;

19-0117 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0117 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 17 January 2019

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.

[No items of interest noted today.] 

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. Treasury/OFAC Temporarily Extends Ukraine-related General Licenses
  5. EU Posts Directives on the Marking of Firearms, Alarm, Signal Weapons
  1. Expeditors News: “India Delays Tariffs on Goods of US Origin” 
  2. MeriTalk: “Bipartisan Bill Could Ban U.S. Tech Exports to Some Chinese Telecoms” 
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “No Section 301 Tariff Exclusions on List 3 Goods Until March, USTR Says” 
  4. WorldECR News Alert, 17 Jan 
  1. M. Lester: “UK Passes Sanctions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
  2. M. Volkov: “The Danger of Benchmarking”
  3. R. Cook, K. Wheeler & J.A. Lee: “What Will Be FIRRMA’s Impact on Real Estate and Critical Infrastructure Transactions?”
  1. ECTI Presents “Handling Voluntary Disclosures and Internal Investigations” Webinar on 26 Feb
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (14 Jan 2019), DOC/EAR (20 Dec 2018), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOJ/ATF (26 Dec 2018), DOS/ITAR (4 Oct 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (15 Nov 2018), HTSUS (19 Dec 2018) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1
[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

 

* President; ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS; Middle East Peace Process, Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt; Continuation of National Emergency [Publication Date: 18 January 2019.]

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

OGS_a2
2. 
Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS)

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

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

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC, 16 Jan 2019.)
 
OFAC extends the expiration dates of certain general licenses related to EN+ Group PLC, JSC EuroSibEnergo, and United Company RUSAL PLC, by issuing the following three general licenses:  
General License No. 13J – Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Divest or Transfer Debt, Equity, or Other Holdings in Certain Blocked Persons;
General License No. 14E – Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to Maintenance or Wind Down of Operations or Existing Contracts with United Company RUSAL PLC; and
General License No. 16E – Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to Maintenance or Wind Down of Operations or Existing Contracts with EN+ Group PLC or JSC EuroSibEnergo.

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

(Source:
Official Journal of the European Union, 17 Jan 2019.)
 
Directives:
* Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/68 of 16 January 2019 establishing technical specifications for the marking of firearms and their essential components under Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons
* Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69 of 16 January 2019 laying down technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a16. Expeditors News: “India Delays Tariffs on Goods of US Origin”
(Source: Expeditors News, 16 Jan 2019.)
 
On December 15, 2018, the Government of India’s Ministry of Finance delayed the implementation of previously announced tariffs on goods of U.S. origin until January 31, 2019.
 
The list of tariffs that was originally sent to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in May contained additional rates of tariffs on a variety of agricultural, textile, steel and aluminum, and other goods. The list of tariffs are in response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum products from India.
 
The notification published in the Gazette of India may be found
here.
 
The WTO notice from May may be found
here.

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

NWS_a27. MeriTalk: “Bipartisan Bill Could Ban U.S. Tech Exports to Some Chinese Telecoms”
(Source: MeriTalk, 16 Jan 2019.)
 
Members of the House and Senate announced introduction of the Telecommunications Denial Order Enforcement Act yesterday, which would require the Trump administration to issue export denial orders for Chinese telecommunications companies caught breaking export control laws and sanctions.
 
The bill, which specifically names China-based Huawei and ZTE as covered entities, would require the White House to report to Congress on Chinese companies that are in violation of sanctions or export controls, and to impose strict restrictions banning violators from participating “in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations.”
 
The bill also would ensure that penalties are not removed until violators have shown a pattern of compliance for at least one year, and would prohibit Executive branch officials, except for the President, from altering sanctions.
 
The proposed restrictions are similar to export restrictions already placed on ZTE, but the bill would expand the scope of the policy to all Chinese telecommunications companies.
 
The bipartisan bill was introduced by Reps. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., in the House, and Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ariz., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., in the Senate.
 
  “This bipartisan legislation sets a simple standard: if a Chinese telecommunications firm is found to have violated U.S. sanctions moving forward, it will be subject to the same severe punishment originally imposed on ZTE,” said Gallagher.
 
The bill’s sponsors mentioned the arrest in Canada last month of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou for allegedly violating U.S. sanctions, and names Huawei as a major motivating factor for the bill. She remains under arrest in Canada and it’s unclear whether the Huawei executive, who is the daughter of the company’s founder, will be extradited to the U.S.
 
  “Huawei and ZTE are two sides of the same coin. Both companies have repeatedly violated U.S. laws, represent a significant risk to American national security interests, and need to be held accountable. Moving forward, we must combat China’s theft of advanced U.S. technology and their brazen violation of U.S. law,” said Van Hollen.
 
  “If Chinese telecom firms like Huawei violate our sanctions or export control laws, they should receive nothing less than the death penalty-which this denial order would provide,” said Cotton.

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

NWS_a38. ST&R Trade Report: “No Section 301 Tariff Exclusions on List 3 Goods Until March, USTR Says”
 
The Trump administration will not initiate a process for excluding goods from the Section 301 additional tariff on $200 billion worth of imports from China until at least March, according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. In addition, Lighthizer said, those goods cannot be exempted from the tariff by being entered into a foreign-trade zone.
 
The so-called List 3 goods were hit with an additional 10 percent tariff as of Sept. 24, 2018, as part of the administration’s response to a determination that China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory. (
Click here for a list of affected goods and details on all actions taken in this Section 301 case.) 
 
USTR has accepted requests for exclusions from the Section 301 additional 25 percent tariff on $50 billion worth of goods from China (which was imposed July 6, 2018, on so-called List 1 items and Aug. 23, 2018, on List 2 items) and, according to Lighthizer, has granted
nearly 1,000 exclusions for List 1 goods. Despite requests from industry and hundreds of lawmakers, however, USTR has not provided for exclusions for List 3 goods.
 
In letters to lawmakers this week, Lighthizer said USTR will only initiate an exclusion process for these goods if ongoing negotiations with China fail and the additional tariff increases from 10 percent to 25 percent on March 2.
 
Regarding Chinese goods admitted into FTZs and subsequently entered into U.S. commerce, Lighthizer said “longstanding rules and practices governing such entries continue to apply.” As a result, he said, “as of this time we have not found a basis for exempting U.S. importers who use FTZs from the additional duties, when those duties apply to all other U.S. importers.”
 

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

NWS_a49. WorldECR News Alert, 17 Jan

(Source: WorldECR, 17 Jan 2019.)
 
The current edition features the following articles:
  (1) Plans for exports after a no-deal Brexit attain new urgency
  (2) Update for exporters on prolonged US government shutdown
  (3) US Treasury pushes ahead with lifting of Deripaska-related sanctions, despite opposition
  (4) EU implements first UN sanctions on Mali
  (5) Typhoon OGEL updated to include Qatar
 

[Editor’s Note: To subscribe to WorldECR, the journal of export controls and sanctions, please visit
http://worldecr.com/.]

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


COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source:
European Sanctions Blog, 17 Jan 2019.)
 
* Author: Maya Lester, Esq., Brick Court Chambers,
maya.lester@brickcourt.co.uk, +44 20 7379 3550.
 
The UK has passed the Sanctions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019,
SI 2019/26, which make amendments to a number of EU sanctions regimes to ensure (inter alia) that they continue to apply within the UK after Brexit. The Regulations will come into force on exit day.

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

(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 17 Jan 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
As the Bible reminds us, “Beware of false prophets,” or in the compliance context, “Beware of false [measurements].”
 
Compliance professionals have an obsession with benchmarking their compliance programs. Why are compliance officers so obsessed with such comparisons?
 
Compliance is a function that, by definition, involves objective and subjective measurements. In its simplest form, compliance success is measured by the absence of a negative occurrence. Such a narrow view, however, falls way short of what compliance really is – the promotion and adherence to a culture of compliance as a guiding mission for an organization.
 
Compliance officers grasp for some reduction of anxiety about their performance and their compliance programs. They search for meaning not from the intrinsic value of their respective programs and whether they align with the company’s risk profile, but they seek reassurance that their program is operating effectively from a comparison of various elements with other companies, sometimes in the same industry.
 
Like anything else in life, the value of any comparison depends on perspective and understanding what exactly is the objective and the manner in which such comparison is conducted. In this process is where danger exists.
 
Companies vary by a variety of factors – indeed, I would argue that no two companies are alike. Each bear individual characteristics that reflect the company’s history, ownership, management, business strategies and other specific characteristics. Each company has its own DNA. A comparison of one to another – even with confirmation of similar size, number of employees, revenues and other characteristics – can be a deceivingly simplistic comparison that ignores significant distinctions.
 
Two companies that facially appear similar may differ in basic risk-bearing issues such as numbers of third-party sales agents versus in-house sales staff. One company may choose to sell to customers from an in-house staff, while another may choose a different strategy to sell through third-party agents. A comparison of these two companies and the allocation of compliance resources may be a comparison of little evidentiary value.
 
It is difficult to isolate the various business characteristics to conduct a meaningful comparison among companies on compliance issues. The danger of such comparisons can be exacerbated by the weight accorded benchmarking. If a compliance professional relies on benchmarking as one of many factors, i.e. as a single data point, the risk of over-emphasis on a questionable comparison is lower. Unfortunately, I have witnessed to many compliance professionals relying on such invalid comparisons to provide “false comfort” as to the quality of the company’s compliance program.
 
Compliance professionals have to approach benchmarking with a wary and questioning eye so as not to fall into the trap of seeking to confirm a predetermined conclusion. If benchmarking is used carefully and with a skeptical approach, the data can be one of several important indicators as to a compliance program’s effectiveness.
 
A compliance professional who fails to heed such warning will only create potential risks of disinformation by citing so-called benchmarking comparisons. Like anything else, the value of a compliance program should not be based on the eye of the beholder but should depend on a more objective calculation and analysis.

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

(Source:
Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, 14 January 2019.)
 
* Authors: Randall Cook, Esq., Ankura, 
randy.cook@ankura.com, 646-291-8545; Katherine Wheeler, Risk Management Associate, Anukura,
katherine.wheeler@ankura.com, 646-291-8548; and Judith A. Lee, Esq., Gibson Dunn,
jalee@gibsondunn.com, +1 202-887-3591.
 
What Will Be FIRRMA’s Impact on Real Estate and Critical Infrastructure Transactions?
 
Foreign investment in U.S. real estate and critical infrastructure will soon be impacted by new national security review requirements. In August 2018, President Trump signed a law that will have significant impact on leasing, refinancing and developing real estate in the United States. The 
Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (“FIRRMA”) significantly expands the authority and resources of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review foreign direct investment FDI in companies and properties that are present in or provide goods or services to the United States. On October 10, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department 
issued the initial set of FIRRMA regulations, focused on foreign investment in critical technologies. But FIRRMA also specifically targets real estate and critical infrastructure transactions. This article describes CFIUS’s impact on the real estate and critical infrastructure industry and recommends actions investors and companies can take to prepare for continued success in this new regulatory environment.
 
What is CFIUS?
 
CFIUS is an interagency U.S. government committee that reviews statutorily-defined “covered transactions” to identify and address any consequent national security risks. CFIUS reviews seek to balance the U.S.’ foundational commitment to maintaining a free and open investment environment with the need to protect national security.
 
A CFIUS review of a covered transaction involves a national security risk analysis to identify any potential threat to national security arising from the characteristics of the foreign investor or through the nature of the U.S. target and its assets, technologies or information. Where risks are identified, CFIUS works with the parties to determine whether the risks can be mitigated either through modifications to the deal or post-transaction controls. If CFIUS determines that risks cannot be mitigated, the committee can recommend that the President block or, if already completed, unwind the transaction.
 
What is changing?
 
Increased national security concerns have prompted more rigorous CFIUS scrutiny in recent years, including required modification of deals and implementation of controls in real estate and critical infrastructure-related transactions. For example:
 
  – In April 2018, CFIUS required China’s COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. to commit to divesting interest in a Long Beach, Calif. port terminal as a condition to approval of the company’s acquisition of Orient Overseas International Ltd., a Hong Kong-based company.
  – HNA Group Co., a Chinese conglomerate, is 
reportedly under pressure from CFIUS in connection with a refinancing transaction to place its ownership interest in a midtown Manhattan building into a trust.
  – In August 2018, China’s 
Shenzhen Energy Group Ltd announced that it was dropping its bid to purchase three solar power facilities in California when CFIUS did not approve the deal.
 
These heightened national security concerns have culminated FIRRMA, statutory reform designed to increase the Committee’s powers. Changes that are particularly relevant to real estate and critical infrastructure transactions include:
 
  –
Scrutiny of non-controlling transactions: Any investment or change in ownership rights in U.S. businesses involved in critical technology, critical infrastructure or the collection of sensitive data of U.S. persons, which gives a foreign person access to material non-public technical information, board rights or substantive decision-making involvement, is now a covered transaction, even if the foreign investor does not acquire a controlling stake.
  –
Scrutiny of real estate transactions: Any purchase, lease, concession or other change in rights of a foreign person in real estate that is proximate to a U.S. government national security-sensitive installation is now a covered transaction.
  – 
Mandatory declarations: CFIUS previously relied on a substantially voluntary notification system. Under FIRRMA, certain covered transactions–including those that involve the acquisition of a “substantial interest” by a foreign government (including sovereign wealth funds) in critical infrastructure, critical technology or sensitive U.S. data businesses–will require mandatory declaration, with steep fines to enforce compliance.
  –
Evasion: FIRRMA gives CFIUS authority over any transaction that is “designed or intended to evade or circumvent” CFIUS jurisdiction. The statute also expands CFIUS resources and responsibility to proactively identify and review covered transactions that the parties failed to submit to CFIUS review. When CFIUS identifies such transactions, it can order a mandatory notification, may assess fines up to the value of the deal and can unwind the transaction itself.
  –
Mandatory mitigation plans: FIRRMA mandates that any national security risk identified by CFIUS must be addressed by a formal mitigation plan. The statute also explicitly ratifies the use of independent third parties to 
monitor such mitigation plans.
  –
Filing fees: FIRRMA authorizes CFIUS to charge a filing fee of up to 1 percent of the transaction value or $300,000, whichever is less.
 
What is the likely impact on the real estate/critical infrastructure industry?
 
As FIRRMA is implemented, CFIUS review will become a necessary hurdle for a substantial share of real estate and critical infrastructure transactions involving non-passive FDI. This impact will extend beyond acquisitions to include refinancing, leases and concessions and changes in investor rights and information access. Any transactions relating to critical infrastructure, property proximate to U.S. government facilities (particularly including the U.S. Capital region, port facilities and facilities near sensitive U.S. national security installations, currently including the Trump Tower), sovereign wealth-provided FDI, and/or transactions involving FDI from special concern countries (particularly China and Russia) will attract scrutiny. Once CFIUS focuses on a transaction, there is increased likelihood that mitigation measures will be required to address possible risks. The upshot is that foreign investors may have to pay a premium to account for the increased friction, overhead and risk of CFIUS-covered transactions.
 
Conversely, the overall effect may be to actually drive down prices as foreign capital (particularly Chinese and Russian) is handicapped from full participation in the market by the increased levels of friction and risk consequent to CFIUS review. 
 
What should you do?
 
If you sell, lease, refinance or develop real estate or critical infrastructure and the transactions involve foreign persons or financing, you should prepare for a more complex regulatory environment.
 
  – How do I determine if my property deal could be subject to CFIUS review?
  – What do I need to know about my investors to determine whether their involvement may impact the risk of CFIUS involvement or required mitigation?
  – Are there practical things I can do to reduce the risk of CFIUS involvement or reduce the impact on the value of the deal if CFIUS does become involved?
  – What are the practical steps and timelines for engaging with the regulatory process?
  – How do I price this into the deal?
 
Building a team of competent counsel and interdisciplinary experts who can help you answer these questions, understand the new CFIUS environment and deliberately set conditions for success at each stage of the CFIUS lifecycle may be essential to your business’s future.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a113. ECTI Presents “Handling Voluntary Disclosures and Internal Investigations” Webinar on 26 Feb

(Source: Danielle Hatch, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: Handling Voluntary Disclosures and Internal Investigations
* When: February 26, 2019 1:00 p.m. (EST)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Christopher Stagg
* Register: Here or Danielle Hatch, 540-433-3977, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

* Benjamin Franklin (17 Jan 1706 – 17 Apr 1790; was an American polymath and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Franklin was a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, humorist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among other inventions. He founded many civic organizations, including the Library Company, Philadelphia’s first fire department, and the University of Pennsylvania.)
  – “Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship.”
  – “Well done is better than well said.”
 
* Pedro Calderon de la Barca (Pedro Calderón de la Barca y Barreda González de Henao Ruiz de Blasco y Riaño; 17 Jan 1600 – 25 May 1681; was a dramatist, poet, and writer of the Spanish Golden Age.  He is regarded as one of Spain’s foremost dramatists and one of the finest playwrights of world literature.)
  – “When love is not madness, it is not love.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EN_a315
. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

 
* DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.
  – Last Amendment: 14 Jan 2019: 84 FR 112-116: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material from Bulgaria; and 84 FR 107-112: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Material From China 
 

DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Industry & Security.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Dec 2018: 83 FR 65292-65294: Control of Military Electronic Equipment and Other Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML); Correction [Concerning ECCN 7A005 and ECCN 7A105.]
 
* DOC FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30.  Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
  – 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 (1 Jan 2019) 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.   

 

DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M. Implemented by Dep’t of Defense.
  – 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.)
 
 
DOE ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ATOMIC ENERGY ACTIVITIES: 10 CFR Part 810; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 23 Feb 2015: 80 FR 9359, comprehensive updating of regulations, updates the activities and technologies subject to specific authorization and DOE reporting requirements. This rule also identifies destinations with respect to which most assistance would be generally authorized and destinations that would require a specific authorization by the Secretary of Energy.
 
DOE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 10 CFR Part 110; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Nov 2018, 10 CFR 110.6, Re-transfers.
 

* DOJ ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War.  Implemented by Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
  – 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.  

 

DOS INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130. Implemented by Dep’t of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
  – 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: 1 Jan 2019) 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.
 
* DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders. 

Implemented by Dep’t of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

  – Last Amendment: 15 Nov 2018: 83 FR 57308-57318: Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions Regulations
  
* USITC HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 2018: 19 USC 1202 Annex. Implemented by U.S. International Trade Commission. (“HTS” and “HTSA” are often seen as abbreviations for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated, shortened versions of “HTSUSA”.)
  – Last Amendment: 19 Dec 2018: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1820, containing 19,061 ABI records and 3,393 harmonized tariff records.
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

EN_a0316
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 6,500 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