18-0823 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

18-0823 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 23 August 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: Materials Technical Advisory Committee to Meet on 6 Sep in Washington, DC
  2. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments on Procedures for Submitting Request for Objections from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts Update on Section 301 Trade Remedies Assessed on China, Drawback Claims
  4. DHS/CBP Posts Update on Client Representative Restructuring
  5. Justice: “Canadian Sentenced to 3+ Years in Prison for Conspiracy to Export Restricted Goods and Technology to Iran”
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  7. UK/DIT Amends Export Control Order
  8. UK ECJU Posts “No Deal” Technical Notice on Export Control Regulation
  1. American Shipper: “Quicker Rulings Mulled as Part of CTPAT”
  2. The Daily World: “Judge to Congress, Executive Branch: Face up to Problems of 3-D Printed Guns”
  1. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday: Where Are We with NAFTA Renegotiations?”
  2. M. Volkov: “DOJ Expands FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy”
  3. T. Townsend & J. Butcaris: “Recent Rule Reduces Export License Requirements for India”
  4. R.C. Burns: “The Export Control Reform Act: Long on Control, Short on Reform”
  1. ECS Presents “Seminar Level II: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” in Scottsdale, AZ on 26-27 Mar 2019
  2. FCC to Present U.S. Export Controls Awareness Training Course for Non-U.S. Organizations, 2 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  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 (6 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 



. Commerce/BIS: Materials Technical Advisory Committee to Meet on 6 Sep in Washington, DC

(Source: Federal Register, 23 Aug 2018.)
83 FR 42638: Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 6, 2018, 10:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
Open Session
  (1) Introductions and opening remarks by senior management
  (2) Presentation by Dr. Rocco Casagrande, “UN Weapons Inspections in Pre-War Iraq”
  (3) Questions and Answers
  (4) Notice of Inquiry for Sprayers and Foggers
  (5) Open session report by regime representatives
Closed Session
  (6) Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at Joanna.Lewis@bis.doc.gov, no later than August 30, 2018.
  A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email.
  The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
  For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.
Joanna Lewis, Committee Liaison Officer.

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


2. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments on Procedures for Submitting Request for Objections from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel

(Source: Federal Register, 23 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
83 FR 42637-42638: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Procedures for Submitting Request for Objections from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel …
  – Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”).
  – Title: Procedures for Submitting Request for Objections from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel.
  – Form Number(s): N/A.
  – OMB Control Number: 0694-0138. …
  – Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports Presidential Proclamations 9704, Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States and 9705, Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States. On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705 concurring with the findings of the two investigation reports submitted by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansions Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862) and determining that adjusting imports through the imposition of duties on aluminum and steel is necessary so that imports of aluminum and steel will no longer threaten to impair the national security. …
  Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
  Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

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


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

* Commerce; Bureau of Industry and Security; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures for Submitting Request for Exclusions from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel [Publication Date: 24 August 2018.]
* Treasury; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act Reporting Requirements [Publication Date: 24 August 2018.]
* Treasury; Office of Foreign Assets Control Office; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 24 August 2018.]

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

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

CSMS #18-000498, 23 Aug 2018.)
On August 18, 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the government of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. On June 20, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action and Request for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301, imposing additional import duties on a list of Chinese products. See Federal Register 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018).
On August 16, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action providing for the imposition of additional import duties on a second list of Chinese Products. The August 16, 2018 list of products covered by the Section 301 remedy, which comprises 279 eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings, can be found in Annex A to the USTR’s August 16, 2018 notice of action. See Federal Register 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018).
Products Covered by the June 20, 2018 List for the Section 301 Action
The additional import duties for Chinese goods covered by the June 20, 2018 list were effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time on July 6, 2018.
In addition to reporting the Chapters 1-97 HTSUS classification of the imported merchandise, importers shall also report the 9903.88.01 special tariff number for goods subject to the additional duty assessment of 25% ad valorem as a result of the Section 301 trade remedy.
  – 9903.88.01: 25% ad valorem additional duty for articles the product of China
Products Covered by the August 16, 2018 List for the Section 301 Action
The additional import duties for Chinese goods covered by the August 16, 2018 list of products subject to the Section 301 action are effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time on August 23, 2018.
Any article classified in a subheading covered by the August 16 list that is a product of China is subject to a 25% ad valorem duty rate, in addition to the general (Column 1) rate of duty for that particular subheading.
In addition to reporting the Chapter 1-97 HTSUS classification of the imported merchandise, importers shall also report the 9903.88.02 special tariff number for goods subject to the additional duty assessment of 25% ad valorem as a result of the Section 301 trade remedy.
  – 9903.88.02: 25% ad valorem additional duty for articles the product of China
All Products Covered by Section 301 Duties
The Section 301 duties only apply to products of China, and are based on the country of origin, not country of export.
Section 301 duties are eligible for duty drawback.
For further information, please refer to the USTR’s Notice of Action and Request for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018); and the August 16, 2018 Notice of Action Pursuant to Section 301, 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018).
Questions related to Section 301 entry filing requirements should be emailed to traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov. Questions from the importing community concerning ACE rejections should be referred to their Client Representative.
 – Related CSMS No. 18-000493, 18-000419, 18-000409

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

CSMS #18-000496, 23 Aug 2018.)
The CBP Trade Transformation Office, Client Representative Division has received a large amount of feedback from discussions with the trade regarding the new model for how we assign brokers, importer self-filers, and vendor/service centers to Client Representatives. We continue to discuss the recommendations and alternatives received, as we want to sustain and advance our high level of support to the trade community.
At this time, we have made no changes to our current model. Before we finalize the approach, we will reach out directly to the client(s) affected by any changes. The Client Representative Division will also schedule another webinar in September for all interested filers prior to implementing any changes. This information will be forthcoming in another CSMS.
  – Related CSMS No. 18-000460, 18-000473

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

Justice, 22 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
Ghobad Ghasempour, 38, a Canadian national, was sentenced on Aug. 20, in U.S. District Court in Seattle to 42 months in prison for conspiracy to unlawfully export U.S. goods to Iran. …
Ghasempour was arrested on March 28, 2017 as he entered the United States at Blaine, Washington. An investigation led by Homeland Security Investigations in San Diego, California, revealed that Ghasempour had used front companies in China and co-conspirators in Iran, Turkey and Portugal to illegally export restricted technology products to Iran.
At the sentencing hearing U.S. District Judge James L. Robart noted that Ghasempour was solely motivated by greed and money, and that the unlawful export of goods and technology was to the “the Department of Defense for Iran — the very group that would be the most harmful to the United States.”
According to records filed in the case, between 2011 and 2017, Ghasempour and his co-conspirators illegally exported and attempted to export goods and technology to Iran that have both military and non-military uses. Ghasempour exported a thin film measurement system, manufactured by a California company, that is essentially a microscopic tape measure for liquid coatings and parts that are used in cell phones and missiles; he attempted to export an inertial guidance system test table, manufactured by a North Dakota company, used to test the accuracy of gyroscopes that assist in flying commercial and military airplanes; and the conspirators exported two types of thermal imaging cameras, manufactured by an Oregon company, that can be used in commercial security systems and military drones. Some of the items Ghasempour sought to export were intercepted by law enforcement. The conspirators falsified shipping documents and lied to U.S. manufacturers by claiming that the restricted items were being shipped to customers in Turkey and Portugal, knowing that the true destination of these goods was Iran. The Iranian customers paid the Chinese front companies owned by Ghasempour and a co-conspirator.
Ghasempour pleaded guilty in April 2018. …

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

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

In summary this instrument will update and restructure the lists of firearms that require an export license from the UK.
Specifically, the Export Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018 (“the 2018 Order”) amends parts of Schedules 2 and 3 to the Export Control Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”). The 2018 Order implements Directive 2017/853 of 17 May 2017 (“the 2017 Directive”). This Directive updates the list of firearms that are subject to export control by amending the list originally set out in Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 (“the 1991 Directive”).
Schedules 2 and 3 to the 2008 Order have also been amended on a national basis to restructure the lists of firearm controls to align with the various European and international obligations on firearms.
The 2018 Order also makes a change to Schedule 1, Part 2 to ensure that Trade controls apply to all non-military firearms following the restructuring of the lists of firearms.
There are two minor changes to the control entries in ML7 and ML10 that correct previously identified typographical errors.
The explanation memorandum to the 2018 Order can be found here.

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

UK ECJU, 23 Aug 2018.)
The government has published a technical notice to inform stakeholders how export controls would be affected if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
This notice explains:
  – how export licensing requirements for different groups of items would change
  – what the UK government would do to simplify licensing
  – where exporters of military and dual-use items, civilian firearms, and other goods can find relevant information
Read the technical notice here.

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


American Shipper, 22 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is considering development of an indicator for trusted members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) for expedited customs rulings and to submit confidential manifest requests in the CTPAT portal, CBP CTPAT Director Elizabeth Schmelzinger said last Wednesday during the CBP 2018 Trade Symposium in Atlanta.
A 20-day turnaround for rulings would be “the perfect goal,” she said. “But if any of you have submitted a ruling, you understand that really depends upon the complexity of the ruling. … There’s all sorts of issues that can slow that up. But there’s a sincere commitment from the agency to recognize our trusted partners in a way that’s meaningful.”
In addition to expedited rulings, CBP wants to provide trusted CTPAT members with an opportunity to submit confidential manifest requests in the CTPAT online portal, which would mean that such requests “would live in the portal” and members won’t have to “retype that request every two years,” Schmelzinger said.
Another benefit that CBP has developed is CTPAT Defender, which Schmelzinger described as “like LifeLock for your [importer of record] IOR number.”
She added. “Basically what we do is monitor the activity, and when something doesn’t seem right, we’ll send you an email. You can answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ There’ll be some information in there about the shipment. If it’s not your shipment, it doesn’t automatically mean that the shipment’s going to get offloaded, but it does mean that we’ll probably ask you a few more questions to verify that or to make sure that it is a solid ‘no.'” …

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

The Daily World, 22 Aug 2018.)
Congress and the Trump administration need to face up to the potential problems of guns that can be created by 3-D printers from files off the internet, a federal judge said Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik had tough questions for the Justice Department attorney who tried to defend a recent change in the Arms Export Control Act that would allow files to be posted on the internet by their creator, saying the undetectable and untraceable guns mean the United States “could end up with other 9-11 situations.”
Attorney Steven Meyers had said the federal government agreed the guns do pose a danger, but the federal government and the states – which are trying to keep the files off the internet – have laws in place to deal with those dangers if they occur.
Lasnik seemed unconvinced: “We don’t just wait for heroin to be produced and try to find it,” he said. Instead, the government tries to stop people from producing the drug.
Washington, 18 other states and the District of Columbia are suing the federal government for its decision to remove the files to create the guns from a list that would essentially allow them to be easily accessible on the internet. Earlier this year, it decided to lift the ban on exporting certain weapons that were less than .50 caliber and not automatic, under the theory that those weapons are readily available at stores.
Last month, Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order to keep the files from being released by Defense Distributed, the company that created them.
On Tuesday, attorneys for the states were asking him to extend the order, while the federal government and an attorney for the company argued it should be lifted. Lasnik said he’d make his decision on extending the ban by Monday, the day before the temporary restraining order is set to expire.
Lasnik called the case the most significant he’s had as a federal judge. He said it wasn’t his job to decide the larger issues behind the potential for easy access to 3-D guns, but to determine whether the rules were followed.
  “This is an issue that should be solved by the political branches of government,” he said. “I wish the legislative and executive branches would step up to this.”
The federal government’s proposed changes to the arms export list reversed a 5-year-old ban on placing the plans on the internet. Jeffrey Rupert, an assistant Washington attorney general, argued the federal government didn’t follow the proper procedures for making that change, that its ruling was arbitrary and could result in substantial harm to the state residents.
The federal government previously defended the ban by saying terrorist groups could use the guns against the United States, Rupert said. They wouldn’t be detected by metal detectors at airports, prisons or schools.
  “If the school has a 3-D printer, the gun could be printed in school,” he said.
Chad Flores, an attorney for Defense Distributed, said the current ban fails to recognize that the files already are available,
  “The cat is out of the bag,” Flores said. “My clients could mail the plans to anyone in the country and violate no laws.”
Rupert countered: “It’s one thing to have them out there on the far reaches of the internet. It’s another thing to have them readily available.”

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


13. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday: Where Are We with NAFTA Renegotiations?”

(Source: Integration Point Blog, 22 Aug 2018.)
Welcome to Weise Wednesday! Twice a month we will share a brief Q&A with the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise. If you have questions, we encourage you to send them to
Q. With all that has been happening relating to steel and aluminum tariffs and the U.S.-China trade dispute, I haven’t heard much recently about the status of NAFTA renegotiations. Can you bring us up-to-date on what is happening?
A. Although this issue appeared to be dormant for several months, it looks like tangible progress has been made in recent weeks. Back in May, negotiations between the three parties were halted, reportedly over the U.S. insistence that a five-year sunset provision be included in the agreement.
Over the past four weeks, however, bilateral negotiations have taken place between U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo in an effort to resolve outstanding issues between the two governments. Canada has not participated in these talks.
Besides the sunset provision, one of the most challenging issues being addressed relates to the rule of origin for automobiles. Currently, NAFTA requires that 62.5% of an automobile must be built from parts originating in the three signatory countries. The U.S. had proposed that NAFTA be modified to change the 62.5% requirement to 85%, but agreed to lower the threshold to 75% if a certain percentage of parts was made by workers who were paid at least $16 per hour. The effect of such a provision would guarantee that the work on those parts was done in the U.S. or Canada.
Recent signs indicate that substantial progress has been made in the bilateral talks between the U.S. and Mexico on these issues. But a final NAFTA deal would require the agreement of Canada as well. A recent tweet from President Trump, however, raises the question of whether the President would move to replace NAFTA with bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada. He tweeted-
Deal with Mexico is coming along nicely. Autoworkers and farmers must be taken care of or there will be no deal. New President of Mexico has been an absolute gentleman. Canada must wait. Their Tariffs and Trade barriers are far too high. Will tax cars if we can’t make a deal.
At this point, it is not clear if this is just posturing on the part of the U.S. to move Canada to accept the provisions that emerge from the U.S.-Mexico talks or whether the threat to move to bilateral agreements is real. All of this should come into clearer focus in the coming weeks because Mexican and U.S. negotiators are hoping to reach an agreement on outstanding issues by the end of August. All eyes will then be on Canada to see if they re-engage in the talks. Stay tuned and stay engaged.

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

14. M. Volkov: “DOJ Expands FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog, 20 Aug 2018.) Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
The Justice Department’s FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy was announced in November 2017 with much fanfare – it was the culmination of a step-by-step process beginning with the FCPA Pilot Program. The FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy enshrined the potential benefit of a presumption of a declination if a corporation: (1) voluntarily disclosed the misconduct; (2) implemented timely and appropriate remediation; and (3) fully cooperated with the government’s investigation.
The three specific conditions impose significant obligations. A company has to meet a lengthy list of criteria and expectations within each category. Specifically, assuming the company voluntarily discloses the misconduct to the government in a timely manner, the company has to:
  – cooperate fully with the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation by providing all relevant facts about all individuals involved in the misconduct, and de-conflicting any corporate internal investigation with the government’s investigation;
  – remediate the conditions that gave rise to the corrupt activities, including by disciplining or terminating employees involved in the misconduct and remediating deficiencies in the company’s existing compliance program; and
  – disgorge any profits that resulted from the FCPA violation.
In exchange the company can earn a complete declination, but will still be required to pay disgorgement. In cases where aggravating factors are present (e.g. pervasiveness of the misconduct, executive management involvement, or a company’s recidivist status), the company can earn a 50 percent reduction from the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range if the requirements are otherwise satisfied. Even if a company does not meet the first prong of voluntary disclosure, the company can earn a 25 percent reduction from the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range if it satisfies the other two prongs – remediation and cooperation.
Whether the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy has resulted in an increase in the number of corporations voluntarily disclosing in the hopes of securing a declination is unknown. I suspect that the Justice Department has seen an uptick in the number of corporations voluntarily disclosing potential FCPA misconduct.
Aside from the issue of incentives, the Justice Department appears pleased with the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. The criticisms against the new policy have been relatively few (except for the usual suspects who enjoy howling at the moon), and the policy appears to be working fairly well and bringing a new era of transparency to FCPA enforcement.
Since the adoption of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the Justice Department has expanded the policy to include: (1) all criminal corporate enforcement matters (except criminal antitrust prosecutions which continue to be subject to the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Leniency Program); and (2) corporate mergers and acquisitions which create successor liability risks.
In March 2018, the then-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division John P. Cronan, announced that the Criminal Division would consider the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy as “nonbinding guidance” in all corporate criminal cases, not just those involving violations of the FCPA. Even though the policy is not binding on non-FCPA corporate criminal prosecutions, the application of this policy revealed that the Justice Department believes strongly in the positive incentives and transparency benefits of the corporate enforcement policy. While the Justice Department’s rationale makes sense, there are still significant interpretation issues in connection with non-FCPA corporate criminal cases.
In a subsequent development, on July 25, 2018, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Matt Miner delivered a speech announcing that DOJ would apply the principles of its FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy to successor companies that identify wrongdoing in relation to a merger or acquisition. Under this policy, a successor company that voluntarily discloses wrongdoing to the DOJ (typically discovered in pre-closing due diligence or post-closing audits), cooperates with the government investigation and implements remedial measures can earn a presumption of a declination. The policy expansion is intended to encourage “companies with robust compliance programs” taking over “problematic companies” to implement strong compliance practices quickly after acquiring another company.
Speaking about the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein underscored the policy’s intent to motivate and reward “companies that want to do the right thing and voluntarily disclose misconduct.”

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

15. T. Townsend & J. Butcaris: “Recent Rule Reduces Export License Requirements for India”
(Source: Wiggin & Dana LLP, 22 Aug 2018.)
* Authors: Tahlia Townsend, Esq., ttownsend@wiggin.com, +1 203-498-4339; and Jessica Butcaris, Esq., jbutcaris@wiggin.com, +1 203-498-4305. Both of Wiggin & Dana LLP.
What Happened?   
On August 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule (83 FR 38018) (the Rule) amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by:
  – Moving India from Country Group A:6 to Country Groups A:1 and A:5
  – Removing license requirements for India based on National Security Column 2 (NS2)
  – Removing the requirement to file Electronic Export Information (EEI) for exports to India of items controlled for Crime Control (CC) Columns 1 and 3 and Regional Stability (RS) Column 2, regardless of value.
These changes expand the range of U.S. goods that may be exported/re-exported to India under the authority of No License Required (NLR) or License Exceptions STA, GOV, and APR, and should particularly benefit the aerospace, defense and other high-tech manufacturing sectors.
License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization


One of the most significant consequences of the changes is that, due to India’s addition to Country Group A:5, it is now possible to use paragraph (c)(1) of License Exception STA to authorize exports, re-exports, and transfers to India, and from India to destinations in Country Group A:5, of U.S. goods for which the applicable reasons for control are limited to one or more of national security (NS), chemical or biological weapons (CB), nuclear nonproliferation (NP), regional stability (RS), crime control (CC), and/or significant items (SI), subject to certain exclusions and requirements. [FN/1] Under STA par. (b)(3)(ii), India’s accession to Country Group A:5 also means that STA par. (c) may be used for exports/re-exports/transfers of 600-series goods, subject to certain exceptions specified elsewhere in STA,[FN/2] and the conditions on end-user and end-use set out in par. (b)(3)(ii).[FN/3] In addition, in a development that may benefit some in the life sciences sector, per STA par. (b)(2)(vi), recipients in India are now eligible to receive under STA up to six shipments per calendar year containing no more than 100 milligrams (per toxin) of toxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.1 through 1C351.d.10 and 1C351.d.13 through 1C351.d.18. [FN/4]
License Exception Gov For 600-Series and Sensitive List Items   
Paragraph (c) of License Exception GOV [FN/5] authorizes certain exports/re-exports to agencies of (i) NATO, (ii) Country Group A:1 governments, and (iii) the national governments of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. The addition of India to Country Group A:1 means that it will now be possible to export/re-export goods to Indian government agencies without a license, under GOV. Further, the addition of India to Country Group A:5 means that it will also be possible to use GOV to authorize exports/re-exports to Indian government agencies of 600-series items and items on the Sensitive List (Supplement No. 6 to part 774 of the EAR), a particular boon to the aerospace, defense and high-tech manufacturing sectors.
License Exception Additional Permissive Re-exports (APR)    
India’s addition to Country Group A:1 also opens up use of License Exception APR,[FN/6]paragraphs (a), (b) and (j), to authorize a broad range of re-exports of U.S. goods to and from India, primarily re-exports from India to other Country Group A:1 countries and Hong Kong, and to India from other Country Group A:1 countries and Hong Kong, subject to requirements that vary with the authorizing paragraph (including but not limited to a requirement for consumption in Hong Kong or a Country Group A:1 country under paragraph (b), and, under paragraphs (a) and (b), restrictions on certain ECCNs and reasons for control, as well as on items previously exported under License Exception STA).
Expanded Use of “No License Required”   
In addition to the Country Group changes and consequences described above, the Rule updates the Commerce Country Chart, Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, by removing the “X” for India in NS Column 2. As a result, a significant number of items that previously required use of a license or license exception for export/re-export to India can now be exported/re-exported to India under the authority of No License Required (NLR). These items include the following:
Broad Description of Affected Items
Unarmed ground vehicles derived from civilian vehicles; certain parts and components for ground vehicles
1A001, 1A002 (except items controlled by 1A002.b.1 in the form of tubes with an inside diameter between 75 mm and 400 mm), 1A003, 1A004, 1A005, 1A006, 1A007 (except 1A007.a when the detonator firing set meets certain parameters and .b), 1A008, 1B001.d.4 (except equipment in 1B001.d that meet or exceed the parameters of 1B101), 1B001.e, 1B001.f, 1B002, 1B003, 1C002 (except 1C002.b.3 or b.4 if they exceed the parameters stated in 1C202), 1C003, 1C004, 1C005, 1C006, 1C007 (except items in 1C007.c when the dielectric constant is less than 6 at any frequency from 100 MHz to 100 GHz for use in “missile” radomes), 1C008, 1C009, 1C010 (except certain fibrous or filamentary materials controlled in 1C010.a, .b, and e.1), 1D003, 1E001 “technology” for items controlled by ECCN 1A004, 1E002.g
Aerospace parts and components made from fluorinated compounds (such as seals, gaskets, sealants); composite structures; protective equipment; detection equipment; biological agents; body armor; explosive devices and related equipment; charges and related equipment; metals and equipment and tooling for producing metals; conductors; certain fluids, powders, and lubricating materials; related software and technology
2A001 (except certain radial ball bearings), 2B001 (except 2B001.a, .b, .c, and .d and there are additional exceptions for certain turning machines, bar machines, and milling machines), 2B002, 2B003, 2B005, 2B006 (except items in 2B006.a and .b that meet or exceed the technical parameters in 2B206), 2B007 (except equipment that meets or exceeds criteria in 2B207), 2B008, 2B009 (except certain spin-forming and flow-forming machines), 2D003
Bearings and related systems; machine tools for grinding; equipment for inorganic overlays; measuring and image processing machines; spin-forming and flow-forming machines; certain robots; related software
3A001 (except: “Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit” (“MMIC”) amplifiers in 3A001.b.2 and discrete microwave transistors in 3A001.b.3, except those 3A001.b.2 and b.3 items being exported or reexported for use in civil telecommunications applications; 3A001.a.1.a when usable in “missiles”; 3A001.a.5.a when “designed or modified” for military use, hermetically sealed and rated for operation in a certain temperature range; pulse discharge capacitors in 3A001.e.2 and superconducting solenoidal electromagnets in 3A001.e.3 that meet or exceed certain technical parameters), 3A002 (except 3A002.h when the parameters in 3A101.a.2.b are met or exceeded), 3A003, 3B001, 3B002, 3C001, 3C002, 3C003, 3C004, 3C005, 3C006
Electronic items (such as integrated circuits, microcircuits, and optical waveguides); electronic assemblies and components; equipment related to semiconductor devices and materials; thermal management systems; certain compounds and materials
4A001 (except items in 4A001.a when the parameters in 4A101 are met or exceeded), 4A003.e, 4A003.g, 4A004
Certain computers and related equipment (e.g., radiation-hardened, systolic array)
5A001.b (except 5A001.b.5), 5A001.c, 5A001.d, 5A001.f (except 5A001.f.1 and 5A001.f.3), 5A001.g, 5B001, 5A003
Certain telecommunication and information security systems and equipment
6A001, 6A002 (except 6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3 (except a.3.d.2.a and a.3.e for lead selenide based focal plane arrays), and .c), 6A003 (except certain items controlled in 6A003.a.2, a.3, a.4, a.6, 6A003.b.3, b.4.a, b.4.b, or b.4.c), 6A004, 6A005 (except lasers controlled by 6A005.a.2, a.3, a.4, b.2.b, b.3, b.4, b.6.c, c.1.b, c.2.b, d.2, d.3.c, or d.4.c that meet or exceed the technical parameters described in 6A205), 6A006, 6A007 (except 6A007.b and .c when the accuracies in 6A007.b.1 and b.2 are met or exceeded), 6A008 (except 6A008.j.1 and certain items designed for airborne applications and that are usable in systems controlled for MT reasons), 6B004, 6B007, 6C002, 6C004, 6C005
Acoustic systems and equipment; optical equipment and materials; magnetometers and subsystems; gravimeters and related equipment; laser materials; radar systems, equipment, and assemblies
Certain underwater sonar navigation systems
8A001, 8A002, 8B001, 8C001
Submersible vehicles and surface vessels; related equipment; water tunnels; materials for underwater use
9A002, 9A003, 9B006, 9B008, 9B009
Marine gas turbine engines and related components and tooling; acoustic vibration test equipment; direct measurement wall skin friction transducers
Removal of Certain EEI Filing and Reporting Requirements   
Before the Rule, 15 C.F.R. 758.1(b)(9) made it mandatory to file EEI for exports to India of items controlled for CC Columns 1 and 3, or RS Column 2, even if the value of the export fell below the usual $2,500 threshold for EEI. The Rule removed this requirement. However, the requirement to file EEI for exports that require submission of a license application remains and, although BIS previously removed license requirements for India based on CC1, CC2 and RS2, per Note 7 to the Commerce Country Chart, a license (and thus EEI filing) is still required for exports to India of ECCN 6A003.b.4.b and 9A515.e items for RS2 reasons.
Finally, the Rule added India to the list of Wassenaar member countries identified in Supplement 1 to Part 743. As a result, exports/re-exports to India are exempted by 743.1(d) from the Part 743.1 reporting requirements otherwise applicable to exports of items on the Sensitive List under License Exceptions GBS, CIV, TSR, LBS, APP, certain sections of GOV, STA, and the Validated End-User authorization.
What To Do Next   
If you believe the export/re-export of your item to/from India may now be eligible for a license exception, carefully review Part 740 of the EAR, paying particular attention to the restrictions for use in the text of the specific license exception, as well as the general restrictions on license exceptions in 740.2, and the CCL-based, end-user, end-use, and other special controls in Parts 742 and 744. Exporters who have been using licenses or license exceptions for transfers to India of items that, due to the changes in NS2, no longer require a license, should also be sure to check Parts 742 and 744 before making transfers under the authority of No License Required.
If you already have BIS export licenses for transactions that are now eligible for use of a license exception, you may either continue to use the license, or switch to using the relevant license exception (so long as all requirements are met).
  [FN/1] Requirements include that the purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, and end user all have been approved at some prior time on a BIS or DDTC license, agreement, or General Correspondence, and that the exporter/re-exporter/transferor complies with the conditions in paragraph (d)(1) (including furnishing the ECCN of each item, obtaining a Prior Consignee Statement, and providing the consignee with written notice about which shipments or parts of shipments are authorized under STA). In addition, the items must not be excluded from the scope of STA. For example, STA may not be used for any item that is controlled for reason of encryption items (EI), short supply (SS), surreptitious listening (SL), missile technology (MT), or chemical weapons (CW), or for ECCNs 0A981, 0A982, 0A983, 0A985, 0E982, or 0E987, 1C351.a, .b, .c, d.11, .d.12 or .e, 1C353, 1C354, 1E001, 3A001.b.2 or b.3 (except use in civil telecommunications), certain 3E001 technology, 6A002, 6A990, 6D002, 6D003.c, 6D991, 6E001, 6E002, 6E990, 7E004 (except 7E004.a.7), certain 9D001, 9D002, 9D004 software, certain 9E001, 9E002, and 9E003 technology, and 600-series items identified in the ECCN entry as ineligible for STA, 600-series items that qualify as “600 Series Major Defense Equipment” and have a contract value over $25,000,00. It also may not be used to transfer items controlled under ECCNs 0A606.a, 8A609.a, 8A620.a or .b, or 9A610.a unless and until BIS approves use of STA under the procedures set out in §740.20(g).
  [FN/2] See footnote 1, above.
  [FN/3] In particular: (i) the ultimate end user must be the armed forces, police, paramilitary, law enforcement, customs, correctional, fire, or a search and rescue agency of a government of the U.S. Government or a Country Group A:5 government; (ii) the transfer must be for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing, in the U.S. or a Country Group A:5 country, of an item that is ultimately either (a) to be used by such government agencies in the U.S. or a Country Group A:5 country, or (b) sent to a person in the U.S. and not for subsequent export under §740.9(b)(1), or (c) for an end-use already authorized by the U.S. Government via a license or other authorization that is still in effect, where the consignee verifies in writing that such authorization exists and has provided the license or other approval identifier to the exporter/re-exporter/transferor.
  [FN/4] The 1C351.d toxins at issue are: d.1. Abrin; d.2. Aflatoxins; d.3. Botulinum toxins; d.4. Cholera toxin; d.5. Clostridium perfringens alpha, beta 1, beta 2, epsilon and iota toxins; d.6. Conotoxins; d.7. Diacetoxyscirpenol; d.8. HT-2 toxin; d.9. Microcystins (Cyanginosins); d.10. Modeccin; d.13. Shiga toxins (shiga-like toxins, verotoxins, and verocytotoxins); d.14. Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins, hemolysin alpha toxin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin (formerly known as Staphylococcus enterotoxin F); d.15.
T-2 toxin; d.16. Tetrodotoxin; d.17. Viscumin (Viscum album lectin 1); d.18. Volkensin.
We note that 15 C.F.R. 740.20 (b)(2)(vi) also refers to 1C351.d.19, but that entry was removed in early December 2016, when the content of old d.17 (“Verotoxin and other Shiga-like ribosome inactivating proteins”) was consolidated into a parenthetical in revised d.13 (“Shiga toxins (shiga-like toxins, verotoxins, and verocytotoxins”), resulting in a list that is one entry shorter.
  [FN/5] License Exception “Governments, International Organizations, International Inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station,” 15 C.F.R. 740.11.
  [FN/6] 15 C.F.R. 740.16

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

R.C. Burns: “The Export Control Reform Act: Long on Control, Short on Reform”
(Source: Export Law Blog, 22 Aug 2018. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC, Clif.Burns@bryancave.com, 202-508-6067).
The John McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2018,  in addition to passing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”), which reforms the CFIUS process, also enacted the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (“ECRA”). That name is, I think, something of a misnomer given what the ECRA actually does. Perhaps a better name would have been the Export Administration Act Reenactment Act. After Congress in 1994 was unable to renew the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), which was the statutory authority for the parts of the U.S. export control regime covering dual use items and administered by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), every U.S. President has resurrected the dead statute each year with an executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. With the passage of ECRA, that is one less executive order that the White House will need to issue each year.
Most of what ECRA does is provide the statutory authority for BIS that it previously had under the EAA and the yearly executive orders, although now with higher penalties for violations, which have been upped to $300,000 per violation. Why, after all, pass a law if you can’t raise the penalties? The only thing in ECRA which might be called a reform in a traditional sense of making life easier for regulated parties is section 1757 which says the President may authorize BIS to provide export counseling to exporters. This provision has generated so much excitement among exporters that U.S. exporters were popping bottles of Dom Perignon in celebration. Sorry, just kidding.
Rather than making life easier for exporters, the ECRA contains new controls certain to make exporters’ lives more difficult.  (In addition to the higher penalties.  Did I already mention those?) License applications will now have to explain why the export of an item will not have a negative impact on the U.S. defense industrial base. The law also mandates that BIS consider stopping exports of items on the Commerce Control List to countries that are subject to State Department arms embargoes. (Ahem, does anybody think that’s a dog whistle for restricting more exports to China?)
But the biggest change, and potential headache for exporters aside from higher penalties, is section 1758, which requires BIS, in cooperation with the Departments of State, Energy and Defense to identify and control “emerging and foundational technologies.” What on earth, you rightly wonder, is an emerging and foundational technology? The act only says that they are technologies that are “essential to the national security of the United States” but not already subject to export controls. Basically, since all export controls are based on national security, the only real definition of an emerging and foundational technology is something that is not already export controlled but should be. Your guess is as good as mine (and Congress’s) as to what these four agencies will decide to control under this new rubric.
Once the list of these new export controlled items is in force, then the ECRA requires as a minimum level of control that export of this technology to a “country subject to an embargo, including an arms embargo, imposed by the United States” would require a license. (Hello, China!) Embargo is not defined, so it’s not clear if a license would be required for these technologies with respect to a country to which the United States prohibited only a few types of goods or arms. A more significant issue is how this requirement, which applies to any “country” subject to an embargo would affect exports of emerging technologies to the Crimean territory, which is subject to a comprehensive embargo. This provision would impose the license requirement on either Russia or Ukraine depending on which country is considered to own Crimea and whether an embargo of a territory of a country means that the country is subject to an embargo.
The last thing to note about section 1758 is that the license requirement would not apply to what the Senate version referred to as “ordinary business transactions.” In the legislation as passed, these ordinary business transactions are described, for example, as
The sale or license of a finished item and the provision of associated technology if the United States person that is a party to the transaction generally makes the finished item and associated technology available to its customers, distributors, or resellers.
For those used to the EAR’s treatment of technology this provision seems odd and unnecessary. “Associated technology” generally made available to customers would be “published,” as defined in section 734.7 of the EAR, and thus not subject to the EAR or any license requirement, making this exception completely unnecessary. I suspect that the ECRA, which never defines “technology,” is using the term in a loose sense that would cover physical goods in addition to information. In any event, count on these exceptions to cause much confusion when the list of emerging and foundational technologies finally appears.
Oh, and did I mention the higher penalties?

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


ECS Presents “Seminar Level II: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” in Scottsdale, AZ on 26-27 Mar 2019

(Source: Suzanne Palmer, spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com.)
* What: Seminar Level II: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities; Scottsdale, AZ
* When: March 26-27, 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Instructors: Suzanne Palmer; Lisa Bencivenga
* Register: here or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail

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

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!

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


William Wilberforce (24 Aug 1759 – 29 Jul 1833; was an English politician known as a leader of the movement to stop the slave trade.)
  – “If you love someone who is ruining his or her life because of faulty thinking, and you don’t do anything about it because you are afraid of what others might think, it would seem that rather than being loving, you are in fact being heartless.” 
Thomas Babington Macaulay (Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay; 25 Oct 1800 – 28 Dec 1859; was a British historian and Whig politician. He wrote extensively as an essayist, on contemporary and historical sociopolitical subjects, and as a reviewer. His The History of England was a seminal and paradigmatic example of historiography, and its literary style has remained an object of praise since its publication.)
  – “Nothing except the mint can make money without advertising.”

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

. 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 Jun 2018: 83 FR 27380-27407: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)

  – 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 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

: 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 

: 15 CFR Part 30
  – Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018: 3 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
  – The latest edition (30 Apr 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:
14 Aug 2018: Harmonized System Update 1812, containing 27 ABI records and 6 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: 25 Apr 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, Alex Witt. 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 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