;

18-1019 Friday “Daily Bugle”

18-1019 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 19 October 2018

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

  1. Commerce/BIS Publishes Denial Order 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Releases Update Concerning Section 301 Trade Remedies on Products from China, Third List of Products
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Extends Ukraine-related General Licenses
  1. Reuters: “Anti-Money-Laundering Body Gives Iran Until February to Complete Reforms”
  1. The Export Compliance Journal: “JPMorgan OFAC Sanctions Violations: Why Proactive Due Diligence Matters”
  2. G. Tuttle III: “Substantially Transformed or Not, That Is the Question: Understanding U.S. Origin Rules in Uncertain Times”
  3. J.S. Heim, A.L. Riella & T.M. Layton: “‘Company, Monitor Thyself’: DOJ Announces New Policy on the Use of Corporate Monitors”
  1. List of Approaching Events: 16 New Events Posted This Week
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (19 Sep 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (26 Sep 2018), FACR/OFAC (29 Jun 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (11 Oct 2018), ITAR (4 Oct 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. Commerce/BIS Publishes Denial Order

(Source: 
Federal Register, 19 Oct 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 53029-53030: In the Matter of: Luis Antonio Urdaneta Pozo, Inmate Number: 68375-018, FCI Edgefield, P.O. Box 725, Edgefield, SC 29824; Order Denying Export Privileges
 
On June 27, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Luis Antonio Urdaneta Pozo (“Pozo”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Pozo was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting from the United States to Venezuela items designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, namely, handguns and ammunition of various calibers, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Pozo was sentenced to 63 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. … 
  Based upon my review and consultations with BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Pozo’s export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Pozo’s conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Pozo had an interest at the time of his conviction.
  Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
  First, from the date of this Order until June 27, 2027, Luis Antonio Urdaneta Pozo, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 68375-018, FCI Edgefield, P.O. Box 725, Edgefield, SC 29824, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
  Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. 
  Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Pozo by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.
  Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Pozo may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
  Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Pozo and shall be published in the Federal Register.
  Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 27, 2027.
 
  Issued this October 12, 2018.
Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12
. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

(Source:
Federal Register)
* Treasury/OFAC; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Publication Date: 22 Oct 2018.]

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

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

OGS_a03
4. 
DHS/CBP Releases Update Concerning Section 301 Trade Remedies on Products from China, Third List of Products  

(Source: 
CSMS#18-000621, 19 Oct 2018.)
 
Reissuing CSMS#18-000575 To Correct A Typographical Error In The Section On Removal Of Subheadings In Chapter 3, HTSUS 
 
Background
 
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 0304.81.50 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 0304.81.50.
 
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. 18-000575, 18-000554, 18-000498

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

OGS_a04
5. 
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: 
State/DDTC)

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

OGS_a05
6
Treasury/OFAC Extends Ukraine-related General Licenses

(Source: 
Treasury/OFAC, 19 Oct 2018.) 
 
Today OFAC extended the expiration date of certain general licenses related to GAZ Group, and issued two general licenses: 
General License No. 13F – Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Divest or Transfer Debt, Equity, or Other Holdings in Certain Blocked Persons; and 
General License No. 15A – Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to Maintenance or Wind Down of Operations or Existing Contracts with GAZ Group.

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

NWSNEWS

(Source: 
Reuters, 19 Oct 2018.)
 
The international group that monitors money laundering worldwide said on Friday Iran had until February to complete reforms that would bring it into line with global norms or face consequences. 
 
The Paris-based Financial Action Task Force said after a meeting of its members that it was disappointed that Tehran had acted on only nine out of 10 of its guidelines despite pledges to make the grade. 
 
  “We expect Iran to move swiftly to implement the commitments that it undertook at a high level so long ago,” said Marshall Billingslea, the U.S. assistant Treasury Secretary for terrorist financing, after chairing an FATF meeting.
 
  “In line with that, we expect that it will have adopted all of these measures by February. If by February 2019 Iran has not yet done so, then we will take further steps,” he said.
 
In the mean time, the FATF said it had decided to continue suspending counter-measures, which can go as far as limiting or even banning transactions with a country. … 
 
Iran’s parliament approved some new measures against funding terrorism earlier this month under pressure to adopt international standards. But FATF said that it could only consider fully enacted legislation.
 
Members of FATF had already given Tehran until this month to bring its laws against money-laundering and funding of terrorism up to its guidelines.
 
Otherwise, Iran risked being returned to a blacklist of non-compliant countries that makes foreign investors and banks reluctant to deal with it.
 
Britain, France and Germany are trying to keep some financial channels open to Iran after the United States pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal in May and re-imposed sanctions.
 
Analysts say that inclusion on the FATF’s blacklist could effectively make that all but impossible.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a2a
8. 
The Export Compliance Journal: “JPMorgan OFAC Sanctions Violations: Why Proactive Due Diligence Matters”
(Source: 
The Export Compliance Journal, 17 Oct 2018.)
 
On October 5, 2018, JPMorgan Chase Bank (JPMC) reached a $5.26M settlement with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for 
apparent OFAC violations dating between January 2008 and February 2012.
 
Included in the announcement was notification of separate OFAC vioations related to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin and Syrian Sanctions Regulations that took place between August 2011 and April 2014.
 
Details about the earlier violations suggest 
that there were gaps in JPMC’s reporting and escalation processes (and that despite red flags, staff members allowed transactions to proceed). What’s noteworthy about second case, however, is not that JPMC staff allowed 85 prohibited transactions from six customers (and Specially Designated Nationals) to occur. Rather, it was the following:
 
  (1) That the institution’s screening system failed to “identify customer names with hyphens, initials, or additional middle or last names as potential matches to similar or identical names on the SDN List,” and
  (2) That JPMC employees did not further vet results despite similarities in name, addresses and dates of birth.
 
On the positive side, JPMorgan Chase self-identified the weakness in its screening tool and took remedial actions to correct-ultimately moving to a new screening system in 2013. Once implemented, they rescreened close to 200 million customer records, discovered the transactions in question, and ultimately reported the violations to OFAC.
 
Due Diligence When It Comes To Risk Is Worth It
 
For an organization the size of JPMorgan Chase, a $5M financial settlement probably isn’t going to break the bank (no pun intended!). But the same may not be true for businesses without a similar bottom line to fall back on.
 
The later violation could have been avoided altogether if JPMC had set procedures in place-a 
match resolution workflow, for example. And some education that staff had a responsibility to take extra steps to further vet information in the event one or more search terms came back positive.
 
Despite the screening tool lacking the ability to recognize hyphens, initials, and additional middle or last names-though a good restricted and denied party screening solution should be able to account for this information-there was still enough readily-available data (e.g., matching dates of birth, etc.) that, upon review, would have indicated that the six account holders, and those on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, were potentially one and the same.
 
One Sentence Lesson
 
Screening everyone and every transaction isn’t enough to be compliant with OFAC and other U.S. export, trade and financial compliance laws-positive matches should always be fully vetted and cleared before a transaction can take place, ideally in an environment with set procedures and systems in place.

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

COM_a2
9. 
G. Tuttle III: “Substantially Transformed or Not, That Is the Question: Understanding U.S. Origin Rules in Uncertain Times”
(Source: Tuttle Law Newsletter, 18 Oct 2018.) 
 
* Author: Author: George R. Tuttle III, Esq., Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, 
geo@tuttlelaw.com, +1 415-986-8780.
 
Until the Trump administration’s war on trade, many companies did not consider country of origin to be of critical importance to their import process. Certainly, country of origin questions were, and remain, important for determining whether goods are subject to import restraints (quotas) or for qualification under various free trade agreements and special duty programs such as 9801 or 9802; and it is of critical importance when we consider whether certain goods and materials are subject to Antidumping or Countervailing duties, but, for much of the goods that are imported, it was a non-issue. But no longer. Under the Trump administration’s war on trade, we must now contend with and consider whether the goods we import are subject to additional duties under Section 201, 232 and the overwhelming impact of section 301 duties on goods from China. Companies are asking about whether they can shift their supply chain to take advantage of more favorable countries, and if so, how far down the supply chain the shift must occur.
 
Whose Responsibility is It to Determine Country of Origin?
 
Section 484 of the Tariff Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1484), obligates an importer of record (IOR) to use reasonable care when entering or classifying imported merchandise, assessing duties, reporting accurate trade statistics and determining whether any other applicable legal requirement has been met. Determining and reporting the origin of imported goods falls within the scope of section 1484, both for purposes of duty preference claims as well as complying with basic entry requirements for reporting the correct country of origin of imported merchandise. (
CBP Form 7501 “Entry Summary” Instructions: Detailed instructions on completing CBP Form 7501.) False statements with respect to origin can result in the assessment of penalties under 19 U.S.C. §1592. Additionally, errors made with respect to the country of origin can result in the loss of special duty privileges, detention or exclusion of goods at the time of admission, or a demand for redelivery of the articles to Customs custody. Articles that are not timely returned to Customs custody are subject to liquidated damages equal to the value of the unreturned articles. Goods that are improperly marked or not marked in accordance with the country of origin marking statute (19 U.S.C. § 1304) can also be assessed a special “marking duty” equal to 10 percent of the value of the mis-marked goods.
 
In 
United States v. Golden Ship Trading Company, 25 C.I.T. 40 (2001) the government sued an importer of t-shirts from the Dominican Republic, claiming that the true country of origin of the t-shirts was China and not the Dominican Republic as reported. The government sought a monetary penalty for negligence. The importer argued that it was not negligent in misrepresenting the origin of the t-shirts because she relied on the information provided by the exporter and accepted his representations that the Dominican Republic was the country of origin of the t-shirts. The court, however, determined that the importer, Ms. Wu, failed to exercise reasonable care because she failed to verify the information contained in the entry documents related to country of origin. The court explained that under the definition of reasonable care, Ms. Wu had the responsibility to at least undertake an effort to verify the information on the entry documents. The court said that there is a distinct difference between legitimately attempting to verify the entry information and blindly relying on the exporter’s assertions. Had Ms. Wu inquired as to the origin of the imported t-shirts or, at minimum, attempted to check the credentials and business operations of the exporter, she could make an argument that she attempted to exercise reasonable care and competence to ensure that the statements on the entry documents were accurate, but she had not. The court found that Ms. Wu’s failure to attempt to verify the entry document information shows she did not act with reasonable care, and had, therefore, attempted to negligently introduce merchandise into the commerce of the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C.§ 1592 (a)(1)(A). Because of this, she was required to pay a civil penalty for her negligence.
 
Understanding the U.S. Country of Origin Rules
 
For non-preferential duty treatment, the U.S. country or origin (COO) rules follow the U.S. country of origin marking rules laid out in section 134 of the Customs Regulations. (19 CFR Part 134, et seq.)
 
These rules provide that the “country of origin” of a good is the country in which the good is wholly manufactured, produced, or grown. Such an article is said to be “wholly the growth or product” of that country and as such, it is considered to be “originating” in that country. Similarly, articles that are processed or manufactured exclusively in a country from materials that have been wholly grown or produced in that same country are also considered to be “wholly the product or manufacture” of that country.
 
When an article is not wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country, that is, when the product incorporates or reflects materials or processing, or both, which are attributable to two or more countries, origin determinations become more problematic. In such cases, the impact of materials or articles that originate in a country other than the country of final processing must be considered when determining the country of origin of the finished good.
 
If the article in question is not wholly manufactured, produced, or grown within a single country, then we must consider the source or origin of any component or material that is used in the manufacture, production, or assembly of the good, and whether the further work or material added to an article in a subsequent country effected a “substantial transformation” on that part, component or material, so as to render such other country the “country of origin” of the end product. (19 CFR Part 134.1)
 
U.S. Customs” Country of Origin Regulations
 
A common misconception by importers and the trade is that Part 102 of the Customs Regulations provides for general non-preferential origin rules. This is not the case. The preamble to Part 102 of the Customs Regulations provides that this part sets forth rules for determining the country of origin of imported goods for the purposes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement regulations; the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, and for determining the country of origin of textile and apparel products. 
 
The Substantial Transformation Rule
 
First set forth a century ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass’n v. United States, 207 U.S. 556, 562 (1908) the “substantial transformation” rule has been applied throughout the United States customs laws to determine the origin of goods for such varied purposes as: admissibility, eligibility for preferential trade programs, country of origin marking, drawback of duties, administration of the U.S. textile import program, American goods returned, and government procurement under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
 
The essence of the substantial transformation rule is that a product cannot be said to originate in the country of exportation if it was not manufactured there. The question, therefore, has been whether operations performed on products in the country of exportation are of such a substantial nature so as to justify the conclusion that the resulting product is a manufacture of that country.  In Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass’n the Supreme Court said: “[m]anufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture * * *. There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, ‘having a distinctive name, character, or use.'” 
 
In 
United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940) the Court of Customs & Patent Appeals held that a product undergoes a “substantial transformation” if, as a result of further manufacturing or processing, the product loses its identity and is transformed into a new product having “a new name, character, and use.” As observed in Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States (6 C.I.T. 155, 159, 789 F. Supp. 1154,1157 (1992)) substantial transformation is a concept of major importance in administering the customs and trade laws.”
 
Complexity and Confusion Abounds
 
According to Customs, the substantial transformation rule of Gibson-Thomsen (the change of “name, character, and use” test) has been difficult for the importing community, Customs, and the courts to apply, and that the rule has often resulted in a lack of predictability and certainty to its decisions. At the root of this frustration is the fact that the 
Gibson-Thomsensubstantial transformation rule must to be applied on a case-by-case basis, often involving subjective judgments as to what constitutes a new and different article, or whether certain processing resulted in an article with a new name, character, or use.  
 
The concepts and rules surrounding substantial transformation can be confusing for the uninitiated. Very often, importers mistakenly base their conclusion on a local or “Regional Value Content” (RVC), or a change or shift in tariff classification, as evidence of a substantial transformation for purposes of determining origin. While these concepts have their place in determining the origin of goods for specific preferential trade programs, they have limited application when determining the origin of goods for general origin determinations. (Many of the current U.S. preferential trade programs, such as NAFTA, Chile (CLFTA), Singapore (SGFTA) Australia (AUFTA), Bahrain (BHFTA), Morocco (MAFTA), Oman (OMFTA), CAFTA-DR, Peru (PETPA), Korea (KORUS), Colombia (COTPA), and Panama (PATPA apply a tariff shift and/or a RVC requirement for determining the origin of goods. See CBP Side-by-Side Comparison of Free Trade Agreements and Selected Preferential Trade Legislation Programs–Non-Textile. While other trade preference programs, such as Israel (ILFTA), Jordan (JOFTA), GSP, AGOA and CBERA all base their origin rule on the traditional substantial transformation rule and the change of “name, character, and use” test first enunciated in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass’n and in Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc.)  
 
To continue reading about the complexities of determining country of origin visit our 
website.

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

COM_a3
10. 
J.S. Heim, A.L. Riella & T.M. Layton: “‘Company, Monitor Thyself’: DOJ Announces New Policy on the Use of Corporate Monitors”
(Source: 
Vinson & Elkins LLP, 18 Oct 2018.) 
 
* Authors: Jessica S. Heim, Esq., 
jheim@velaw.com; Amy L. Riella, Esq., 
ariella@velaw.com; and Tyler M. Layton, Esq., 
tlayton@velaw.com. All of Vinson & Elkins LLP. 
 
On October 11, in apparent recognition of the significant burden borne by companies whose settlements include a corporate monitor, the DOJ issued new guidance providing greater clarity on the Department’s decisions to impose monitors and outlining elevated procedures for selecting and approving individuals to serve as monitors. [FN/1] The new guidance, which Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of DOJ, 
publicly announced on October 12 at the New York University School of Law, [FN/2] confirms long-standing DOJ policy that a corporate monitor should not be imposed as a punitive measure, and instructs that the Department will favor monitors as part of future settlements only when the need and benefits derived from such monitor outweigh the projected costs and burdens to the company. In his remarks, Benczkowski emphasized that where a company’s compliance program is “effective and appropriately resourced” at the time of settlement to prevent future misconduct, “a monitor will likely not be necessary.” Benczkowski also stressed that careful consideration will be afforded by the highest levels of the Justice Department on the selection of individual monitors to avoid any real or apparent conflicts of interest. 
 
The October 11 guidance does not set forth entirely new DOJ policy, but rather supplements the Department’s 2008 Morford Memorandum, which focused on the selection of a corporate compliance monitor. [FN/3] However, the new guidance affords companies with open investigations who may be before the Department greater clarity on DOJ decision-making about when monitors will be imposed, and also identifies the types of remedial measures and compliance testing that companies should perform when issues arise to mitigate the need for a corporate monitor in the future. 
 
DOJ will Consider Corrective Measures, Improved Internal Controls and Cost to the Company When Determining Whether to Impose a Compliance Monitor
 
The new guidance and announcement suggest that DOJ now favors ameliorative measures and internal controls over expensive and, potentially, invasive corporate monitors. 
Expanding on earlier guidance, the new policy instructs prosecutors, when deciding whether to use a monitor, to consider numerous case-specific facts, including the type and pervasiveness of the misconduct, whether the misconduct was facilitated by senior management and whether the company has changed leadership following the misconduct. Earlier guidance simply instructed prosecutors to “consider the facts and circumstances of a particular matter,” which could include the adequacy of a company’s internal controls and whether a company has ceased operations in the area where the criminal misconduct occurred. The new guidance further instructs DOJ prosecutors weighing the imposition of a monitor to consider “the unique risks and compliance challenges the company faces, including the particular region(s) and industry in which the company operates and the nature of the company’s clientele,” recognizing that even companies with robust compliance programs face the possibility of violations in higher risk jurisdictions. 
 
Notably, the new guidance instructs prosecutors to focus on a company’s current culture and leadership, as opposed to past, problematic culture and leadership, when determining whether a monitor is needed to prevent future misconduct. Under earlier guidance, prosecutors were instructed to consider similar information; however, that information was used to help determine the 
duration of a monitorship, not whether a monitor should be used in the first place. 
 
Importantly, prosecutors are instructed to weigh the need for such a monitor against the “cost and burden” to the company. The historical cost of corporate monitors, which can be in the tens of millions of dollars depending on the scope and duration of the monitorship, received much negative publicity in the last several years, and the balancing test articulated in the new guidance suggests that the need for such a monitor must indeed be significant if the Department is to require a monitor as part of any settlement. 
 
To make this determination, Benczkowski stated that the Department will no longer employ a subject-matter expert to look at the adequacy (or inadequacy) of a company’s internal controls and compliance program, but rather, this assessment will be performed, in the first instance, by line prosecutors themselves. Benczkowski explained that the Department’s decision not to replace DOJ’s full-time compliance counsel, a position formerly held by compliance expert Hui Chen, resulted in part from the recognition of the challenges presented by housing the Department’s compliance expertise in a single professional, and that in the future, DOJ professionals with compliance training and experience will be involved in all of the Department’s investigations and enforcement actions.
 
Monitorships, When Imposed, Should be Limited in Scope 
 
In cases where the Department determines that the need for a monitor does outweigh the cost and burden, the Benczkowski Memo states that the scope of monitorships should be “appropriately tailored to address the specific issues and concerns that created the need for the monitor[,]” and to “avoid unnecessary burdens to the business’s operations.” This guidance should help to address the problem of monitor “mission creep” – when a monitor, given a broad mandate to prevent future misconduct, imposes sprawling, expensive and infeasible changes to a company’s operations, potentially impacting areas of the business that are unrelated to the underlying offense.
 
Elevated Approvals and a More Structured Process for Selecting Monitors 
 
The October 11 guidance also establishes a new process by which compliance monitors should be selected. Under prior guidance, the corporation, the government, or both, would select the initial pool of candidates from which a monitor would be selected and then an ad hoc or standing committee of prosecutors would consider and approve (or veto) the candidates. 
 
Under the Department’s new policy, the company’s counsel is exclusively charged with selecting the pool of candidates from which the monitor will be selected and then, according to the guidance, reviewed and approved by a newly created Criminal Division Standing Committee on the Selection of Monitors (the “Standing Committee”), comprised of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Fraud Section, the Chief of the Fraud Section, and the Deputy Designated Agency Ethics Official for the Criminal Division, or their respective designees.
 
What This Means For You 
 
Whether entirely new or merely a more detailed recitation of existing Department policy, the October 11 guidance no doubt is a welcomed pronouncement for companies currently cooperating with DOJ investigations, and may lead to a reduction in the imposition of monitors. As part of his remarks, Benczkowski noted that in the last five years, approximately one in three corporate resolutions required the imposition of a corporate monitor. In some areas, including resolutions concerning companies’ compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) (“FCPA”), which historically have included a high percentage of the Department’s monitorships, the Department appears to have already begun moving away from imposing corporate monitors. Indeed, in 2017, not one of the four companies receiving the largest corporate settlements that year included a monitor, and last month’s record-breaking settlement entered into by Brazilian state-owned energy conglomerate Petrobras did not include a monitor. The revised policy balancing the need for a monitor against the high burden to a settling company, may result in a further reduction in the use of corporate monitors as DOJ aligns its practices with the newly announced guidance. 
But perhaps of more immediate significance to companies that are not currently under DOJ scrutiny, the October 11 guidance outlines the compliance and remedial measures that will be important to the Department in determining whether a compliance monitor will be necessary. Companies are well-advised to consider the factors outlined in the guidance when evaluating and enhancing compliance programs, particularly where an issue has come to light indicating the need for remediation and program enhancement. In addition, as the Department continues to publicize its interest in ensuring that compliance programs are more than simply facially adequate, companies must ensure that they have implemented a process for testing and evaluating the effectiveness of their compliance policies and procedures, and have a defined way, such as through the use of metrics, to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.
 
———-
  [FN/1] Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters (Oct. 11, 2018), 
here.
  [FN/2] Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski Delivers Remarks at NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Conference on Achieving Effective Compliance (Oct. 12, 2018), 
here
  [FN/3] Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with Corporations (Mar. 7, 2008), 
here. The October 11 memorandum also supersedes the Breuer Memorandum issued in 2009. See Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters (June 24, 2009), 
here

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a3
11. 
List of Approaching Events: 16 New Events Posted This Week
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

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

#” = New or updated listing  

 
Continuously Available Training
 
* E-Seminars: “US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls“; Export Compliance Training Institute; danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* Webinar: ”
Company-Wide US Export Controls Awareness Program“; Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness“; Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
* Online: “Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)“; Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “Webinars On-Demand Library“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
* Online: “International Trade Webinars“; Global Training Center
*
 
Online: “On-Demand Webinars“; “General Training“; Center for Development of Security Excellence; Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Online: “ACE Reports Training and User Guide“; DHS/CBP

* Online: ”
Increase Your International Sales – Webinar Archive“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Web Form: “Compliance Snapshot Assessment“; Commonwealth Trading Partners (CTP)
* Online: “
Customs Broker Exam Prep Course
“; The Exam Center
 
 
Seminars and Conferences

 
 


* Oct 21-23: Grapevine, TX; “2018 Fall Conference“; International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Oct 22-26: Dallas, Texas; “Best Customs Broker Exam Course“; GRVR Attorneys
* Oct 22-23: Arlington, VA; “2018 Fall Advanced Conference“; Society for International Affairs (SIA)

* Oct 23: Adelaide, Australia; 
Defence Export Controls Outreach
; Australian Department of Defense

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

*
Oct 23-24: New Orleans, LA; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls – 2 Days
“; 
Commerce/BIS;

* Oct 24: Arlington, VG; “
2018 Information Technology & Export Controls
“; Society for International Affairs (SIAED);

* Oct 24: Leeds, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Oct 25: Leeds, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade

*
Oct 25: New Orleans, LA; “
How to Build an Export Compliance Program – 1 Day
“; 
Commerce/BIS;

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

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

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

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

* Oct 30 – Nov 1: Chicago, IL; ”
Export Controls Specialist – Certification
“; Global Trade Academy

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


Nov 1: North Reading, MA: “
Best Practices for Export Control Classification and Licensing
“; 
Massachusetts Export Center

Nov 2: Mansfield, MA: “
Establishing, Managing and Motivating International Distribution Channels
“; 
Massachusetts Export Center


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


Nov 6: London, UK; “
Breakfast Seminar: U.S. Iran Sanctions
; Peters & Peters

* Nov 6: Manchester, UK; “Export Control Symposium Autumn 2018“; UK Department for International Trade

* 
Nov 6-7: Düsseldorf, Germany; “Customs Compliance in Europe 2018 Conference“; NielsonSmith


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


Nov 7: Westborough, MA: “
Tariff Management: Rethinking Your Supply Chain for Today’s International Trade Climate
“; 
Massachusetts Export Center

* Nov 7-9: London, UK; “TRACE European Forum, 2018“; TRACE Anti-Bribery Compliance Solutions
* Nov 7-9: Detroit, MI; “Advanced Classification for Machinery & Electronics“; Global Trade Academy

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


Nov 9; Grand Rapids, MI; “Export Controls: ITAR & EAR Compliance Training“; Michigan Economic Development Corporation

* Nov 12-15: Washington, D.C.; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977
* Nov 13: Tysons Corner, VA; “Made in America, Buy America, or Buy American: Qualify your Goods and Increase Sales“; Global Trade Academy

* Nov 14-15: London, UK; “
Export Controls, ICPs and Good Practice
“; WorldECR

* Nov 14: Manchester, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade


Nov 14: Washington D.C.; “
Emerging Technology Meets National Security
“; National Venture Capital Association

* Nov 14-15: Newark, NJ; “
Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS and The New Jersey District Export Council 

* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Beginner’s Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: Manchester, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Nov 15: McLean, VA; “ITAR For the Empowered Official“; FD Associates
* Nov 16, San Diego, CA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training

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

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


Nov 20: Singapore; “
The WorldECR Export controls And Sanctions Forum 2018
“; WorldECR

* Nov 21: Brussels, Belgium; “
Academic Export Control Outreach Event
“;

Flanders Department of Foreign Affairs;

* Nov 21: London, UK; “Cyber Export Controls“; UK Department for International Trade

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


Nov 22: Hong Kong; “
The WorldECR Export controls And Sanctions Forum 2018
“; WorldECR

* Nov 27: Houston, TX; “Duty Drawback Specialist – Certification“; Global Trade Academy

* Nov 28-30: Brussels, Belgium; “
Beware Sanctions and Export Controls”

;



Brussels Diplomatic Academy


Nov 27 – 30: Washington, D.C.; “
35th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; American Conference Institute

Nov 29: Washington, D.C.; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: An Introduction
“; Public Contracting Institute

* Dec 3-7: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist“; Global Trade Academy 
* Dec 4-5: Frankfurt, Germany; “US Defence Contracting and DFARS Compliance in Europe;” C5 Group
* Dec 5: London, UK; “Intermediate Seminar“; UK Department for International Trade

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

* Dec 6: London, UK; “Licenses Workshop“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military“; UK Department for International Trade
* Dec 6: London, UK; “International Documentation and Customs Compliance“; Institute of Export and International Trade

*
 Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Export Documentation Training Course
;” Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

* Dec 6: Manchester, UK; “
Introduction to Export Controls and Licenses
“; 

* Dec 6: San Pedro, CA; “
2018 FTA Holiday Celebration
“; Foreign Trade Association (FTA)


Dec 6: Washington D.C.; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: Key Terms and Compliance Obligations
“; Public Contracting Institute

Dec 7: Boston, MA: “
Export Expo
“; 
Massachusetts Export Center

* Dec 13: Brussels, Belgium; “
2018 Export Control Forum
“; European Commission


Dec 13: Washington, D.C.; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: Accelerators, Consortia, and Recent Developments
“; Public Contracting Institute

* Dec 14: Philadelphia, PA; “Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale Seminar“; International Business Training
 

2019
 

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

* Jan 30-31: Washington, DC; “
5th National Forum on CFIUS
;” American Conference Institute (ACI)

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

* Feb 6-7: Scottsdale, AZ;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Feb 12-13: Washington, D.C.; “
2019 Legislative Summit
“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 
* Feb 18-21: Orlando, FL; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI

* Mar 6-7: San Diego, CA;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
* Mar 12-14: Dallas, TX;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
* Mar 12-14: Dallas, TX;

How to Build an Export Compliance Program
“; Commerce/BIS

* Mar 18-21: Las Vegas, NV; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI

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

* Apr 1-4: Washington, DC;ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar“; ECTI

* Apr 3-4: Denver, CO;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
* Apr 23-24: Portsmouth, NH;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
Apr 25: Portsmouth, NH;

Technology Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* May 5-7: Savannah, GA; “2019 Spring Seminar“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)

* Aug 20-21: Cincinnati, OH;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Sep 8-11: Chicago, IL; “2019 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)
 
Webinars 


 
  
 
 
* Nov 14: Webinar; “An Export Commodity Classification Number – ECCN“; Foreign Trade Association


Nov 29: Webinar; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: An Introduction
“; Public Contracting Institute

* Dec 3: Webinar; “Tariff Classification: Using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; International Business Training 

* Dec 4: Webinar; “NAFTA Rules of Origin“; International Business Training 
* Dec 5: Webinar; “Import Documentation and Procedures“; International Business Training


Dec 6: Webinar; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: Key Terms and Compliance Obligations
“; Public Contracting Institute
* Dec 11: Webinar; “
Incoterms 2010: Terms of Sale
“; International Business Training 


Dec 13: Webinar; “
Other Transaction Authority Agreements: Accelerators, Consortia, and Recent Developments
“; Public Contracting Institute

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

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a112
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

Marsilio Ficino (Marsilius Ficinus; 19 Oct 1433 – 1 Oct 1499; was an Italian scholar and Catholic priest who was one of the most influential humanist philosophers of the early Italian Renaissance. He was an astrologer, a reviver of Neoplatonism in touch with the major academics of his day, and the first translator of Plato’s extant works into Latin.)
  – “Who can wonder at the attractiveness of the bar for our ambitious young men, when the highest bribes of society are at the feet of the successful orator?”
 

John Dewey (20 Oct 1859 – 1 Jun 1952; was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. 
A Review of General Psychology, published in 2002, ranked Dewey as one of the most cited psychologists of the 20th century.)
 – “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.”
  – “Arriving at one goal is the starting point to another.”
 
Friday funnies about “old folks” 
 
* Reporters interviewing a 104-year-old woman:
 “And what do you think is the best thing about being 104?” the reporter asked. She replied, 
“No peer pressure.”
 
* Two old men in a retirement village were sitting in the reading room and one said to the other, 
“You’re 82 years old — how do you honestly feel?” His friend replied, 
“I feel like a new born baby!  I’ve got no hair, no teeth, and I just wet myself.”
 
* As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his cell phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife’s voice urgently warning him,
“Herman, I just heard on the news that there’s a car going the wrong way on Interstate 77. Please be careful out there!” 
“Heck”, said Herman, 
“It’s not just one car. It’s hundreds of them!”

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

EN_a213. 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:
83 FR 17749-17751
: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates

  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  –
The latest edition (30 April 2018) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended.  The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance 
website
BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu
 
* HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 2018: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)

 – Last Amendment: 11 Oct 2018: Harmonized System Update 1816, containing 6,042 ABI records and 1,516 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: 
4 Oct 2018: 
83 FR 50003-50007
: Regulatory Reform Revisions to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 4 Oct 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_a314
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

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