiment positive, but does it entail a surge in U.S. defense exports? I doubt it.”
Drone Changes
But where the U.S. is indeed seeing a steep rise in competition is in the unmanned vehicle sector, particular from China, which has made inroads into the traditionally U.S.-dominated Middle East with its cheaper UAVs.
According to analytics firm Avascent, between 2013 and 2018 there were 56 countries that invested in a non-U.S.-made unmanned system, with the majority of the systems coming from Israel, China, the United Kingdom or indigenous suppliers. Investment in non-American military UAS amounted to $1.9 billion in 2013 and grew to $3.5 billion in 2018 — an estimate that may be low due to a lack of transparency from Israeli and Chinese firms.
Overall demand for non-Russian, Chinese or U.S. unmanned systems is expected to reach $4.1 billion in 2025, $1.6 billion of which is not yet under contract, said Avascent’s Doug Berenson, who added “the majority of the value in the opportunity space lies in MALE/HALE systems, Combat UAS, and Tactical UAS. The new regulations should let U.S. firms access [the] first two markets more easily.”
Tina Kaidanow, principal deputy assistant secretary for political-military affairs at the U.S. State Department, said the drone rule change represents “efforts to do things a little bit more strategically. We need to do, the U.S. government, a better job of strategic advocacy for some of our companies. We need to think about those areas where we can really enable sales overseas.”
The drone policy change included two important changes. The first is opening up the opportunity for companies to sell systems via the Direct Commercial Sales process, under which a company and another nation can directly negotiate, rather than requiring a more formal Foreign Military Sales process, where the U.S. government acts as a go-between. DCS sales are seen as faster than FMS sales.
Secondly, the government is eliminating rules that marked unarmed systems with laser-designator technology as “strike enabling,” which put them in the same category as armed drones, and hence received higher scrutiny.
Kaidanow said the goal was to make sure “U.S. industry faces fewer barriers and less confusion when they are attempting to compete against other countries and marketing and selling those similar systems to our partners. ”
While those changes will be welcomed by the UAV industry, they fall short of what was expected and hoped for by major producers of military drones. Industry was looking for the administration to reinterpret the “strong presumption of denial” clause in the Missile Technology Control Regime, an international arms control agreement among 35 nations that governs the export of missiles and drones.
The current clause makes it difficult to approve the sale of category-1 drones capable of carrying 500-kilogram payloads for more than 300 kilometers. The Obama administration had set a standard of how it interprets the MTCR language that some in industry have complained is too strict, and had expected to see changed with this policy a “presumption of approval” for a specific set of allies and partners in Europe, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.
  “U.S. drone export policy had gotten out of sync with both the technology and the realities of Chinese and Israeli exports,” said Michael Horowitz, a former Pentagon official now with the University of Pennsylvania who has studied drone issues. He added that the new drone policy seeks to balance the realities of ongoing drone proliferation and the growing international market with U.S. responsibilities under the MTCR,” but warned that future opening up of drone sales will likely require dealing with the MTCR directly.”
Kaidanow acknowledged an intent to try and reform MTCR, without details. But American officials in October floated a whitepaper to allies proposing that any air vehicle that flies under 650 kilometers per hour would drop to “category-2” and thus be subject to approval on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to having to follow the more strict “category-1” policies.
Human rights groups had also been bracing for a major shift in how drone sales were handled, with an expected de-emphasis on monitoring how systems were used by foreign customers. Instead, the language largely remains, although Stohl notes it has been deemphasized in favor of economic priorities.
  “Human rights are clearly not at the forefront of this policy. This is a policy about the economy. It is a policy about America first,” Stohl said.

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

Expeditors News: “CBP Publishes GSP Refund Procedures” 

Expeditors News, 20 Apr 2018.) 
On April 20, 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in a Federal Register notice (FRN), refund procedures for entries subject to the renewed Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program.
The refund process applies to GSP-eligible merchandise that was entered on or after January 1, 2018, through April 21, 2018. The FRN summarized the process as, “Formal and informal entries that were filed electronically via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) using Special Program Indicator (SPI) Code “A” as a prefix to the tariff number will be automatically processed by CBP and no further action by the filer is required to initiate the refund process. Non-ABI filers, and ABI filers that did not include SPI Code “A” on the entry, must timely submit a duty refund request to CBP. CBP will continue conducting verifications to ensure that GSP benefits are available to eligible entries only.”
GSP will resume on April 22, 2018 and has been renewed through December 31, 2020.
The FRN may be found 

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

Quartz: “Behind the Scenes, China’s Actually Kind of Mad at Telecoms Giant ZTE”

Quartz, 23 Apr 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
As Donald Trump’s trade war with China spread into the tech sector last week, China’s government and state-run media have come out strongly 
in support of the Chinese tech giants who’ve faced the first volley. An internal government report, however, suggests it’s not entirely sympathetic to the new woes of its telecom giant ZTE. … 
The report from the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), the top regulator of Chinese state-owned enterprises under China’s cabinet, criticized ZTE’s dealings with the US regulators as “stupid and passive,” and embarrassing to China’s global image. “Many domestic enterprises are paying a terrible price for ZTE’s short-sightedness and dishonesty. Our country’s diplomatic layout and image will inevitably be affected,” said the report, dated April 20. … 

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

Reuters: “U.S. Regulator Permits China’s ZTE to Submit More Evidence”

Reuters, 21 Apr 2018.) 
The U.S. Commerce Department has granted ZTE Corp’s request to submit more evidence after the agency banned American companies from selling to the Chinese technology firm, a senior Commerce official said on Saturday.
The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, or BIS, this week banned American companies from selling to ZTE for seven years, saying the Chinese company had broken a settlement agreement with repeated false statements. The action was sparked by ZTE’s violation of an agreement that was reached after it was caught illegally shipping U.S. goods to Iran.
According to Commerce regulations, there is no appeals process, but the agency has “exercised discretion” to let ZTE present additional evidence through an “informal procedure,” the senior official said.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the decision by Commerce to allow more evidence.
ZTE, in a statement on Friday, called the decision “unacceptable” and said it could cause damage to both the company and its partners.
It is unclear whether the decision to accept more evidence would provide a chance for resolution between U.S. regulators and the company.
This week’s U.S. action, first reported by Reuters, could be devastating to ZTE since American companies are estimated to provide 25 to 30 percent of the components used in ZTE’s equipment, which includes networking gear and smartphones.
The ban is the result of ZTE’s failure to comply with an agreement with the U.S. government after it pleaded guilty last year in federal court in Texas to conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions by illegally shipping U.S. goods and technology to Iran.
The company paid $890 million in fines and penalties, with an additional penalty of $300 million that could be imposed.
As part of the agreement, Shenzhen-based ZTE promised to dismiss four senior employees and discipline 35 others by either reducing their bonuses or reprimanding them, senior Commerce Department officials told Reuters. But the Chinese company admitted in March that while it had fired the four senior employees, it had not disciplined or reduced bonuses to the 35 others.
Under terms of the ban, U.S. companies cannot export prohibited goods, such as chip sets, directly to ZTE or via another country, beginning immediately.

The U.S. action against ZTE is likely to further exacerbate current tensions between Washington and Beijing over trade. After the United States placed export restrictions on ZTE in 2016 for Iran sanctions violations, China’s Ministry of Commerce and Foreign Ministry criticized the decision.

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

WorldECR: “Russia Proposes Tough Counter-Sanctions to Recent U.S. Action” 

WorldECR News, 21 Apr 2018.)
Ban on wide range of foodstuffs, agricultural and consumer products from the US and/or ‘foreign states’ proposed.
Russia proposes tough counter-sanctions to recent US action
A draft bill has been introduced into the Russian parliament that could block business by certain non-Russian companies in the country (13 April).
Draft Bill No 441399-7 ‘On Measures (Countermeasures) in Response to Unfriendly Actions of the USA and (or) other Foreign States’ contains a range of potentially hard-hitting measures. These include a ban on the import into Russia of agricultural products, raw materials and food products – as well as alcohol and tobacco – from the US and/or ‘foreign states’.
In a client briefing, lawyers from Baker & McKenzie note that other proposed measures include visa bans, travel restrictions and a ban on entities with more than 25% ownership in the US or ‘foreign states’ in certain sectors from dealings in Russia. Targeted industries include consulting, auditing and legal services, those participating in privatizations, or providing services over the sale of public real estate. Co-operation in the aircraft, rocket and atomic energy industries would be terminated.
According to the draft bill, ‘foreign states’ are those standing with the US on its recent economic sectoral sanctions against Russia and on the targeting of specific Russian entities and individuals. It is likely that the broad scope of the bill will be refined through presidential decrees. The draft bill is due to be considered in the Duma on 24 April.

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


M. Proctor: “U.S. Suspends Export Privileges of Chinese Tech Giant ZTE”

Miller Proctor Law PLLC, 20 Apr 2018.)
* Author: Melissa Proctor, Esq., 
melissa@millerproctorlaw.com, Miller Proctor Law PLLC.
On 16 April, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) imposed a denial order against ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications, Ltd. (“ZTE Kangxun”), located in Shenzhen, China, for making false statements in violation of the companies’ settlement of previous violations of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). As a result, the ZTE companies have been designated on the BIS’ Denied Persons List and U.S. companies that have been supplying parts and components to the ZTE companies or otherwise engaged in business with these companies, including the provision of any support or technical data, were required to terminate their dealings with them as of April 16, 2018. It has been reported that ZTE, China’s second largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, had sourced roughly 30% of the components used in its smartphones from U.S. suppliers.
By way of background, in March 2017, ZTE agreed to a combined civil and criminal penalty of $1.19 billion for, among other things, illegally shipping telecommunications equipment that was subject to the EAR to Iran and North Korea in violation of U.S. law. The BIS agreed to suspend its proposed denial of the companies’ export privileges 
provided that they satisfied all of the terms of the settlement agreement and refrained from committing additional EAR violations. However, the Commerce Department this week moved forward with the denial order as it was discovered that the companies had made false statements to the BIS and failed to comply with the terms of their settlement. 
Specifically, ZTE originally promised to fire four senior employees and take disciplinary action against other responsible employees, including reducing their bonuses or issuing letters of reprimand. ZTE did in fact fire the four employees as promised; however, the companies paid full bonuses to the remaining employees and failed to issue any letters of reprimand.
Under the 16 April denial order, the ZTE companies were added to the Denied Persons List and are prohibited from participating in any way in any transaction that is subject to the EAR. (See 
here). In addition, it is now unlawful for U.S. individuals and companies to engage in any export transaction involving the ZTE companies without prior BIS authorization.  For example, the following activities are now prohibited under the denial order-
  – Exporting or reexporting (directly or indirectly) any item that is subject to the EAR to the ZTE companies, which includes not only commodities and software but also technical data;
  – Facilitating the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the ZTE companies of ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities;
  – Acquiring or facilitating the acquisition from the ZTE companies of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United states;
  – Obtaining from the ZTE companies in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be exported from the United States;
  – Engaging in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the ZTE companies-the term “service” includes installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing; or,
  – Servicing any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the ZTE companies if such service involves the use of any item that is subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States.
The BIS’ denial order and the prohibitions outlined above will be imposed against the ZTE companies for a period of seven years, until March 13, 2025. See 
This denial order will impact many U.S. companies that supply parts and components to ZTE or otherwise provide technical support to them. It is also possible that the BIS may impose denial orders against additional ZTE entities in the near future. 

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

O. Coulon & J. Vankerckhoven: “Belgian Companies Brought to Court for Illegal Exports of Chemicals to Syria”

World Trade Controls Blog, 23 Apr 2018.) 
* Authors: Olivier Coulon, Esq., 
Olivier.Coulon@loyensloeff.com; and Jochen Vankerckhoven, Esq., 
jochen.vankerckhoven@loyensloeff.com. Both of Loyens & Loeff, Brussels. 
The Belgian customs authorities are suing three Belgian companies before the Criminal Court of Antwerp for what appears to be serious infringements of the restrictive measures imposed on Syria. The three companies concerned are all parties involved in the supply chain of a deal in chemical products: the producer, the company handling the administrative aspects of the transaction, and the logistics company handling the transport.
Apparently, an investigation carried out by the German NGO Syrian Archive and the website Bellingcat triggered an audit by the Belgian customs authorities. The investigation, which was echoed in the Belgian press, centers on allegedly illegal exports of chemicals to Syria, in violation of the strict controls resulting from the adoption of EU Council Regulation 697/2013 (the “Regulation”) on 22 July 2013.
The Regulation imposed a prior authorization requirement for the export, sale, supply or transfer of certain goods which might be used for internal repression or the manufacture and maintenance of products which might be used for such purposes, and notably listed chemicals such as isopropanol and acetone. The Flemish export control authorities, which would have been competent for the issuance of an authorisation in the present case (had it been requested), had already refused an authorisation in a similar case concerning a shipment of dual-use chemicals to Syria.
According to Belgian newspapers, the products in the present case included hundreds of tons of concentrated isopropanol, acetone, methanol and dichloromethane. While these products are being used by the paint and polish industries, as argued by the Belgian companies, they can also enter the production process of chemical weapons, including sarin.
The Belgian customs authorities, having noticed irregularities following their internal audit, confronted the companies with their findings and apparently proposed a settlement. Because the companies refused to settle, customs is now bringing the case against the three Belgian companies, one managing director and one manager. According to the website Bellingcat, the summons lists shipments between May 2014 and December 2016 from Belgium to Syria and Lebanon. The trial is due to start on 15 May.
The companies have publicly claimed they acted in good faith, arguing they did not know about the authorization requirement and that Belgian customs never informed them about the prior authorization requirements. The companies stated that they have been supplying such products for more than ten years to private entities that aren’t related to the Syrian regime.

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

update@sipri.org, 23 Apr 2018.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has announced the publication of two new papers, entitled “
The challenge of software and technology transfers to non-proliferation efforts: Implementing and complying with export controls
” and “
The challenge of emerging technologies to non-proliferation efforts: Controlling additive manufacturing and intangible transfers of technology

The effective regulation of transfers of software and technology presents a set of challenges for dual-use and arms export controls that are set to grow in the near future. Developments in cloud computing, for example, are increasing the volume of data that can be transferred electronically, raising questions about if and when controls on transfers of software and technology should apply. In addition, additive manufacturing (AM)-also known as 3D printing-is likely to increase the range and complexity of controlled goods that can be produced using transferred software and technology, raising concerns about new proliferation pathways. 

The two SIPRI publications address the closely related issues of controlling transfers of software and technology and applying exports controls to AM. Taken together, the papers examine some of the most challenging issues that governments, companies and research institutes in the European Union (EU) and the wider world are facing when they seek to effectively implement dual-use and arms export controls. They also address a range of topics that are under active discussion within the multilateral export control regimes and in connection with the recast of the EU Dual-use Regulation. 

Concretely, the conclusions highlight steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the consistency and effectiveness of software and technology controls as well as summarizing potential options and considerations when expanding controls on AM.

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


MS_a219. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings; 191 Jobs Posted This Week

(Source: Editor) 

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


” New or amended listing this week

* 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

* BAE Systems; Huntsville, AL; Facility Security Officer, Security Manager; Requisition ID: 36821BR
* BAE Systems; Burlington, MA; Facility Security Officer (“FSO”); Requisition ID: 35499BR
* BAE Systems; Sterling Heights, MI; Procurement Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 32016BR
* BAE Systems; Rockville, MD; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 35809 BR
* BAE Systems; Sterling, VA; Compliance Specialist Senior; Requisition ID: 36370BR
* 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: 

* 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
* Endeavor Robotics; Chelmsford, MA; Logistics and Compliance Analyst;
* 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

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

 FD Associates; Tysons Corner, VA; 
Senior Export Compliance Associate;
resume to and salary requirements to 

 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;

* KEMET Electronics Corporation; Simpsonville, SC; Corporate Compliance Analyst;
* KPMG U.S.; San Francisco, CA; Associate, Trade & Customs;

* Leonardo DRS; Arlington, VA;
Senior Customs & Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 87488

# Leonardo DRS; St. Louis;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 88127, or contact 

 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
* Mattson Technology; Fremont, California; Import/Export Compliance Analyst;
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 16000DYY
* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer
; Requisition ID: 170002ON

# Meggit; Akron, OH; Manager, Trade Compliance;
* 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

 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: 

* Raytheon Company; Tucson, AZ;
Sr. Export Licensing Specialist
 Requisition ID: 

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

ID: 108960BR; 

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

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

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

* Raytheon Company; Waltham, MA; 
Licensing Manager
; Requisition ID: 
* 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:


 SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; 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

* Talascend; Ft Worth, TX; Trade Compliance Classification Analyst;
* 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: 

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

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

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 – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance (ITC) Specialist; Requisition ID: 49375BR

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID:  62176BR

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Authorizations Manager; Requisition ID: 63222BR

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, CT;
International Trade Compliance Technology Senior Manager; Requisition ID: 55944BR

* 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

; Requisition ID: 12298
* Varian; Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, or UK; EMEIA Trade Lead – Senior Manager Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 12301BR; Contact 
Gavin Tickner at 
* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 12735BR; Contact 
Uyen Tran at
* Varian; Beijing, China;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 
12297BR; Contact 
Susan Lin at
* 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

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


Henry Fielding (22 April 1707 – 8 October 1754) was an English novelist and dramatist known for his rich, earthy humor and satirical prowess, and as the author of the picaresque novel 
Tom Jones. a meticulously constructed picaresque novel telling the convoluted and hilarious tale of how a foundling came into a fortune. The plot of Tom Jones is too ingeniously complicated for simple summary; its basis is Tom’s alienation from his foster father, Squire Allworthy, and his sweetheart, Sophia Western, and his reconciliation with them after lively and dangerous adventures on the road and in London. The triumph of the book is its presentation of English life and character in the mid-18th century. Every social type is represented, and through them every shade of moral behavior. Fielding’s varied style tempers the basic seriousness of the novel, and his authorial comment preceding each chapter adds a significant dimension to the conventionally straightforward narrative.)
  – “Guilt has very quick ears to an accusation.”
  – “There is perhaps no surer mark of folly, than to attempt to correct natural infirmities of those we love.”

William Shakespeare (23 April 1564 – 23 April 1616) was an English poet, playwright and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England’s national poet and the “Bard of Avon”. His extant works, including collaborations, consist of approximately 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare is the most quoted person in the English language.)
 – “We know what we are, but know not what we may be.”
  – “Better three hours too soon than a minute too late.” 

Monday is Punday

* A patient bursts into a psychiatrist’s office and says, “Doctor, I believe I’m a deck of cards!”
The doctor replies, “Have a seat in the waiting room, please, I’ll deal with you later.”
* Another man bursts into the psychiatrist’s office and says, “Doctor, help me!  I believe I’m becoming invisible!”
The doctor replies, “Sorry, I can’t see you right now.”

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

. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  The latest amendments to applicable regulations are listed below.
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm. 
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 12 Apr 2018: 83 FR 15736-15740: CBP Decision No. 18-04; Definition of Importer Security Filing Importer (ISF Importer)

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

: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774

  – Last Amendment: 
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.]

: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders

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

: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment:
20 Sep 2017:
82 FR 43842-43844
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements; Correction
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
  – The latest edition (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.  
, 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 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 


  – 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 

, by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, over 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, case annotations, practice tips, DDTC guidance, and explanations of errors in the official ITAR text. Subscribers receive updated copies of the BITAR in Word by email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment.
 The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance
. BAFTR subscribers receive a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please
contact us
to receive your discount code.

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

Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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


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