;

18-1001 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-1001 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 1 October 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. 

  1. Commerce/BIS Announces ISTAC Meeting on 31 Oct and 1 Nov in Washington DC
  2. Commerce/BIS Announces MPETAC Meeting on 23 Oct in Washington DC
  3. Commerce/BIS Announces SITAC Meeting on 16 Oct in Washington DC
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts 3rd List of Chinese Products Subject to Section 301
  4. DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memo 18-45
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. EU Amends Sanctions Concerning Libya
  1. Reuters: “In Trump win, Canada, U.S. Deal Saves NAFTA as Trilateral Pact”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Legislative Update: Tariffs, Trade Remedies, Gas Exports, Duty-Free Imports”
  1. M. Volkov: “Episode 58 – Interview of Donna Boehme – The Future of the Independent, Empowered Chief Compliance Officer”
  2. R.C. Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: “Changes to Export Controls in Sep 2018”
  3. R. Stein: “The Rise of ITAR-Free Procurement in Europe”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 140 Openings Posted This Week, Including 4 New Openings
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (19 Sep 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (26 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. 
Commerce/BIS Announces ISTAC Meeting on 31 Oct and 1 Nov in Washington DC
(Source: 
Federal Register, 1 Oct 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 49356-49357: Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
 
  The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on October 31 and November 1, 2018, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
 
Wednesday, October 31 – Open Session
 
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Working Group Reports
3. Old Business
4. Industry presentation: Post-Quantum Cryptography
5. Industry presentation: Automotive Radar
6. Industry presentation: HPCs and APP
7. New Business
 
Thursday, November 1 – Closed Session
 
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
 
  The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at 
Joanna.Lewis@bis.doc.gov, no later than October 24, 2018.
  A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. If attending in person, forward your Name (to appear on badge), Title, Citizenship, Organization name, Organization address, Email, and Phone to Ms. Lewis. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Lewis. … 
  For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.
 

Joanna Lewis, Committee Liaison Officer.

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

EXIM_a2

2

Commerce/BIS Announces MPETAC Meeting on 23 Oct in Washington DC
(Source: 
Federal Register, 1 Oct 2018.) [Excerpts.]  
 
83 FR 49357-49358: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
 
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on October 23, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
 
Agenda – 
Open Session
 
 1. Opening remarks and introductions.
 2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.
 3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
 4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
 5. Other business.
 
Agenda – 
Closed Session
 
 6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
 
  The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at 
Joanna.Lewis@bis.doc.gov, no later than October 16, 2018.
  A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email. … 
  For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.
 
Joanna Lewis, Committee Liaison Officer.

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

EXIM_a3

3

Commerce/BIS Announces SITAC Meeting on 16 Oct in Washington DC 
(Source: 
Federal Register, 1 Oct 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 49357: Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting
 
  The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on October 16, 2018, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
 
Agenda – Public Session
 
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.
 
Closed Session
 
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
 
  The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov no later than October 9, 2018.
  A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting.
  Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer. … 
  For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
 
Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

* Commerce/BIS; NOTICES; Denial of Export Privileges: 
Eastline Technologies OU, Adimir OU, Valery Kosmachov, et al. [Publication Date: 2 Oct 2018.]
 
* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Ship’s Store Declaration [Publication Date: 2 Oct 2018.]

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

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

(Source: 
CSMS #18-000575, 28 Sep 2018.)
 
On August 18, 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the government of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. On June 20, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action and Request for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301, imposing additional import duties on a list of Chinese products. See Federal Register 
83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018). On August 16, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action providing for the imposition of additional import duties on a second list of Chinese Products. See Federal Register 
83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018). 
 
On September 21, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Modification of Action providing for the imposition of additional import duties on a third list of Chinese products. See Federal Register Notice 
83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018). On September 28, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Amendment of Action announcing:
 
– a technical modification to the tariff classification of the goods covered by the September 21, 2018 list of products as a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff System nomenclature for Chapter 44 that will take effect on October 1, 2018; and
– the removal of two subheadings from the imports covered by the Section 301 duties. See Federal Register Notice 
83 FR 49153 (September 28, 2018).
 
GUIDANCE:
 
New Subheadings in Chapter 44, HTSUS
 
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 AM eastern daylight time on October 1, 2018, U.S. Note 20(f) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 will be modified by deleting 14 eight-digit HTSUS subheadings of Chapter 44, and adding 38 new corresponding eight-digit HTSUS subheadings of Chapter 44. These modifications are due to changes in the Harmonized Tariff System nomenclature for Chapter 44.
 
The subheadings that will be deleted are: 4401.10.00, 4401.39.40, 4403.10.00, 4403.20.00, 4403.92.00, 4403.99.00, 4406.10.00, 4406.90.00, 4407.10.01, 4407.99.01, 4412.32.06, 4412.32.26, 4412.32.32, and 4412.32.57.
 
The subheadings that will be added are: 4401.11.00, 4401.12.00, 4401.39.41, 4401.40.00, 4403.11.00, 4403.12.00, 4403.21.00, 4403.22.00, 4403.23.00, 4403.24.00, 4403.25.00, 4403.26.00, 4403.93.00, 4403.94.00, 4403.95.00, 4403.96.00, 4403.97.00, 4403.98.00, 4403.99.01, 4406.11.00, 4406.12.00, 4406.91.00, 4406.92.00, 4407.11.00, 4407.12.00, 4407.19.05, 4407.19.06, 4407.19.10, 4407.96.00, 4407.97.00, 4407.99.02, 4412.33.06, 4412.33.26, 4412.33.32, 4412.33.57, 4412.34.26, 4412.34.32, and 4412.34.57.
 
Removal of Subheadings in Chapter 3, HTSUS
 
Per Section C of the Annex to the September 28, 2018 Notice of Modification of Action, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 AM eastern daylight time on September 24, 2018, U.S. Note 20(f) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 will be modified by deleting two eight-digit HTSUS subheadings of Chapter 3.
 
The subheadings that will be deleted are: 0304.81.10 and 0304.81.50.
 
The removal of the two subheadings in Chapter 3 from the Section 301 remedy is retroactive to September 24, 2018. Consequently, any importer of goods classified in subheadings 0304.81.10 or 0304.84.50 in which Section 301 duties were assessed on or after that date can request a refund of the additional duties. Importers may file a post summary correction to request a refund of Section 301 duties assessed on goods classified in subheadings 0304.81.10 or 0304.84.50, 
 
Reminder on Foreign Trade Zone Procedures
 
As indicated in the USTR’s September 21, 2018 Notice of Modification of Action, any product listed in Annex A, except any product that is eligible for admission under ‘domestic status’ as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which is subject to the additional duty imposed by this determination, and that is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 A.M. eastern daylight time on September 24, 2018, only may be admitted as ‘privileged foreign status’ as defined in 19 CFR 146.41. Such products will be subject upon entry for consumption to any ad valorem rates of duty or quantitative limitations related to the classification under the applicable HTSUS subheading. 
 
Reminder on Immediate Transportation in Bond Entries
 
Pursuant to the September 21, 2018 Notice of Modification of Action, duties are due on goods that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 AM eastern daylight time on September 24, 2018.
 
For such entries covered by an entry for immediate transportation, and with a country of origin of China, and an HTSUS classification covered by Annex A to the September 21 notice (as amended), such entries shall be subject to the duty rates in effect when the immediate transportation entry was accepted at the port of original importation, pursuant to 19 CFR 141.69(b), which states:
 
Merchandise which is not subject to a quantitative or tariff-rate quota and which is covered by an entry for immediate transportation made at the port of original importation, if entered for consumption at the port designated by the consignee or his agent in such transportation entry without having been taken into custody by the port director for general order under section 490, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1490), shall be subject to the rates in effect when the immediate transportation entry was accepted at the port of original importation. 
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
 
For further information, please refer to the USTR’s Notice of Action and Request for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018); the August 16, 2018 Notice of Action Pursuant to Section 301, 
83 FR 40823
 (August 16, 2018); the September 21, 2018 Notice of Modification of Action Pursuant to Section 301, 83 FR 47974; and the September 28, 2018 Notice of Amendment of Action, 
83 FR 49153 (September 28, 2018).
 
Questions related to Section 301 entry filing requirements should be emailed to 
traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov. Questions from the importing community concerning ACE rejections should be referred to their Client Representative.
 
  – Related CSMS No. 
18-000554

18-000498

18-000493

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

(Source: 
DoD/DSCA, 1 Oct 2018.) 
 
 
[Editor’s Note: On Monday, 24 September, Policy Memos 18-48, 18-49, and 19-50 were published on the DSCA website and the Daily Bugle.]

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

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

 
Decisions

Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1465 of 28 September 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

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

NWSNEWS

(Source: 
Reuters, 30 Sep 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
The United States and Canada forged a last-gasp deal on Sunday to salvage NAFTA as a trilateral pact with Mexico, rescuing a three-country, $1.2 trillion open-trade zone that had been about to collapse after nearly a quarter century.
 
In a big victory for his agenda to shake-up an era of global free trade that many associate with the signing of NAFTA in 1994, President Donald Trump coerced Canada and Mexico to accept more restrictive commerce with their main export partner.
 
Trump’s primary objective in reworking NAFTA was to bring down U.S. trade deficits, a goal he has also pursued with China, by imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on imported goods from the Asian giant.
 
While the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) avoids tariffs, it will make it harder for global auto makers to build cars cheaply in Mexico and is aimed at bringing more jobs into the United States.
 
Since talks began more than a year ago, it was clear Canada and Mexico would have to make concessions in the face of Trump’s threats to tear up NAFTA and relief was palpable in both countries on Sunday that the deal was largely intact and had not fractured supply chains between weaker bilateral agreements.
 
  “It’s a good day for Canada,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters after a late-night cabinet meeting to discuss the deal, which triggered a jump in global financial markets.
 
In a joint statement, Canada and the United States said it would “result in freer markets, fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region”.
 
Negotiators worked frantically ahead of a midnight ET (0400 GMT) U.S. imposed deadline to settle differences, with both sides making concessions to seal the deal. The United States and Mexico had already clinched a bilateral agreement in August. … 
 
Trump has approved the deal with Canada, a source familiar with the decision said. U.S. officials intend to sign the agreement with Canada and Mexico at the end of November, after which it would be submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval, a senior U.S. official said. 
 
Cost for Canada
 
The deal will preserve a trade dispute settlement mechanism that Canada fought hard to maintain to protect its lumber industry and other sectors from U.S. anti-dumping tariffs, U.S. and Canadian officials said. … 
 
The deal also requires a higher proportion of the parts in a car to be made in areas of North America paying at least $16 an hour, a rule aimed at shifting jobs from Mexico.
 
Canada and Mexico each agreed to a quota of 2.6 million passenger vehicles exported to the United States in the event that Trump imposes 25 percent global autos tariffs on national security grounds.
 
The quota would allow for significant growth in tariff-free automotive exports from Canada above current production levels of about 2 million units, safeguarding Canadian plants. It is also well above the 1.8 million cars and SUVs Mexico sent north last year.
 
But the deal failed to resolve U.S. tariffs on Canada’s steel and aluminum exports.
 
The Trump administration had threatened to proceed with a Mexico-only trade pact as U.S. talks with Canada foundered. … 

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

NWS_a2
11
ST&R Trade Report: “Legislative Update: Tariffs, Trade Remedies, Gas Exports, Duty-Free Imports” 

(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report
, 1 Oct 2018.)
 
Tariffs. The Promoting Responsible and Free Trade Act (H.R. 6923, introduced Sept. 27 by Rep. Sanford, R-S.C.) would allow Congress to approve or deny any potential Section 201, 232, or 301 tariffs before they are sent to the president’s desk. If Congress approves such tariffs the president would still have final approval, but if it does not the president would no longer need to weigh in.
 
For Section 201 and 301 tariffs, the International Trade Commission or Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, respectively, would be required to send its report to Congress for a maximum review period of 60 days. Congress would have power to pass a joint resolution of disapproval within that period to stop the tariff’s implementation.
 
For Section 232 tariffs, the Department of Defense would first submit to the president a report on national security implications. If the president determines a tariff is necessary, the Department of Commerce would be required to send a report to Congress on tariff-level recommendations. Congress would have up to 60 days to approve the tariff report, which, if approved, would go to the president for final approval and implementation.
 
The bill includes a two-year retroactivity period for Section 232 tariffs, which would allow Congress to review any existing Section 232 tariffs, such as those in effect on steel and aluminum.
 
Trade Remedies. S. 3510 (introduced Sept. 27 by Sen. Nelson, D-Fla.) would allow fruit and vegetable growers to bring trade remedy cases against Mexican growers if they can prove the dumping occurs seasonally rather than year-round. A press release from Nelson’s office notes that the U.S. government currently does not consider seasonal differences in the market when determining whether to impose antidumping or countervailing duties. The press release notes that the Trump administration pledged to fix this problem in a revised NAFTA but that the deal with Mexico announced last month “failed to address the concerns of Florida growers.”
 
Natural Gas Exports. The House of Representatives approved Sept. 6 the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act (H.R. 4606, introduced Dec. 11 by Rep. Johnson, R-Ohio), which would require applications under the Natural Gas Act for the import or export of small volumes of natural gas (no more than 140 million cubic feet per day) to be approved without modification or delay. This bill is expected to aid in the shipment of natural gas to Caribbean and Central American countries that would otherwise not be interested in the larger shipments now made from Gulf of Mexico terminals. The Department of Energy finalized in July regulations that would implement similar policies as this bill.
 
Duty-Free Imports. S. 3470 (introduced Sept. 18 by Sen. Cardin, D-Md.) would authorize duty-free treatment for certain imports from Mongolia.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source: 
Volkov Law Group Blog, 30 Sep 2018. Reprinted by permission.) 
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992. 
 
Donna Boehme is our guest on this week’s podcast.  She is an advocate for an independent, and empowered Chief Compliance Officer.
 
Donna is an internationally recognized authority in the field of organizational compliance and ethics with over 20 years’ experience designing and managing compliance and ethics solutions, within the US and globally. As Principal of Compliance Strategists LLC, she has advised a wide spectrum of private, public, governmental, academic and non-profit entities. She serves on the respective boards of RAND Center of Corporate Ethics and Governance, Rutgers Center for Government Compliance & Ethics. Donna is an Emeritus Member and past Board member of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association,  past Board member of the Association of Corporate Counsel – Europe and past Advisory Board member of The Society of Corporate Compliance & Ethics.
 
Donna has been cited and interviewed as the “Lion of Compliance” because of her tireless work to increase understanding of the role of the chief compliance officer (CCO) and to improve the governance model for CCOs to include empowerment and independence, and position CCOs for success.

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

COMM_a01
13. R.C.

Thomsen II, A.D. Paytas & M.M. Shomali: ”
Changes to Export Controls in Sep 2018

 
* 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 September 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
 
Section 301 Tariff Updates
 
On August 18, 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the government of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. On June 20, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action and Request for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301, imposing additional import duties on a list of Chinese products. See 
Federal Register 83 FR 28710. On August 16, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Action providing for the imposition of additional import duties on a second list of Chinese Products. The August 16, 2018 list of products covered by the Section 301 remedy, which comprises 279 eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings, can be found in Annex A to the USTR’s August 16, 2018 notice of action. See 
Federal Register 83 FR 40823.
 
Earlier this month, on September 21, 2018, the USTR published a Notice of Modification of Action providing for the imposition of additional import duties on a third list of Chinese products. The September 21, 2018 list of products covered by the Section 301 remedy, which comprises over 5,700 full and partial eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, which can be found in Annex A to the USTR’s September 21, 2018 Notice. See 
Federal Register 83 FR 47974.
 
The additional import duties for Chinese goods covered by the September 21, 2018 list of products subject to the Section 301 action are became effective on September 24, 2018. The most significant impact for our clients may be the changes to subheading 8517.62:
 
  – The Section 301 Tariffs now apply to articles classified in subheading 8517.62.00, except for machines provided for in statistical reporting number 8517.62.0090.
  – 8517.62.0090 is a new statistical reporting number that was added to the HTSUS on September 24, 2018.
  – USTR also added a new statistical reporting number 8517.62.0020 to the HTSUS for “Switching and Routing Apparatus.” The Section 301 Tariffs also apply to articles classified under HTS 8517.62.0020.
 
Let’s say, for example, that you were classifying your products under HTS 8517.62.0050, which was the residual “Other” classification. You will now have to classify these products for import under either HTS 8517.62.0090, or as switching and routing apparatus under HTS 8517.62.0020. HTS 8517.62.0090 is the only code in subheading 8517.62 that is exempt from the Section 301 tariffs.
 
 
The report summary notes that difficulty with striking an appropriate balance between national security and export competitiveness has made the subject of export controls controversial for decades. Through the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and other authorities, the United States restricts the export of defense articles; dual-use goods and technology; certain nuclear materials and technology; and items that would assist in the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons or the missile technology used to deliver them. U.S. export controls are also used to restrict exports to certain countries on which the United States imposes economic sanctions. The Export Administration Act (EAA) legislated dual-use controls, but it has expired and such controls are presently maintained under IEEPA authorities.
 
The U.S. export control system is diffused among several different licensing and enforcement agencies. Exports of dual-use goods and technologies-as well as some military items-are licensed by the Department of Commerce, munitions are licensed by the Department of State, and restrictions on exports based on U.S. sanctions are administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Administrative enforcement of export controls is conducted by these agencies, while criminal penalties are issued by units of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
 
Aspects of the U.S. export control system have long been criticized by exporters, nonproliferation advocates, allies, and other stakeholders as being too rigorous, insufficiently rigorous, cumbersome, obsolete, inefficient, or combinations of these descriptions. In August 2009, the Barack Obama Administration launched a comprehensive review of the U.S. export control system. In April 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates proposed an outline of a new system based on four singularities
 
  – a single export control licensing agency for dual-use, munitions exports, and Treasury-administered embargoes,
  – a unified control list,
  – a single primary enforcement coordination agency, and
  – a single integrated information technology (IT) system.
 
The rationalization of the two control lists was the Obama Administration’s focus. The Administration made no specific proposals concerning the single licensing agency, although the Administration implemented some elements of a future single system, such as a consolidated screening list and harmonization of certain licensing policies.
 
In considering the future of the U.S. export control system, Congress may weigh the merits of a unified export control system-a chief goal of President Obama’s proposal-or the continuation of the present bifurcated system by reauthorizing the EAA or enacting replacement legislation. In doing so, Congress may debate the record of the present dual-use system maintained by emergency authority, the aims and effectiveness of the present nonproliferation control regimes, the maintenance of the defense industrial base, and the balance between maintaining economic competitiveness and preserving national security.
 
The full report can be found 
here
 
On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705 (referred to henceforth as the “Proclamations”), imposing duties on imports of aluminum and steel. The Proclamations also authorized the Secretary of Commerce (referred to henceforth as the “Secretary”) to grant exclusions from the duties if the Secretary determines the steel or aluminum article for which the exclusion is requested is not “produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality” or should be excluded “based upon specific national security considerations.”  
 
On March 19, 2018, the Department issued an interim final rule (referred to henceforth as the “March 19 rule”), setting forth the requirements a directly affected party located in the United States must satisfy when submitting exclusion requests. The March 19 rule also set forth the requirements that U.S. parties must meet when submitting objections to exclusion requests. The March 19 rule amended the National Security Industrial Base Regulations to add two new supplements.
 
The rule published today by BIS, on behalf of the Secretary, revises the two supplements added by the March 19 rule. The revisions are informed by the comments received in response to the March 19 rule and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s) experience with managing the exclusion and objection process. The Department understands the importance of having a transparent, fair and efficient exclusion and objection process. The publication of this rule should make significant improvements in all three respects, but due to the scope of this new process, BIS is publishing today’s rule as an interim final rule with request for comments.
 
 
The President issued a new 
Executive Order this month “Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” to further the implementation of certain sanctions in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) with respect to the Russian Federation. In addition, the Secretary of State is taking two actions to implement his delegated authorities pursuant to section 231 of CAATSA and to further impose costs on the Russian Government for its malign activities.
 
First, the Secretary of State added 33 additional persons – a person is either an entity or an individual – to the CAATSA section 231 List of Specified Persons (LSP) for being a part of, or operating for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation. This action increases the number of persons identified on the LSP to 72. Any person who knowingly engages in a significant transaction with any of these persons is subject to mandatory sanctions under CAATSA section 231.
 
Second, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State imposed sanctions on the Chinese entity Equipment Development Department (EDD) and its director, Li Shangfu, for engaging in significant transactions with persons on the LSP. These transactions involved Russia’s transfer to China of Su-35 combat aircraft and S-400 surface-to-air missile system-related equipment.
 
According to the 
Press Release, Section 231 of CAATSA and these actions are not intended to undermine the military capabilities or combat readiness of any country, but rather to impose costs on Russia in response to its interference in the United States election process, its unacceptable behavior in eastern Ukraine, and other malign activities. Theses actions further demonstrate the Department of State’s continuing commitment to fully implement CAATSA section 231, which has already deterred billions of dollars-worth of potential arms exports from Russia. State encourages all persons to avoid engaging in transactions with entities on the LSP that may risk sanctions, including high-value, major transactions for sophisticated weapons systems.
 
Enforcement Actions
 
Connecticut Business Owner Sentenced for Export Violation
 
Imran Khan, of North Haven, was sentenced to three years of probation, the first six months of which Khan must serve in home confinement, for violating U.S. export law. Judge Underhill also ordered Khan to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $3,000 fine.
 
According to court documents and statements made in court, from at least 2012 to December 2016, Khan and two of his family members engaged in a scheme to purchase goods that were controlled under the EAR and to export those goods without a license to Pakistan, in violation of the EAR. Through companies conducting business as Brush Locker Tools, Kauser Enterprises-USA and Kauser Enterprises-Pakistan, the three defendants received orders from a Pakistani company that procured materials and equipment for the Pakistani military, requesting them to procure specific products that were subject to the EAR. When U.S. manufacturers asked about the end-user for a product, the defendants either informed the manufacturer that the product would remain in the U.S. or completed an end-user certification indicating that the product would not be exported.
 
After the products were purchased, they were shipped by the manufacturer to the defendants in Connecticut. The products were then shipped to Pakistan on behalf of either the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (“PAEC”), the Pakistan Space & Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (“SUPARCO”), or the National Institute of Lasers & Optronics (“NILOP”), all of which were listed on the U.S. Department of Commerce Entity List. The defendants never obtained a license to export any item to the designated entities even though they knew that a license was required prior to export. The defendants received the proceeds for the sale of export-controlled items through wire transactions to a U.S. bank account that the defendants controlled.
 
On June 1, 2017, Khan pleaded guilty to one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In pleading guilty, he specifically admitted that, between August 2012 and January 2013, he procured, received and exported to PAEC an Alpha Duo Spectrometer without a license to do so.
On March 5, 2018, Khan’s father, Muhammad Ismail, and his brother, Kamran Khan, each pleaded guilty to one count of international money laundering, for causing funds to be transferred from Pakistan to the U.S. in connection with the export control violations. In pleading guilty, Ismail and Kamran Khan specifically admitted that, between January and July 2013, they procured, received and exported to SUPARCO, without a license to do so, certain bagging film that is used for advanced composite fabrication and other high temperature applications where dimensional stability, adherence to sealant tapes and uniform film gage are essential. The proceeds for the sale of the bagging film was wired from Pakistan to the defendants in the U.S.
 
On July 18, 2018, Judge Underhill sentenced both Muhammad Ismail and Kamran Kahn to 18 months of imprisonment. Ismail and Kamran Khan are both citizens of Pakistan and lawful permanent residents of the U.S.

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

COM_a3
14. 
R. Stein: “The Rise of ITAR-Free Procurement in Europe”

(Source: 
Who’s Who Legal, 28 Sep 2018.) 
 
* Author: Roland Stein, Esq., roland.stein@blomstein.com, Blomstein. 
 
Are European contracting authorities turning the tables on strict US arms control regulations? ITAR, short for “International Traffic in Arms Regulations”, is a US regulatory framework intended to control the manufacturing, export and proliferation of arms, related goods, services and technologies. Its primary aims are twofold: protecting the interests of U.S. national security and serving the objectives of U.S. foreign policy. ITAR is based on the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U. S. C. 2778-2780) and available in the Code of Federal Regulations under 22 CFR Parts 120-130. An ITAR-listing effectively permits U.S. authorities to control the export and whereabouts of regulated products. Generally, ITAR regulations do not only specify reporting obligations for contractors, but also contain strict restrictions on use, import, export and end-use of regulated products.
 
As an effective instrument of US state control, many market observers have long considered ITAR provisions to be a vital tool of US power projection abroad. However, an evolving opposing trend is becoming apparent: Fueled by current shifts in the landscape of European defense procurement, ITAR restrictions are increasingly exploited as an instrument by European contracting authorities. While no state can afford to essentially “blacklist” US products or arms manufacturers altogether, European nations appear to leverage ITAR restrictions to favor European contractors over those with US involvement in specific cases.
 
At a time when there are indications that European defense spending is set to rise significantly in the near future due to a variety of initiatives for joint European procurement of military equipment such as the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defense Fund, as well as established projects such and the Organization for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR), contractors with ties to the US will likely encounter legal and strategic challenges when attempting to obtain European defense contracts. The increasing use of ITAR-free restrictions will thus likely contribute to an already challenging market environment for non-European contractors.
 
Exclusion of products with ITAR restrictions
 
Lately, government agencies of various EU member states have attempted to exclude products with ITAR restrictions from defense procurements. A notable current case in which such a restriction was employed is the ongoing tender for around 120.000 new standard assault rifles for the German armed forces. The new design is supposed to succeed the current “G36” standard rifle produced by German manufacturer Heckler & Koch. The new rifle must meet a comprehensive catalogue of performance requirements and is intended for use in all branches of the armed forces. The contract for the acquisition of 120.000 firearms and “accessories in different quantities” has an estimated net value of approximately EUR 250 million. Its conclusion is scheduled for 2019, with a planned delivery of the rifles starting 2020. While the Europe-wide call for competition issued on 21 April 2017 did not specify any requirements in this respect, the subsequent invitation to tender by the German Ministry of Defense stipulated that any proposal for a successor rifle may not rely on components subject to ITAR regulations. In the case of the German rifle procurement, the ITAR-free exclusion criterion even applied to supplies and weapons produced entirely in Germany. A related tender regarding the manufacture and supply of a main battle sight and reflex visor for the new assault rifle includes a similar clause: according to the contract notice, both items may not be subject to the ITAR regulations.
 
According to press reports, SIG Sauer, a German-American bidding consortium, initially took part in the preceding competition with its existing MCX rifle. Besides SIG Sauer and the incumbent Heckler & Koch, the German Rheinmetall group participated in the competition in a joint venture with Austrian manufacturer Steyr Mannlicher. Whereas Heckler & Koch presented a newly developed rifle design, the HK433, Rheinmetall and Steyr Mannlicher proposed an existing design, the RS556 assault rifle. Surprising many observers, both SIG Sauer and Rheinmetall/Steyr Mannlicher eventually decided not to submit an offer before the close of the bidding period on 8 February. While the reasons for the eventual non-participation of Rheinmetall and Steyr Mannlicher remain unclear, SIG Sauer was very vocal about its decision to pull out of the procurement process, publicly naming discriminatory design requirements as a motivation for its pull out of the competition. The company cited “blanket discrimination against U.S. products and bidders” and a disadvantageous wording of the invitation to tender as the main reasons for revoking its initial offer.
 
So far, the German Ministry of Defense has not specifically addressed the allegations, as it did not want to comment on the issue due to the ongoing tendering phase. SIG Sauer’s offer included a production based in Germany and a design lacking U.S. patent reservations. However, this was apparently insufficient to fully comply with tender requirements. The manufacturer’s proposal was still subject to ITAR restrictions, as SIG Sauer’s proposed design employed US technology, in particular the design of the magazine and several interfaces for accessories. According to SIG Sauer, an ITAR-free requirement was neither imposed in the earlier invitation to tender for an assault rifle for the German Army’s special forces, nor stipulated in the preceding call for competition. Therefore, contractors were not aware of any ITAR restrictions before participating in the preliminary competition.
 
SIG Sauer alleged that had it stayed in the competition, it would not have had a realistic chance of winning the tender, as the technical requirements were clearly and unambiguously tailored to the incumbent competitor Heckler & Koch. Furthermore, the company accuses the German Ministry of Defense of discriminating against U.S. bidders through excessive procurement requirements. The company criticizes that the exclusion of ITAR controlled products constitutes a preliminary decision in favor of its EU-based competitors, as the criterion de facto renders most products by manufacturers with minor links to the U.S. ineligible.
 
Analysis
 
How does this case tie in with the current landscape of European defense procurement? Germany has previously exported up-to-date and used equipment to political and military allies if deemed appropriate and necessary, including assault rifles. For instance, the country has equipped Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in northern Iraq with approximately 16.000 assault rifles from 2014 onwards. ITAR restrictions might severely limit Germany’s ability to distribute weapons and equipment in such a way. Moreover, even the use of ITAR rifles by Germany’s own forces in countries such as Afghanistan might be complicated significantly by ITAR restrictions. Thus, political concerns may partly explain the exclusion of ITAR regulated offers in this case.
 
Still, this particular use of an ITAR-free clause is not an isolated case, but representative of a growing practice that is becoming more and more frequent in European procurement projects. ITAR-related exclusionary requirements signal a new trend, as the Ministry of Defense had in the past regularly accepted U.S. reservations and ITAR restrictions for various defense projects. As the delays resulting from U.S. approval and extensive disclosure requirements have been cause for criticism in the past, both timing and context of the depicted case suggest an inclination to ask for “ITAR-free” products in future procurements.
 
This practice is not just a German development, but indicative of a Europe-wide trend. ITAR-free clauses are becoming increasingly common as exclusion criteria in international invitations to tender. A corresponding widespread, albeit not concerted, effort to avoid the purchase of products subject to ITAR regulation is observable throughout the entire landscape of European defense procurement. For instance, large parts of the French arms industry tend to avoid using or sourcing ITAR-regulated items, provided an adequate substitute is available. Many manufacturers attempt to circumvent ITAR restrictions, as well. Products are regularly marketed as being “ITAR-free”. Notable French contractors and manufacturers such as Dassault Aviation avoid using key U.S. technologies altogether in order to strategically advertise and commercialize its fighter aircrafts as being exempt from ITAR restrictions.
 
The increased use of ITAR-free clauses in EU procurements is certainly not exclusively attributable to protectionist intentions. ITAR restrictions do in fact frequently tend to complicate and delay international procurements. In addition, the U.S. has shown a tendency to apply them strictly and strategically in the past. For instance, in 2014 a French contract for the sale of “Falcon Eye” reconnaissance satellites to the United Arab Emirates worth EUR 700 million was stalled for more than a year, as the satellites in question included ITAR-regulated electronic components. Even though these components were of no particular sensitivity, their inclusion still enabled the U.S. government to cause significant delays due to approval requirements.
 
Likewise, defense contractors may have a legitimate interest to protect confidential trade secrets, which they might be obliged to disclose under ITAR. ITAR-free clauses may thus in many cases reflect justified political and trade related concerns. The recent paradigm shift toward ITAR-free clauses may in part be explained by these and similar past negative experiences with ITAR-regulated items. However, the German depicted above case clearly demonstrates how ITAR-free clauses might be employed in the future to de facto exclude U.S. competitors and products from European procurements.
 
Outlook
 
While it is too soon to presume a concerted EU-wide effort to obstruct or even exclude U.S. defense contractors from EU government procurement procedures, two emerging trends are evident: On the one hand, systematic cooperation on procurement projects at the EU-level is increasing, accompanied by de jure benefits for EU-based companies. On the other hand, there has been a notable rise in national preferences of EU bidders through selective procurement requirements. These developments pose significant challenges for European and US contractors alike. It remains to be seen if this trend on the European defense sector continues and similar strategies are adopted towards other markets, in particular targeting dual use items. Legal challenges to such practices under European Procurement Law and International Trade Law are likely.
 
It should be added that the aforementioned developments do not appear to be temporary. The landscape of European defense procurement is adjusting rapidly, fueled by significant recent geopolitical developments. On one hand, with the US shifting its strategic focus to other regions of the world and the UK set to leave the EU, continental European defense spending will presumably see a significant rise. Simultaneously, new mechanisms of EU defense procurement promise significant market changes. At a time when a variety of initiatives at the EU-level aim at promoting EU defense procurement, not least the recent introduction of a Permanent, Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in defense matters, the future effects of ITAR-free procurement on international trade and competition will need to be monitored closely.

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

MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a115. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 140 Openings Posted This Week, Including 4 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
;


Agilent; Wilmington, DE; 
Trade Compliance Program Manager and GTS Super User
;

* 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;

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

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

* 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;

*
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; 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;

* CGI, Fairfax, VA; 
Trade Compliance Analyst/Manager
Requisition ID: J0818-1218;


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

* 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;


Energizer Holdings; St. Louis, MO; Trade Compliance Analyst; Kieshana Miles,kieshana.miles@energizer.com; Requisition ID: NAM00604;

* Esterline – Korry Electronics; Everett, WA;
Manager of Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 14718BR;

* Expeditors; Amsterdam, Netherlands; 
Regional Compliance SME (Subject-Matter expert) Supervisor On-site

*
 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;

*
Export Solutions Inc; Melbourne, FL; Trade Compliance Specialist II;  

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

* 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
;

* FLIR; Goleta, CA; Global Trade Compliance Analyst, Traffic;  
 

* Full Circle Compliance; Bruchem, Netherlands;
Legal Analyst, Manager

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

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

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


Google; Mountain View, CA; 
Trade Specialist, Export Compliance
; sdemian@google.com;
* Harris Corporation; Van Nuys, CA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
rwellbro@harris.com
; Job ID: ES20182408-26963

* Harris Corporation; Melbourne, FL; Director Corporate Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: CHQ20182007-26041
* Harris Corporation; Melbourne, FL; Corporate Trade Compliance Investigations Lead; Requisition ID: CHQ20182007-26042 

* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; State Dept, DDTC; Washington, DC; 
Defense Trade Control Compliance Analyst
;
* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; State Dept, DDTC; Washington, DC; 
Commodities Jurisdiction Analyst
;


Hitachi Vantara; Englewood, CO, Santa Clara, CL; 
Trade Compliance Specialist

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

* iDirect; Herndon, VA;
Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
; Requisition ID: 2018R-4700-56

* 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

* 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

* Livingston; CA; 
Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 60988
* Livingston; GA; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 61165
* Livingston; IL; 
Import Specialist; 
Requisition ID: 60803
* Livingston; NY; 
Client Import Analyst; 
Requisition ID: 61123


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

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

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


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

*
 L-3 Warrior Sensor Systems; Middle East;
International Business Development Manager – Middle East Region
; Requisition ID: 093343
* Maersk/DAMCO; Agent de transit IMPORT – EXPORT; Job Ref.: DC-164022

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

* Mercury Systems; Andover, MA; International Trade Compliance Director; Requisition ID: 18-165

* 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; McLean, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst 3; Requisition ID: 18012973

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

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

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

* Polaris; Minneapolis, MN;
Sr. Global Trade Compliance Specialist, Tariff Classification
; Requisition ID: 11770BR

* 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; 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;

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


* Solvay; Alpharetta, GA; Anaheim, CA; Greenville, TX; Piedmont, SC; Winona, MN;
Export Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: GBU007183;

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;


The Container Store; Coppell, TX; 
Import Manager
;

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

* Toro; Bloomington, MN; 
Import – Export Compliance Manager
* 
United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; ITC Site Lead, Hot Section Module Center; Requisition ID: 71012BR
* 
United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; Senior Export Operations Associate; Requisition ID: 71010BR

* 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

* 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

* VT iDirect; Herndon VA;
 
Manager, Global Logistics
; Requisition ID: 2018R-3120-1;
 
psingh@idirect.net
;

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

* Xilinx; San Jose, CA;
 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 155901

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

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES


Annie Besant(Annie Besant, née Wood; 1 Oct 1847 – 20 Sep 1933; was a British socialist, theosophist, women’s rights activist, writer, orator, and supporter of both Irish and Indian self-rule.)
  – “Better remain silent, better not even think, if you are not prepared to act.”
 

Vladimir Horowitz(Vladimir Samoylovich Horowitz; 1 Oct 1903 – Nov 5, 1989) was a Russian-born American classical pianist and composer. He was acclaimed for his virtuoso technique, his tone color, and the excitement engendered by his playing. He is recognized as one of the greatest pianists of all time.)
  – “As far as practicing is concerned, I usually try to do one to two hours a day. It isn’t good to practice too much, or your playing becomes too mechanical.”
  – “My face is my passport.”
 
Monday is pun day:
* Well, to be frank, I’d have to change my name.
* For chemists, alcohol is not a problem, it’s a solution.

* Ban pre-shredded cheese. Make America grate again!

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

EN_a317
. 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: 19 Sep 2018: 83 FR 47283-47284: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material From Cambodia  

 
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: 26 Sep 2018: 83 FR 48532-48537: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of an Entry on the Entity List and Removal of an Entity 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_a0318
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 6,000 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