;

18-0904 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

18-0904 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

TOP
The Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, DOE/NRC, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FAR/DFARS, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events.  Subscribe 
here for free subscription. Contact us
for advertising inquiries and rates. [N.B. The Daily Bugle was not released on Tuesday, 4 September 2018, a U.S. Federal Holiday.] 

  1. President Adjusts Imports of Aluminum into the U.S. 
  2. President Adjusts Imports of Steel into the U.S. 
  3. Commerce/BIS Amends EAR by Adding 15 Entities to, Modifying 2 Entries on, and Removing 1 Entry from the Entity List 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS Provides Information on 232 National Security Investigation of Steel Imports, Exclusion and Objection Process
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. UK OFSI Provides Guidance Concerning Annual Frozen Asset Review and Reporting Form
  1. Expeditors News: “Malaysia Implements Sales and Service Tax on 1 Sep 2018”
  2. Janes 360: “Israeli Aeronautics Executives Facing Export Control Violation Charges”
  3. Reuters: “Long Reach of U.S. Sanctions Hits Syria Reconstruction”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Trump Rejects EU Offer to Remove Tariffs on Industrial Goods”
  1. D. Ring & N.S. Khalid: “Hiring U.S. Citizens Only for ITAR Compliance Can Violate the Immigration and Nationality Act”
  2. K.T. Scarlott & L. Muranovic: “New Sanctions Against Russia Have Unfavorable Impact on Defense Sector, with Carve-Outs Favoring Certain Aspects of the Aerospace Industry”
  3. M.B. McCord: “3D-Printed Plastic Guns: Five Reasons to Worry”
  4. R.C. Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: “Changes to Export Controls in August 2018t”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 184 Openings Posted This Week, Including 17 New Openings
  1. “9th Annual ‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export/Import Control Conference” on Oct 16-18, Ft. Worth, TX. Customs/ Import Boot Camp Oct 19
  2. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp” in Annapolis, MD on 11-13 Sep
  3. ECTI Presents “A Practical Guide to AES Filing: When, What and How to File in the Automated Export System” Webinar, 23 Oct
  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 (4 Sep 2018), FACR/OFAC (29 Jun 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (14 Aug 2018), ITAR (30 Aug 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. 
President Adjusts Imports of Aluminum into the U.S. 
(Source: 
Federal Register, 4 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.] 

 
83 FR 45019: Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States
 
A Proclamation
 
  (1) On January 19, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of aluminum articles on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862). The Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that aluminum articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States. In light of this conclusion, the Secretary recommended action to adjust the imports of aluminum articles so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security. The Secretary also recommended that I authorize him, in response to specific requests from affected domestic parties, to exclude from any adopted import restrictions those aluminum articles for which the Secretary determines there is a lack of sufficient domestic production capacity of comparable products, or to exclude aluminum articles from such restrictions for specific national security-based considerations.
  (2) In Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), I concurred in the Secretary’s finding that aluminum articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9704, are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of these aluminum articles by imposing a 10 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries. I further authorized the Secretary to provide relief from these additional duties for any aluminum article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality and also to provide such relief based on specific national security considerations.
  (3) Consistent with the Secretary’s recommendation that I authorize him to exclude from any adopted import restrictions those aluminum articles for which the Secretary determines there is a lack of sufficient domestic production of comparable products, or for specific national security-based considerations, I have determined to authorize the Secretary to provide relief from quantitative limitations on aluminum articles adopted pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, including those set forth in Proclamation 9758 of May 31, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), on the same basis as the Secretary is currently authorized to provide relief from the duty established in clause 2 of Proclamation 9704. … 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, do hereby proclaim as follows:
 
  (1) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the Secretary deems appropriate, is hereby authorized to provide relief from the quantitative limitations applicable to aluminum articles described in subheadings 9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS for any aluminum article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality, and is also authorized to provide such relief based upon specific national security considerations. Such relief shall be provided for an aluminum article only after a request for relief is made by a directly affected party located in the United States. Such relief may be provided to directly affected parties on a party-by-party basis taking into account the regional availability of particular articles, the ability to transport articles within the United States, and any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate. If the Secretary determines that relief should be granted to a requesting party for the importation of a particular aluminum article, the Secretary shall publicly post such determination and notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security concerning such article so that it will be excluded from the applicable quantitative limitation. Relief granted under this clause shall apply only to an article entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date on which the request for relief is granted by the Secretary. Until such time as any applicable quantitative limitation for a particular article has been reached, CBP shall count any aluminum article for which relief is granted under this clause toward such quantitative limitation at the time when such aluminum article is entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. Any aluminum article for which relief is granted under this clause shall not be subject to the additional rate of duty set forth in Proclamation 9704, as amended. Aluminum articles for which relief is granted under this clause shall be subject to the duty treatment provided in subheading 9903.85.11 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as established by the Annex to this proclamation.
  (2) As soon as practicable, the Secretary shall issue procedures for the requests for exclusion described in clause 1 of this proclamation. The issuance of such procedures is exempt from Executive Order 13771 of January, 2017 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs). CBP shall implement exclusions granted pursuant to clause 1 of this proclamation as soon as practicable.
  (3) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9704, as amended by Proclamation 9710, is further amended by striking the fourth and fifth sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the following two sentences: “If the Secretary determines that a particular aluminum article should be excluded, the Secretary shall publicly post such determination and notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security concerning such article so that it will be excluded from the duties described in clause 2 of this proclamation. For merchandise entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date the duty established under this proclamation is effective and with respect to which liquidation is not final, such relief shall be retroactive to the date the request for relief was accepted by the Department of Commerce.”.
  (4) Where the government of a country identified in the superior text to subheadings 9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS notifies the United States that it has established a mechanism for the certification of exports to the United States of products covered by the quantitative limitations applicable to these subheadings, and where such mechanism meets the operational requirements for participation in an export certification system administered by the United States, CBP, in consultation with the Secretary, USTR, and other relevant executive departments and agencies, may require that importers of these products furnish relevant export certification information in order to qualify for the treatment set forth in subheadings 9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06. Where CBP adopts such a requirement, it shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the requirement and procedures for the submission of relevant export certification information. No article that is subject to the export certification requirement announced in such notice may be entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date specified in such notice, except upon presentation of a valid and properly executed certification, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the notice.
  (5) Subdivision (c) of U.S. note 19 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended by inserting at the end the following new sentence: “Pursuant to subheading 9903.85.11 and superior text thereto, the Secretary may provide that any excluded product shall be granted entry into the customs territory of the United States when the applicable quantitative limitation has filled for the specified period for such good.”.
  (6) Subdivision (d) of U.S. note 19 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended by inserting after “9903.85.06” the phrase “and 9903.85.11”.
  (7) The superior text for subheadings 9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06 of the HTSUS is amended by deleting “Aluminum” and inserting in lieu thereof: “Except as provided in subheading 9903.85.11, aluminum”.
  (8) To implement clause 1 of this proclamation, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified as provided in the Annex to this proclamation.
  (9) The modifications to the HTSUS made by clauses 5 through 8 of this proclamation and the Annex to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 30, 2018, and shall continue in effect, unless such actions are expressly reduced, modified, or terminated.
  (10) Clause 5 of Proclamation 9704 is amended by inserting “for consumption” after “goods entered” in the first sentence. Clause 5 of Proclamation 9710, as amended, is amended by striking “by this proclamation” from the end of the second sentence. Clause 5 of Proclamation 9739 is amended by striking “by clause 1 of this proclamation”.
  (11) The Secretary, in consultation with CBP and other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments directed by this proclamation. The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the Federal Register.
  (12) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.
 
  [Presidential Sign.] 

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

EXIM_a2

2. 
President Adjusts Imports of Steel into the U.S. 
(Source: 
Federal Register, 4 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 45025: Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States
 
A Proclamation
 
  (1) On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of steel articles on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862). The Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that steel articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States. In light of this conclusion, the Secretary recommended action to adjust the imports of steel articles so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security. The Secretary also recommended that I authorize him, in response to specific requests from affected domestic parties, to exclude from any adopted import restrictions those steel articles for which the Secretary determines there is a lack of sufficient domestic production capacity of comparable products, or to exclude steel articles from such restrictions for specific national security-based considerations.
  (2) In Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), I concurred in the Secretary’s finding that steel articles, as defined in clause 1 of Proclamation 9705, as amended by clause 8 of Proclamation 9711 of March 22, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of these steel articles by imposing a 25 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries. I further authorized the Secretary to provide relief from these additional duties for any steel article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality and also to provide such relief based on specific national security considerations.
  (3) Consistent with the Secretary’s recommendation that I authorize him to exclude from any adopted import restrictions those steel articles for which the Secretary determines there is a lack of sufficient domestic production of comparable products, or for specific national security-based considerations, I have determined to authorize the Secretary to provide relief from quantitative limitations on steel articles adopted pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, including those set forth in Proclamation 9740 of April 30, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), and Proclamation 9759 of May 31, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), on the same basis as the Secretary is currently authorized to provide relief from the duty established in clause 2 of Proclamation 9705.
  (4) In addition, I have been informed that the quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9740 and Proclamation 9759 have in some cases already filled for this year, and that projects in the United States employing thousands of workers may be significantly disrupted or delayed because imports of specific steel articles, which were contracted for purchase prior to my decision to adjust imports of these articles, cannot presently be entered into the United States because the quantitative limits have already been reached. In light of these circumstances, and after considering the impact on the economy and the national security objectives of section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, I have determined to direct the Secretary to provide relief from the quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9740 and Proclamation 9759 in limited circumstances. … 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, do hereby proclaim as follows:
 
  (1) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and such other senior Executive Branch officials as the Secretary deems appropriate, is hereby authorized to provide relief from the quantitative limitations applicable to steel articles described in subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS for any steel article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality, and is also authorized to provide such relief based upon specific national security considerations. Such relief shall be provided for a steel article only after a request for relief is made by a directly affected party located in the United States. Such relief may be provided to directly affected parties on a party-by-party basis taking into account the regional availability of particular articles, the ability to transport articles within the United States, and any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate. If the Secretary determines that relief should be granted to a requesting party for the importation of a particular steel article, the Secretary shall publicly post such determination and notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security concerning such article so that it will be excluded from the applicable quantitative limitation. Relief granted under this clause shall apply only to an article entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date on which the request for relief is granted by the Secretary. Until such time as any applicable quantitative limitation for a particular article has been reached, CBP shall count any steel article for which relief is granted under this clause toward such quantitative limitation at the time when such steel article is entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. Any steel article for which relief is granted under this clause shall not be subject to the additional rate of duty set forth in Proclamation 9705, as amended. Steel articles for which relief is granted under this clause shall be subject to the duty treatment provided in subheading 9903.80.60 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as established by the Annex to this proclamation.
  (2) The Secretary shall, on an expedited basis, grant relief from the quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9740 and Proclamation 9759 and their accompanying annexes for any steel article where (i) the party requesting relief entered into a written contract for production and shipment of such steel article before March 8, 2018; (ii) such contract specifies the quantity of such steel article that is to be produced and shipped to the United States consistent with a schedule contained in such contract; (iii) such steel article is to be used to construct a facility in the United States and such steel article cannot be procured from a supplier in the United States to meet the delivery schedule and specifications contained in such contract; (iv) the payments made pursuant to such contract constitute 10 percent or less of the cost of the facility under construction; and (v) lack of relief from the quantitative limitations on such steel article would significantly disrupt or delay completion of the facility being constructed in the United States with the steel article specified in such contract. Until such time as any applicable quantitative limitation for a particular article has been reached, CBP shall count any steel article for which relief is granted under this clause toward such quantitative limitation at the time when such steel article is entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. Any steel article for which relief is granted under this clause shall be subject to the additional rate of duty set forth in clause 2 of Proclamation 9705, as amended by this proclamation, when such steel article is entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. This rate of duty is in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such steel article. Any steel article provided relief under this clause must be entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or before March 31, 2019, and may not be granted further relief by the Secretary under clause 3 of Proclamation 9705, as amended. Steel articles for which relief is granted under this clause shall be subject to the duty treatment provided in subheading 9903.80.61 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as established by the Annex to this proclamation.
  (3) The Secretary shall grant relief under clause 2 of this proclamation only upon receipt of a sworn statement signed by the chief executive officer and the chief legal officer of the party requesting relief. Such statement shall attest that (i) the steel article for which relief is sought and the associated contract meet all of the criteria for relief set forth in clause 2 of this proclamation; (ii) the party requesting relief will accurately report to CBP, in the manner that CBP prescribes, the quantity of steel articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, pursuant to any grant of relief; and (iii) the quantity of steel articles entered pursuant to a grant of relief will not exceed the quantity specified in such contract for delivery on or before March 31, 2019. Upon granting relief under clause 2 of this proclamation, the Secretary shall notify CBP and publish a notice of relief for the quantity of steel articles specified in such contract that are scheduled for delivery on or before March 31, 2019. The Secretary shall revoke any grant of relief under clause 2 of this proclamation if the Secretary determines at any time after such grant that the criteria for relief have not been met and may, if the Secretary deems it appropriate, notify the Attorney General of the facts that led to such revocation.
  (4) As soon as practicable, the Secretary shall issue procedures for the requests for exclusion described in clause 1 of this proclamation. The issuance of such procedures is exempt from Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs). CBP shall implement exclusions granted pursuant to clause 1 or relief provided under clause 2 of this proclamation as soon as practicable.
  (5) Clause 3 of Proclamation 9705, as amended by Proclamation 9711, is further amended by striking the fourth and fifth sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the following two sentences: “If the Secretary determines that a particular steel article should be excluded, the Secretary shall publicly post such determination and notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security concerning such article so that it will be excluded from the duties described in clause 2 of this proclamation. For merchandise entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date the duty established under this proclamation is effective and with respect to which liquidation is not final, such relief shall be retroactive to the date the request for relief was accepted by the Department of Commerce.”.
  (6) In order to establish the duty rate on imports of steel articles for which relief is granted under clause 2 of this proclamation, clause 2 of Proclamation 9705, as amended, is further amended by striking the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following two sentences: “All steel articles imports covered by subheading 9903.80.61, in subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, shall be subject to the additional 25 percent ad valorem rate of duty established herein with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on the date specified in a determination by the Secretary granting relief. These rates of duty, which are in addition to any other duties, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such imported steel articles, shall apply to imports of steel articles from each country as specified in the preceding three sentences.”.
  (7) Where the government of a country identified in the superior text to subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS notifies the United States that it has established a mechanism for the certification of exports to the United States of products covered by the quantitative limitations applicable to these subheadings, and where such mechanism meets the operational requirements for participation in an export certification system administered by the United States, CBP, in consultation with the Secretary, USTR, and other relevant executive departments and agencies, may require that importers of these products furnish relevant export certification information in order to qualify for the treatment set forth in subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58. Where CBP adopts such a requirement, it shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the requirement and procedures for the submission of relevant export certification information. No article that is subject to the export certification requirement announced in such notice may be entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date specified in such notice, except upon presentation of a valid and properly executed certification, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the notice.
  (8) Subdivision (c) of U.S. note 16 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended by inserting at the end the following new sentence: “Pursuant to subheadings 9903.80.60 and 9903.80.61 and superior text thereto, the Secretary may provide that any excluded product shall be granted entry into the customs territory of the United States when the applicable quantitative limitation has filled for the specified period for such good.”.
  (9) Subdivision (d) of U.S. note 16 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended by inserting after “9903.80.58” the phrase “and 9903.80.60 and 9903.80.61”.
  (10) The rate of duty specified in the HTSUS in the general column for heading 9903.80.01 is amended by striking “25%” and inserting in lieu thereof: “The duty provided in the applicable subheading + 25%”.
  (11) The rate of duty specified in the HTSUS in the general column for heading 9903.80.02 is amended by striking “50%” and inserting in lieu thereof: “The duty provided in the applicable subheading + 50%”.
  (12) The superior text for subheadings 9903.80.05 through 9903.80.58 of the HTSUS is amended by deleting “Iron” and inserting in lieu thereof: “Except as provided in subheadings 9903.80.60 and 9903.80.61, iron”.
  (13) To implement clauses 1 and 2 of this proclamation, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified as provided in the Annex to this proclamation.
  (14) The modifications to the HTSUS made by clauses 8 through 13 of this proclamation and the Annex to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 30, 2018, and shall continue in effect, unless such actions are expressly reduced, modified, or terminated.
  (15) Clause 5 of Proclamation 9705 is amended by inserting “for consumption” after “goods entered” in the first sentence. Clause 5 of Proclamation 9711, as amended, is amended by striking “by this proclamation” from the end of the second sentence. Clause 6 of Proclamation 9740 is amended by striking “by clause 1 of this proclamation”.
  (16) The Secretary, in consultation with CBP and other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall revise the HTSUS so that it conforms to the amendments directed by this proclamation. The Secretary shall publish any such modification to the HTSUS in the Federal Register.
  (17) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.
 
  [Presidential Sign.]
 

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

EXIM_a3

3. 
Commerce/BIS Amends EAR by Adding 15 Entities to, Modifying 2 Entries on, and Removing 1 Entry from the Entity List  
(Source: 
Federal Register, 4 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 44821-44828: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entries on the Entity List and Removal of Certain Entities From the Entity List
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding fifteen entities under seventeen entries to the Entity List. These fifteen entities have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. This final rule also modifies two entries on the entity list: One entry under the destination of Hong Kong and one entry under the destination of Russia. Lastly, this final rule removes one entity under the destination of Greece from the Entity List. The removal is the result of a request for removal BIS received pursuant to the EAR and a review of information provided in the removal request.
* DATES: This rule is effective September 4, 2018. … 
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … The Entity List (15 CFR, subchapter C, part 744, Supplement No. 4) identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR, Subchapter C, parts 730-774) imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License review policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register notice adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.
  The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote, and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. 
 
ERC Entity List Decisions
 
Additions to the Entity List
 
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add fifteen entities under seventeen entries to the Entity List. These fifteen entities are being added based on §744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The seventeen entries added to the Entity List consist of two entries located in the People’s Republic of China (China), five entries located in Hong Kong, two entries located in Pakistan, one entry located in Russia, one entry located in Saudi Arabia, two entries located in Turkey, three entries located in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), and one entry located in the United Kingdom. There are seventeen entries for the fifteen entities because one entry is listed in three locations, resulting in two additional entries.
  The ERC reviewed §744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these fifteen entities under seventeen entries to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, along with those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of §744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
  The ERC determined that the two entities located in China (Ma Yunong and Seajet Company Limited), as well as one entity located in Hong Kong (ZM International Company Ltd.) have been involved in activities that are contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as set forth in §744.11(b). Specifically, the ERC determined that these parties unlawfully procured and diverted U.S.-origin armored vehicles to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) in violation of the EAR. For the remaining four entities located in Hong Kong (Calvin Law, CLC Holdings Limited, LHI Technology (H.K.) Company Limited, and Ray Hui), the ERC determined that these entities have been involved in activities that are contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as set forth in §744.11(b). These four entities procured U.S.-origin items for reexport to entities in China and other countries without obtaining the necessary license(s).
  The ERC determined that the U.A.E.-based company Good Luck Shipping LLC has been involved in activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as set forth in §744.11(b) of the EAR; this entity has transshipped U.S.-origin items to sanctioned destinations without the required authorizations. The ERC determined that Technology Links Pvt. Ltd., located in Pakistan, be added to the Entity List based on the company’s involvement in the supply of items subject to the EAR to nuclear and missile-related Entity List parties in Pakistan without the license required under §744.11 of the EAR. In addition, the ERC determined that Techcare Services FZ LLC, located in the U.A.E., and UEC (Pvt.) Ltd., located in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., made multiple attempts to acquire U.S.-origin commodities ultimately destined for Pakistan’s unsafeguarded nuclear program and have provided false and misleading information to BIS during an end-use check.
  The ERC also determined that the two entities located in Turkey, Huseyin Engin Borluca and 3K Aviation Consulting and Logistics, along with Evans Meridians Ltd., located in the British Virgin Islands, have engaged in transactions in violation of the U.S. embargo against Iran by transferring, or attempting to transfer, U.S.-origin  aircraft engines to an Iranian customer without the required authorizations. Lastly, the ERC determined that the Joint Stock Company (JSC) NIIME be added to the Entity List under the destination of Russia. JSC NIIME operates as the de facto research and development branch of PJSC Mikron, a listed entity on the Entity List. Prior review of exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) involving JSC NIIME will enhance BIS’s ability to prevent violations of the EAR.
Pursuant to §744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these fifteen entities raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS’s ability to prevent violations of the EAR.
  For the fifteen entities under seventeen entries added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR, and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the entities or in which such entities act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.
  This final rule adds the following fifteen entities under seventeen entries to the Entity List: … 
 
Modifications to the Entity List
 
This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify two existing entries on the Entity List under the destination of Hong Kong and Russia. BIS is revising the entry for Joinus Freight Systems (H.K.) Ltd. by adding an additional alias and address and modifying the entity name and an existing address. In addition, the ERC determined, with the addition of JSC NIIME to the Entity List, the existing entry for “Joint Stock Company Mikron” be revised by modifying the entity name to “PJSC Mikron” and removing its alias.
  This final rule makes the following modifications to two entries on the Entity List: … 
 
  Dated: August 24, 2018.
 

Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. 

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a14. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; Trade: Mexico and Canada; Notice of Intention To Enter Into Trade Agreements (Notice of August 31, 2018) [Publication Date: 5 Sep 2018.]

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

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS, 31 Aug 2018.)
 
Background
 
On March 8, 2018, President Trump exercised his authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports, with exemptions for Canada and Mexico, in order to protect our national security.  The President’s Section 232 decision is the result of an investigation led by the Commerce Department.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection will begin collecting the tariffs on March 23, 2018.
 
In President Trump’s proclamation establishing the tariff under Section 232, the President authorized the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other appropriate federal agency heads, to provide relief from the additional duties for any steel articles determined “not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality and is also authorized to provide such relief based upon specific national security considerations.  Such relief shall be provided for any article only after a request for exclusion is made by a directly affected party located in the United States.”
 
Process
 
Exclusion Requests will be open for public review after being posted to the federal rulemaking portal. During the initial 30 days, U.S. parties may file objections to the exclusion request. After this initial 30 day period, approximately 60 days will be necessary for complete review and vetting of the Exclusion Request and any related Objection Filings. The total processing time for exclusion requests is estimated at 90 days.
 
A single response to each exclusion request and related objection filings will be posted in regulations.gov indicating if the exclusion request has been granted or denied.
 
On March 19, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce published the procedures to request exclusion from the steel tariffs in the Federal Register. See 
Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 53, 12106-12112.
 
Filing Exclusion Requests
 
If your organization uses steel in business activities in the United States and wishes to request an exclusion from the tariff on steel article imports:
 
  (2) Complete the form using Microsoft Excel and save a copy on your computer.
  (3) Go to 
Docket Number BIS-2018-0006, complete the required information, and upload the completed Exclusion Request form.
 
A separate Exclusion Request must be submitted on each distinct type and dimension of steel product to be imported.
Exclusion Request Requirements: Only individuals or organizations operating in the United States that use steel products in business activities in the United States may submit an Exclusion Request.
 
For an Exclusion Request to be considered, the exclusion requester must provide factual information on 1) the single type of steel product they require using a 10-digit HTSUS code, including its specific dimension; 2) the quantity of product required (stated in kilograms) under a one-year exclusion; 3) a full description of the properties of the steel product it seeks to import, including chemical composition, dimensions, strength, toughness, ductility, magnetic permeability, surface finish, coatings, and other relevant data.
 
All exclusion requests will be reviewed for completeness. Only fully completed exclusion requests will be considered and posted for public review. All exclusion requests will be made available for public inspection and copying.
 
Filing Exclusion Objections
 
If your organization manufactures steel products in the United States and wishes to object to an existing Exclusion Request, within 30 days of the posting of the related Exclusion Request:
 
  (2) Complete the form using Microsoft Excel and save a copy on your computer.
  (3) Go to 
Docket Number BIS-2018-0006, select the Exclusion Request to which you are objecting, complete the required information, and upload the completed Objection form.
 
Objection Filing Requirements:  Any individual or organization in the United States may file an objection to an Exclusion Request.  For an Objection Filing to be considered, organizations must provide factual information on 1) the steel products that they manufacture in the United States, 2) the production capabilities at steel manufacturing facilities that they operate in the United States; and 3) the availability and delivery time of the products that they manufacture relative to the specific steel product that is subject to an Exclusion Request.  
 
Organizations submitting an Objection Filing on an Exclusion Request should provide specific information on the product that their company can provide that is comparable to the steel product that is the subject of the Exclusion Request.  This information should include 1) discussion on the suitability of its product for the application identified by the Exclusion Requestor, and 2) a full technical description of the properties of the product it manufactures relative to specifications provided in the Exclusion Request posted on regulations.gov, including information on dimensions, strength, toughness, ductility, surface finish, coatings, and other relevant data.   
 
All Objections Filings will be reviewed for completeness. Only fully completed Objection filings will be considered and posted for public review. All Objection Filings will be made available for public inspection and copying.
 
Exclusion Requests for Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits – Existing Contract:

Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports 


If your organization uses steel in business activities in the United States and wishes to request an exclusion for Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits – Existing Contract: Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports:

  (1) Download the form 
Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits – Existing Contract: Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports. 

  (2) Once this form is completed and certified, email it along with all necessary attachments to 
steel232-exp@bis.doc.gov. 

Contact

 
Please email or call: 
Steel232@bis.doc.gov or 202-482-5642 for any steel related inquiries.
 
If you have issues uploading the forms on regulations,gov, please contact the Regulations.gov Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457 (toll free) or 703-454-9859.

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

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

(Source: 
UK OFSI, 3 Sep 2018.)
 
The UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has released a notice that provides background and guidance for the 2018 frozen asset reporting exercise, which the Treasury carries out every year to update our records to reflect any changes to accounts during the reporting period.
 
As part of this review, the Treasury requires all persons that hold or control funds or economic resources belonging to a designated person, to complete the reporting form and submit it to the 
Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) by Friday, 12 October 2018.

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

NWSNEWS

(Source: 
Expeditors News, 1 Sep 2018.) 
 
On 1 September 2018, the Royal Malaysian Customs Department will implement the Malaysia Sales & Service Tax (SST) at a fixed rate of 6% on certain services, including services of clearing goods from customs control.
 
Businesses in Malaysia are required to register if they are providing any of the taxable services where the total amount for the past 12 months exceeds the threshold of RM500,000.
 
The SST Act and related legislation may be found 
here. Additional information may be found 
here.

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

(Source: 
Janes 360, 31 Aug 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
Israeli unmanned systems manufacturer Aeronautics announced on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange on 29 August that key personnel from the company had been summoned to the State Attorney’s Office for a hearing on potential export control violations related to the company’s Orbiter 1K loitering munition.
 
The disclosure noted that the company’s marketing and export license for the system to a “material customer” had been suspended since September 2017.
The company stated in its release that it believed there was no basis for criminal proceedings against the firm or its employees. … 

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

(Source: 
Reuters, 2 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad attempts to turn military success into postwar reconstruction, Western sanctions are a major obstacle that could scare off foreign companies.
 
Syria has suffered immense physical destruction, while millions of workers have fled, been conscripted or killed. A U.N. agency estimates the war has cost $388 billion.
 
Extensive reconstruction still looks far off. Assad’s allies Russia and Iran, as well as China, have made some investments in the country, but they cannot afford the cost of rebuilding and want other countries to share the burden.
 
Western countries say they will not approve reconstruction funding for Syria, or drop sanctions, without a political settlement. Meanwhile, sanctions are making it hard for foreign companies to work there.
 
Although some have managed to do business in Syria, the wide scope of the sanctions and broad U.S. powers to enforce them mean companies risk inadvertent breaches. … 
 
U.S. sanctions on Syria predate the crisis, but were extended after Assad’s crackdown on protests in 2011 and again as the country slid into war.
 
The sanctions have frozen the assets of the Syrian state and hundreds of companies and individuals, including government figures, military and security personnel and others accused of involvement in making or using chemical weapons.
 
They ban exports, sales or supply of services, along with any new investments, into Syria by any U.S. person. They also bar any dealings by U.S. persons in Syrian oil and hydrocarbon products, or their import into the United States.
 
U.S. persons cannot finance or facilitate any transactions by foreigners that would fall under sanctions if done by Americans.
 
European Union sanctions were imposed in May 2011, for Syria’s “brutal repression and violation of human rights”, and have been updated several times since.
 
They are not as sweeping as the U.S. sanctions, but are still extensive and include asset freezes, travel bans, trade restrictions, financial sanctions and an arms embargo.
 
They bar trade in items that could be used militarily or for repression, luxury goods, precious stones and metals and equipment or technology for some oil and gas sectors including exploration and production, refining and gas liquefaction.
 
The European sanctions also target Syria’s electricity network, banning E.U. companies from building power plants, supplying turbines or financing such projects.
 
U.S. and E.U. sanctions include exceptions for humanitarian supplies, and for items needed by United Nations missions in Syria.
 
The E.U. also allows companies to carry out work in the energy and power sectors covered by contracts signed before the sanctions were imposed.
 
Sanctions Enforced
 
  “It’s not for the faint hearted,” said Anna Bradshaw, a partner at law firm Peters & Peters in London, who advises on sanctions.
 
U.S. rules pose a bigger risk to companies involved in Syria than E.U. ones, she said.
 
American authorities have pursued violations more assiduously than the E.U., where enforcement may be complicated by differences among its 28 states in how to interpret rules and penalties.
 
U.S. sanctions, besides being wider in scope, have a longer reach: American jurisdiction extends to the worldwide activities of all “U.S. persons”.
 
That term includes both American citizens and companies, as well as U.S. permanent residents and under some sanctions programs – at present not including Syria – foreign subsidiaries of American firms.
 
In April, U.S. authorities arrested a Bulgarian man working for the Bulgarian office of a U.S. company in a Syrian-related sanctions case for which three Americans were jailed in December.
 
Washington does not only target U.S. sanctions violators. It can also blacklist foreign companies or people who help others to skirt sanctions – naming them as foreign sanctions evaders barred from most business with Americans.
 
Main Risks
 
Non-U.S. companies risk trouble if any part of a transaction involves Americans or American companies.
 
  “If you do something that causes someone else who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction to violate U.S. sanctions, then you are on the hook as well,” said Bradshaw.
 
Even diligent companies might inadvertently fall foul of the asset freezes by dealing with a listed individual or entity in Syria’s opaque business climate.
 
That risk has grown as Assad has consolidated control, Bradshaw said: “The people who will be commissioning the reconstruction efforts and the people in charge are likely to be the very people targeted by financial sanctions.
 
  “The more you can demonstrate that your due diligence is reasonable, the better chance you have of persuading the authorities that they shouldn’t pursue you,” she said, warning it may not always be possible to spot that a counterparty is sanctioned. … 

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

NWS_a411.
ST&R Trade Report: “Trump Rejects EU Offer to Remove Tariffs on Industrial Goods” 
(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 3 Sep 2018.)
 
President Trump said Aug. 30 that a European Union offer to remove all tariffs on two-way trade in automobiles and other industrial goods is “not good enough.” EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said Brussels is willing to lower tariffs on such goods to zero if the U.S. does the same as part of a limited trade agreement. However, Trump suggested that he wants the EU to do more to increase imports of U.S. automobiles than eliminating its 10 percent import duty, saying “their consumer habits are to buy their cars, not to buy our cars.”
 
According to press sources, Malmstrom’s offer went beyond a commitment the U.S. and EU made in July to work toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on industrial goods other than automobiles. The two trading partners also agreed to seek lower barriers and increased trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and medical products; increase U.S. exports of soybeans and liquefied natural gas to the EU; establish a dialogue on standards to ease trade, reduce bureaucratic obstacles, and lower costs; reform the World Trade Organization; and resolve the U.S. additional tariffs on steel and aluminum and the EU’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.


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

COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source: 
Wiggin and Dana, 31 Aug 2018.) 
 
* Authors: David Ring, attorney, 
dring@wiggin.com; and Najia S. Khalid, attorney, 
nkhalid@wiggin.com. Both of Wiggin and Dana. 
 
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, announced on August 29, 2018, its 
civil settlement with the international law firm, Clifford Chance US LLP, for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324b, attributable to Clifford Chance’s overly restrictive interpretation of who can work on projects involving data controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 
 
Clifford Chance, for purposes of conducting a large scale document review involving ITAR controlled data, restricted the project to U.S. Citizens only, based on its good faith belief that only 
U.S. Citizens could work on ITAR projects. But the ITAR generally allows 
U.S. Persons to have access to ITAR controlled data, and defines a (natural) “U.S. Person” as “a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)” or “a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3).” 
See 22 C.F.R. 120.15. Thus the ITAR does not restrict access to U.S. citizens only, but also generally allows access by non-U.S. citizens who fall within the following classes, among others:
 
  – Nationals of the U.S. (
i.e., those born in the “outlaying” possessions of the U.S. meeting specified requirements, or individuals born of a parent who meet specified requirements);
  – Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence (
i.e., “green card” holders); 
  – Certain refugees; and
  – Certain asylum seekers.
 
According to DOJ, Clifford Chance unlawfully discriminated against persons based on their citizenship by excluding eligible non-U.S. citizens from its ITAR project. DOJ rejected Clifford Chance’s argument that it should be absolved of liability because it acted in good faith (there’s no good faith exception to the prohibition against discrimination under 1324b), and Clifford Chance agreed to pay a $132,000 civil penalty, implement various corrective actions, and allow DOJ oversight for a two-year period. 
 

What does that mean for you? 
If you hire or contract with U.S. Citizens only for purposes of fulfilling your ITAR obligations, you may be violating the INA.
 You should review your hiring and contracting processes to make sure that you do not limit hiring or outsourcing to U.S. Citizens only, when ITAR compliance is your justification for denying job opportunities based on citizenship or national origin.

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

 
* Authors: Kerry T. Scarlott, Esq., 
kscarlott@bakerlaw.com; and Lana Muranovic, Esq. 
lmuranovic@bakerlaw.com. Both of Baker & Hostetler LLP.
 
On Aug. 27, 2018, the U.S. State Department published new sanctions against Russia based on the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) after determining that the government of Russia has used chemical weapons in violation of international law or lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals. This imposition of sanctions followed reports regarding the use of a Novichok nerve agent by the government of Russia in an attempt to assassinate U.K. citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia Skripal. The State Department partially waived the application of certain sanctions otherwise required under the CBW Act.
As illustrated below, the new U.S. sanctions against Russia have a particular effect on persons in the defense sector, with a much more favorable impact reserved for those in the aerospace industry (including relative to the space launch of U.S.-origin non-military spacecraft by Russian parties).
 
Overview of Key Aspects of New U.S. Sanctions Against Russia and Related Waivers
 
Effective for at least one year from the date of publication and until further notice, the following sanctions are imposed and waived, as appropriate:
 
 (1) Foreign Assistance. A requirement under the CBW Act that would otherwise mandate the termination of foreign assistance to Russia (under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) is waived.
  (2) Arms Sales. The State Department is requiring the termination of (a) sales to Russia under the Arms Export Control Act of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services subject to the jurisdiction of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and (b) licenses for the export to Russia of any item on the ITAR’s U.S. Munitions List (USML). However, the State Department is waiving the application of this sanction with respect to the issuance of licenses in support of government space cooperation and commercial space launches, provided that the licenses will be issued on a case-by-case basis.
  (3) Arms Sales Financing. The State Department is terminating all foreign military financing for Russia under the Arms Export Control Act.
  (4) Denial of U.S. Government Credit or Other Financial Assistance. The State Department is denying to Russia any credit, credit guarantees or other financial assistance by any department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government.
  (5) Exports of National Security (NS)-Sensitive Goods and Technology. The State Department is prohibiting the export to Russia of any goods and technology that are controlled for NS reasons on the Commerce Control List (CCL) contained in Supplement 4 to Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). However, the State Department is waiving the application of this sanction with respect to exports/re-exports of goods or technology:
  • Eligible under License Exceptions GOV, ENC, RPL, BAG, TMP, TSU, APR, CIV and AVS;
  • Pursuant to a “new” license” and
    • Necessary for the safety of flight of civil fixed-wing passenger aviation;
    • For deemed exports/re-exports to Russian nationals;
    • For exports/re-exports to wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries in Russia;
    • In support of government space cooperation and commercial space launches; or
    • For commercial end users and civil end uses in Russia; or
  • For new licenses to export NS-controlled goods or technology to Russian state-owned or state-funded enterprises, although such licenses will be subject to a “presumption of denial” policy.
 
Due Diligence Considerations and Takeaways
 
U.S. sanctions against Russia arising out of the violation of the CBW Act will have a substantial impact on U.S. persons engaged in the export/re-export of military goods, technology and/or services. With the prohibition against foreign military financing, general termination of new licenses authorizing the export of items on the USML to Russia, termination of the sale to Russia of defense articles and services subject to the ITAR, and termination of the sale to Russia of NS-controlled items for military end uses/users, defense contractors and service providers as well as manufacturers of militarily- and technologically-sensitive items have effectively lost an export/re-export market and must be extra vigilant to ensure that military items are not sent to Russia. Those affected should consider revising internal compliance policies and procedures, training relevant personnel, and monitoring exports and re-exports as appropriate to ensure continued compliance with U.S. export control and sanctions laws and regulations.
In contrast to those in the defense sector, U.S. persons in the aerospace industry have been allowed a number of waivers in instances when relevant activities are in support of government space cooperation and commercial space launches or for commercial end users and civil end uses in Russia. We would be happy to work with you to determine whether contemplated transactions qualify for these and other potentially applicable waivers of otherwise sanctioned activity.

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

(Source: 
Lawfare Blog, 31 Aug 2018.) 
 
* Author: Mary B. McCord, Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law School and former Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 
This week saw law and common sense unite in opposition to the widespread availability of dangerously untraceable, undetectable guns. A federal judge in the state of Washington issued an 
order barring the State Department from allowing Defense Distributed, a self-described “private defense firm,” to make the blueprints for 3D-printed plastic guns freely available on the internet. The judge’s order may not eradicate the threat posed by Defense Distributed’s attempt to widely share recipes for lethal violence, given that the blueprints have-regrettably-already found their way to certain corners of the internet. But it’s an important step, both for protecting citizens at home and abroad from gun violence and for reasserting the rule of law.
 
The State Department’s International Trafficking in Arms Regulations sensibly ban the “export” of technical data, i.e. blueprints, related to the design, manufacture and assembly of certain firearms. Because publishing those blueprints online would make them available worldwide, such publication was an “export” prohibited under the regulations until last month, when the government dramatically reversed its legal position. After successfully defending the regulations against a lawsuit brought by Defense Distributed several years ago to permit it to publish the blueprints — arguing that the blueprints’ publication was protected by the First Amendment — in July 2018, the government abruptly settled the lawsuit by agreeing to change State Department regulations and authorizing the company to publish the blueprints while the regulatory change is pending. It even agreed to pay Defense Distributed $40,000. 
 
This unexpected about-face caused an immediate outcry from 
federal and state elected officials
law enforcement, and even the president, who 
tweeted:

On the eve of the planned online publication of the blueprints, Judge Robert S. Lasnik issued an order 
temporarily banning the online posting of the blueprints in response to a lawsuit brought by the State of Washington (and now joined by 19 other states and the District of Columbia). This week, he extended that order by granting a 
preliminary injunction.
 
But that will not end the lawsuit, and it appears that Defense Distributed’s owner, Cody Wilson, will do just about anything he can to sidestep the ban. The day after the judge’s order this week, Wilson began 
selling the blueprints through his website, offering to ship them on thumb drives or by email. He claims he can do this without violating the court order as long as he sells them only in the United States.
 
Make no mistake: Cody Wilson’s primary motive is not to vindicate what he believes to be his First Amendment rights. That argument is window dressing for his real goal: to put guns into the hands of every person who wants one. Speaking about the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last February that left 17 people dead, Wilson 
stated, “All this Parkland stuff, the students, all these dreams of ‘common sense gun reforms’? No. The internet will serve guns, the gun is downloadable. No amount of petitions or die-ins or anything else can change that.” And in a new 
video that Wilson has shared over social media to raise money for his legal fees, he unabashedly references violence, warning, “Riflemen, this fight is yours and it’s time to muster.” This is entirely consistent with his threats from 2016, when he was concerned that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency and crack down on firearms: “I’d call a militia out to defend the server, Bundy-style,” Wilson told 
Wired. “Our only option was to build an infrastructure where we had one final suicidal mission, where we dumped everything into the internet.”
 
There are many reasons for alarm, as I explained in 
an expert declaration filed in the states’ lawsuit. First, a plastic firearm would rarely be detectable by metal detectors, which are the standard public safety protocol at airports, stadiums, concert halls, public buildings like courthouses, and, increasingly, schools. Although the federal Undetectable Firearms Act requires guns to include enough metal to set off a metal detector, the requirement can be evaded easily by simply not including the non-operable piece of metal in the 3D-printed gun. And for those who say that plastic firearms are ineffective because of their propensity to blow up, a 2013 test by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of Defense Distributed’s 3D-printed handgun, the “Liberator,” 
showed it fired without fail all eight times it was tested.
 
Second, plastic firearms manufactured on 3D printers in one’s home without serial numbers would be entirely untraceable by law enforcement. Countless crimes are solved in the U.S. every year through successful firearms traces, which can identify the first purchaser of a gun. As I saw countless times over the course of my decades as a federal prosecutor, firearms traces often led to information relevant to solving violent crimes even if that first purchaser is not the perpetrator, including by revealing “straw” purchasers-those who purchase a gun for someone who is legally prohibited from doing so himself. Firearms traces can also help discern meaningful patterns in gun trafficking.
 
Third, worldwide availability of the blueprints for printing plastic guns means that would-be terrorists could make undetectable and untraceable firearms for use against Americans here in the homeland. Foreign terrorists might manufacture guns abroad and smuggle them into the U.S. for a terrorist attack here. Or they might travel to the U.S. for the purpose of manufacturing weapons and launching such an attack.
 
In my experience as the acting head of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, I was well aware of calls by foreign terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State for the commission of terrorist acts with firearms on U.S. soil. The shootings at Orlando’s Pulse Nightclub and in San Bernardino, Calif.-for which the shooters pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State-are two deadly examples. And we’ve certainly seen just as frightening and lethal domestic terrorism and hate-motivated crimes using firearms-the Charleston church shooting, for example-which could be expected to increase with the additional option of undetectable guns.
 
Fourth, the online publication of 3D-printed gun blueprints could cause destabilizing effects in foreign countries by making guns readily accessible to armed insurgent groups, transnational criminal organizations, and ordinary street criminals-thus harming U.S. relationships with those countries, especially with allies that have much more restrictive firearms laws than ours. The blueprints also would be available to foreign countries subject to U.S. or U.N. arms embargoes, such as North Korea and Iran, undermining global export control and non-proliferation regimes.
 
Finally, existing laws and regulations for the manufacture and sale of firearms do not protect Americans from the above-mentioned threats. The U.S. regulatory scheme is built on the premise that firearms production and distribution requires an investment of resources that makes such production feasible only for commercial entities, which must comply to maintain their licenses. The wide availability of gun blueprints and decreasing cost of 3D printers upends this regulatory regime. And, of course, the private manufacture and sale of guns bypasses background checks entirely.
 
It’s unfortunate that some gun-making blueprints already have made their way onto the internet, but that’s no reason not to take steps now to halt the spread of technical data that, in the wrong hands, will be deadly. A federal judge has already done his part to ensure that applicable laws are followed. While the lawsuit is working its way through the court system, federal and state legislators should be getting to work as well.
 
Note: The author’s views are her own and she does not represent the States that have filed suit against the State Department and Defense Distributed.

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

COM_a415. 
R.C. Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: “Changes to Export Controls in August 2018”
(Source: Thomsen and Burke LLP, 1 Sep 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.
 
This memo summarizes the regulatory and enforcement developments with respect to U.S. and multilateral export controls during the month of August 2018. Changes to the regulations published in the Federal Register are explained at greater length in the Regulatory Summary, as is our custom.  
 
REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
 
Congress Passes the National Defense Authorization Act
 
As we notified you earlier in the month, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the John S. McCain 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515). The bill has been sent to the President and he is expected to sign it. The bill strengthens the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews proposed foreign investments to weigh whether they threaten national security. It includes export control reform provisions requiring Commerce to establish export controls on emerging and foundation technologies, which are sensitive technologies not currently captured by export controls. Finally, the bill includes a government wide ban on procuring equipment or services from the Chinese telecommunications firms ZTE and Huawei. However, it does not include a provision to reinstate sanctions against ZTE and undo a deal the company recently cut with the Commerce Department. More details below:
 
Export Control Reform
 
The Export Controls Act of 2018 [ Sections 1741-1768 of the NDAA] provides permanent statutory authority for the existing Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The EAR has been operating under emergency authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for many years, ever since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed. This new authority also adds several noteworthy changes:
 
  – New export controls on “emerging and foundational technologies”, which are not specifically identified in the legislation. Presumably, these could be items and technology that are currently classified as EAR99. [Section 1758]
  – Commerce will revise the duties of the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee to help identify “emerging and foundational technologies” that may be developed over a period of 5 or 10 years. [Section 1758]
  – License applications are now required to be reviewed for impact on the US defense industrial base. Transactions that would have a “significant negative impact” on that defense industrial base can be denied. [Section 1756]
  – New requirement for the government to publish export license details for licenses involving certain terrorism-supporting countries. [Section 1754]
  – Maximum civil penalties per violation have been increased slightly to the greater of $300,000 or twice the value of the transaction. [Section 1760]
 
The identification of ” emerging and foundational technologies” is going to be an important part of this legislation. The general requirements in the current legislation are that the technologies ” are essential to the national security of the United States” and shall take into account:
 
  – the development of emerging and foundational technologies in foreign countries;
  – the effect export controls imposed pursuant to this section may have on the development of such technologies in the United States; and
  – the effectiveness of export controls imposed pursuant to this section on limiting the proliferation of emerging and foundational technologies to foreign countries.
 
CFIUS Reform
 
Congress agreed on its final version of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) [ Sections 1701-1728 of the NDAA], which provides the first update to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) statute in several years. FIRRMA updates and expands CFIUS’s review process in many ways, by:
 
  – Increasing the types of transactions subject to CFIUS’s jurisdiction: CFIUS currently only reviews mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that could result in a takeover of a US business by a foreign person. FIRRMA now expands the purview of CFIUS by adding new types of “covered transactions,” including “other investments involving critical infrastructure, critical technologies, or sensitive data.” [Section 1706]
  – Extending the CFIUS review timeframes: FIRRMA lengthens the time period of the CFIUS process to 45 days, with a 15-day period extension for extraordinary circumstances, and limits timing for the pre-review process. [Section 1709]
  – Making certain notifications mandatory: These include transactions involving an investment that results in the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of a “substantial interest” in a US business involved in critical infrastructure, critical technology, or sensitive data by a foreign person in which a foreign government has, directly or indirectly, a “substantial interest.” [Section 1706]
  – Establishing a process for potentially expedited review and approval of certain transactions: FIRRMA also offers a potential path for some transactions to receive approval on an expedited basis following a shortened notification. [Section 1706]
 
FIRRMA also allows CFIUS to impose filing fees, which are up to 1% of the transaction value or $300,000. [Section 1723]
 
Huawei and ZTE Implications
 
Finally, Section 899 of the NDAA also places a government procurement ban on certain telecommunications equipment made by ZTE and Huawei, as well as related services. However, it does not include a provision to reinstate sanctions against ZTE and undo a deal the company recently cut with the Commerce Department.
 
State Department Imposes New Russia Sanctions
 
The State Department has implemented the plans that it 
announcedearlier this month 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 imposed the first round of sanctions through notice in the 
Federal Register after a 15-day review period. These sanctions include:
 
  – 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.
 
BIS Increases Restrictions on Export to South Sudan, and Eases Restrictions on Exports to India
 
In two separate rules this month, BIS amended this EAR to increase the restrictions on exports to South Sudan, and ease the restrictions on exports to India.
 
First, BIS amended the EAR to conform to the Department of State’s (State) amendment of February 14, 2018 to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that placed restrictions on exports of defense articles (and defense services) to the Republic of South Sudan (South Sudan). The State action reflected a policy determination by the Secretary of State that it was in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy to impose such restrictions.  Consistent with the State action, in this amendment, BIS updated the EAR to restrict the export and reexport of certain items on the Commerce Control List to South Sudan. Pursuant to established procedure, BIS added South Sudan to the list of U.S. embargoed countries under Country Group D:5-U.S. Embargoed Countries, a list drawn from the list of arms embargoes in the ITAR and State Federal Register notices, and adopts a restrictive license application review policy consistent with State’s review policy set forth in the ITAR.
 
In a separate rule later in the month, BIS amended the EAR to formally recognize and implement India’s membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement (Wassenaar or WA). Further, BIS removes India from Country Group A:6 and places it in Country Group A:5. This action befits India’s status as a Major Defense Partner and recognizes the country’s membership in three of the four export control regimes: Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), WA and Australia Group (AG). This rule is another in the series of rules that implement reforms to which the United States and India mutually agreed to promote global nonproliferation, expand high technology cooperation and trade, and ultimately facilitate India’s full membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, MTCR, WA, and AG). This rule also makes conforming amendments.
 
BIS Revises the EAR to reflect changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime
 
BIS published a final rule this month amending the EAR to reflect changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex that were agreed to by MTCR member countries at the October 2017 Plenary in Dublin, Ireland, and the May 2017 Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) in Stockholm, Sweden. This final rule revises seventeen Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) to implement the changes that were agreed to at the meetings and to better align the missile technology (MT) controls on the Commerce Control List (CCL) with the MTCR Annex.
 
The Missile Technology Control Regime is an export control arrangement among 35 nations, including most of the world’s suppliers of advanced missiles and missile-related equipment, materials, software and technology. The regime establishes a common list of controlled items (the Annex) and a common export control policy (the Guidelines) that member countries implement in accordance with their national export controls. The MTCR seeks to limit the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons.
 
This final rule revises the EAR to reflect changes to the MTCR Annex agreed to at the October 2017 Plenary in Dublin, Ireland, and changes resulting from the May 2017 Technical Experts Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden. This rule also makes changes to the Commerce Control List to conform with the MTCR Annex. All of the changes in this final rule align the MT controls on the CCL with the MTCR Annex.
 
The ECCNs affected by this rule include 1B117, 1B118, 1C111, 1C118, 2B109, 2B120, 2B121, 2B122, 6A107, 7A105, 7A107, 7A116, 9A012, 9A101, 9A115, 9A515, 9A610.
 
OFAC Updates Iran Sanctions-related FAQs
 
Earlier this month, in connection with the President’s issuance of a new Iran-related Executive order ”
Reimposing Certain Sanctions with Respect to Iran” (New Iran E.O.), the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) relating to the New Iran E.O. OFAC is also amending existing 
FAQs relating to the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and, in light of the revocation of certain prior E.O.s, 
archiving FAQs relating to E.O. 13622
Section 4 of E.O. 13628, and E.O. 13645.  
 
In addition, OFAC published a revised 
statement and updated existing 
FAQs relating to the Administration’s implementation of the President’s May 8, 2018 decision to cease the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and to reimpose all sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. Specifically, OFAC updated FAQ 1.4 and inserted new FAQs 2.3-2.7. Today marks the last day of the 90-day wind-down of certain sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA and as set out in the FAQs.
 
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
 
 
Rasheed Al Jijakl, a Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen of Walnut, California, pleaded guilty this month to a charge of conspiring to export U.S.-origin tactical gear to Syria in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Syria Sanctions. 
 
In the factual basis filed as part of the plea agreement, Jijakli admitted that from April 2012 through March 2013, he conspired with other individuals to export tactical gear, including U.S.-origin laser boresighters, day and night vision rifle scopes, and other items (Tactical Gear) from the United States to Syria. From June through July 2012, Jijakli and one of the co-conspirators (Co-conspirator 1) purchased the Tactical Gear. On July 17, 2012, Jijakli traveled from Los Angeles, California to Istanbul, Turkey with the Tactical Gear, with the intent that it would be provided to Syrian rebels training in Turkey and fighting in Syria. Jijakli provided some of the Tactical Gear, specifically the laser boresighters, to a second co-conspirator who Jijakli learned was a member of Ahrar Al-Sham. Jijakli also provided the goods to other armed Syrian insurgent groups in Syria and Turkey. In total, Jijakli and co-conspirators knowingly provided at least 43 laser boresighters, 85 day rifle scopes, 30 night vision rifle scopes, tactical flashlights, a digital monocular, 5 radios, and 1 bulletproof vest to Ahrar Al-Sham and other Syrian rebels in Syria, or with knowledge that the Tactical Gear was going to Syria. Also, in August and September 2012, Jijakli directed co-conspirators to withdraw thousands of dollars from Palmyra Corporation, where Jijakli was the Chief Executive Officer, to pay for Tactical Gear for Syrian rebels. 
 
 
Ghobad Ghasempour, a Canadian national, was sentenced this month 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 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.
 
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.
 
 
A former member of the U.S. Army stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, was sentenced this month to serve three years in federal prison following her criminal conviction for illegally exporting firearms to the Dominican Republic in 2015. On Sept. 1, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Katherine O’Neal, 43, for numerous firearm and illegal financing-type criminal charges. A superseding indictment was handed down on Nov. 20, 2016, with a second superseding indictment returned on Dec. 5, 2017. A jury found O’Neal guilty of smuggling goods from the United States on March 6, 2018. O’Neal was acquitted on other counts alleging false information on firearm-purchase forms and money laundering.
 
At trial, the government introduced evidence showing that O’Neal made multiple trips to the Dominican Republic shortly after purchasing firearms in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado. On one trip she flew from Denver to the Dominican Republic with 11 firearms in her luggage in early June 2015. O’Neal declared the firearms to the airline, but did not obtain the required State Department export license. Her bags had been misdirected by the airline and were not on her flight. When the bags arrived later, Dominican Republic officials noticed the handguns while examining her baggage. When O’Neal arrived at the airport to claim her luggage, she was arrested. The Dominican Republic has a ban on all imported firearms. A Denver jury found O’Neal guilty of smuggling goods from the United States. 

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a116. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 184 Openings Posted This Week, Including 17 New Openings

(Source: Editor) 
 

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

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

#
” New or amended listing this week

 

* Aerojet Rocketdyne; Canoga Park, CA; 
Manager, Industrial Security & Compliance
;

* Agility; Atlanta, GA; Ocean Import Coordinator

* Agility; Bensenville, IL; Ocean Export Coordinator;


Agility; Basel, Switzerland; 
International Exhibition Coordinator
 

* Agility; East Boston, MA; 
Customs/Entry Writer Coordinator


Agility; Houston, TX; 
Air Freight Export Account Executive;

* Agility; Queens, NY; Air Export Coordinator;
* Agility; Queens, NY; Air Export Coordinator;


Airbus; Getafe, Spain; VIE Procurement Sustainability Management – Export Compliance; Requistion ID
: 10409879 ER EN EXT 1

Airschott, Inc.; Dulles, VA; Imports/Exports/International Logistics & Business

* Albemarle Corporation; Baton Rouge, LA; Logistics Specialist – Trade Compliance and Marine Specialist

*
 Alcoa Group; Knoxville, TN;
Trade Compliance Administrator
;

* Amazon; Seattle, WA; Head, Global Trade and Product Compliance
;
* Amazon; Seattle, WA;
 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst;

*
Amazon; Seattle, WA; US Export Compliance PM;

American Trucking Associations (ATA); Arlington, VA;
Mgr Customs, Immigration & Cross-Broder Ops
;

* Arrow; Shanghai, China; Compliance Manager;


AstraZeneca; Wilmington DE, Gaithersburg MD; 
Regional Trade Lead
; Requisition ID: R-033139

*
Augusta Westland; Philadelphia, PA;
Manager, Import Export
;

* BAE
 Systems; Kingsport, TN; 
Government Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 41212BR


Boeing; Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Australia; 
Trade Control Specialist
; Requisition ID: 1800072289.

* Boeing; Dallas, TX; 
Global Regulatory and Compliance Specialist 4
; Requisition ID: 12795

* Boeing; Englewood, CO;
Compliance Specialist 4
; Requisition ID: 1268;

* Boeing; Manassas, VA; 
Export Control Manager
; Requisition ID: 1900

* Boeing; Zoushan, China; 
 Compliance Analyst
* Boeing; Zoushan, China;
Trade Compliance Manager;

Booz Allen Hamilton; NY; 
Associate General Counsel
; Requisition ID: R0035318

* Bose; Framingham, MA;
Senior Trade Compliance Analyst
;

* CGI, Fairfax, VA; 
Trade Compliance Analyst/Manager
Requisition ID: J0818-1218
* Cinemark; Plano, TX; 
Import Export Purchasing Analyst
 


Cobham; Exeter, NH, Lansdale, PA; Export Compliance OfficerAlicia.Neice@yoh.com; Requisition ID 1611

Cognizant; Budapest, Hungary; 
Ethics & Compliance Senior Manager Continental Europe

Cognizant;
Mexico City, Mexico; Regional Ethics & Compliance Officer LATAM;

Cognizant; Shanghai, China; Regional Ethics & Compliance Officer – APAC;

Cobham; Lansdale, PA; Export Compliance Officer; Ali Neice Alicia.Neice@yoh.com; Requisition ID 1611

ConvaTec; Greensboro, NC; Associate Manager, Customs & Trade;

* Destaco; Auburn Hills, MI; 
Manager, Global Compliance
; Clenetta Frazier; 
cfrazier@destaco.com
; Requisition ID:  16261


* Disney Parks & Resorts; Kissimmee, FL;
Senior Manager, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 552655BR;

DuPont; Wilmington, DE;
Trade Compliance Leader
; Requisition ID: 196737W-01

*
 DynCorp International; Tampa, FL; Foreign Disclosure Officer; Requisition ID: PR1701977

* Eaton; Hungary; Manager Global Trade Management EMEA – Imports (in any EMEA location)Requisition ID: 052687

* Eaton; Multiple Locations: Cleveland, Ohio; Moon Township, Pennsylvania; Eden Prairie, Minnesota; Peachtree City, Georgia; Galesburg, Michigan; Manager, Supply Chain Governance, Risk & ComplianceRequisition ID: 054321

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

Embraer; Fort Lauderdale, FL;
Compliance Specialist II
; Requisition ID: 170685;
Energizer Holdings; St. Louis, MO; Trade Compliance Analyst; Kieshana Miles,kieshana.miles@energizer.com; Requisition ID: NAM00604

* Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Co.; Moorpark, CA;
Import/Export Specialist; Missy Clark;
maclark@eba-d.com;
* EoTech Technologies; Ann Arbor, MI; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335 

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

* Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom; 
District Trade Compliance Manager
;
* Expeditors; Detroit, MI; US Export Compliance Consultant;
* Expeditors; Dublin, IE; Consultant – Customs and Trade Compliance;
* Expeditors; Dusseldorf, Germany; Clerk, Airfreight Import;

*
 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk, Airfreight Import
; 
* Expeditors; Plainfield, IN; District Trade Compliance Manager;
* Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Coordinator;
* Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Specialist;
* Expeditors; Stockholm, SE; District Trade Compliance Manager;


* Exterran; Houston, TX; 
Trade Control Manager
;

* Flash Global; Mountain Lakes, NJ;
Import and Export Specialist;

* FLIR; Billerica, MA; US Customs Analyst
; 

* FLIR; Meer, Belgium; GTC EMEA Customs Analyst;
* FLIR; Irving, CA; 
Sr. Manager Export Compliance;

* FLIR; Nashua, NH; 
Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Traffic
;
 
*
 FLIR; Billerica, MA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Licensing
;
* Full Circle Compliance; Bruchem, Netherlands;
Legal Analyst, Manager

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Director, Compliance
; Requisition ID: 18549BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Government Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 19499BR;

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Import/Export Trade Compliance Administrator – Licensing
Requisition ID: 17968BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Senior Government Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 19500BR;

* General Electric; Lynn, MA;
Senior Export Control Specialist, Aviation
; Requisition ID: 3146429

* Harris Corporation; Van Nuys, CA; Trade Compliance Senior Specialist; Requisition ID: ES20180706-25145

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

* Henkel Corp.; Rocky Hill, CT;
Global Trade Defense Information Manager; Requisition ID: 
180002QT

* Honeywell International Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA or Lincolnshire, IL; Sr. Import/Export Analyst; HRD32371

* Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany; Manager Export Control;
* Infineon Technologies; Munich, Germany; Specialist Export Control;

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

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

* Johnson Controls; Boca Raton, FL; Licensing Coordinator; Requisition ID: 
WD30047852135
* Johnson Controls; Boca Raton, FL; Licensing Coordinator; Rquisition ID: 
WD30047853135
* Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI; Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: WD30047348124
* Johnson Controls; Tamaulipas, Matamoros, Mexico; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: EB00064420180

* Kohls; Menomonee Falls, WI; Senior Manager, Customs Compliance

* Komatsu; Milwaukee, WI; Senior International Trade Compliance AnalystRequisition ID: 12728

* Lam Research Corp.; Shanghai, China; 
Foreign Trade (FT) Analyst;
 

* Leonardo DRS; Cypress, CA; 
Contracts & Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 91594
* Leonardo DRS; Dallas, TX; 
 Contracts & Compliance Administrator
; Requisition ID: 91611
* Leonardo DRS; Dallas, TX; 
Contracts & Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 91608
* Leonardo DRS; Melbourne, FL; 
Senior Supply Chain Analyst – Small Business Compliance
; Requisition ID: 91669

* Leonardo DRS; St. Louis;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 88127, or contact 
brandy.mormino@drs.com 
 

* Livingston; CA; 
Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60988
* Livingston; CA; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 60644
* Livingston; FL; 
Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 59941
* Livingston; GA; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 61165
* Livingston; IL; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 60803
* Livingston; IL; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 60905
* Livingston; IL; 
Client Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60964
* Livingston; IL; 
Client Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60965
* Livingston; NY; 
Client Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 61123
* Livingston; NY; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 61221
* Livingston; NY; 
Release Customs Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 61518
* Livingston; OH; 
Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60702
* Livingston; TX; 
Release Customs Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 61282
* Livingston; TX; 
Release Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60867
* Livingston; VT; 
Release Customs Agents; 
Requisition ID: 61121

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; 
International Trade Compliance Engineer
; Job ID: 439787BR

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; 
Senior International Licensing Analy
st; ID: 
438635BR
* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; 
International Trade Compliance Engineer
; ID: 
439787BR

* Lockheed Martin; Fort Worth, TX; Export and Import Compliance Investigations Lead; Job ID: 427872BR

*
Lockheed Martin; Littleton, CO;
Supply Chain Management Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 440613BR

* Lockheed Martin; Orlando, FL; 
Senior International Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 
434225BR 
 
* Lockheed Martin; Stratford, CT; 
 Compliance Auditor
; Job ID; 434724BR


* Luminar Technologies; Orlando, FL;
Import/Export Trade Compliance Specialist
;

* L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Londonderry, NH; Purchasing & Compliance Manager; Requisition ID:096596
*
 L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Middle East;
International Business Development Manager – Middle East Region
; Requisition ID: 093343
* L-3; Ann Arbor, MI; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 092335
* Maersk/DAMCO; Agent de transit IMPORT – EXPORT; Job Ref.: DC-164022
* Medtronic; Heerlen, The Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 16000DYY

Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN;
Trade Compliance Program Manager
; Requisition ID: 18000BJW;

* Medtronic; Wash DC;
Global Trade Lawyer
;
stacy.m.johnson@medtronic.com
; Requisition ID: 170002ON

* Mercury Systems; Andover, MA; International Trade Compliance Director; Requisition ID: 18-165
* Mitchell Martin, Inc.; Dallas, Texas;
Export Regulatory Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 104405

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.;
DDTC Compliance Specialist II; Apply
HERE or contact their
recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.;
DDTC Policy Analyst
Apply 
HERE
 or contact their 
recruiting team
.
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Records Auditor
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Contract AnalystApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk Lead
Apply 
HERE
 or contact their 
recruiting team
.
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

*
Netflix; Los Angeles, CA;
Manager, Trade Compliance
;

* Northrop Grumman; Baltimore, MD; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst (level 2 or 3)- Import
; Requisition ID: 18013545
* Northrop Grumman; Baltimore, MD; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst (level 2 or 3)- Import
; Requisition ID: 18014715

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2; Requisition ID: 18010381

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2

Requisition ID

17022803
 
 

*
 Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Manager, International Trade Compliance 2
; Requisition ID: 17022805
* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 18007859
* Northrop Grumman; McLean, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 18012973

* Office of the Director of National Intelligence; McLean, VA;
Associate General Counsel
;

* Optics 1; Bedford NH, Senior Trade Compliance Administrator

* Oshkosh Corporation; Greenville, WI; Senior Global Trade Compliance Analyst – Licensing; ID: 
183273

* PerkinElmer, Inc.; Shelton, CT;
Systems Analyst, Trade Compliance Solutions;

* Raytheon; Billerica, MA;
Import Ctl&Compliance Advisor
; Requisition ID:
119749BR

* Raytheon; Billerica, MA; 
Mgr I Export-Import Control
; Requisition ID: 
118298BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; 
Import Control and Compliance Advisor
; APPLY Requisition ID 119247BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Manager III, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 117235BR 
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Fullerton, CA; Goleta, CA; Aberdeen, MD; Plano, TX; McKinney, TX; Principal Analyst, Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 117247BR

* Raytheon; Tucson, AZ; Export Licensing And Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 114936BR  

Raytheon; Tucson, AZ; 
Import Ctl&Compliance Advisor
; Requisition ID:
119749BR

* Raytheon; Woburn, MA; 
Global Trade Export Licensing & Compliance Advisor
Requisition ID:
117939BR
* Raytheon; Woburn, MA; Supply Chain Compliance Advisor; Requisition ID:
115557BR

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

* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Counsel (International Trade Compliance)
* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Sr. Export Compliance Specialist;

* Sensata Technologies; Fort Worth, TX;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
;

* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Denver, CO; 
International Trade Compliance Analyst III
; Requisition ID: R0006075  


Spirent; Calabasas, CA;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 4088;

* Thales; Cambridge, UK; 
Trade Compliance Support Officer
; Krista Helvey; Requisition ID R0034813;

* Thales; Cambridge, UK; 
Trade Compliance Officer
; Krista Helvey; Requisition ID R0034820;


Thales; Various Locations, US; 
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: R0035062;

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

* Toro; Bloomington, MN; 
Import – Export Compliance Manager

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Authorizations and Investigations Specialist

Requisition ID: 70957BR

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Export Authorization Manager, ITC Operations
; Requisition ID: 71189BR 

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; ITC Site Lead, Hot Section Module Center; Requisition ID: 71012BR

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

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; Senior Export Operations Associate; Requisition ID: 71010BR

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Senior Manager, Military ITC Programs
; Requisition ID: 71119BR

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Senior Manager, Digital Systems & Integration
; Requisition ID: 70425BR

United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Senior Program Manager, ITC Operations
; Requisition ID: 71195BR

* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 12735BR; Contact 
Uyen Tran at
Uyen.Tran@varian.com
* Varian; Paolo Alto, CA; 
Trade Compliance Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 
13097BR;

* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;
Global Trade Compliance Analyst
;

* Vigilant; Negotiable Location, USA;  
Global Trade Account Manager
;

* Virgin Galactic; Las Cruces, NM; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: 2018-3558

* World Wide Technology; Edwardsville, IL;
International Trade Compliance Specialist
;

* Xylem, Inc; Morton Grove, IL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist 

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

TECEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

(Source: A.E. NicPhaidin,
Info@PartneringForCompliance.org)
 
* What: The 9th Annual “Partnering for Compliance™” West will focus intensely on a broad spectrum of export/import regulatory and compliance matters of current relevance to companies and individuals involved in global trading. Senior-level government officials and trade experts will provide first-class training.
* Where: Dallas-Fort Worth Marriott South Airport Hotel (completely renovated)
* When:
  – Tue – Thurs, 16-18 Oct: “9th Annual ‘Partnering for Compliance™’ West Export Control Program
  – Fri, 19 Oct: 1-Day Program “Customs/Import Boot Camp”
* Speakers confirmed: DoS/DDTL: Terry Davis & Audra Collins; DoS/DDTC: Jae Shin; DoC/BIS: Bryce Bewley & Mary Quach & OEE James Fuller; DoD/DTSA: Ken Oukrop; OFAC: Anthony D. Musa (Licensing) & Michael Szustakowski (Enforcement); Census Bureau: Dale Kelly; DHS/CBP: O’Ruill D. McCanlas; ICE: Dean Fittz; UK/EU: David Hayes Export Controls; Imports: Braumiller Law Group PLLC: Adrienne Braumiller & Bruce Leeds; and U.S. trade.
* Opening Keynote Address: TBA (Invited)
* Cost: Export 3-day program: $650. Customs/Import 1-day program: $250. Both programs: $900.
* Remarks: Maximum capacity is 200 participants to maintain informal and collaborative environment.
* As time permits, all Government and trade speakers will informally hold short “one-to-one” meetings with participants on a “first-come, first-served” basis.
* Certificates of Completion granting: 4.5 IIEI CEUs and 20
CES NCBFAA Credits for 3-day Exports program, and 6.5 CCS NCBFAA Credits for 1-day Customs/Import Boot Camp will be awarded for each program.
* More information: Here.

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

(Source: Suzanne Palmer,
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com)
 
* What: The ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium & Boot Camp, Annapolis, MD
* When: September 11-13, 2018
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Timothy Mooney, Commerce/BIS; Matt Doyle, Lockheed; Matt McGrath, McGrath Law, Scott Jackson, Curtiss-Wright, Suzanne Palmer & Mal Zerden.
* Register: here for the three-day event or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com

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

TEC_a319. ECTI Presents “A Practical Guide to AES Filing: When, What and How to File in the Automated Export System” Webinar, 23 Oct

(Source: Danielle Hatch,
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: A Practical Guide to AES Filing: When, What, and How to File in the Automated Export System
* When: October 23, 2018; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Jonathan Young
* Register: Here or Danielle Hatch, 540-433-3977, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

Ferdinand Porsche (3 Sep 1875 – 30 Jan 1951; was an automotive engineer and founder of the Porsche car company. He is best known for creating the first gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle (Lohner-Porsche), the Volkswagen Beetle, the Mercedes-Benz SS/SSK, several other important developments and Porsche automobiles.)
  – “If one does not fail at times, then one has not challenged himself.”
 
Mary Renault (4 Sep 1905 – 13 Dec 1983; born Eileen Mary Challans, was an English and South African writer best known for her historical novels set in ancient Greece. In addition to vivid fictional portrayals of Theseus, Socrates, Plato, and Alexander the Great, she wrote a non-fiction biography of Alexander.)
  – “Money buys many things… The best of which is freedom.”
 
Yesterday was pun day:
 
* Ever since I switched to wrinkle free shirts my laundry issues have been less pressing.
* When an escaped prisoner was caught camping out in the woods it was a clear case of criminal in tent.

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

EN_a321
. 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 Amendment: 4 Sep 2018: 83 FR 44821-44828: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entries on the Entity List and Removal of Certain Entities From the Entity List

  
*
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: 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
here.
  – 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.  
 
*
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: 30 Aug 2018:
83 FR 44228-44229
, USML Chapter XI(c).

  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 30 Aug 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_a0322
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, 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