19-0124 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0124 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 24 January 2019

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 Publishes Lapse in Funding Update
  1. Expeditors News: “UK Government Announces New Independent Trade Remedies Authority”
  2. Reuters: “U.S. Sanctions Hit Iran-Backed Airlines, Fighters In Syria”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “Preventing Foreign Technology Theft is Aim of New House Bill”
  1. The Export Compliance Journal: “Florida-Based Business Man Handed Largest Civil Penalty in BIS History”
  2. J.F. McKenzie: “Section 301 Duty Mitigation Strategies” (Part 1 of 3)
  3. M. Volkov: “The Dangerous Compliance Threat – Budget Cuts to Compliance Programs”
  1. ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ
  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 


  [No items of interest noted today.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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


[No items of interest noted today.]  

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

Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)


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



Publishes Lapse in Funding Update

(Source: State/DDTC, 24 Jan 2019.)
Effective Thursday, January 24, 2019, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) will temporarily return to full operational status with all electronic application systems placed in normal operational mode and the 3pm daily pick-up and drop-off service restored. Priority will be placed on issuance of licenses in the system at the time of implementation of lapse of funding operations on December 22, 2019. New licenses will be accepted; however, industry is advised of the likelihood of longer than normal processing times due to the high volume of licenses DDTC expects to receive. The “Emergency License” process described in DDTC’s December 22, 2019 announcement below is hereby suspended.

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


. Expeditors News: “UK Government Announces New Independent Trade Remedies Authority” 

Expeditors News, 23 Jan 2019.)
On January 17, 2019, the government of the United Kingdom (UK) announced that its new independent Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) will be ready if the UK exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.
According to the press release, “[t]he TRA will form a key part of the UK’s new independent trade policy” and will be responsible for investigating cases of unfair trade practices. The TRA also has planned to launch a website to allow people to submit applications and evidence for such investigations.
The press release may be found 

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

Reuters: “U.S. Sanctions Hit Iran-Backed Airlines, Fighters In Syria”

Reuters, 24 Jan 2018.) [Excerpts.] 
The United States on Thursday targeted two Iran-backed foreign fighter militias in Syria and two airlines that help send weapons to Syria in fresh sanctions as Washington prepares for a military withdrawal from the war-torn country.
All four groups are linked to Iran’s Mahan Air and Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, both of which are already blacklisted, the U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement.
The Fatemiyoun Division and Zaynabiyoun Brigade are being designated for providing material support to the IRGC-QF, the statement said. …

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

ST&R Trade Report: “Preventing Foreign Technology Theft is Aim of New House Bill” 

Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 24 Jan 2019.)
Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives Jan. 22 seeks to safeguard U.S. technology and intellectual property from export to or influence by China and to protect U.S. businesses from unfair competition by China.
“Beijing’s Made in China 2025 initiative has made it clear that the Chinese government’s objective is to drive American companies out of business and move their technology and jobs to China at any cost, including the use of illegal trade practices,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, one of the bill’s sponsors. The Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act (H.R. 704) would respond by “barring the sale of national security sensitive U.S. intellectual property and technology to China, as well as ensuring that China is paying its fair share in taxes.”
According to a press release from Conaway’s office, H.R. 704 is the companion legislation to S. 2, which would create an Office of Critical Technologies and Security at the White House that would be responsible for coordinating across agencies and developing a long-term, whole-of-government strategy to protect against state-sponsored technology theft and risks to critical supply chains. “While the United States is operating in a 24-hour news cycle, China has a long term plan reaching 50 to 100 years,” explained bill co-sponsor Rep. Tim Ryan, R-Ohio. “We need to get ahead of the game and strengthen our economy, and this legislation will put us on that path forward.”
The new office would be directed to coordinate and consult with federal and state technology and telecommunications regulators, the private sector, nongovernmental experts and academic stakeholders, and key international partners and U.S. allies to ensure that every available tool is being utilized to safeguard supply chains and protect emerging, foundational, and dual-use technologies. The goal is to improve the federal response to challenges such as China and other nations attempting to achieve technological and economic superiority over the U.S. through the improper acquisition and transfer of critical technologies as well as U.S. reliance on foreign products that have been identified as national security risks (e.g., those manufactured by Chinese telecom companies ZTE and Huawei).

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


Eric Baird, former CEO of the Sarasota-based package consolidation and shipping service Access USA Shipping, has agreed to pay $17M for willful violations of Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulations.
On December 18, 2018, Baird entered a guilty plea to 166 counts of U.S. export control laws administrative violations, stemming from Access USA intentionally misrepresenting values and descriptions of items on export documentation, and shipping items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL) without the appropriate licenses. For example, the Federal Register lists at least once instance where 
laser sights were identified as “tools and hardware.”
In addition to his own willful export violations, Baird also caused, aided, or abetted Access USA employees, forwarders, and carriers to make false or misleading SED/AES filings with the U.S. Government, and, in some cases, failure to submit any filings for an export shipment.
Under Baird’s direction, employees of Access USA also purchased items for client using Baird’s personal credit card and their own personal cards. They were also instructed to have items delivered to their personal addresses for the express purpose of obscuring the intended recipient of the good purchased.
“Willfully and Intentionally”
Baird and other members of Access USA’s management were aware that their conduct constituted violations of export controls. They had previously received an outreach visit from the BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, during which they were provided with detailed information related to complying with Export Administration Regulations (EAR), as well as the penalties for violating these regulations. Additionally, in an email to Baird relating to the company’s practice of intentionally undervaluing shipments, his sister, Access USA’s Chief Technology Officer, made it known to Baird that she was not willing to continue being part of the practice of 
As part of his plea, Baird has been assessed a civil penalty of $17M, and faces a five-year suspension of his export privileges-including not being allowed to apply for export licenses, become involved in negotiations related to any transaction involving any export; or benefiting from any export transaction.
Baird is set to face sentencing on January 30, 2019, where 
it is expected he will be sentenced to two years of probation on a single criminal count.

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

Baker & McKenzie, 23 Jan 2019.)
* Author: John F. McKenzie, Esq., Baker & McKenzie,
Between July 6, 2018 and September 24, 2018, the United States Government imposed additional customs duties on approximately $250 billion worth of Chinese products when imported into the United States, under authority of section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. §2411 (“Section 301”). Although the intent of those Section 301 duties is to encourage the Chinese Government to abandon certain unreasonable and discriminatory trade practices, which unfairly restrict and burden United States commerce, the practical effect is to raise the cost of Chinese products to United States importers, and ultimately to United States consumers. This paper, therefore, suggests various strategies by which United States importers may be able to mitigate the effect of those section 301 duties on merchandise imported into the United States.
Section 301(b) authorizes the United States Trade Representative (the “USTR”) to undertake investigations of foreign countries’ trade policies, and to take certain “retaliatory actions” where the USTR determines that an act, policy or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce. Section 301(c) specifies the various actions that the USTR is authorized to take in response to a finding of such an unreasonable or discriminatory trade policy or practice by a foreign country, including the imposition of duties or other import restriction on the goods of that foreign country.
Pursuant to the statutory authority of Section 301, at the direction of the President, on August 18, 2017, the USTR initiated in investigation into certain acts, policies and practices of the Chinese Government related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation. Based on that investigation, by a notice published in the April 6, 2018 Federal Register, 83 Fed. Reg. 14906, the USTR found that the following Chinese Government policies and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict US commerce, and are, therefore, actionable under Section 301(b) [FN/1]:
– China uses foreign ownership restrictions, such as joint venture requirements and foreign equity limitations, and various administrative review and licensing processes, to require or pressure technology transfer from US companies.
– China’s regime of technology regulation forces US companies seeking to license technologies to Chinese entities to do so on non-market based terms favorable to Chinese recipients
– China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in and acquisition of US companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property, and generate the transfer of technology to Chinese companies.
– China conducts and supports unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of US companies to access their sensitive commercial information and trade secrets.
Based on those findings, the USTR proposed the imposition of additional 25% ad valorem duties on a list of products, identified by 6 digit tariff classification number on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), amounting to approximately $34 billion worth of products imported from China into the United States. After publication of that notice, and a public hearing and comment period, the USTR published the final list of products subject to that “first round” of Section 301 duties on June 20, 2018. See 83 Fed. Reg. 28710. Chinese products included on the final “first round” list became subject to the additional 25% ad valorem duties when imported on or after July 6, 2018.
The imposition of the Section 301 duties on the Chinese products included on that “first round” list did not result in a change in Chinese Government practices and policies found to be unreasonable and discriminatory in the USTR’s investigation [FN/2]. Instead, as part of an escalating “trade war” between the United States and China, the two additional lists of Chinese products have been subject to Section 301 duties. Specifically, a “second round” list of Chinese products, corresponding to approximately $16 billion in imported products, became subject to additional 25% ad valorem duties on August 23, 2018. A “third round” list of Chinese products, corresponding to approximately $200 billion worth of imports, became subject to additional 10% ad valorem duties on September 24, 2018 [FN/3]. See 83 Fed. Reg. 40823 (August 16, 2018) and 83 Fed. Reg. 47974 (September 21, 2018).
Section 301 Duty Mitigation Strategies
(a) Product Classification Analysis
Although approximately $250 billion worth of Chinese products are now subject to Section 301 duties (either at the 25% rate or the 10% rate), there are a large number of Chinese products, corresponding to approximately $267 billion worth of imports into the United States, that are not subject to those Section 301 duties. As noted above, the products that are subject to the Section 301 duties are identified by 6-digit HTSUS number in the Annexes to the various Federal Register notices imposing those Section 301 duties. Accordingly, importers that believe that the products that they import from China may be subject to Section 301 duties should review the classification for United States Customs purposes of those products. At least for some companies that import products from China which heretofore have been eligible for duty-free importation into the United States (i.e., zero rated), as a practical matter those products may not have been subject to a rigorous and detailed customs classification analysis. In those circumstances, importers may be well advised to reconsider the classification of the imported products in question, as reclassification, if warranted, may resulting in moving the imported products into a HTSUS subheading that is not currently subject to Section 301 duties [FN/4].
(b) Product Exclusion Process
In imposing the Section 301 duties on the “first round” and “second round” lists of products imported from China, the USTR created a process by which importers and other interested parties could petition for the exclusion of their specific products from those Section 301 duties. The Federal Register notices establishing the procedures for submitting product exclusion petitions identify the following factors that will be considered by the USTR in making decisions to grant or deny those petitions.
– Whether the particular product is available only from China, or whether there are comparable products available in the United States or from third countries.
– Whether the imposition of additional duties on the particular product would cause severe economic harm to the particular importer requesting exclusion or to other United States interests.
– Whether the particular product is strategically important or related to the “Made in China 2025” Chinese Government industrial program.
– The ability of US Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) to administer the exclusion of the particular product. [FN/5]
A further factor that may be particularly relevant is the source of the imported products from China. Thus, if the products are manufactured and supplied to the United States importer by its wholly-owned subsidiary in China, the unreasonable and discriminatory trade practices and policies to which the USTR’s Section 301 investigation was directed would not be implicated, as the United States importer would then have been able to make a direct foreign investment in China, and to transfer manufacturing technology to that Chinese entity, without being subject to the foreign investment restrictions or forced technology transfer requirements which the USTR found to be unreasonable and discriminatory, burdening or restricting United States commerce.
The period for submitting product exclusion petitions for products on the “first round” list closed on October 9, 2018; the period for submitting product exclusion petitions for products on the “second round” list closed on December 18, 2018. For products on the “first round” list, approximately 10,000 product exclusion petitions were submitted by importers and other interested parties. On December 21, 2018, the USTR announced the approval of approximately 1,000 of those exclusion petitions, with another 1, 250 exclusion petitions being denied. The USTR’s notice indicates that decisions on the additional exclusion petitions with respect to the “first round” list, as well as the exclusion petitions filed with respect to the “second round” list, will be published periodically, as the USTR works through the backlog of pending petitions. See 83 Fed. Reg. 67463 (December 28, 2018).
Products for which exclusive petitions have been approved by the USTR are excluded from the Section 301 duties for a period of one year from the effective date of the Section 301 duties (i.e., July 6, 2018 for products included on the “first round” list). It is apparently assumed that that one-year exclusion period will provide United States importers and manufacturers that are dependent upon Chinese suppliers for key products, parts and components sufficient time to identify and qualify alternative (non-Chinese) sources of supply.
To date, no notice of procedures for submitting petitions for the exclusion of specific products from the “third round” list has been published by the USTR. It is, however, anticipated that, if and when the Section 301 duties on the products on that “third round” list increase from 10% to 25% (i.e., on March 2, 2019), the USTR will establish a product exclusion petition procedure comparable to the procedures established for the exclusion of particular products from the “first round” list and the “second round” list. Importers affected by the Section 301 duties on the products included on that “third round” list should carefully consider the submission of product exclusion petitions when the procedure is created, as the December 21, 2018 USTR announcement shows that the standard for excluding particular products from the Section 301 duties may not be insurmountable.
[Editor’s Note: Part 2 & 3 of this item will be included in the Friday, 25 Jan 2019, and Monday, 28 Jan 2019 Daily Bugles, respectively.]
  [FN/1] The USTR’s detailed findings as to China’s trade practices and policies are set forth in a report entitled “Findings of the Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974,” dated March 22, 2018, available on the 
USTR’s website
  [FN/2] To the contrary, in “retaliation” against the United States Government’s imposition of those Section 301 duties on Chinese products, the Chinese Government imposed corresponding additional duties on a comparable volume (by value) of products imported into China from the United States.
  [FN/3] The Section 301 duties on products included on that “third round” list were scheduled to increase from 10% to 25% on January 1, 2019. The effective date of the increase in the duty rate on the products on the “third round” list has, however, been deferred to March 2, 2019, pending the outcome of current trade negotiations between the United States and China. See 83 Fed. Reg. 65198 (December 19, 2018).
  [FN/4] Under section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1484, importers are subject to a statutory duty of “reasonable care” in the classification of imported merchandise. That duty of “reasonable care” implies classification of the imported merchandise with reference to: (i) the specific terms of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States; (ii) the General Rules of Interpretation; (iii) the various Section and Chapter Notes to HTSUS; (iv) the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, published by the World Customs Organization; and (v) various classification rulings issued by US Customs & Border Protection.
  [FN/5] See 83 Fed. Reg. 32181 (July 11, 2018) (product exclusion petitions for the “first round” list); 83 Fed. Reg. 47236 (September 18, 2018) (product exclusion petitions for the “second round” list).

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

Volkov Law Group Blog
, 23 Jan 2019. Reprinted by permission.) 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, 
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992. 
A fundamental requirement for an effective ethics and compliance program is that it is supported by “adequate resources.”  This does not mean a bare minimum requirement; nor is this requirement satisfied by flat-lining a compliance department’s annual budget. 
Someone is not getting the message straight – a compliance program has to evolve – that does not mean that it has to suck up more resources each year, but it does mean that a compliance program cannot be strangled.  A CCO faces a real dilemma – a CCO is responsible for implementing an effective ethics and compliance program.  How can a CCO do so if his/her program budget is cut?   
CCOs are experiencing budget cuts – after years of consistent growth or consolidation. Such budget cuts pose significant risks unto themselves.
What is a CCO supposed to do when the funding does not adequately support the company’s ethics and compliance program?
I do not mean to suggest that CCOs should be immune from budget cuts or belt-tightening depending on the company’s financial situation.  Such a narrow view would be unrealistic and unfair.
However, a CCO has to be honest about his/her situation.  A company has to be able to explain why it has to cut a compliance program budget.  If a company increases financial resources and internal audit to ensure compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, or cuts compliance to fund business expansion, the company cannot turn around and fund those initiatives with a blind ax to the compliance function. 
If corporate leadership is committed to ethics and compliance and the proposed cuts would significantly hinder the company’s compliance program, corporate leaders better have a well-documented justification and explanation for such a decision.
Companies cannot hide behind budget issues as a convenient way to strangle a compliance program while funding pet projects or initiatives.  Such a dangerous strategy will be exposed once a CCO explains the basis for his/her budget request – if the budget amount is carefully calibrated to support a compliance program’s ability to mitigate relevant risks, corporate leaders cannot – and should not – cut a compliance program budget.  To do so, is nothing less than irresponsible.
Corporate leaders cannot mouth their support for the company’s compliance program, while quietly removing or reducing resources needed to carry out an effective compliance program.  In these unfortunate circumstances, the message is clear – cut your compliance program at the company’s risk and prepare for potential harm – risks will increase, detection by government investigators is more sophisticated, and companies could suffer significant legal and reputational risks.
In these circumstances, a CCO has a responsibility – one that everyone knows in the profession – it is to speak up and let senior leaders know about the impact that such budget cuts could have on company operations.  Staying silent is not an option.
A full and frank discussion with senior leadership (and if necessary, the corporate board, is a basic minimum.  If a CCO fails to initiate such a discussion, the CCO has ignored his/her fundamental responsibilities.  Once the issue is discussed, and senior leadership responds, the CCO will then be in a position to decide on next steps.  

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


TE_a110. ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ
* What: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities; Scottsdale, AZ
* When: March 26-27, 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer, Lisa Bencivenga
* Register here or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com

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


* William Congreve (24 Jan 1670 – 19 Jan 1729; was an English playwright and poet of the Restoration period. He is known for his clever, satirical dialogue and influence on the comedy of manners style of that period.)
  – “She likes herself, yet others hates, For that which in herself she prizes; And while she laughs at them, forgets She is the thing that she despises.”
Two of Congreve’s phrases from The Mourning Bride (1697) have become famous, although sometimes misquoted or misattributed to William Shakespeare.
– “Musick has charms to soothe a savage breast,” 
which is the first line of the play, spoken by Almeria in Act I, Scene I. This is often mistakenly rendered as: “Music hath charms to soothe the savage beast”.
– “Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, Nor hell a fury, like a woman scorned,” 
spoken by Zara in Act III, Scene VIII, but paraphrased as “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.

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

. 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.   


  – 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.

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

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 

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


* 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