;

18-1119 Monday “Daily Bugle”

18-1119 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 19 November 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 Conducts Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies, Seeks Comments Before 19 Dec 
  2. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Form ATF F 5400.5, Report of Theft or Loss of Explosive 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Updates ACE ABI Batch & Block CATAIR
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Announces Settlement Agreement with French Banking Giant Société Générale S.A.
  6. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning Iraq
  7. EU Council Adopts New Strategy Against Illicit Firearms, Small Arms and Light Weapons, and Their Ammunition
  1. Global Trade News: “UK and EU Draft 585 Page Brexit Deal”
  2. Reuters: “Berlin Imposes Entry Ban, Arms Freeze Over Khashoggi Killing”
  3. The Voice of Vietnam Online: “Better Import-Export Control Needed to Shelter Vietnam From Trade War: Seminar”
  1. B. Egan: “Treasury Sanctions 17 Saudi Officials, Though Not the Crown Prince, in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi”
  2. T. Dooner: “Compliance Science: How Incoterms Work”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 20 New Openings Posted This Week
  1. FCC Presents “Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 5 Feb 2019 in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (19 Sep 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (2 Nov 2018), FACR/OFAC (15 Nov 2018), FTR (24 Apr 2018), HTSUS (1 Nov 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 Conducts Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies, Seeks Comments Before 19 Dec
(Source: Federal Register, 19 Nov 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
83 FR 58201-58202: Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
* SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) controls the export of dual-use and less sensitive military items through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including the Commerce Control List (CCL). As controls on exports of technology are a key component of the effort to protect sensitive U.S. technology, many sensitive technologies are listed on the CCL, often consistent with the lists maintained by the multilateral export control regimes of which the United States is a member. Certain technologies, however, may not yet be listed on the CCL or controlled multilaterally because they are emerging technologies. As such, they have not yet been evaluated for their national security impacts. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks public comment on criteria for identifying emerging technologies that are essential to U.S. national security, for example because they have potential conventional weapons, intelligence collection, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorist applications or could provide the United States with a qualitative military or intelligence advantage. Comment on this ANPRM will help inform the interagency process to identify and describe such emerging technologies. This interagency process is anticipated to result in proposed rules for new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the CCL.
* DATES: Submit comments on or before December 19, 2018.
* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments through either of the following:
 – Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS 2018-0024.
 – Address: By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694-AH61.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Mortimer, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. Phone: (202) 482-0092; Fax (202) 482-3355; Email: Kirsten.Mortimer@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, Public Law No: 115-232, Congress enacted the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (the Act or ECRA). Section 1758 of the Act authorizes Commerce to establish appropriate controls, including interim controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of emerging and foundational technologies. Under the Act, emerging and foundational technologies are those essential to the national security of the United States and are not described in Section 721(a)(6)(A)(i)-(v) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. Emerging and foundational technologies, in keeping with ECRA, will be determined by an interagency process that will consider both public and classified information as well as information from the Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
 In identifying emerging and foundational technologies, the process must consider:
   – The development of emerging and foundational technologies in foreign countries;
   – The effect export controls may have on the development of such technologies in the United States; and
   – The effectiveness of export controls on limiting the proliferation of emerging and foundational technologies in foreign countries.
  To help inform this process, this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) proposes several general areas for public comment. 
Given the challenges involved in identifying emerging and foundational technologies, this ANPRM will help Commerce and other agencies propose specific emerging technologies for control.
  Once an emerging or foundational technology has been identified, the Act authorizes Commerce to establish controls, including interim controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of that technology. In determining the appropriate level of export controls, the Department must consider the potential end-uses and end-users of the technology, and countries to which exports from the United States are restricted (e.g., embargoed countries). While Commerce has discretion to set the level of export controls, at a minimum it must require a license for the export of emerging and foundational technologies to countries subject to a U.S. embargo, including those subject to an arms embargo. Responses to this ANPRM will help Commerce and other agencies identify and assess emerging technologies for the purposes of updating the export control lists without impairing national security or hampering the ability of the U.S. commercial sector to keep pace with international advances in emerging fields.
 
Emerging Technologies
 
  To assist BIS in identifying emerging technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States, this ANPRM seeks public comment on criteria for defining and identifying emerging technologies. This ANPRM describes certain categories of technology that are currently subject to the EAR but controlled only to embargoed countries, countries designated as supporters of international terrorism, and restricted end uses or end users. These categories are a representative list of the technology categories from which Commerce, through an interagency process, seeks to determine whether there are specific emerging technologies that are important to the national security of the United States for which effective controls can be implemented that avoid negatively impacting U.S. leadership in the science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing sectors.
  Commerce does not seek to expand jurisdiction over technologies that are not currently subject to the EAR, such as “fundamental research” described in Sec.  734.8 of the EAR. For purposes of this ANPRM, Commerce does not seek to alter existing controls on technology already specifically described in the CCL. Such controls would generally continue to be addressed through multilateral regimes or interagency reviews.
 
Foundational Technology
 
 Commerce will issue a separate ANPRM regarding identification of foundational technologies that may be important to U.S. national security. Commerce seeks public comment, however, on treating emerging and foundational technologies as separate types of technology.
 
Representative Technology Categories
 
(1) Biotechnology, such as:
 (i) Nanobiology;
 (ii) Synthetic biology;
 (iv) Genomic and genetic engineering;
or
 (v) Neurotech.
(2) Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technology, such as:
  (i) Neural networks and deep learning (e.g., brain modelling, time series prediction, classification);
 (ii) Evolution and genetic computation (e.g., genetic algorithms, genetic programming);
 (iii) Reinforcement learning;
 (iv) Computer vision (e.g., object recognition, image understanding); (v) Expert systems (e.g., decision support systems, teaching systems);
 (vi) Speech and audio processing (e.g., speech recognition and production); (vii) Natural language processing (e.g.,machine translation);
 (viii) Planning (e.g., scheduling, game playing);
 (ix) Audio and video manipulation technologies (e.g., voice cloning, deepfakes);
 (x) AI cloud technologies; or
 (xi) AI chipsets.
(3) Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) technology.
(4) Microprocessor technology, such as:
 (i) Systems-on-Chip (SoC); or
 (ii) Stacked Memory on Chip.
(5) Advanced computing technology, such as:
 (i) Memory-centric logic.
(6) Data analytics technology, such as:
 (i) Visualization;
 (ii) Automated analysis algorithms; or
 (iii) Context-aware computing.
(7) Quantum information and sensing technology, such as
 (i) Quantum computing;
 (ii) Quantum encryption; or
 (iii) Quantum sensing.
(8) Logistics technology, such as:
 (i) Mobile electric power;
 (ii) Modeling and simulation;
 (iii) Total asset visibility; or
 (iv) Distribution-based Logistics Systems (DBLS).
(9) Additive manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing);
(10) Robotics such as:
 (i) Micro-drone and micro-robotic systems;
 (ii) Swarming technology;
 (iii) Self-assembling robots;
 (iv) Molecular robotics;
 (v) Robot compliers; or
 (vi) Smart Dust.
(11) Brain-computer interfaces, such as
 (i) Neural-controlled interfaces;
 (ii) Mind-machine interfaces;
 (iii) Direct neural interfaces; or
 (iv) Brain-machine interfaces.
(12) Hypersonics, such as:
 (i) Flight control algorithms;
 (ii) Propulsion technologies;
 (iii) Thermal protection systems; or
 (iv) Specialized materials (for structures, sensors, etc.).
(13) Advanced Materials, such as:
 (i) Adaptive camouflage;
 (ii) Functional textiles (e.g., advanced fiber and fabric technology); or
 (iii) Biomaterials.
(14) Advanced surveillance technologies, such as: Faceprint and voiceprint technologies.
 
  BIS welcomes comments on: (1) How to define emerging technology to assist identification of such technology in the future; (2) criteria to apply to determine whether there are specific technologies within these general categories that are important to U.S. national security; (3) sources to identify such technologies; (4) other general technology categories that warrant review to identify emerging technology that are important to U.S. national security; (5) the status of development of these technologies in the United States and other countries; (6) the impact specific emerging technology controls would have on U.S. technological leadership; (7) any other approaches to the issue of identifying emerging technologies important to U.S. national security, including the stage of development or maturity level of an emerging technology that would warrant consideration for export control.
  Comments should be submitted to BIS as described in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM by December 19, 2018. 
  This rule was determined to be significant by the Office of Management Budget under Executive Order 12866.
 
  Dated: November 14, 2018.
Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
 

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

EXIM_a2

2. Justice/ATF Seeks Comments on Form ATF F 5400.5,  Report of Theft or Loss of Explosives 

(Source: Federal Register, 19 Nov 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
83 FR 58298-58299: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Theft or Loss of Explosives–ATF F 5400.5
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
* ACTION: 30-Day notice.
* SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
* DATES: The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register, on September 10, 2018, allowing for a 60-day comment period. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until December 19, 2018. … 
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … 
 
Overview of This Information Collection
 
 – Type of Information Collection (check justification or form 83): Extension of a currently approved collection.
 – The Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Theft or Loss of Explosives. … 
 – Form number (if applicable): ATF F 5400.5.
 – Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. … 
 –  Abstract: According to 27 CFR 555.30 (a), “Any licensee or permittee who has knowledge or theft or loss of any explosive materials from his stock shall, within 24 hours of discovery, report the theft or loss by telephoning 1-800-800-3855 (nationwide toll free number) and on ATF F 5400.5, Report of Theft or Loss of Explosives, in accordance with the instructions on the form.” … 
 
 Dated: November 14, 2018.
Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Concerns Procedures for Submitting Requests for Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits — Existing Contract: Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports [Publication Date: 20 Nov 2018.]
 
* Commerce; Industry and Security Bureau; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Concerns License Transfer and Duplicate License Services
[Publication Date: 20 Nov 2018.] 
 
* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement 
[Publication Date: 20 Nov 2018.] 

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

OGS_a2
4. 
Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a35. 
DHS/CBP Updates ACE ABI Batch & Block CATAIR 

(Source: 
CSMS# 18-000687, 19 Nov 2018.) 
 
An updated version of the ACE ABI Batch & Block CATAIR is posted online at CBP.gov at the following location (V16): 
here.

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

OGS_a46
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: 
State/DDTC)

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

(Source: 
Treasury/OFAC, 19 Nov 2018.) [Excerpts.]


The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a $53,966,916.05 settlement with Société Générale S.A. to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of U.S. sanctions.  The settlement resolves OFAC’s investigation into Société Générale S.A.’s processing of transactions to or through the United States or U.S. financial institutions in a manner that removed, omitted, obscured, or otherwise failed to include references to OFAC-sanctioned parties in the information sent to U.S. financial institutions that were involved in the transactions.  Société Générale S.A. processed 1,077 transactions totaling $5,560,452,994.36 in apparent violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515; the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560; and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 538. … 

 
Société Générale S.A. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of Multiple Sanctions Programs: Société Générale S.A., a financial institution headquartered in Paris, France, has agreed to remit $53,966,916.05 to settle its potential civil liability for the 1,077 apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515 (CACR); the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 560 (ITSR) [FN/1]; and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 538 (SSR) [FN/2] (collectively, the “Apparent Violations”). This settlement with OFAC is part of a global settlement among Société Générale S.A., OFAC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the New York State Department of Financial Services. 
 
OFAC determined that Société Générale S.A. did voluntarily self-disclose the Apparent Violations and that the Apparent Violations constitute an egregious case. The total base penalty amount for the Apparent Violations was $101,630,490.80. 
 
For at least five years up to and including 2012, Société Générale S.A. processed transactions to or through the United States or U.S. financial institutions that involved countries or persons (individuals and entities) subject to the sanctions programs administered by OFAC (collectively, “OFAC- sanctioned parties”). Société Générale S.A. often processed these transactions in a non-transparent manner that removed, omitted, obscured, or otherwise failed to include references to OFAC-sanctioned parties in the information sent to the U.S. financial institutions that were involved in the transactions. For more information regarding the conduct that led to the Apparent Violations, please see the Settlement Agreement between OFAC and Société Générale S.A. 
here.
 
Société Générale S.A. processed 796 transactions involving Cuba totaling approximately $5,503,813,992.25 between July 11, 2007 and October 26, 2010, in apparent violation of the CACR. The total base penalty for this set of apparent violations was $25,870,000.00. Société Générale S.A. processed 30 transactions involving Iran totaling approximately $34,152,962.50 between November 20, 2008 and January 20, 2009, in apparent violation of the ITSR. The total base penalty for this set of apparent violations was $34,152,962.50. Société Générale S.A. processed 251 transactions involving Sudan totaling $22,486,039.61 between July 9, 2007 and March 19, 2012, in apparent violation of the SSR. The total base penalty for this set of apparent violations was $41,656,278.22. 
 
The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following facts and circumstances, pursuant to the General Factors Affecting Administrative Action under OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. Part 501, app. A. OFAC found the following to be aggravating factors:
 
  – Société Générale S.A. had indications that its conduct might constitute a violation of U.S. law, and certain Société Générale S.A. employees demonstrated awareness that Société Générale S.A.’s conduct constituted a violation of U.S. law before and at the time the Apparent Violations took place; 
  – Société Générale S.A. exercised a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements when it demonstrated a pattern or practice across multiple bank units and business lines of processing transactions to or through U.S. financial institutions after removing, omitting, obscuring, or otherwise failing to include the involvement of OFAC-sanctioned parties in associated payment instructions, which apparently continued practices set out in stripping instructions that the bank drafted, disseminated, and revoked prior to 2007; 
  – Société Générale S.A. ignored warning signs that its conduct could have constituted an apparent violation of U.S. sanctions laws on numerous occasions, including on numerous occasions when U.S. financial institutions rejected payment instructions containing references to OFAC-sanctioned parties, and when bank employees read OFAC’s enforcement actions and discussed the similarities between the conduct in those enforcement actions and Société Générale S.A.’s payment practices; 
  – Numerous Société Générale S.A. employees and members of the bank’s management across multiple business lines and bank locations had actual knowledge of the conduct that led to the Apparent Violations; 
  – Société Générale S.A.’s conduct conferred significant economic benefit to persons subject to U.S. sanctions and undermined the integrity and policy objectives of multiple U.S. sanctions programs; and 
  – Société Générale S.A. is a large and commercially sophisticated financial institution. 
 
OFAC found the following to be mitigating factors: 
 
  – Société Générale S.A. has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the date of the earliest transaction giving rise to the Apparent Violations; 
  – Société Générale S.A. cooperated with OFAC’s investigation of the Apparent Violations by conducting an internal investigation, responding to multiple requests for information in a timely manner, and executing a statute of limitations tolling agreement with multiple extensions; and 
  – Société Générale S.A. took remedial action in response to the apparent violations described above: 
     (i) Société Générale S.A has terminated the conduct outlined above and has established, and agrees to maintain, policies and procedures that prohibit, and are designed to minimize the risk of the recurrence of, similar conduct in the future.  
     (ii) Société Générale S.A has created a centralized sanctions compliance function, implemented key enhancements at the group level, and implemented enhancements within the business lines that were subject to the review. 
     (iii) Société Générale S.A has increased the number of personnel within compliance staffing, and SG’s total budget for sanctions compliance has also increased. 
     (iv) Société Générale S.A has implemented a more comprehensive training regime for employees across the group and various business lines, including a group-wide general training program. Group Sanctions Compliance has also developed targeted, in-person training for employees with a higher risk of exposure to sanctions-related transactions. 
 
For more information regarding OFAC regulations, please visit: 
http://www.treasury.gov/ofac
 
———- 
  [FN/1] On October 22, 2012, OFAC changed the title of the Iranian Transactions Regulations to the ITSR, amended the renamed ITSR, and reissued them in their entirety. 
See 77 Fed. Reg. 64,664 (Oct. 22, 2012). For the sake of clarity, all references herein to the ITSR shall mean the regulations in 31 C.F.R. Part 560 in effect at the time of the activity, regardless of whether such activity occurred before or after the regulations were renamed. 
  [FN/2] On January 13, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13761, “Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Providing for the Revocation of Certain Sudan-Related Sanctions.” This Executive Order terminated the national emergency with respect to Sudan, revoked sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, and revoked Executive Order 13412 of October 13, 2006 in its entirety. However, Section 1 of Executive Order 13761 states that the revocation of those provisions of Executive Order of 13067 and of Executive Order 13412 shall not affect any violation of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action under those orders during the period that those provisions were in effect. See OFAC’s website for more information: 
here.

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

OGS_68. 
EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning Iraq

(Source: 
Official Journal of the European Union, 19 Nov 2018.)
 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1781 of 16 November 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq

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

OGS_79. 
EU Council Adopts New Strategy Against Illicit Firearms, Small Arms and Light Weapons, and Their Ammunition

(Source: 
Council of the European Union, 19 Nov 2018.)
 
On 19 November 2018, the Council adopted a new EU strategy against illicit firearms, small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition “Securing arms, protecting citizens”.
 
Illicit SALW continue to contribute to instability and violence in the EU, in its immediate neighborhood, and in the rest of the world. Illicit small arms are fueling armed violence and organised crime, global terrorism and conflicts, thwarting sustainable development and crisis management efforts. They destabilise entire regions, states and their societies, and increase the impact of terrorist attacks. This is why the Council is committed to preventing and curbing the illicit trade in SALW and their ammunition and is promoting accountability and responsibility with regard to their legal trade.
 
The new EU strategy replaces the strategy adopted in 2005. The new strategy takes into account the evolved security context, including the threat of terrorism inside the EU and developments in SALW design and technology affecting the capacity of governments to address the threat. It also takes into account the guiding principles of the 2016 EU Global Strategy.
 

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a0
10
. 
Global Trade News: “UK and EU Draft 585 Page Brexit Deal” 

(Source: 
Integration Point Blog, 19 Nov 2018.) 
 
After almost two years of contentious negotiations, the European Union and the United Kingdom have drafted a withdrawal agreement. The 585-page agreement details the regulations of the transition period for both sides after the UK exits the EU in March of 2019.
 
The deal aims to avoid a hard border between the UK and the EU, but several clauses within the agreement have proven controversial. One of the central points of dispute is the Irish border “backstop,” or the proposed solution to the fear of a hard border between EU member Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.
 
Key Clauses in the Draft
 
The draft covers topics ranging all the way from citizen’s movement across borders to the taxation of regional goods, such as Parma ham. There are, however, five essential stipulations in the agreement that are the most talked about.
Transition Period
 
The transition period is outlined extensively in the draft. Under this agreement, EU customs law will prevail until December 31, 2020 to allow businesses and administrations time to prepare their infrastructure for new regulations. The UK will retain market access to the remaining 27 EU countries during this time, but will lose the right to vote on EU matters upon the exit date, according to the drafted agreement.
 
Irish “Backstop”
 
The deal outlines a “backstop” arrangement for the Irish border. Should the EU and UK fail to reach an agreement by the end of the transitional period, a single customs territory will be established between Ireland and Northern Ireland. This clause is met with fears that British companies could take advantage of the single customs territory and manufacture and distribute products more cheaply, with access to tariff-free movement to the rest of the EU.
Citizen’s Freedom of Movement
 
The draft also guarantees freedom of movement to the more than three million EU citizens presiding in the UK and more than one million UK nationals in EU countries. In other words, citizens can continue to live, work, and move between EU member states freely, at least until a final agreement is reached.
Brexit Bill
 
The Brexit bill within the agreement covers the UK’s divorce from the EU, and the methodology behind the UK’s financial obligation to the EU. Under this bill, the UK must honor all existing financial commitments to the EU programs. The British government estimates this commitment to be about €44 billion.
 
Joint Dispute Settlement
 
Finally, the draft demands that all regulatory, customs, and business disputes must be consulted and settled by a joint EU-UK committee. If no mutual solution can be found, an independent panel will be called upon to settle disputes.
 
Brexit negotiations are far from over, to say the least. With several contentious clauses argued both by supporters and dissenters of Brexit, major hurdles remain in the way of a “done deal.” Additionally, separately from the draft, the EU and UK must still negotiate their future relationships moving forward, particularly regarding trade. … 

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

NWS_a1
11. 
Reuters: “Berlin Imposes Entry Ban, Arms Freeze Over Khashoggi Killing”

(Source: 
Reuters, 19 Nov 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
 
Germany banned Saudi citizens suspected of involvement in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from much of Europe on Monday and moved to halt all arms sales to the kingdom in a firming of its stance towards Riyadh.
 
The entry bans, targeting 18 Saudis suspected of playing a role in the killing of Khashoggi in Riyadh’s Istanbul consulate, bind all members of the European Union’s passport-free Schengen zone, suggesting that Germany is willing to use its influence as the EU’s largest country to push for a tougher line. … 
 
A [German Foreign Ministry] spokesman later added that the government would further cut down on arms exports by pressuring arms manufacturers with valid export licenses to stop shipments that had already been authorized.
 
The moves represent a sharpening of the position of Germany, which last month imposed a ban on the issuing of future export weapons export licenses to Saudi Arabia until the circumstances of Khashoggi’s killing have been fully cleared up.
 
Any member of the 26-country Schengen area can unilaterally impose a binding entry ban on anyone it deems a security risk, although it unusual for a country to impose such a large number of bans at once in such a politically sensitive case.
 
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters in Brussels the decision was closely coordinated with France, which is part of the Schengen zone, and Britain, which is not. He said EU states expressed “great support” for the decision when he briefed them in Brussels on Monday. … 

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

NWS_a312
. 
The Voice of Vietnam Online: “Better Import-Export Control Needed to Shelter Vietnam From Trade War: Seminar”

(Source: 
The Voice of Vietnam Online, 19 Nov 2018.) [Excerpts.]
 
With the U.S.-China trade war escalating, Chinese firms could ship their unfinished products to Vietnam and then export them to the U.S. through a Vietnam-based firm as an intermediary to avoid tariffs, Ngo Vo Minh Hung, business director of VIFON, warned.
 
This would affect Vietnam, as evidenced by the case of steel originating in China but exported from Vietnam, he said, noting that the U.S. Department of Commerce had decided to slap tariffs on steel produced in Vietnam using Chinese-origin materials.
 
With the trade war causing difficulties for Chinese firms in exporting to the U.S., they would increase exports to other countries, including Vietnam, putting big pressure on local producers, he said. 
 

Hung called on related agencies to better monitor imports and exports to prevent the import of poor quality products and customs fraud. …  

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COMM_a00
13. 
B. Egan: “Treasury Sanctions 17 Saudi Officials, Though Not the Crown Prince, in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi”

(Source: 
Steptoe International Compliance Blog, 16 Nov 2018.) 
 
* Authors: Brian Egan, Esq., 
began@steptoe.com, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
 
On November 15, OFAC 
imposed economic sanctions against 17 Saudi officials for their participation in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi, a journalist and ”
royal insider-turned-critic of Saudi policy“, was murdered at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2, 2018. Among the men designated in yesterday’s action are Saud Al-Qahtani-
a top aide to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman-and Saudi Consul General Mohammed Alotaibi. These individuals were designated pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which builds upon and implements the 
Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act targeting perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption.
 
Yesterday’s designations were announced hours after Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor 
said the death penalty was being sought for five out of eleven suspects charged in Khashoggi’s murder in Saudi Arabia. The economic sanctions do not target the Riyadh government or the Crown Prince, who the Saudi 
foreign minister said had “absolutely nothing to do” with the murder. Nonetheless, U.S. officials 
have continued to press the Saudi government for a full investigation.
 
The Treasury has also left open the door for additional actions against the designated individuals and others. 
According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, “The United States continues to diligently work to ascertain all of the facts and will hold accountable each of those we find responsible in order to achieve justice for Khashoggi’s fiancée, children, and the family he leaves behind.” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 
also called the announcement “an important step” in the response to Khashoggi’s killing and said his department would continue to seek facts, consult with Congress, and work with other countries to hold accountable anyone involved.
 
These designations reflect the latest round of the Trump Administration’s fairly aggressive use of this global human rights sanctions tool. Since President Trump issued Executive Order 13818 in December of 2017, the U.S. government has designated 101 individuals and entities, from over 20 countries, for sanctions under this authority.

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

COMM_a01
14. 
T. Dooner: “Compliance Science: How Incoterms Work”

(Source: 
Aborn & Co., 15 Nov 2018.) 
 
* Author: Timothy Dooner, Director of Marketing, Aborn & Co.
 
Who here can’t get their head around 
Incoterms? The most important part of every import and export invoice can also be the most baffling for many shippers, buyers, and sellers. What is it about these three-letter abbreviations that leave so many of us scratching our collective heads? What exactly are Incoterms, what do they mean to you, and how can you use them to your advantage?
 
International Commercial Terms (‘Incoterms’) are internationally recognized standard trade terms used in sales contracts. They’re used to make sure buyer and seller know:  
  – Who is responsible for the cost of transporting the goods, including insurance, taxes and duties  
  – Where the goods should be picked up from and transported to
  – Who is responsible for the goods at each step during transportation

While there are 11 Incoterms, an easier way to think about them is look at them as 4 groups separated by the first letter of their abbreviation. You’ll see why below.
 
E – Departure (
EXW)      
F – Main Carriage Unpaid (FCA, FAS, FOB)
C – Main Carriage Paid
  (
CFR, CIF, CPT, CIP)    
D – Arrival
 (DAT, DAP, DDP)

E Group – E is for Easy. The easiest of all for the seller. This simply means that they are selling you the goods at invoice value with no added transportation or insurance costs. You sell them, pack them, and make them available at your warehouse/factory then the buyer handles the rest. While this is the least involved term for the seller, it is the most involved for the buyer as the buyer now has to arrange everything else. In addition, the buyer assumes all risks involved as soon as the goods are pick-ed up.
 
F Group – F is for Free. Not of cost, unfortunately, but free (cleared) to export. Here’s where the buyer and the seller both begin taking responsibility for the move. On an F term, the seller would arrange inland transportation and bring the goods to the port/terminal of the buyer’s choosing and clear them for export through customs. The buyer would be responsible for paying for any ocean/air freight, customs, duties, & terminal fees at the port of arrival, as well as any additional transportation costs associated in getting these goods to their final destination.
 
C Group – C is for Carriage aka freight. If you’re buying on a C term your seller is not just bringing the goods from their warehouse to the port of export, they’re also paying for the overseas shipping to your named port/terminal of arrival. Once at the port, the buyer then clears customs, pays all terminal charges, and arranges delivery to the goods final destination. In a term like CIP, the I stands for insurance. Beware of getting your insurance through the seller as they are not obligated to select an all-risk policy leaving you with more exposure than you’d assumed.
 
D Group – D is for delivered. Here the seller must pay for all costs associated with getting the goods to the port/terminal of arrival. The first thing that separates the C’s from the D’s is that in the C terms, the buyer assumes ownership/risk of the freight once it arrives at the carrier. With a D term, risk/ownership isn’t transferred until the ship arrives at the port/terminal of arrival. D terms are also the only ones that can include both delivery to the goods’ final destination as well as import customs & duties charges.
 
 
Here’s what it all looks like laid out:
 
You may be thinking, DDP looks great! I pay one price, assume no risk, and the goods will show up free of any additional obligations. While this is true, here could be the problem with a term like DDP: every one of those steps along the way is a transaction. Each one of those transactions will be added to your cost of purchasing. While you may pay one price, that price is derived from the cost of all of these transactions behind it plus any profit the seller may add.
 
This can significantly increase your cost of goods in a number of ways. If your seller has poor rate contracts, adds a surcharge, or both, that could end up rolled into your invoice cost.
 
In addition, you’re allowing the seller to select all of your carriers along the way. Once you’ve paid them, their interest now shifts to getting the best rates for themselves. This could mean using less reliable carriers, slower services, and ultimately, delays in receiving your cargo. In addition, you’d be relying on a foreign entity to handle customs in a country they may not be familiar with.
 
Maybe there is some risk involved after all.
 
Got it! So EXW is the way to go? Not so fast. The problem with a term like EXW is that now you’re responsible for a lot of groundwork in a country where you may not have the proper relationships in place to handle those logistics. Dealing with foreign truckers and export customs can be a nightmare for many buyers.
 
So what’s a discering buyer to do? Fortunately, there are 9 other Incoterms. Many buyers find FOB to be just right. With FOB you don’t have to worry about dealing with overseas customs or truckers, but you can still pick you carriers, negotiate your own freight costs, use a local broker who knows customs at the port of arrival, and have your goods delivered to your warehouse by your preferred truckers.
 
If you’re a buyer and you use E or F terms, you control your freight volume. Significant freight volume can be used to leverage rates, create consolidations, and build routes.
 
The same logic applies if you’re a seller. Shipping can be turned into a profit center as costs can be added at the time of sale increasing margins and giving your business a competitive advantage.
 
What term you use depends on your situation. The most import thing is to buy and sell on the correct one and as The Rock says, “Know your Role!”
 
If you have a robust import/export program you likely would want to buy (import) EXW-FOB and sell (export) DAT-DDP.
 
If you’re buying or selling a couple containers a year and don’t have the resources to handle the logistics it could be to your advantage to do the reverse. Buy DAT-DDP and sell EXW-FOB as you simply don’t have the volume to create leverage nor the staff to cover the workload.
 
Knowing your invoice Incoterms is knowing your asset’s cost. Knowing your asset’s cost is knowing your asset’s value!

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


MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a115. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 20 New Openings Posted This Week

(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

 


Acco Brands; Lake Zurich, IL; 
North America Trade Compliance Specialist Classification
;


Agility; Atlanta, GA; 
Export Compliance Administrator
;

* Agility; Bensenville, IL; 
Ocean Export Coordinator
;

* Agility; Carson, CA;
Air Export Coordinator
;
* Agility; Charlotte, NC;
Import Manager/Licensed Customs Broker
;
* Agility; East Boston, MA; Customs/Entry Writer Coordinator
 ;

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

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

Amazon; Washington D.C., DC; Manager, Export Control & Trade Compliance;

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


Apple; Cupertino, CA; 
Export Compliance Progam Manager

* Arrow; Shanghai, China; Compliance Manager;


BAE Systems; Arlington, VA; 
HR Operations & Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 43632BR

BAE Systems; Kingsport, TN; 
Procurement Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 43934BR

BAE Systems; Louisville, KY; 
Director Supply Chain Compliance
; Requisition ID: 43499BR

BAE Systems; Phoenix, AZ; 
Procurement Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 41374BR

* BAE Systems; Poznań, Poland; Export Control Officer;


BAE Systems; York, PA; 
Director Supply Chain Compliance
; Requisition ID: 41857BR

BAE Systems; York, PA; Senior Procurement Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 43033BR 


Boeing; Berlin, Germany; 
Trade Control Specialist (Experienced)
; Requisition ID: 1800083558


Ascent Aerospace; Lake Orion, MI; 
ITAR/EAR/Export Compliance Manager
;

BAE Systems; Poznań, Poland; Export Control Officer;

* Bio-Rad Laboratories: Hercules, CA;
Regional Trade Compliance Manager – Americas
; Requisition ID: 2018-8158; kelly_demorais@bio-rad.com;
* Bio-Rad Laboratories; Hercules, CA;
Sr. Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2018-8159; kelly_demorais@bio-rad.com;

* 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;

CIRCOR International, Inc.; Burlington, MA; 
Director of Corporate Trade Compliance
 


CISCO; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Global Export Trade Manager – EMEAR;


ConvaTec; Greensboro, NC; 
Associate Manager, Customs & Trade
; Requisition ID: JR0000536

* Curtiss-Wright Corporation; Bournemouth, Dorset, UK; Senior Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 3621

Doosan; West Fargo, ND; 
Director Customs & Trade Compliance
*
 
DynCorp International; Forth Worth, TX; 
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 1804484

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


Eastman; Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands; 
 Trade Compliance Manager;

Electrolux; Charlotte, NC; Director Customs and Trade Compliance

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

*
 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.; San Jose, CA;
 
Trade Compliance Manager
;

* Flash Global; Sao Paolo, Brazil;
Import and Export Analyst III
;

* FLIR; Irvine, 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;  
 

* FLIR; Täby, Sweden; 
GTC EMEA Customs Analyst
;

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

*
GCP Applied Technologies; Cambridge, MA; 
Trade Compliance Manager
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Director, Compliance
; Requisition ID: 18549BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Experienced Project Manager – Compliance Management
; Requisition ID: 20913BR

General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Government Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 20593BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Senior Government Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 20736BR

General Dynamics; Arlington, VA; 
Export Policy Analyst
; Requisition ID: 2018-48185 


* Google; Mountain View, CA; 
Trade Specialist, Export Compliance
; sdemian@google.com;

Google; Sunnyvale, CA; 
Export Compliance Manager
;

Greene, Tweed & Co.; Kulpsville, PA; 
Export Compliance Specialist
;
* Harris Corporation; Van Nuys, CA; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
;
rwellbro@harris.com
; Job ID: ES20182408-26963

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


HealthNewCo; Irivine, CA;
Director, Global Trade Compliance;
* 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
;

Henkel AG; Rocky Hill, CT; 
Global Trade Defense Information Manager
;

* 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; Specialist Export Control;
*
 
Infinera; Sunnyvale, CA; Director, Global Logistics and Trade Compliance;

*
 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

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

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


Leonardo DRS; Philadelphia, PA; 
Manager of Import/Export
; Requisition ID: 1530; 
Justin.johnson3@agustawestland.com

* Lockheed Martin; Bethesda, MD;
Regulatory Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 449353BR


* Lockheed Martin; Forth Worth, TX;
International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 447332BR

Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN; 
Associate Export Controls Analyst
; Requisition ID: 18000K22

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

*
MEGGITT Control Systems; North Hollywood, CA; 
Sr. Trade Compliance Specialist
;

* 
Microsoft; Redmond, WA; 
Senior Trade Manager, Export Control
;

MIT Lincoln Laboratory; Cambridge, MA; 
Export Compliance & Document Control Analyst;

Mitel; Ontario, CA;
Import/Export Analyst- Trade Compliance
;

* 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.

* Northrop Grumman; Linthicum, MD;
Manager Regulatory Compliance 2
; Requisition ID:
18016051
* Northrop Grumman; Orlando, FL;
International Trade Compliance Analyst 2
; Requisition ID: 18020191


Northrop Grumman; Rolling Meadows, IL; 
Intl Trade Compliance Analyst 3
; Requisition ID: 18023389

* 
NXP; Eindhoven, Netherlands; 
Trade Compliance Coordinator
;

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


Ormco; Amersfoort, The Netherlands; 
EU Trade Compliance Specialist;

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


PepsiCo; Chicago, IL; Customs Compliance Supervisor; Requisition ID: 160589BR

Philips; Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Export Control Officer;

* 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; 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
*
Richemont; Forth Worth, TX; 
Import/Export Manager
; Requisition ID: 8057

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


Signify; Eindhoven, The Netherlands; 
Global Trade Compliance Officer Export Controls

* The Safariland Group; Jacksonville, FL; Sr. Export Compliance Specialist;



TE Connectivity; El Cajon, CA or Middletown, PA; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist

tbaker@te.com
; Requisition 39143

TE Connectivity; El Cajon, CA or Middletown, PA; 
Licensing Specialist
tbaker@te.com
; Requisition 40514

* Textron Aviation; Wichita, KS;
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 269127

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

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

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

Toyota Tsusho America; Georgetown, KY; 
Import Export Compliance Specialist;
#
 United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist

Requisition ID 72822BR
#
 United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
Sr. Manager International Trade Compliance

Requisition ID 75970BR
#
 United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; 
International Trade Compliance Authorizations Owner
; Requisition ID: 72822BR

* 
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

* 
Vigilant; Budapest, Hungary; Jr. Compliance Analyst;

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

* VT iDirect; Herndon VA;
 
Manager, Global Logistics
; Requisition ID: 2018R-3120-1;
 
psingh@idirect.net
;
*
 
Wesco International; Houston, TX; 
Export Compliance Specialist
;

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


World Wide Technology; Oude Meer, Netherlands; 
Trade and Compliance Specialist
;

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

* 
XPO Logistics; Amsterdam, Netherlands; Compliance Officer

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a216FCC Presents “Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 5 Feb 2019 in Bruchem, the Netherlands

(Source: Full Circle Compliance, 
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu.)
 
The next Full Circle Compliance (FCC) academy course is specifically designed for beginning compliance professionals who aim to enhance their organization’s compliance efforts.  The course will cover multiple topics and tackle various questions, including but not limited to:
 
 – Setting the Scene: ensuring compliance in the export control and sanctions arena
 – What is expected from your organization? A closer look at the frameworks and guidelines from U.S. and European government agencies (incl. State/DDTC, Commerce/BIS, Treasury/OFAC, European Union, The Netherlands, and Germany) 
 – Key elements of an Internal Compliance Program
 – Strategic benefits of an Internal Compliance Program
 – Best practice tips for enhancing your compliance activities
 – Compliance Toolkit: internal controls samples (policies, procedures, instructions, checklists)
 
* What: Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions 
* When: Tuesday, 5 Feb 2019, 9.00 AM – 4.30 PM (CET)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: 
Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* Instructors: Drs. Ghislaine C.Y. Gillessen RA, Marco F.N. Crombach MSc
* Information & Registration: via the 
event page, via
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or call +31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES


Pierre Bayle (18 Nov 1647 – 28 Dec 1706; was a French philosopher and writer best known for his seminal work 
The Historical and Critical Dictionary.)
  – “The antiquity and general acceptance of an opinion is not assurance of its truth.”
 
*
James A. Garfield (James Abram Garfield; 19 Nov 1831 – 19 Sep 1881; was the 20th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1881, until his assassination later that year.  He is the only sitting House member to be elected president.)

  – “A law is not a law without coercion behind it.”
 
Monday is pun day:
* Q. Why did the teddy bear say no to dessert?  
A. Because he was stuffed.
* Q. What did one plate say to the other plate?  
A. “Dinner is on me!”
* Q. When you look for something, why is it always in the last place you look?
A. Because when you find it, you stop looking.

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

EN_a318
. 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: 2 Nov 2018: 
83 FR 55099: Wassenaar Arrangement 2017 Plenary Agreements Implementation [Correction to 24 Oct EAR Amendment Concerning Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, Category 3.]


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

  – Last Amendment: 15 Nov 2018: 83 FR 57308-57318: Democratic Republic of the Congo 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: 1 Nov 2018: 
Harmonized System Update 1819, containing 1,200 ABI records and 245 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_a0319
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