;

18-0817 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-08017 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 17 August 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
.

  1. [No items of interest noted today.]
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DoD/DSCA Updates SAMM with Clerical and Administrative Changes
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. EU Commission Releases Recommendation Related to Identification of Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and Other Supply Chain Risks
  1. Al Jazeera: “Turkey Doubles Tariffs on Some U.S. Goods Amid Rising Tensions”
  2. Reuters: “U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Myanmar Military Over Rohingya Crackdown”
  3. Schenker: “GRI Notice for Far-East to USA & Canada”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Tariffs, Origin Ruling, AGOA, CBP Forms, Shipping Rules”
  5. The Wall Street Journal: “Law Formalizes Export Control Rules”
  6. The Washington Free Beacon: “Justice Dept. Says State AGs Misunderstand Cody Wilson Settlement”
  1. The Export Compliance Journal: “Where Denied Parties and Address Screening Intersect”
  2. R.C. Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: “State Department to Impose New Russia Sanctions”
  3. R.C. Burns: “To File or Not to File, That Is the $300,000 Question”
  1. FCC to Present U.S. Export Controls Awareness Training Course for Non-U.S. Organizations, 2 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  2. List of Approaching Events: 6 New Events Posted This Week
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (12 Jun 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (3 Aug 2018), FACR/OFAC (29 Jun 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (14 Aug 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)
 
* Commerce/BIS; NOTICES; Denial of Export Privileges: Alex Bryukho [Included in the Daily Bugle of 15 Aug 2018; publication Date: 20 Aug 2018.]

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

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

OGS_3
3.
DoD/DSCA Updates SAMM 
with Clerical and Administrative Changes

(Source: 
DoD/DSCA, 17 Aug 2018.)
 
* DSCA Policy Memo 18-40 
Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM), Administrative Changes has been posted. 

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

OGS_a4
4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

OGS_a5
5. 
EU Commission Releases Recommendation Related to Identification of Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and Other Supply Chain Risks 

(Source: 
Official Journal of the European Union, 17 Aug 2018.)
 
Recommendations
 

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/1149 of 10 August 2018 on non-binding guidelines for the identification of conflict-affected and high-risk areas and other supply chain risks under Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council
[Editor’s Note: 
Regulation (EU) 2017/821
 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.]

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

NWSNEWS

(Source: 
Al Jazeera, 15 Aug 2018.) 
 
Cars, tobacco, and alcohol hit with new tariffs in response to what vice president calls “U.S. attacks” on the economy.
 
Turkey doubled tariffs on some imports from the United States – such as passenger cars, alcohol and tobacco – in what it said was retaliation for “deliberate attacks” on its economy.
 
The development on Wednesday comes amid escalating tensions between Turkey and the US, its NATO ally.
 
A decree published in Turkey’s official gazette and signed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan doubled the tariffs on passenger cars to 120 percent, on alcoholic drinks to 140 percent, and on tobacco to 60 percent.
 
Tariffs were also doubled on goods such as cosmetics, rice, and coal. … 
 
Erdogan said on Tuesday his country would boycott all American-made electronic products, including U.S.-made iPhones. … 
 
The crisis came days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs on Turkey, as Washington pushes Ankara to release Evangelical Christian pastor Andrew Brunson, who is being held on terrorism charges for nearly two years.
 
A Turkish court on Wednesday rejected an appeal for Brunson’s release. 
 

Earlier this month, Erdogan ordered the assets of two U.S. officials frozen in retaliation for sanctions imposed on Turkey’s justice and interior ministers over the U.S. pastor’s detention. … 

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

(Source: 
Reuters, 17 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on four Myanmar military and police commanders and two army units for involvement in what it called “ethnic cleansing” and other human rights abuses against the country’s Rohingya Muslims, the Treasury Department said.
 
The sanctions marked the toughest U.S. action so far in response to Myanmar’s crackdown on the Rohingya minority, which started last year and has driven more than 700,000 people into neighboring Bangladesh and left thousands of dead behind.
 
But the Trump administration did not target the highest levels of the Myanmar military and also stopped short of calling the anti-Rohingya campaign crimes against humanity or genocide, which has been the subject of debate within the U.S. government.
 
The measures were announced as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to U.S. officials, prepares to release the findings of an intensive U.S. investigation of alleged atrocities by Myanmar authorities against the Rohingya. … 
 
In November, following the lead of the United Nations and the European Union, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared that the Rohingya crisis constituted “ethnic cleansing,” a designation that increased pressure on its civilian leader, Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. … 

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

(Source: 
Schenker Inc., 16 Aug 2018.) 
 
Following announcements are issued by major Steamship Lines, here are the intended NEW General Rate Increase (GRI) effective September 15, 2018, for Eastbound cargo from Far East and Indian Sub-Continent origins to destinations in Canada and USA with details as follows:
  – USD 900 per 20′ standard container
  – USD 1000 per 40′ standard container (40′ x 8’6″)
  – USD 1125 per 40′ high cube container (40′ x 9’6″)
  – USD 1266 per 45′ container

  – LCL: US$20.00 per w/m. Min US$20.00 

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

NWS_a4
9. 
ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: Tariffs, Origin Ruling, AGOA, CBP Forms, Shipping Rules” 
(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 17 Aug 2018.)
 
  Aug. 20 – deadline for comments to FTZ Board on 
requests for production authority, subzone expansion
  Aug. 20 – USTR hearing on proposal to impose 
10 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese goods
  Aug. 20 – deadline to seek judicial review of CBP 
origin ruling on insufflation tubing
  Aug. 22 – effective date of FMC final rule revising regulations on 
negotiated rate/service arrangements
  Aug. 23 – deadline for comments on 
annual AGOA eligibility review
  Aug. 23 – deadline for comments to CBP on 
entry/ID application, ACE cargo release
  Aug. 23 – effective date of 
additional tariffs on Chinese products
  Aug. 23 – effective date of revision to 
Section 301 tariff exemption for U.S. goods returned
  Aug. 24 – effective date of DOE final rule to expedite 
small-scale natural gas exports

  Aug. 24 – deadline for comments to FTZ Board on proposed expansion of Hawaii zone

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

NWS_a5
10. 
The Wall Street Journal: “Law Formalizes Export Control Rules”
(Source: 
The Wall Street Journal, 17 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
Commerce Department to use new tools, such as undercover agents and wiretaps, to conduct investigations
 
The U.S. Commerce Department has statutory authority for the first time in nearly 25 years to control certain exports, and it will lead a regular, ongoing interagency review of new technology to assess whether the U.S. should restrict its export.
 
The Export Control Act, signed into law this week by President Trump as part of an 
annual national defense policy legislation, codified existing rules authorizing the Commerce Department’s role in controlling certain exports involving sensitive technology. The authorization process underpinning the rules was handled via executive order subject to an annual renewal since 1994, when the last export-controls legislation expired. … 
 

Attorneys practicing in the area said that though the law didn’t create new rules, it put the export-control regime on sound footing by providing a statutory basis for the existing ones. … 

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

NWS_a6
11. 
The Washington Free Beacon: “Justice Dept. Says State AGs Misunderstand Cody Wilson Settlement”
(Source: 
The Washington Free Beacon, 16 Aug 2018.) 
 
The Department of Justice announced on Thursday that it filed a brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction against a State Department agreement with 3D-printed gun pioneer Cody Wilson. The injunction was requested by a group of state attorneys general in federal court.
 
In 
the brief, DOJ accused the Attorney Generals (AGs) of misunderstanding the issue at hand in the settlement. It further claimed that the AGs want the Department of State to exceed the authority granted to them under current law. DOJ said the case was not about the legality of 3D-printed firearms but, rather, about the potential export of technical firearms data to foreign nationals.
 
  “This case is not about the regulation of U.S. persons who wish to utilize a 3D printer to manufacture their own small-caliber firearms,” DOJ said in the brief. “Rather, this case concerns the Department of State’s delegated authority to control the export of defense articles and services, or technical data related thereto, that raise military or intelligence concerns. The Department is tasked with determining what technology and weaponry provides a critical military or intelligence advantage such that it should not be shipped without restriction from the United States to other countries (or otherwise provided to foreigners), where, beyond the reach of U.S. law, it could be used to threaten U.S. national security, foreign policy, or international peace and stability. Domestic activities that do not involve providing access to foreign persons, by contrast, are left to other federal agencies-and the states-to regulate.” 
 
In 2013, the State Department sent a letter to Cody Wilson claiming his publishing of designs for a single-shot 3D-printed firearm known as The Liberator and other firearms or firearms accessories without first obtaining approval from them could be considered an unauthorized export of firearms to foreign nationals that might result in potentially unlimited fines and jail time. Wilson took all gun-related design files down from his website as a result-though the files have remained freely available on dozens of other websites since then. He then 
joined with the Second Amendment Foundation to sue the State Department claiming it was infringing upon his First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.
 
On July 15, 2018, Wilson and the Second Amendment Foundation announced that the State Department had 
given up their claim against the publishing of the gun designs and settled with them. The State Department later told reporters they had settled because of advice from the Department of Justice that they would eventually lose the case.
 
  “This has obviously gone through a legal process,” Heather Nauert, State Department spokesperson, told reporters 
during a briefing. “The Department of Justice was advising the State Department on this entire legal matter. The Department of Justice suggested that the State Department and the U.S. government settle this case, and so that is what was done. We were informed that we would’ve lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court based on First Amendment grounds. We took the advice of the Department of Justice, and here we are right now.”
 
Gun-control activists were alarmed by the decision to settle the case and allow Wilson to publish the designs. Though efforts by leading gun-control groups to stop the settlement in court failed, eight state AGs were able to get U.S. District Court judge Robert S. Lasnik to 
grant a temporary restraining order against the State Department to prevent enforcement of the deal. This week’s filing by the DOJ is in response to the state AGs’ request that the temporary restraining order be turned into a preliminary injunction.
 
The DOJ said that the argument employed by the state AGs in their request addresses concerns beyond what the State Department has the power to regulate.
 
  “Plaintiffs misunderstand the fundamental limit on the State Department’s authority,” DOJ said in the brief. “According to Plaintiffs, the Government’s export-related determinations-specifically with respect to the export of technical data developed by Defense Distributed-have jeopardized their ability to protect the safety and health of their residents.”
 
DOJ said the AGs are concerned with potential crimes committed by those in the United States if the files published by Wilson were to be downloaded by criminals in their states. However, DOJ said, the State Department’s power to regulate the export of firearms does not allow it to ban the publication of information in the United States out of fear that domestic criminals may misuse it.
  “The domestic harms about which Plaintiffs are allegedly concerned are not properly regulated by the Department under current law,” the DOJ said in the brief. “Plaintiffs’ allegations of harm are not reasonably attributable to the Department’s regulation of exports, but rather focus on the possibility that third parties will commit violations of the Undetectable Firearms Act or other relevant laws that are not at issue in this case.”
 
The DOJ did reiterate that the manufacture or possession of completely plastic firearms that can pass through a metal detector or airport X-ray machine undetected is already illegal under federal law. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the DOJ would continue to enforce the Undetectable Firearms Act even though it is not at issue in the case.
 
  “Under federal law, it is illegal to manufacture or possess plastic firearms that are undetectable. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five years in prison,” Sessions said in a statement. 
“Such firearms present a significant risk to public safety, and the Department of Justice will use every available tool to vigorously enforce this prohibition. We will work with federal, state and local law enforcement to identify any possible cases for prosecution. We will not stand for the evasion, especially the flaunting, of current law and will take action to ensure that individuals who violate the law by making plastic firearms and rendering them undetectable, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent.”
 
Cody Wilson’s Liberator design, which has been at the center of the case and the media firestorm surrounding it, utilizes a metal firing pin and is intended to include a metal plate which make it unlikely to evade a metal detector.
 
The DOJ said it did not believe the state AGs’ argument met the standard necessary to grant a preliminary injunction against the State Department’s settlement with Cody Wilson and characterized doing so as being akin to the court substituting its own judgement for that of the executive branch.
 
  “Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the facts and law clearly favor their position with respect to the merits of their claims, or that it is in the public interest for the Court to second-guess the national security determinations of the Executive Branch,” the DOJ said in the brief.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

 
Restricted party screening is more than just about screening for names of individuals and companies that appear on denied parties watch lists maintained by governments and other official organizations.
 
When looked at in its entirety, the screening process represents a mosaic of sanctions, debarments, and embargoes in addition to denied persons. The reasons for these debarments can be for any variety of reasons based on the regulations that apply. These include not only export violations, but also financial, criminal, regulatory, or healthcare violations.
 
As discussed in 
previous Trade Compliance 101 articles, looking for a name or company is critically important in the due diligence process, and everyone in the organization should be on the lookout to prevent violations. However, there should be another step in the process: Address screening, or address search.
  ”
But wait,” you say, ”
you cannot debar a street, many businesses could operate there!
 
True, but address screening isn’t the same as a name or company, where you are looking to match specifically against that entity. Address screening is about verification; it is about preventing or further mitigating the chance of doing business with a debarred party.
 
So I have the address, now what?
 
The best way to mitigate risk is to have an effective compliance solution, and use a reliable source for addresses of the businesses and persons you are screening.
 
Matching an address for a restricted party, particularly when you do not have a match against the company you entered, could have implications in your overall ability to do business with that company. Is it a coincidence that the address is the same, or appears the same? Are they a subsidiary of the debarred party? What, if any, sanctions or embargoes apply?
 
It is always possible that the location contains multiple unrelated businesses, and that further review of the addresses and analysis will reveal that there is no connection between your potential customer and the one listed as debarred at that location. You are going to want to be able to prove that though, and have the details showing that you were fully aware of the situation.
 
So is the main concern that debarred companies with change their names?
 
That is one concern, as highlighted in 
this case, which details Chinese company, ZTE Corporation’s, efforts to deceive US suppliers using subsidiaries to facilitate shipments to Iran. Even after publicly admitting to the scheme and claiming to cease operations in Iran, ZTE had simply renamed its Iranian subsidiary, according to the findings.
 
It appears to have taken several years before the US government authorities caught wind of the practice, but the new subsidiary name was ultimately added to the BIS Entity List.
 
Are there other concerns?
 
There have also been cases where exports or shipping has occurred due to inaccuracy, or possible fraud, related to addresses. Often, it is difficult to determine where the failure actually occurred-was the address incorrect intentionally? Was it a long address that did not follow a conventional format that was difficult to search?
 
Take a look at North Korea’s 
efforts to avoid the sanctions against that country. Fake addresses are at the core of this entire process. After all, you may be able to debar a named company, even if it is fake, or a real address where the fake company was located. But what about a fake address? If the address is truly forged, and exists in no physical location, that information should be easy enough to unearth. But what if a fake businesses claims to be operating at a real address that doesn’t belong to them. Should the location of a neighborhood corner grocer be debarred by the authorities because some phony bank claims the location is theirs?
 
So what do we do?
 
The best course of action is simply due diligence, using a denied party screening tool that includes an address-only search function. You could also do it manually-using search engines, maps, and news articles-but this type of page-by-page verification tends to be time-consuming and a waste of precious work resources.
 
And, of course, document what you’re doing and the review you’ve performed. Unlike the unwitting companies in 2006, who could claim ignorance in order to mitigate the issue, government authorities have long since moved past allowing ignorance as a defense.
 
Regardless of the overall method, or methods, used, creating a standardized process to verify the location of your business parties will usually lead you down the right path.
A Glossary of Ideas In This Article
 
  – Address screening or checking: Address screening usually refers to the actual process of screening an address (without an individual or organization) against the various restricted party lists. Address checking can either be done through an automated tool, or via a manual process of viewing the location of the party being screened.

  – Verification: 
Verification, when used in the context of Restricted Party Screening, refers to the overall process of ensuring that the data is correct, that details about the party to be screened are true. Verification can take on different forms, from conducting a general web search to ensure that the business name given matches the official one, to checking that addresses are real and accurate.

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

COMM_a2
13. 
R.C. Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: “State Department to Impose New Russia Sanctions”
(Source: Thomsen and Burke LLP, 17 Aug 2018. Available by subscription via 
maher@t-b.com.) 
 
* Authors: Roszel C. Thomsen II, Esq., 
roz@t-b.com; Antoinette D. Paytas, Esq., 
toni@t-b.com; and Maher M. Shomali, Esq., 
maher@t-b.com. All of Thomsen & Burke LLP. 
 
On August 8, 2018, the Department of State 
announced plans to impose Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act sanctions on Russia (“CBW Act”). The sanctions are in response to a determination by the U.S. government that the Russian government used “Novichok”, a nerve agent, in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripa.
 
The sanctions under the CBW act are implemented in two phases. The State Department has sent a notification to Congress and the first round of sanctions will be imposed after a 15-day review period. We expect that a Federal Register notice will be published on about August 22nd, implementing the initial sanctions. These sanctions will be:
 
  – a prohibition of exports of national security-sensitive goods and technology,
  – the termination of foreign assistance,
  – suspension of sales of defense articles or services, and
  – the denial of credit or other financial assistance by the US government.
 
Based on the State Department’s 
background briefing, we believe that the prohibition on the export of national security-sensitive goods and technology applies to items requiring an export license to Russia and not to items eligible for export under a license exception. From the background briefing:
 
We notified Congress today that pursuant to this act we intend to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation in a number of respects, the most significant of which is the imposition of a presumption of denial for all national security sensitive goods or technologies that are controlled by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations. These goods are currently subject to a license – a case-by-case license determination, but we are – henceforth, when these sanctions go into effect, we will be presumptively denying such applications.
 
The second phase of the sanctions will be implemented on approximately November 8th. The second phase will be imposed if the executive branch cannot certify that Russia: (a) is no longer using chemical or biological weapons, (2) has provided reasonable assurances that it will not in the future use such weapons, and (3) that on-site inspections or other reliable means can be used to verify compliance. Under the CBW Act, the President must impose 3 of the following 6 sanctions:
 
  – Further export restrictions including a prohibition on exports to Russia of all other goods and technology (excluding food and other agricultural commodities and products).
  – Import restrictions on articles that are the growth, product, or manufacture of Russia.
  – Prohibiting U.S. banks from making any loan or providing any credit to the government of Russia, except for loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural commodities or products.
  – Downgrading or suspending diplomatic relations between the United States and the government of Russia.
  – Suspending air carriers owned by the government of Russia from transporting to or from the United States and terminating any air service agreement between the United States and Russia (with an exception for emergencies.
 
The State Department noted that it was looking at carve outs and waivers for the second phase of sanctions. The carve outs will be a policy of case by case licensing, rather than a presumption of denial for licenses for:
 
  – the provision of foreign assistance to Russia and to the Russian people,
  – the safety of commercial passenger aviation,
  – space flight activities,
  – purely commercial end users for civilian end uses, and
  – exports to wholly-owned subsidiaries of U.S. companies and other foreign companies in Russia.
 
It is likely that if the President must impose the second set of sanctions, he will impose the least restrictive ones: opposing multilateral bank loans, prohibiting U.S. bank loans, and downgrading diplomatic relations.

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

(Source: 
Export Law Blog, 16 Aug 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Washington DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com, 202-508-6067).
 
The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”), just signed into law as part of the 
John McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 (“NDAA”), will change significantly the way in which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) reviews foreign investments. It expands the definition of transactions covered by the process, makes the review process mandatory for certain of these transactions, and imposes a filing fee equal to the lesser of $300,000 or one percent of the value of the transaction.
 
Before FIRRMA, the definition of a “covered transaction” set forth in 
section 721(a)(3) of the Defense Production Act was “any merger, acquisition, or takeover … by or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States.” The new law expands this definition to cover certain real estate transactions. In addition, a covered transaction now includes certain investments, even if they do not result in foreign control, in U.S. businesses that are involved with “critical infrastructure,” that have “critical technologies,” or that maintain or collect sensitive personal data on U.S. citizens.
 
The real estate transactions that are covered are those that are part of an air or maritime port or are in close proximity to a military installation and that could result in an opportunity for foreign surveillance of that military installation. Exempted from these covered real estate transactions are purchases of single housing units or transactions in urbanized areas as defined by the Census Bureau.
 
The investments in critical infrastructure, critical technology companies, or companies with sensitive personal data that are covered are those that will give the foreign entity access to “material non-public technical information.” Additionally, these investments will be covered transactions if they will give the foreign entity membership on the board of directors, observer rights or nomination rights. Finally, a non-controlling investment transaction will be a covered transaction if it gives the foreign entity any involvement, other than through voting of shares, in “substantive decision-making” involving sensitive personal data, critical technologies or critical infrastructure.
 
Of particular interest to readers of this blog is the definition of critical technologies which includes most, but not all, items that are subject to export controls. All items on the United States Munitions List are critical technologies. Most items on the Commerce Control List are critical technologies with the exception of items that are only controlled for anti-terrorism (AT), Firearms Convention (FC), crime control (CC) or encryption (EI). So, companies that make handcuffs (ECCN 0A982) are fair targets for foreign acquisition without CFIUS review but those that make triethanolamine (ECCN 1C350.c.10) for shampoo and cosmetics are not. Critical technologies will also include “emerging and foundational technologies,” which is a new and yet unpopulated category of export-controlled items described in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which was also enacted as part of the NDAA.
 
FIRRMA creates a new filing called a “declaration” (as opposed to a “notice,” the term both before and after the new legislation for the voluntary filing that commences CFIUS review). The declaration, which is not subject to the $300,000 or 1% fee, is meant to be a short document and no more than 5 pages. And although declarations can be voluntarily filed, they will be mandatory where “a foreign government has, directly or indirectly, a substantial interest” in a covered transaction. Any party required to file the mandatory declaration may, at its own option, file a regular, and longer, notice of the transaction instead. Prior to FIRRMA, involvement by a foreign government would force a 45-day CFIUS investigation after the initial 30-day review period but would not require any mandatory filings.
 
In response to the declaration, CFIUS may require the filing of the regular written notice (which will require the payment of the new $300,000 or 1% fee), may initiate a unilateral investigation, or may inform the parties that no further review is required. It may also state that it cannot make any decision based on the declaration and merely advise the parties of their right to file the standard written notice. Rather perplexingly, the new law states that CFIUS “may not require a declaration to be submitted … with respect to a covered transaction more than 45 days before the completion of the transaction.” Given that one response to the declaration is the initiation of the normal CFIUS process, which can given the statutory time frame take more than 45 days, it is not clear what this time limit means or how it is enforced.
 
The time frame for the review process has also been changed by the new legislation. Before the new law, the CFIUS process consisted of a 30-day review process, an optional 45-day investigation after the review, and then 15 days for the President to act after the investigation process was completed. The new law extends the initial review period to 45 days.
 

During the consideration of the bill in the House and the Senate, the two chambers took different approaches to the issue of “countries of concern,” largely in response to concerns about Chinese investment resulting in China pilfering U.S. technology. The House took a naughty list approach, calling out China, Russia, and Venezuela by name, while the Senate took the nice list approach, putting NATO countries and major non-NATO allies, among others, on the nice list. The new law takes the Senate nice list approach, but give CFIUS the authority to decide, based on national security considerations, which countries are on the nice list. The effect of this determination is that non-controlling investments in real estate or involving critical infrastructure, critical technologies or sensitive personal data by companies from countries on the nice list would not be covered transactions.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
15
FCC to Present U.S. Export Controls Awareness Training Course for Non-U.S. Organizations, 2 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands

(Source: Full Circle Compliance, events@fullcirclecompliance.eu.)
 
Our next academy course is specifically designed for beginning compliance officers and professionals who want to enhance their knowledge on the latest ITAR/EAR requirements and best practices.  The course will cover multiple topics regarding U.S. export controls that apply to organisations outside the U.S., such as: the regulatory framework, including the latest and anticipated regulatory amendments, key concepts and definitions, classification and licensing requirements, handling (potential) non-compliance issues, and practice tips to ensure compliance with the ITAR and EAR.
 
* What: Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR From a Non-U.S. Perspective 
* When: Tuesday, 2 Oct 2018, 9 AM – 5 PM (CEST)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* Instructors: Ghislaine Gillessen, Mike Farrell, and Alexander P. Bosch 
* Information & Registration: HERE or via
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu
  

Register today and get a 10% Early Bird discount on the course fee!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TE_a3
16. 
List of Approaching Events: 6 New Events Posted This Week
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

Published every Friday or last publication day of the week, o
ur overview of Approaching Events is organized to list c
ontinuously available training, training events, s
eminars & conferences, and 
webinars. 
 
Please, submit your event announcement to Alexander Witt, Events & Jobs Editor (email: awitt@fullcirclecompliance.eu
), composed in the below format:
 
# DATE: LOCATION; “EVENT TITLE”; EVENT SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT DETAILS (email and/or phone number)
 

#” = New or updated listing  

 
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
 
Seminars and Conferences


* Aug 20: Cincinnati, OH; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training  

*
 Aug 21: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting
“; Chamber International

*
 Aug 22: London, UK; “
Advanced Exporting
“; UK Institute of Export and International Trade

* Aug 22: Minneapolis, MN; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training
* Aug 23: Cincinnati, OH; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Aug 24: Houston, TX; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training  
Aug 24 – 27: New York, NY; “
Best Customs Broker Exam Course
“; GRVR Attorneys  

*
Aug 29: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Incoterms
“; Chamber International

*
Sep 3: Edinburgh, UK; “
Intermediate Seminar
“; UK Department for International Trade
*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Edinburgh, UK; “
Licenses Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Sep 4: Leeds, UK; “
Methods of Payment & Letters of Credit
; Chamber International

*
 Sep 4: London, UK; “
An Introduction to Exporting
“; UK Institute of Export and International Trade

*
Sep 5: Aberdeen, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade

Sep 5: Aberdeen, UK; “
Intermediate Seminar
“; UK Department for International Trade
*
 Sep 6: Aberdeen, UK; “
Licenses Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trade


Sep 11-13: Annapolis, MD; “
ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp Global Trade Academy
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)

* Sep 11-13: Detroit, MI; “
Export Controls Specialist Certification
“; Global Trade Academy 

*
Sep 11: Leeds, UK; “
Export Documentation and Export Procedures
“; Chamber International

* Sep 12: Buffalo, NY; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 


Sep 12: Melbourne, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense

* Sep 12-13: Springfield, RI; “Complying with US Export Controls“; Bureau of Industry and Security
* Sep 12-19: Chicago, IL; “Import 5-Day Boot Camp“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 13: Buffalo, NY; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 13: Frankfurt, Germany; “BAFA/U.S. Export Control Seminar 2018“; 
* 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: Anaheim, CA; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

Sep 18: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Controls Master Class
“; Customs4Trade

* Sep 18: Los Angeles, CA; “Tariff Classification for Importers and Exporters“; Global Trade Academy 
* Sep 19: Washington, D.C.; “DDTC In-House Seminar“; Department of State (Registration: Aug 10 – Aug 31; first come, first served)
* Sep 19: Los Angeles, CA; “NAFTA and Trade Agreements“; Global Trade Academy
* Sep 19-20: Rome, Italy; “Defense Exports 2018“; SMi

* Sep 19-20: Los Angeles, CA; ”
Complying With U.S. Export Controls“; BIS

* Sep 20: Pittsburgh, PA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* 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: Pittsburgh, PA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training 
* Sep 21-24: Detroit, Michigan; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys 

*
 Sep 24: Seligenstadt, Germany; “
Follow-Up Fachtagung
“; FALEX

* Sep 25-26; Chicago, IL; ”
Financial Crime Executive Roundtable“; American Conference Institute
* Sep 25: Kansas City, MO; “Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

*
 Sep 25: Leeds, UK; “
Understanding Exporting & Incoterms
“; Chamber International

*
 
Sep 25-26: San Francisco, CA; “
11th West Coast Conference on FCPA Enforcement and Compliance
“; American Conference Institute

* Sep 25-26: Toronto, Canada; ”
4th Forum on Economic Sanctions and Compliance Enforcement“; C5 Group

* Sep 26: Kansas City, MO; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 
* 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
* Sep 28: Anaheim, CA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

* Oct 2: Bruchem, Netherlands; “Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR From a Non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance

*
 Oct 2: Leeds, UK; “
Export Documentation
“; Chamber International

* Oct 2: Manchester, UK; “E-Z CERT: 
How To Process Your Export Documentation Online
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Oct 5: Boston, MA; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 5: Boston, MA; “ Incoterms: A Strategic Approach“; International Business Training
* Oct 9: New Orleans, LA
; “
Import Documentation and Procedures Seminar
“; International Business Training

* Oct 10: Manchester, UK; “
Export Documentation Training Course
“; Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

*
 Oct 10: New Orleans, LA; “Tariff Classification Seminar“; Global Learning Centre

* Oct 11: New Orleans, LA; “Export Documentation and Procedures Seminar“; International Business Training 

*
 Oct 11: Rotterdam, NL; “
Trade Compliance Congres
“; SDU, Customs Knowledge, and EvoFenedex

* Oct 12: New Orleans, LA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 15-19: Chicago, IL; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy
* Oct 16-18: Dallas, TX; “Partnering for Compliance West Export/Import Control Training and Education Program“; Partnering for Compliance

* 
Oct 16: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Control Compliance Basics
“; Customs4Trade

* Oct 17: Manchester, UK; “
Understanding Tariff Codes
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
* October 17-18; Miami/Fort Lauderdale, FL; “11th Maritime Forwarding, Freight Logistics & Global Chain Supply Workshop“; ABS Consulting; albert@abs-consulting.net; 954 218-5285
 

* 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“; International Compliance Professionals Association (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 23: Adelaide, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense

*
 Oct 23: Kontich, Belgium; “
Export Control Compliance Basics
“; Customs4Trade

* 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 26: Louisville, KY; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
* Oct 26: Milwaukee, WI; “Incoterms: A Strategic Approach“; International Business Training 
* Oct 29 – Nov 1: Phoenix, AZ; ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 29: Seattle, WA; ”
Export Compliance & Controls 101“; Global Trade Academy

* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Seattle, WA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy

Oct 30: Singapore; “
4th Asia Summit on Economic Sanctions
“; American Conference Institute

*
 
Oct 31 – Nov 1: Singapore;
” 7th Asia Summit on Anti-Corruption“;
American Conference Institute


* Nov 6: Detroit, MI; “Classification: How to Classify Parts“; Global Trade Academy


* Nov 7: Detroit, MI; ”
Advanced Classification of Machinery and Electronics“; Global Trade Academy
* Nov 7: Manchester, UK; “
Understanding Incoterms
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* 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 8-9: Shanghai, China; “
ICPA China Conference
“; International Compliance Professionals Association

* 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 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 16, San Diego, CA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training

* Nov 20: Manchester, UK; “
How to Claim Duty Relief on Export and Import Processes
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce


Nov 20: Sydney, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense;

* Nov 21: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Exporting
” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
 

* 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 6: London, UK; “
Beginner’s Workshop
“; UK Department for International Trad

* 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; “
Export Documentation Training Course
;” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Export Controls and Licenses
“; 
* Dec 14: Philadelphia, PA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
 
2019
 

* Jan 6-7: Long Beach, CA; ”
Fundamentals of FTZ Seminar“;
* Jan 21-24, 2019: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar”; ECTI; 540-433-3977


Feb 6-7: Orlando, FL; “
Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)

* Feb 12-13: Washington, D.C.; “
2019 Legislative Summit
“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 


Mar 26-27: Scottsdale, AZ; “
Seminar Level II: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities
“; Export Compliance Solutions
 

* 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)
 
Webinars 



* Aug 23: Webinar; “Social Media for Trade and Logistics Professionals“; Foreign Trade Association
* Aug 27: Webinar; ”
Import Documentation and Procedures“; International Business Training

* Sep 6: Webinar; “University Export Controls Program: Strength in Numbers“; 
ECTI; 540-433-3977
* Sep 
19: Webinar; “
International Logistics
“; International Business Training
 

* Sep 24: Webinar; “Tariff Classification: Using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; International Business Training
* Sep 25: Webinar; “NAFTA Rules of Origin“; International Business Training 

* Sep 26: Webinar; “
US Antiboycott Regulations: Clarified & Demystified
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977

* Oct 15: Webinar; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale
“; International Business Training  
* Nov 14: Webinar; “An Export Commodity Classification Number – ECCN“; Foreign Trade Association
* Dec 3: Webinar; “Tariff Classification: Using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; International Business Training 

* Dec 4: Webinar; “NAFTA Rules of Origin“; International Business Training 
* Dec 5: Webinar; “Import Documentation and Procedures“; International Business Training
* Dec 11: Webinar; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale
“; International Business Training 

* Dec 20: Webinar; “International Logistics
“; International Business Training 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a117
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

Henry Drummond (17 Aug. 1851 – 11 March 1897; was a Scottish evangelist, biologist, writer and lecturer.)
 – “Unless a man undertakes more than he possibly can do, he will never do all he can do.”
 
Friday Funnies:
  • All I ask is a chance to prove that money can’t make me happy.
  • Is it just my imagination, or do buffalo wings taste like chicken?
  • One nice thing about egotists: They don’t talk about other people.
  • What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?
  • Two can live as cheaply as one, for half as long.
  • It’s not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.
  • Is there another word for synonym?
  • Is Marx’s tomb a communist plot?
  • They told me I was gullible … and I believed them!

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

EN_a218. 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 Jun 2018: 83 FR 27380-27407: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)
 
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 Amendments: 3 Aug 2018: 83 FR 38021-38023: Revision of Export and Reexport License Requirements for Republic of South Sudan Under the Export Administration Regulations; and 83 FR 38018-38021: U.S.-India Major Defense Partners: Implementation Under the Export Administration Regulations of India’s Membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement and Addition of India to Country Group A:5
 

 

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

  – Last Amendment:
29 June 2018: 83 FR 30541-30548: Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations; and 83 FR 30539-30541: Removal of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations and Amendment of the Terrorism List Government Sanctions Regulations 

 

FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30  

  – Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018:
83 FR 17749-17751
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates

  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  –
The latest edition (30 April 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: 
14 Aug 2018: 
Harmonized System Update 1812
, containing 27 ABI records and 6 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: 25 Apr 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_a319
. 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.  If you would to submit material for inclusion in the The Export/Import Daily Update (“Daily Bugle”), please find instructions here.

* 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