;

19-0206 Wednesday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0206 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

  1. DHS/CBP Seeks Comments on Form 3173, Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation
  2. State/DDTC Seeks Comments on Form DS-4076, Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. Justice/ATF Announces New Mailing Addresses for Many ATF Registration Forms
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Expeditors News: “ITC Publishes 2019 HTS”
  1. Global Trade News: “Weise Wednesday: Can the US and China Resolve Their Trade Dispute Before the March 2 Deadline?”
  2. The Strategic Trade Review Publishes Two New Issues
  3. S. Kovarovics, M.A. Gajewski Barnhill & C. Miller: “There Are So Many US Restricted Party Lists, Do I Really Need to Search Them All?”
  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 (1 Jan 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

(Source:
Federal Register, 6 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
84 FR 2243-2244: Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information. …
* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to dhsdeskofficer@omb.eop.gov.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
– Title: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation.
– OMB Number: 1651-0015.
– Form Number: CBP Form 3173.
– Abstract: Imported merchandise which is to remain in the customs territory for a period of one year or less without the payment of duties is entered as a temporary importation, as authorized under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202). When this time period is not sufficient, it may be extended by submitting an application on CBP Form 3173, “Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation.” This form is provided for by 19 CFR 10.37 and is accessible here.
Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no changes to the burden hours or to Form 3173. …
 
  Dated: February 1, 2019.
Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a22
. State/DDTC Seeks Comments on Form DS-4076, Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination

(Source: Federal Register, 6 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
84 FR 2295: 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination
* ACTION: Notice of request for public comment. …
* DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to April 8, 2019.
* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
   – Web: Persons with access to the internet may comment on this notice by going to www.Regulations.gov. You can search for the document by entering “Docket Number: DOS-2018-0058” in the Search field. Then click the “Comment Now” button and complete the comment form.
  – Email: The public email comments to DDTCPublicComments@state.gov. Include “ATTN: OMB Approval, Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination” in the subject of the email.
  – Mail: The public may mail comments to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, 2401 E St. NW, Suite H1205, Washington, DC 20522.
  You must include the information collection title (Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination), form number (DS-4076), and the OMB control number (1405-0163) in all correspondence.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Andrea Battista, who may be reached at battistaal@state.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  – Title of Information Collection: Request for Commodity Jurisdiction Determination.
  – OMB Control Number: 1405-0163.
  – Type of Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
  – Originating Office: Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (PM/DDTC).
  – Form Number: DS-4076. …
  – Abstract: Pursuant to ITAR Sec. 120.4, a person, as defined by ITAR Sec. 120.14, may request a written determination from the Department of State stating whether a particular article or defense service is covered by the United States Munitions List (USML). Form DS-4076 is the means by which respondents may submit this request. Information submitted via DS-4076 will be shared with the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, and other USG agencies, as needed, during the commodity jurisdiction process. Determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the commodity’s form, fit, function, and performance capability. …
 
  Anthony M. Dearth, Chief of Staff, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

[No items of interest noted today.]

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

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

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS)

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

(Source:
Justice/ATF, 1 Feb 2019.)
 
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is committed to ensuring public safety by working directly and through partnerships to assist federal firearms licensees (FFL) and federal explosives licensees and permittees (FEL/P) in complying with federal laws and regulations.
 
This is to advise the Federal Firearms and Explosives industry, Special Occupational and Individual National FIrearms Act (NFA) tax payers, as well as Arms Export Control Act (AECA) registrants of the change in contract lockbox services from Bank of America in Atlanta, GA to U.S. Bank in Portland, OR. The U.S. Treasury – Bureau of Fiscal Services has set an effective date of February 1, 2019, for all ATF lockboxes to transition.
 
Please note: Applications received at the former Atlanta, GA address after February 1, 2019, will be forwarded overnight to the new Portland, OR address for 90 days ONLY.
 
The following ATF forms have been updated with new mailing addresses:
 
  – Form 1 (5320.1) – Application to Make and Register a Firearm
  – Form 4 (5320.4) – Application for Tax paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm
  – Form 7 (5310.12) / 7 CR (5310.16) – Application for Federal Firearms License
  – Form 8 (5310.11) – Federal Firearms Licensee Renewal Application
  – Form 5400.13/16 – Application for Explosives License or Permit
  – Form 4587 – Application to Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles
  – Form 5630.7 – Special Tax Registration and Return National Firearms Act (NFA)
 
These updated ATF forms can also be downloaded from the
Forms Library or requested from the
ATF Distribution Center.
 
The new mailing addresses for these applications are as follows:
 
Firearms & Explosives Imports Branch (ATF Form 4587)
P.O. Box 6200-17
Portland, OR 97228-6200
 
Federal Explosives Licensing Center (ATF Form 5400.13/16)
P.O. Box 6200-18
Portland, OR 97228-6200
 
National Firearms Act Division (ATF Forms 1 and 4)
P.O. Box 5015
Portland, OR 97208-5015
 
Federal Firearms Licensing Center (ATF Forms 7 and 8)
P.O. Box 6200-20
Portland, OR 97228-6200
 
Special Occupational Tax (SOT) – NFA (ATF Form 5630.7)
P.O. Box 6200-13
Portland, OR 97228-6200

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

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


NWSNEWS

NWS_a07. Expeditors News: “ITC Publishes 2019 HTS”
(Source: Expeditors News, 5 Feb 2019.)
 
On February 4, 2019, the International Trade Commission (ITC) published the 2019 Basic Edition of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
 
According to the ITC Change Record, “A significant number of dutiable subheadings and/or their statistical reporting numbers previously setting forth a unit of quantity of ‘X’ have been modified effective on January 1, 2019, to specify a particular unit.” Other changes include:
 
  – The addition of several new subheadings for paper, footwear, plastics, chemicals, and other products;
  – The removal of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania from eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act benefits;
  – The addition of several statistical notes.
 
Most of the changes for the 2019 edition took effect on January 1, 2019.
  
  – The 2019 Basic Edition of the HTS may be found
here.
  – The ITC Change Record may be found
here.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

(Source:
Integration Point Blog, 6 Feb 2019.)
 
Welcome to Weise Wednesday! Twice a month we will share a brief Q&A with the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise. If you have questions, we encourage you to send them to
AskGeorge@IntegrationPoint.com.
 
Q. What are the prospects for the United States and China to resolve their trade dispute by the March 2 deadline?
 
A.
As I recently discussed, the outstanding trade dispute between the U.S. and China appeared to be at a complete standstill until a 90-day truce was agreed upon between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping while both parties were in Buenos Aires for the Group 20 Summit. Under the agreement they reached, President Trump decided to postpone for 90 days the planned January 1 tariff increase on Chinese products in return for a Chinese commitment to purchase a significant amount of U.S. farm, energy, and industrial goods. The parties also agreed to immediately begin talks on Chinese industrial policies, including coercive licensing of U.S. technology, trade secret theft, and non-tariff barriers.
 
How have the trade talks progressed so far?
 
Talks between the two sides commenced on January 7 in Beijing. While limited progress was made during the three days of discussions, they agreed to continue the talks in Washington, which took place January 30-31. The Chinese delegation was led by Liu He, China’s Vice Premier, while the U.S. side was led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. 
 
On January 31, President Trump hosted the Chinese delegation at the White House and expressed optimism that a trade deal could be reached before the March 2 deadline. He also announced that he would be meeting next month with Chinese President Xi Jinping in an effort to close the deal. During the White House meeting, Vice Premier He informed the President that China is committed to purchasing five million tons of U.S. soybeans.
 
But despite the President’s optimism and the Chinese apparent willingness to take steps to address the large bilateral trade surplus with the U.S., the two parties still appear to be far apart on the structural issues being negotiated, such as intellectual property and other trade barriers.
 
After two days of talks, USTR Lighthizer commented that the two sides have not even agreed to a draft framework of an agreement and did not discuss reducing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. On the latter point, President Trump said in an interview that it is possible that some of the additional tariffs on Chinese goods would remain in effect, even if an agreement is reached with China.
 
What are the potential outcomes?
 
At this time, it seems highly unlikely that a comprehensive agreement addressing all of the fundamental structural issues raised by the U.S. can be reached by March 2, when additional tariffs on Chinese goods are scheduled to go into effect. It is possible that the March 2 deadline could be extended, but President Trump has stated clearly that the additional tariffs on Chinese goods would be effective on that date.
 
Some have speculated that a smaller deal can be reached by March 2, which would delay the additional tariffs, but would not roll back the duties on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports the U.S. has already imposed. In exchange, China would make significant commitments on the purchase of U.S. soybeans and other American goods and services. Under such an arrangement, presumably negotiations would continue on the more fundamental structural issues.
 
At this point, it is impossible to predict what the outcome of these discussions will be. As always, it is critically important that global traders stay tuned and stay engaged.  

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

COM_a29. The Strategic Trade Review Publishes Two New Issues

(Source: Strategic Trade Review, 5 Feb 2019.)
 
Strategic Trade Review has published the following two new issues.
 
 
Both issues can be downloaded free of charge.
 
N.B. Strategic Trade Review is the leading refereed journal dedicated to strategic trade, export controls, and sanctions. The Review publishes articles from a global and diverse authorship. It is an essential resource for researchers, practitioners, students, policy-makers, and other stakeholders involved in trade and security. Articles from the Strategic Trade Review are frequently cited in other peer reviewed journals, trade publications, research and industry reports, magazines, and books. Read about the journal’s impact here.

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

(Source:
World Trade Controls Blog, 5 Feb 2019.)
 
* Author: Susan Kovarovics, Esq.,
susan.kovarovics@bclplaw.com, +1 202-508-6132; Megan A. Gajewski Barnhill, Esq.,
megan.gajewskibarnhill@bclplaw.com, +1 202-508-6302; and Carrie Miller, Esq.,
carrie.miller@bclplaw.com, +1 202-508-6138. All of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.
 
Several circumstances may trigger the need for non-US parties to conduct restricted party screening against the various lists published by the US government.  Deciding whether screening is useful, and which lists to screen against, depends upon the particulars of the business activity or contemplated transaction.  The increasing prevalence of secondary sanctions from the United States makes screening against US lists increasingly important. 
 
For purposes of complying with US trade controls and to manage risks associated with US secondary sanctions, restricted party screening is used to identify whether a party to a transaction is subject to specific export control or sanctions restrictions imposed by the US Department of Commerce, US Department of State, and/or US Department of the Treasury.  Each of these departments maintains lists of restricted parties and imposes various restrictions on certain activities involving those listed parties (and under certain circumstances, activities involving any entity owned or controlled by such parties).
 
For example, it may be prudent to screen parties in the following situations, among others:
 
  – The transaction involves US parties, including because payment transits a US financial institution;
  – The transaction is denominated in US Dollars;
  – The transaction involves Iran, Russia, Syria, or North Korea; or
  – The transaction involves items that are subject to US export controls.
 
The list(s) on which a party appears determines the specific export control or sanctions restrictions concerning that party, and thereby signals the compliance risks a non-US company may face when dealing with such a listed party.
 
The following table details the restricted party lists that the US Government currently maintains:
 
Agency
Name
Description
Commerce
Denied Persons List
Parties that have been denied export privileges involving items subject to the EAR
Commerce
Entity List
Parties that may trigger specific EAR licensing requirements
Commerce
Unverified List
Parties whose involvement in a transaction presents “red flags” (additional compliance risks)
State
Nonproliferation Sanctions List
Parties sanctioned under various nonproliferation statutes
State
ITAR Debarred Parties List
Parties prohibited from engaging in transactions involving ITAR-regulated activities
OFAC
Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”)
Parties subject to property blocking pursuant to various US sanctions programs
OFAC
Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (“SSI List”)
Parties sanctioned for operating in certain sectors of the Russian economy
OFAC
Foreign Sanctions Evaders List
Non-US parties determined to have violated certain US sanctions programs
OFAC
Non-SDN Palestinian Legislative Council (“PLC”) List
Individuals of the PLC associated with certain terrorist organizations
OFAC
List of Foreign Financial Institutions Subject to Part 561
Foreign financial institutions subject to certain US sanctions
 
What are some of the specific restrictions associated with the restricted parties lists?
 
Although many of the US sanctions programs administered by OFAC apply only to US persons, the Iran and Cuba sanctions programs also restrict the activities of non-US subsidiaries of US companies.  Moreover, even wholly non-US companies (those not owned or controlled by US persons) may violate the sanctions when engaging in transactions or activities with a US nexus (e.g., those that transit the US financial system) by evading, avoiding, attempting to violate, conspiring to violate, or causing a violation of, the US sanctions prohibitions and restrictions.  In addition, OFAC has authority to impose sanctions against any person (US or non-US), that engages in activity identified in and targeted by the various secondary sanctions provisions related to Iran and Russia.  This has taken on expanded relevance with the passage of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”) in 2017 and the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) in 2018, both of which came with several additional secondary sanctions triggers. 
 
The Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), administered by the US Department of Commerce, prohibit the export, reexport, or transfer of items subject to the EAR to parties on the Entity List, the Denied Persons List, and in some cases, the SDN List.  In addition, though not subject to these prohibitions, parties on the Unverified List are subject to certain restrictions and requirements and may not receive items subject to the EAR by means of a license exception.
 
The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) prohibit the export, reexport or retransfer of ITAR-controlled items to parties on the Debarred List, and there are restrictions on the import into the United States involving, or transfer of US-origin items under certain circumstances to, parties on the various nonproliferation sanctions lists published by the US Department of State.
 
When should I consider screening?
 
If your organization exports, reexports, or transfers items subject to the EAR (including deemed reexports of technology or software source code), the organization should be aware whether the items could be provided to, or the transactions may involve, parties on the three (3) Department of Commerce lists or OFAC’s SDN List.  The restrictions on dealing with certain parties for transactions subject to the EAR are found in Part 744 of the EAR.  Such activities are prohibited in the absence of a license from BIS, even when the items are not export-controlled based on the classification and intended destination.  Similarly, individuals or entities who are parties to transactions involving ITAR-controlled items should be screened against the ITAR Debarred Parties List.  
 
Non-US companies, whether non-US subsidiaries of US companies or wholly non-US entities, should screen for SDNs that are subject to secondary sanctions, especially if engaging in an activity that is a trigger of the secondary sanctions provisions.  Moreover, any transaction involving US persons or that will “touch” the US financial system, such as by being processed through a US financial institution, should be screened against the SDN List.  US companies and their subsidiaries (whether within or outside the United States) [FN/1] should also screen parties to contemplated transactions or activities against all other lists published by OFAC.  
 
Consequences of Not Screening
 
A strict liability regime typically applies to violations of the EAR, ITAR, and various OFAC sanctions programs, and both entities and individuals acting on behalf of entities (or in their own capacity) may be found liable for such violations.  In other words, you or your company may be held liable even if you did not know, or have reason to know, that your business activity involved a restricted party.  Depending on the particular violation, you or your company may face steep monetary penalties, imprisonment, and/or the imposition of various authorized secondary sanctions measures, such as blocking sanctions (designation as an SDN) or revocation of export privileges.
 
Compliance Considerations
 
The restrictions that non-US companies face in transacting with a listed party depend on the list(s) on which that party appears; as a result, your company may wish to perform targeted screening that would cover only the list(s) most implicated by the particular activity or transaction contemplated.  To the extent your business involves
 
  (1) items subject to the EAR;
  (2) ITAR-controlled items; or
  (3) US persons, transactions completed in US Dollars, other “touches” to the United States, or possible contact with an SDN.
 
Consider screening against the applicable US restricted party lists, as well as any restricted party lists maintained by the country in which you are operating. 
 
Depending on your business model, it may be advisable to implement automatic screening procedures, which may be widespread or targeted in terms of the lists searched.  This automated screening could be handled internally (with or without the assistance of software) or through a third-party screening provider.  The frequency of screening and the corresponding costs of it vary based on the provider and screening options offered. 
 
Although there is no legal requirement under any of the US laws or regulations to perform restricted party screening, such screening offers a relatively easy and low-cost solution to help manage risks that may arise from dealing with a restricted party. 
 
————
  [FN/1] Non-US persons that are owned or controlled by US persons, such as subsidiaries of US companies that are located outside of the United States, are subject to the same restrictions as US persons for purposes of the US sanctions against Cuba and Iran.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

* Babe Ruth (George Herman “Babe” Ruth Jr.; 6 Feb 1895 – 16 Aug 1948; was an American professional baseball player whose career in Major League Baseball (MLB) spanned 22 seasons, from 1914 through 1935. Ruth established many MLB batting (and some pitching) records, including career home runs (714), runs batted in (RBIs) (2,213), bases on balls (2,062), slugging percentage (.690), and on-base plus slugging (OPS) (1.164).)
  – “You just can’t beat the person who never gives up.”
  – “Every strike brings me closer to the next home run.”

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

EN_a312
. 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 2019: 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: 1 Jan 2019: 2019 Basic Edition of the HTS.
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

EN_a0313
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