19-0211 Monday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0211 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 11 February 2019

  1. Commerce Seeks Comments Concerning Procedures Related to Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum
  2. DHS/CBP Announces COAC Meeting on 27 Feb in Washington DC
  3. Treasury Lists Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Releases Notice Concerning Filing PRE-TFTEA (CORE) and TFTEA Drawback Claims with Section 301 and/or 201 Duties
  4. DHS/CBP Releases Notice Concerning Submitting Imports of Products Excluded from Section 301 Duties
  5. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  6. Treasury/OFAC Issues Venezuela-related General Licenses, Amends FAQs
  7. Singapore Customs Updates of Interest
  1. Defense News: “French Air Force Chief: France And Germany Working on Export Controls for Future Fighter”
  2. NBC News: “New Trump Rules Make it Easier for U.S. Gun Makers to Sell Overseas”
  3. Radio Free Europe: “German Tech Firm’s Turkmen Ties Trigger Surveillance Concerns”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Export, FTZ, Other Violations See Increased Civil Penalty Amounts”
  5. The Washington Times: “3D-Printed Gun Blueprint Website Owner Sues New Jersey Attorney General in Free Speech Challenge”
  1. B. Adkins, U. Johnston & S. Giles: “UK Publishes No Deal Export License for Dual-Use Products”
  2. J.E. Smith, J.P. Carlin & N.J. Spiliotes: “OFAC Has Been Talking About Compliance Through Enforcement” (Part I of II)
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 161 Openings Posted This Week, Including 22 New Openings
  1. ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ
  2. Madison Int’l Trade Assn Meeting Tomorrow in Madison, WI, is Canceled
  3. FCC Presents U.S. Export Controls Awareness Course: “ITAR & EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 9 April in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  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 


Commerce Seeks Comments Concerning Procedures Related to Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum

(Source: Federal Register, 11 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
84 FR 3142-3143: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
  The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
 – Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
 – Title: Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions from and Objections to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum.
 – Form Number(s): 0694-0141.
 – OMB Control Number: 0694-0141.
 – Type of Review: Regular submission. … 
 – Needs and Uses: On September 11, 2018, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a second interim final rule, Revisions to the Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States and Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States; and the filing of Objections to Submitted Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminum. This second interim final rule that was published by BIS, on behalf of the Secretary, made changes to the two supplements added in the March 19 rule: Supplement No. 1 to Part 705 — Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Articles into the United States; and to Supplement No. 2 to Part 705 — Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 to Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States.
  This collection of information gives U.S. Companies the opportunity to submit rebuttals to objections received on posted exclusion requests and also allows U.S. companies the opportunity to submit surrebuttals for objections they submitted that receive rebuttals under the Section 232 exclusion process. … 
  This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.govhttp://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
  Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Sheleen Dumas,Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department.

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

DHS/CBP Announces COAC Meeting on 27 Feb in Washington DC

(Source: Federal Register, 11 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.]  
84 FR 3217-3218: Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
* ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
* SUMMARY: The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
* DATES: The COAC will meet on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
* ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Horizon Ballroom, Washington, DC 20004. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
  – Pre-Registration: Meeting participants may attend either in person or via webinar after pre-registering using one of the methods indicated below:
  For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register by 5:00 p.m. EST February 26, 2019, either online here by email to tradeevents@dhs.gov; or by fax to (202) 325-4290. You must register prior to the meeting in order to attend the meeting in person.
  For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online here by 5:00 p.m. EST on February 26, 2019.
  Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
  Members of the public who are pre-registered to attend via webinar and later need to cancel, please do so by February 26, 2019, utilizing the following links: here to cancel an in person registration; or here to cancel a webinar registration.
  To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
  Comments must be submitted in writing no later than February 26, 2019, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2019-0005, and may be submitted by one (1) of the following methods:
  – Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  – Email: tradeevents@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
  – Fax: (202) 325-4290, Attention Florence Constant-Gibson.
  – Mail: Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.
  – Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number (USCBP-2019-0005) for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov. Please do not submit personal information to this docket.
  – Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number USCBP-2019-0005. To submit a comment, click the “Comment Now!” button located on the top-right hand side of the docket page.
  – There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on February 27, 2019. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web CBP web page.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290; or Mr. Bradley Hayes, Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer at (202) 344-1440.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:
 1. The Secure Trade Lanes Subcommittee will present plans for the scope and activities of the Trusted Trader and CTPAT Minimum Security Criteria Working Groups. Recommendations will be presented regarding the proposed Forced Labor Trusted Trader Strategy. The subcommittee will also deliver recommendations from the Petroleum Pipeline Working Group for CBP to develop and codify uniform reporting procedures for pipeline carriers as well as entry and bonding procedures for importers. The subcommittee will also deliver recommendations from the In-Bond Working Group regarding potential automation and process enhancements.
 2. The Intelligent Enforcement Subcommittee will provide necessary updates from the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty, Bond, and Forced Labor Working Groups and recommendations from Intellectual Property Rights Working Group.
 3. The Next Generation Facilitation Subcommittee will discuss the E-Commerce Working Group’s progress on mapping the supply chains of various modes of transportation to identify the differences between e-commerce and traditional channels to address CBP’s strategic plan regarding e-commerce threats and opportunities for both the government and trade. The subcommittee will also provide an update on the status of the Emerging Technologies Working Group’s NAFTA/CAFTA and Intellectual Property Rights Blockchain Proof of Concept Projects. Finally, the subcommittee will provide recommendations from the Regulatory Reform Working Group upon completing its review of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations to identify regulations for potential repeal or modification to eliminate or reduce costs and burdens for U.S. businesses.
    Meeting materials will be available by February 25, 2019 here.
    Dated: February 6, 2019.
Bradley F. Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.

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

Treasury Lists Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott
(Source: Federal Register, 6 Feb 2019.) 

84 FR 2337: List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). 
  On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
  • Iraq
  • Kuwait
  • Lebanon
  • Libya
  • Qatar 
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Syria
  • United Arab Emirates Yemen 
Dated: December 31, 2018. 
Douglas Poms, 
International Tax Counsel, (Tax Policy). 

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


OGS_a14. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)


* DHS/CBP; NOTICES; Meetings: 21st Century Customs Framework; Change of Location [Pub. Date: 12 Feb 2019.] 
* Justice/ATF; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Magazine Questionnaire for Agencies/Entities Who Store Explosive Materials [Pub. Date: 12 Feb 2019.]
* State; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:
  – Annual Brokering Report; 
  – Brokering Prior Approval; and
  – United States Munitions List, Categories I, II and III [Pub. Dates: 12 Feb 2019.]

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

Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)


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

CSMS# 19-000050, 8 Feb 2019.) 
* GUIDANCE: Effective immediately, drawback filers can submit claims related to Section 301 and/or 201 duties. Filers will no longer receive error messages related to unit of measure (UOM) when transmitting drawback claims for Section 301 and/or 201 duties. Previously, filers received a UOM mismatch error because the underlying import did not have a UOM associated to a Chapter 99 HTSUS. If the filer left the UOM blank, they received an additional error message because the UOM is a mandatory data element field.  
* FILING REQUIREMENTS: Filers are required to provide the Chapter 99 HTSUS tariff number related to Section 301 and/or 201 duties, and the associated Chapter 1 to 97 HTSUS tariff number on ALL claims.  
  If any drawback claim subject to Section 301 and/or 201 duties was previously filed and accepted in ACE, the filers are required to “perfect” the claim. To “perfect” a claim, filers must contact their Drawback Specialist and request the claim be returned to trade control. The filers are then required to list both HTSUS tariff numbers (as described above) on their claims and resubmit to CBP within 5 business days.  
* SUBSTITUTION AND NAFTA DRAWBACK CLAIM GUIDANCE: This guidance applies to both Section 301 and 201 duties. Goods subject to Section 232 are ineligible for refund of 232 duties, per Presidential Proclamation 9739 and 9740.  
  – Pre-TFTEA Substitution Claims: 301/201 duties are refundable, in full, on pre-TFTEA substitution claims.
  – TFTEA Substitution Claims: 301/201 duties are refundable on TFTEA substitution claims, even if subject to the TFTEA lesser of [value] rule. If subject to the TFTEA lesser of [value] rule, the amount will be limited by the value of the substituted merchandise when it is lower than the value of the imported merchandise.
  – NAFTA Claims (pre and post TFTEA): 301/201 duties may be refundable on NAFTA claims subject to the lesser of [duty] rule, but only when the total amount of Canadian/Mexican duties paid is higher than the total amount of duties paid in the United States. The amount of 301/201 duties refunded under the NAFTA lesser of [duty] rule will be limited by the total amount of duties paid on the merchandise imported into Canada/Mexico.

* 19 U.S.C 1313(p) CLAIMS: Due to a pending technical fix, please do not file any 19 U.S.C. 1313(p) claims with the subject duties at this time. Future guidance will be sent once this issue has been resolved. If you have a 1313(p) claim on file with Section 301 and/or 201 duties, please do not request to “perfect” this claim until further guidance has been received.
* RESOURCES: The list of impacted tariff classifications for Section 301 are found at the following links: Section 301 Trade Remedies to be Assessed on Certain Products from ChinaSection 301 HTSUS Reference Guide83 FR 2871083 FR 4082383 FR 4797483 FR 65198

  For more information regarding Section 201 duties, please reference the following link: here
  Contact your Client Representative for assistance with technical questions regarding the input of the required tariff numbers.  
  Direct questions regarding this update to OTDRAWBACK@cbp.dhs.gov

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

DHS/CBP Releases Notice Concerning Submitting Imports of Products Excluded from Section 301 Duties

CSMS# 19-000052
, 8 Feb 2019.) 

* BACKGROUND: On December 28, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative published a Federal Register Notice (83 FR 67463) announcing the decision to grant certain exclusion requests from the 25 percent duty assessed under the Section 301 investigation related to goods from China (Tranche 1). The product exclusions announced in this notice will be retroactive as of the July 6, 2018 effective date (see 83 FR 28710). The exclusions will extend for one year after the December 28, 2018 Federal Register notice (83 FR 67463).
  The exclusions are available for any product that meets the description in the Annex to 83 FR 67463, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. Further, the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit headings and product descriptions in the Annex to 83 FR 67463, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.
  The functionality for the acceptance of products excluded from Section 301 duties will be available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) on February 10, 2019.
* INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ENTRIES SUBJECT TO PRODUCT EXCLUSIONS: Instructions on submitting entries to CBP containing products granted exclusions by USTR from the Section 301 measures are as follows:
  In addition to reporting the regular Chapters 84, 85 & 90 classification of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTSUS classification 9903.88.05 (Articles the product of China, as provided for in U.S. note 20(h) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the U.S. Trade Representative) for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion.
  Do not submit the corresponding Chapter 99 HTS number for the Section 301 duties when HTS 9903.88.05 is submitted.
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Duty exclusions granted by USTR are retroactive on imports to the initial effective date of July 6, 2018. To request an administrative refund for previous imports of duty-excluded products granted by USTR, importers may file a Post Summary Correction (PSC) following the same entry filing instructions above.
  If the entry has already liquidated, importers may protest the liquidation.
  Reminder: When submitting an entry summary in which a heading or subheading in Chapter 99 is claimed on imported merchandise, please refer to CSMS 18-000657 (Entry Summary Order of Reporting for Multiple HTS in ACE). 
  Imports which have been granted a product exclusion from the Section 301 measures, and which are not subject to the Section 301 duties, are not covered by the FTZ provisions of the Section 301 Federal Register notices, but instead are subject to the FTZ provisions in 19 CFR part 146.
  For more information, please refer to the December 28, 2018 Federal Register notice (83 FR 67463).
  Questions from the importing community concerning ACE entry rejections involving product exclusion numbers should be referred to their CBP Client Representative. Questions related to Section 301 entry filing requirements should be emailed to Traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov.

  – Related CSMS No. 18-000757, 18-000752, 18-000624

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

State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source: State/DDTC)

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

Treasury/OFACIssues Venezuela-related General Licenses, Amends FAQs

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 11 Feb 2019.) 
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing General License 3C, “Authorizing Transactions Related to, Provisions of Financing for, and Other Dealings in Certain Bonds,” and General License 9B, “Authorizing Transactions Related to Dealings in Certain Securities.”  Additionally, OFAC is revising Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 650661and 662.

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

Singapore Customs Updates of Interest

(Source: Singapore Customs, 8 Feb 2019.) 
Singapore Customs has released the following document(s) on its website:

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


Defense News: “French Air Force Chief: France And Germany Working on Export Controls for Future Fighter”

(Source: Defense News, 9 Feb 2019.) 
The French Air Force chief of staff provided top cover for the future Franco-German fighter at a time when the French defense industry is increasingly concerned that cooperation with Germany could curtail its ability to export the system.
  “There is a real determination” at the highest levels of government – including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – to agree on export controls, said Gen. Philippe Lavigne during a Feb. 7 roundtable with reporters.
  “It’s a need for our security, but it’s also a need for our industry, and we have to develop this,” he said, adding that Spain has already signed on as an observer to the program and that others are expected to follow. 
The French government is generally seen as more supportive of arms sales than its partner in the sixth-generation fighter program, called the Future Combat Air System, or FCAS. While enthusiasm for the program remains high, some French defense industry officials are concerned that Germany’s involvement could prevent sales to countries that Berlin considers rogue actors.
But settling an export policy is just one of the many questions about the FCAS program that are still yet to be answered.
So far, France and Germany’s concept for FCAS involves a network of swarming UAVs, new weapons and a sixth-generation fighter that can exchange information with each other. FCAS would replace France’s Rafale and Germany’s Eurofighter around 2040.
  “We haven’t decided what will be the architecture,” Lavigne said. “Will it be this type of aircraft? Will it be this type of [UAV]? Will it be this type of unmanned combat air vehicle? Will it be this type of missiles? But we know that we will share an architecture.
  “The gamechanger is the connectivity between different platforms.”
Earlier this week, the French and German governments awarded €65 million (U.S. $74 million) to Dassault and Airbus for the two-year study that will solidify a path forward for FCAS, and the companies plan to announce demonstrator programs at the Paris Air Show this summer.
Lavigne wasn’t clear on how the governments would reconcile different requirements, like France’s intention to launch FCAS from aircraft carriers, which could drive different design attributes than a fighter that takes off and lands conventionally.
  “Of course we will have national interests in France with the nuclear deterrence. Germany will have different national interests,” he said. However, he stopped short of saying how much commonality is expected between the two militaries.
Until the study is complete, it is “too early to say” whether FCAS will be manned or unmanned. However, Lavigne said a human will continue to be in the loop – especially for nuclear deterrence missions – whether a human is in the cockpit or it is remotely piloted.
  “We are open to look at the technical solution,” he said. “For me, it’s optionally piloted.”
FCAS’ system-of-systems approach is similar to the U.S. Air Force’s vision for Penetrating Counter Air, its future air superiority concept. The Air Force hasn’t shared which defense companies are involved in conceptualizing or prototyping future technologies that could be pulled into a PCA program of record, but it requested $504 million in fiscal 2019 to push the effort forward, with investments projected to hit $3 billion in FY22.

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

NBC News: “New Trump Rules Make it Easier for U.S. Gun Makers to Sell Overseas”

(Source: NBC News, 7 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
Manufacturers will no longer need State Department licenses to export dozens of weapons.
Semi-automatic weapons, flamethrowers, and even some grenades will become easier for U.S. weapons manufacturers to export overseas under new rules being put in place by the Trump administration and obtained by NBC News.
Under the new rules, set to take effect in just under a month, gun-makers will no longer need licenses from the Department of State to sell dozens of types of weapons to other countries, including semi-automatic assault weapons such as the AR-15 that has been employed in many of America’s worst mass shootings. Instead, sellers will need only a no-fee license from the Department of Commerce, which has a less onerous licensing process and a smaller global footprint, making it harder to track how the weapons are ultimately used overseas. … 

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

Radio Free Europe: “German Tech Firm’s Turkmen Ties Trigger Surveillance Concerns”

(Source: Radio Free Europe, 8 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
One year ago this month, Turkmenistan’s state news agency reported on a meeting between the country’s authoritarian president and a visiting executive from a German electronics firm that supplies surveillance and encryption technology to governments and militaries.

Hartmut Jaeschke of the Munich-based Rohde & Schwarz, according to the report, told President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov during the talks that the company sought “to gain a stronger foothold” in Turkmenistan, whose government is consistently ranked among the world’s most repressive.

Jaeschke’s visit caught the eye of Human Rights Watch (HRW), which said it had been told by a knowledgeable source that Turkmen authorities were seeking “technology for monitoring and blocking mobile and satellite communications, which would also enable the government to block Internet access.” … 


The issue of spyware deliveries to authoritarian regimes has prompted 

proposed legislation in the European Parliament. The legislation aims to tighten export controls to prevent “the abuse of certain cyber-surveillance technologies by regimes with a questionable human rights record.” … 

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

ST&R Trade Report: “Export, FTZ, Other Violations See Increased Civil Penalty Amounts” 

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 11 Feb 2019.)
The Department of Commerce is increasing for inflation the civil monetary penalty amounts that may be assessed for the following regulatory violations after March 1, including when the associated violation occurred before that date. However, the DOC notes that the actual penalty assessed for a particular violation will be dependent on a variety of factors.
  * false or fraudulent claims under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 USC 3802(a)(1) and (2)) – maximum increased from $ $11,181 to $11,463
  * knowing use of false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government (31 USC 3729(a)(1)(G)) – minimum increased from $11,181 to $11,463, maximum increased from $22,363 to $22,927
  * Fastener Quality Act violations (15 USC 5408(b)(1)): maximum increased from $46,192 to $47,357
  * prohibited acts relating to inspections or
record-keeping violations under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (22 USC 6761(a)(1)(A) and (B)) – maximums increased from $37,601 to $38,549 and from $7,530 to $7,710, respectively
  * violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1705(b)) – maximum increased from $295,141 to $302,584
  * violation of Export Controls Act of 2018 (50 USC 4819) – maximum of $300,000 (new penalty)
  * failure to file export information or reports required by 13 USC 304 within prescribed period – maximum for each day’s delinquency increased from $1,360 to $1,394, maximum per violation increased from $13,605 to $13,948
  * other unlawful export information activities under 13 USC 305 – maximum increased from $13,605 to $13,948
  * failure to furnish any information required under 22 USC Chapter 46 (international investment and trade in services survey) – minimum increased from $4,619 to $4,735, maximum increased from $46,192 to $47,357
  * foreign-trade zone violations (19 USC 81s): maximum increased from $2,852 to $2,924

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

The Washington Times: “3D-Printed Gun Blueprint Website Owner Sues New Jersey Attorney General in Free Speech Challenge”

(Source: The Washington Times, 10 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
The man behind a website devoted to sharing online blueprints for 3D-printed gun is suing the attorney general of New Jersey, after being alerted that the activity was violating a new gun control law.
The lawsuit is the latest salvo in the fight to publish the plans online and challenges a law signed late last year that gun-rights advocates say criminalizes their free speech rights to post the blueprints.
  “Whatever their claimed motive or agenda is, we know that their actual agenda is the disarmament of the people of New Jersey,” said Brandon Combs, 
president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “And if they have to infringe speech rights in order to red-line the right to keep and bear arms in their state, I think that they’re willing to do whatever it takes to do that.”

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


B. Adkins, U. Johnston & S. Giles: “UK Publishes No-Deal Export License for Dual-Use Products” 

(Source: Gowling WLG, 7 Feb 2019.)  
The UK’s export licensing authority has published a new Open General Export License for the export of dual use goods to the EU which will come into force on 29 March 2019 in event of a no deal Brexit.

UK businesses that hold an existing OGEL and businesses that will require an OGEL after Brexit (i.e. because they are currently exporting dual use goods into the EU) can register now for the new OGEL.

On 1 February 2019, the Export Control Joint Unit ((“ECJU”) – the UK’s export licensing authority – published a new Open General Export License (“OGEL”) for the export of dual use goods to the EU. The OGEL is intended to come into force at 11pm, 29 March in the event that there is no Brexit deal.
“Nothing has changed”?
The OGEL follows the guidance on the export of controlled goods if there is no Brexit deal that was first issued by the Department for International Trade in August. Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009, currently governs the scope of export authorizations (among other things) for dual use goods across the EU, including the UK. This Regulation will be preserved as applying in UK law, as part of the new species of ‘Retained EU Law’ created by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018). As such, the UK’s post-Brexit export controls regime will, in the short-term, continue to follow the EU framework.
However, the retention of the EU framework will not prevent a change in the way UK exporters operate. This is because the transfer of goods to the EU from the UK will become an ‘export’ post-Brexit, triggering the need for export licenses in relation to controlled goods.  
Exporters of dual use goods – that is, goods that may have both a military and non-military application – will therefore require authorization in order to export goods into the EU, as well as to the rest of the world.
More importantly, OGELs for the export of dual use goods from the EU will cease to cover the UK in a no deal Brexit. Consequently, exporters will need to obtain a new authorization from either the UK authorities (if they are exporting from the UK) or the relevant EU Member State (if they are exporting from the EU to the UK).
What if there is a deal?
The Withdrawal Agreement, agreed by the Prime Minister and the EU in November 2018, commits the UK and EU to an ‘implementation period’ whereby the UK would in effect be treated as an EU member for the purposes of the EU export control regime until 31 December 2020. The relationship between the UK and EU export control regimes after the end of the implementation period is not addressed in the political declaration on the future UK-EU trading relationship. This means there is still uncertainty as to the mutual recognition or otherwise of OGELs from 1 January 2021.
It is still uncertain whether the Withdrawal Agreement will be ratified by the UK Parliament. The publication of the OGEL provides some certainty to business as to the process for exporting dual-use goods from 29 March in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified.
What should business do now?
UK businesses that hold an existing OGEL and businesses that will require an OGEL after Brexit (i.e. because they are currently exporting dual use goods into the EU) are able to register to use the new OGEL before it comes into force.
Registration is possible via SPIRE, the ECJU’s licensing system. As part of the application process, businesses will need to confirm to the ECJU where records of exports will be retained between now and Brexit day.

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

Morrison Foerster, 5 Feb 2019.) 
* Authors: John E. Smith, Esq., johnsmith@mofo.com; John P. Carlin, Esq., jcarlin@mofo.com; and Nicholas J. Spiliotes, Esq., nspiliotes@mofo.com. All of Morrison Foerster. 
Have You Been Listening?
Last Thursday, January 31, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued its first enforcement action of 2019, a fascinating case involving false eyelashes that teaches that virtually any company in any industry selling any product can find itself in OFAC’s cross-hairs (pun intended). This year also marks a decade since OFAC published its tried-and-true Enforcement Guidelines, which outline the agency’s standard operating procedure for reviewing and enforcing violations of U.S. economic sanctions.

Last week’s case involving e.l.f. Cosmetics, like another half dozen OFAC enforcement cases resolved over the past several months, serves as yet another indication that OFAC has, with relatively little fanfare, embarked upon one of the most sweeping elaborations of its enforcement policy since its Enforcement Guidelines were published a decade ago. Few have paid attention to the lessons from these recent cases. You should.
In fact, you might be forgiven if you believed that OFAC’s enforcement of economic sanctions had waned during the early years of the Trump Administration, because various media reported the nadir of sanctions enforcement last year with one only case finalized in the first half of 2018 and only sevenpublished all year, the lowest number in more than a decade. The penalties and settlement amounts per enforcement case last year ranged from $88,000 to $54 million, totaling nearly $72 million for all of 2018.
After a lull in issuing final enforcement actions for much of the first three-quarters of last year, however, OFAC began pumping them out again last fall, but the new cases have differed from the old. Over the past several months, OFAC’s enforcement cases have offered far more detail of the agency’s expectations regarding sanctions compliance than ever before, expanding upon the agency’s informal mantra of “better compliance through enforcement.”
In a December 2018 speech to the American Bankers Association/American Bar Association Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference, Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker formally announced the changes – which began last fall – noting that, “To aid the compliance community in strengthening defenses against sanctions violations, OFAC will be outlining the hallmarks of an effective sanctions compliance program. . . . Going forward, these types of compliance commitments will become an essential element in settlement agreements between OFAC and apparent violators.”

So, without further ado, here are the Top 20 lessons recent OFAC cases – including all those issued last year – have been trying to teach you:
1. If you are a U.S. company, beware your touchpoints to the global economy, particularly when involved in high-risk industries or high-risk jurisdictions. 
You may be exposed to sanctions risk because of, for example, your (A) international financial transactions, (B) overseas subsidiaries or employees, (C) supply chains, and (D) distribution chains. Recent OFAC cases have touched upon each of these risks:
  – International Financial Transaction Risk
. The twin JP Morgan cases from October demonstrate the continued risks to U.S. financial institutions and companies emanating from global financial transactions. The first of the two cases involved the bank’s operation of a net settlement mechanism that resolved billings among global airlines and other airline participants, some of which involved sanctioned entities. The second of the two involved the bank’s delay in remedying a historic deficiency in its screening software that failed to identify customer names with hyphens, initials, or additional middle or last names as potential matches to similar names on the OFAC List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”).
  – Overseas Subsidiaries or Employees Risk.
 In the Zoltek case from December, OFAC took action against a Missouri company that reviewed and approved its Hungarian subsidiary’s purchase of chemicals from a subsidiary of a designated Belarusian entity. OFAC noted that the “enforcement action highlights the risks for companies with overseas operations that do not implement OFAC compliance programs or that implement compliance programs that fail to address the sanctions regulations administered by OFAC.”
  – Supply Chain Risk.
 The e.l.f. Cosmetics case issued last week involved a California company that imported false eyelash kits from Chinese suppliers that contained materials from North Korea. OFAC noted that the company “appears not to have exercised sufficient supply chain due diligence while sourcing products from a region that poses a high risk to the effectiveness of the NKSR [North Korea Sanctions Regulations].” Don’t be complacent, however, if you source materials far closer to home; manufacturers have occasionally found themselves importing items such as cobalt or nickel from Canada and then belatedly realizing that the material originally may have been sourced from Cuba.
  – Distribution Chain Risk.
 In the Cobham case from November, a U.S. company’s subsidiary – a global provider of technology and services in aviation, electronics, communications, and defense – sold several parts through distributors in Canada and Russia to an entity 51 percent owned by a Russian entity on the SDN List, making the subsidiary entity automatically sanctioned under OFAC’s 50 Percent Rule. The SDN and its Russian subsidiary both contained the similar names “Almaz Antey,” but the U.S. company used a third-party screening software that required “an all word match criteria that would only return matches containing all of the searched words.” Similarly, in the Epsilon action settled in September, OFAC acted against a U.S. company that exported its products to a Dubai company, with knowledge or reason to know that company distributed most, if not all, of its products to Iran.
2. If you are not a U.S. company, beware your touchpoints to the United States – including use of 
(A) the U.S. financial system, (B) U.S. persons, or (C) U.S.-origin goods and services – for transactions that may violate U.S. sanctions. Recent OFAC cases have dealt with a few of these risks.
  – Use of the U.S. Financial System.
 The Société Générale case from November marked the latest in a long line of OFAC enforcement actions targeting a foreign bank’s “stripping” of information regarding sanctioned parties from transactions sent through U.S. banks, serving as a reminder for foreign financial institutions and companies to avoid sending non-transparent financial or other transactions through the United States that violate U.S. sanctions.
  – U.S. Persons.
 In the Ericsson case from last June, employees of Swedish and U.S. subsidiaries of a Swedish electronics company cooperated with respect to the provision of services by the Swedish subsidiary to a Sudanese entity and worked together to obtain a U.S.-origin product for shipment to a third country and then on to Sudan, in apparent violation of U.S. sanctions.
  – U.S.-Origin Goods and Services.
 In the Jereh Group case from December, OFAC and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security acted against a Chinese oilfield services company and its affiliated companies and subsidiaries worldwide that re-exported U.S.-origin goods to Iran by way of China, as well as exported U.S.-origin goods with knowledge they were to be used for production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods made in China to be sent to Iran.
3. If at first you don’t succeed, remediate.
 “Compliance commitments,” to use Under Secretary Mandelker’s terminology, are a key focus of recent OFAC enforcement cases. OFAC is providing far more detailed explanations in its enforcement case summaries of corporate remediation efforts constituting mitigating factors warranting penalty reductions. In all the enforcement cases issued in recent months, OFAC has listed detailed summaries of the companies’ remedial sanctions compliance commitmentsmany of which are detailed below and should serve as a template for OFAC’s expectations regarding the sufficiency of sanctions compliance programs.
4. Expand and stress test compliance programs.
 Under Secretary Mandelker emphasized that hallmarks of effective sanctions compliance programs include senior management commitment to compliance and “frequent risk assessments to identify and mitigate sanctions-specific risks within an institution and its products, services, and customers.” Recent enforcement cases demonstrate the importance to OFAC of corporate actions that strengthen, or fail to strengthen, sanctions compliance programs. In the Zoltek case, for example, OFAC noted that the U.S. parent had expanded its Director of Global Compliance position to include sanctions as well as export/import controls. In the Jereh Group matter, OFAC credited the company for hiring “an external organization with specialized experience in U.S. economic and trade sanctions and export control laws and regulations, which conducted an internal review of the company and developed a trade and sanctions compliance program.” (Hey, we at MoFo’s National Security Group are available to assist. Just sayin’.)
5. Money matters.
 In several recent enforcement cases, OFAC specifically highlighted compliance commitments by companies to provide additional staffing and resources. For example, the Jereh Group hired full-time compliance personnel and new senior managers with compliance backgrounds. In Société Générale, the bank “increased the number of personnel within compliance staffing, and SG’s total budget for sanctions compliance has also increased.” Similarly, in the first of the two JP Morgan cases, OFAC noted the bank had increased its compliance staff. In Cobham, OFAC bluntly declared its expectations: “OFAC expects companies settling apparent violations of its regulations to ensure their compliance units receive adequate resources, including in the form of human capital, information technology, and other resources, as appropriate.”
6. Sound screening software is a must.
 In the Zoltek case, OFAC noted that the company’s new screening software would be used to screen “its vendors, and their parent and subsidiary companies,” against OFAC and other government restricted lists on a daily basis. In Cobham, the company “acquired and implemented new and enhanced sanctions screening software . . . that is capable of identifying and flagging potential matches to persons with close name variations to parties identified on the SDN List.” And in both of the JP Morgan cases, OFAC noted that the bank had implemented new screening software. Companies should not become complacent, however, with this tool; as Under Secretary Mandelker noted, a company’s sanctions compliance “resources must go far beyond merely screening the SDN List.”
7. Don’t delay. 
In the second of the two JP Morgan cases resolved in October, OFAC issued a finding of violation against the bank for delays in addressing known deficiencies in its screening system. As OFAC noted, “JPMC engaged in a pattern of conduct over a two-year period where the apparent violations stemmed from the same screening issue; although JPMC identified this screening issue and implemented multiple screening enhancements, it took over three years to fully address a known deficiency in the vendor-provided screening system.” When technological solutions require a longer period to address, OFAC emphasizes that “compensating controls” are needed to address the risk of the known deficiencies. As OFAC summarized, “This enforcement action highlights the importance of financial institutions remediating known compliance program deficiencies in an expedient manner, and when that is not possible, the importance of implementing compensating controls to mitigate risk until a comprehensive solution can be deployed.”
8. Screen, screen, and screen again.
 Cobham demonstrates the need to re-screen regularly and at all phases of a transaction. In that case, when the U.S. company’s subsidiary agreed to ship parts through its distributors to Russia, and at the time of its first shipment, neither the Russian company nor its parent was sanctioned. By the time of subsequent shipments, they were.
9. Beware the 50 Percent Rule.
 Zoltek involved a U.S. company’s review and approval of its overseas subsidiary’s dealings with a non-designated subsidiary of a sanctioned entity. While OFAC characterized as egregious the U.S. parent’s continued involvement in its subsidiary’s dealings after numerous high-level conversations revealed its awareness that purchases were being made from a subsidiary of a sanctioned entity, OFAC also included the previous non-egregious dealings with the sanctioned subsidiary as part of the penalty calculation. Similarly, Cobham involved a U.S. company’s sales of goods through Canadian and Russian distributors to an entity owned 51 percent by an SDN; OFAC pursued an enforcement action because of the similarity of names of the SDN parent and subsidiary. Both cases demonstrate the urgency of the need for sanctions compliance screening of entities beyond the SDN List itself. Indeed, OFAC highlighted that, as a remedial measure, “Cobham acquired and implemented a screening and business intelligence tool with the capability of identifying and flagging persons known to be owned by parties identified on the SDN List, and has developed a process for employing the business intelligence tool to conduct enhanced due diligence on high-risk transactions from an OFAC sanctions perspective, to include any transaction involving a Cobham U.S. entity and any party in either Russia or Ukraine.”
[Part II will be published in tomorrow’s Daily Bugle.]

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


MS_a118. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 161 Openings Posted This Week, Including 22 New Openings

(Source: Events & Jobs Editor) 

Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please, send job openings in the following format to 


” New or amended listing this week


* Adient; Bratislava, Slovakia; 
Customs Specialist (EMEA); Requisition ID: R-02990;

AeroVironment; Simi Valley, CA; Trade Compliance Specialist II; Requisition ID: 333;

Agility; Basel, Switzerland; SachbearbeiterIn Ocean Freight Export;

* Agility; Charlotte, NC;
Import Manager/Licensed Customs Broker

Agility; Dallas, TX; 
Ocean Export Coordinator

* Agility; Houston, TX;
Ocean Export Coordinator
Agility; Houston, TX; Ocean Export Team Leader;

* Airbus; Manching, Germany; Internship within Procurement Compliance, Regulations & Risks; Requisition ID: 10438469 NU EN EXT 1;

AM General; Auburn Hills, MI; 
International Compliance Analyst
Amazon EU; Luxembourg City, Luxembourg; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 780313;
Amazon Web Services; Seattle, WA; Trade Compliance Manager, Export Controls & Classification; Requisition ID: 787194;

Analog Devices; Chelmsford, MA; 
Import-Export Analyst
Arconic; Pittsburgh, PA; Global Director Export Compliance, EPS Liaison;
Arconic; Pittsburgh, PA; Global Director Import Compliance, TCS Liaison

* Ascent Aerospace; Lake Orion and Macomb Township, MI; ITAR/EAR/Export Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 1399;

Arconic; Cleveland, OH; Global Trade Compliance Manager;

* Ascent Aerospace; Lake Orion and Macomb Township, MI; ITAR/EAR/Export Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 1399;
* BAE Systems; Farnborough, United Kingdom; Counsel, Group Export Control; Requisition ID: 00058679;

BAE Systems; Nashua, NH; 
Procurement Compliance
; Requisition ID: 

BAE Systems; Poznań, Poland; Export Control Officer;

BAE Systems; Sterling Heights, MI; 
Senior Procurement Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 

* Baker Hughes; Aberdeen, United Kingdom; Trade Compliance Classification Analyst; Requisition ID: 1902478;

Beiersdorf; Hamburg, Germany; International Trade Expert;

* Bell Flight; Fort Worth, TX;
Trade Classification Specialist I
; Requisition ID: 270536;

* Boeing; Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Trade Control Specialist m/f; Requisition ID: 1900016657;

* Boeing; Dubai and Abu Dhabi, UAE; Senior Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1900019092;

* Boeing; multiple locations, United States; Trade Control Specialist; Requisition ID: 1900020123;

* Boeing; Dallas, TX; 
Global Regulatory and Compliance Specialist 4
; Requisition ID: 12795;

* Boeing; Zoushan, China; 
 Compliance Analyst
* Boeing; Zoushan, China;
Trade Compliance Manager;
* Bosch USA; Owatonna, MN; Import/Export Compliance Analyst
* Bristol-Myers Squibb; New Brunswick, NJ; Director Global Customs & Trade;

* Brookhaven National Laboratory; Upton, NY; Mgr Export Control Program; Requisition ID: 1563;

* Carnegie Mellon University; Pittsburgh, PA; Export Compliance Manager;

CISCO; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 
Global Export Trade Manager – EMEAR
Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions; Colorado Springs, CO; 
Export Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: req2102;

ConvaTec; Flexible location, U.S.; Associate Manager, Customs & Trade; Requisition ID: JR0000536

* Danfoss; Rødekro, Denmark; Global Trade Compliance Specialist and Coordinator; Requisition ID: 14732BR;
* DB Schenker; Düsseldorf, Germany; Head of Ocean Freight Import; Requisition ID: 201811140002;

* Defense Technology Security Administration; Alexandria, VA; Export Control Analyst; Requisition ID: DE-10413785-19-TB;

* Deloitte Belgium; Ghent, Belgium; Manager Global Trade Advisory;

* DHL; Erlanger, KY; OFAC Agent; Requisition ID: req72731;

Doosan; West Fargo, ND; 
Director Customs & Trade Compliance
DuPont; Neu-Isenburg, Germany; 
Logistics Specialist Customs & Trade Compliance EMEA
; Requisition ID: SOU00001629;

EDCO; Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Customs & Trade Compliance Coordinator

ELTA North America; Baltimore, MD; 
Compliance Officer

* ENSCO Plc; Houston, TX; Analyst II – Export & Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 13136;

Erickson Inc.; Portland or Central Point, OR; 
Import Specialist

Susan Colletto
; Requisition ID 927130;

* Esri; Redlands, CA; Export Compliance Specialist;

 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk Import / Export
 Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom; 
Customs Brokerage Clerk

* Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Coordinator;
* Expeditors; Sunnyvale, CA, USA; Customs Compliance Specialist;

* Export Compliance Solutions/ECScreening; Remote; Sales Representative

* Export Solutions, Inc.; San Jose, CA; 
Director of Global Trade & Compliance;

* Flexport; Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Customs Director Europe;
* Flexport; San Francisco, CA; Customs Compliance Manager;

* FLIR; Arlington, VA or Billerica, MA; Senior Director, Global Export Compliance; Requisition ID: REQ11409;

* FLIR; Täby, Sweden; Compliance Site Operations Leader; Requisition ID: REQ11291;

* Fortive – Tektronix; Beaverton, OR; Chief Compliance Counsel;
* Fortive – HealthNewCo; Irvine, CA; Global Trade Compliance Manager;

GCP Applied Technologies; Cambridge, MA; 
Trade Compliance Manager

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 22119BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Trade Compliance Classification Leader; Requisition ID: 22466BR;

* General Dynamics; Falls Church, VA; Manager, Intl Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 2018-50910;

Google; Mountain View, CA; Trade Specialist, Export Compliance;
# * GSK; Research Triangle Park, NC; Trade Compliance COE Manager; Requisition ID: WD184670;

* GSW Manufacturing Inc; Findlay, OH; Trade Compliance Analyst; 
* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; State Dept, DDTC; Washington, DC; 
Defense Trade Control Compliance Analyst
* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; State Dept, DDTC; Washington, DC; 
Commodities Jurisdiction Analyst

* Honda; Marysville, OH; Senior Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: HTA0000AX;

* Honeywell; multiple locations, United States; Export Compliance Manager (North America); Requisition ID: HRD45798;

* Honeywell; Kansas City, MO; Import/Export Compliance Leader; Requisition ID: req177780;

* Honeywell; Prague, Czech Republic; Export Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: req179383;

* Honeywell International Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA or Lincolnshire, IL; Sr. Import/Export Analyst; HRD32371

 Infineon; El Segundo, CA; 
Manager, Export Control
; Requisition ID: 33841

Infineon Technologies, El Segundo, CA;
Senior Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 31215;

* Infineon Technologies; Tijuana, Mexico; Import-Export Manager;

 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA; 
ITAR Compliance Official / Deputy Facility Security Officer

 InteliTrac Global Solutions; Herndon, VA;
ITAR Compliance Official
IPG Photonics; Oxford, MA; 
Global Director Trade Compliance
 IPG Photonics; Oxford, MA;
Global Director Trade Compliance 

* John Crane; Slough, United Kingdom; Senior Manager International Trade Compliance EMEA; Requisition ID: JCRANE01688; 

* Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI; Director, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: WD30055791295;

Keeco Home; Hayward, CA; Director Customs and Compliance

* Kellogg’s; Bucharest, Romania; Export Documents & Customs Coordinator; Requisition ID: LOG003008;

* Kohler Co; Kohler, WI; Analyst, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 18105; 
Leidos; Columbia, MD; International Trade Manager / Export Compliance; Requisition ID: R-00005745;

* Leonardo DRS; Melbourne, FL; 
Senior Supply Chain Analyst – Small Business Compliance
; Requisition ID: 91669

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 465724BR;

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 468160BR;

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

Lockheed Martin, Grand Prairie, TX OR Orlando, FL.; 
International Trade Compliance Engineer Staff
; Requisition ID 462509BR
Lockheed Martin; 
Grand Prairie, TX; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist / International Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 469631BR

* Luminex; Austin, TX; Global Logistics & Trade Compliance Analyst – US; Requisition ID: 561

* Lutron Electronics Co; Lehigh Valley, PA; Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 4025;

* Meggitt; Erlanger, KY; Trade Compliance Officer;
Requisition ID: 37476;

Meggitt; San Diego, CA; Trade Compliance Officer;
Requisition ID: 36402;

* Metso; Beijing or Tianjin or Shanghai, China; Trade Compliance Manager APAC; Requisition ID: 83732;

* Metso; Helsinki or Vantaa or Tampere, Finland; Trade Compliance Manager EMEA; Requisition ID: 83711;

Mohawk Global Trade Advisors; Chicago, IL; 
Vice President and General Manager of Consulting Division
; Contact: CSardella@mohawkglobal.com;  
* Moog Aircraft Group; Torrance, CA; Senior Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 190620;   

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Records Auditor
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Contract AnalystApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk Lead
 or contact their 
recruiting team
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Service Support Desk
Apply HERE or contact their recruiting team. 
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.
* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.

* Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; DDTC Office Support IIIApply HERE or contact their recruiting team.
Muscogee International, LLC; Washington, D.C.; 
DDTC Office Support
; Apply 
 or contact their 
recruiting team
 Newell Brands; Norwalk, CT; 
Manager of Trade Operations

* Norma Group; Maintal, Germany; Manager Global Trade Compliance and Forwarding; Requisition ID: 8843; 

* Northrop Grumman; Chester, United Kingdom; International Trade Compliance (ITC) Professional;
* Northrop Grumman; London, United Kingdom; Regional Trade Compliance Manager;

* NXP Semiconductors; Eindhoven, The Netherlands; (Senior) Manager Customs Compliance; Requisition ID: R-10013630;

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

Palomar Products; Rancho Santa Margarita, CA; Contracts & Compliance Manager;

* Panasonic Avionics; Houston, TX; Import/Export Analyst;

* Pinpoint Pharma; Lincolnshire,IL; Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 351;

* Polaris; Minneapolis, MN; Mgr, Export Compliance; Requisition ID: 12882BR;

* PwC; Houston, TX; Customs and International Trade Director; Requisition ID: 38150WD;

* QinetiQ; Mönchengladbach, Germany; International Trade Compliance and Logistics Manager;
Ralph Lauren; New York, NY; Director, Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 5567761;

* Rawlings Sporting Goods, St. Louis, MO, Trade Compliance Analyst

Raytheon; Dulles, VA; 
Principal Global Trade License;

* Raytheon; Tuscon, AZ; Senior Export Licensing and Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 129588BR;

* Raytheon; Tucson, AZ; 
Trade Compliance Empowered Official

; Requisition ID: 

* Richemont; Fort Worth, TX; Import/Export Manager; Requisition ID: 8837;

* Rohde & Schwarz; Columbia, MD; Import/Export Compliance Specialist;

Rohde Schwarz; Munich, Germany; 
Spezialist Exportkontrolle (m/w) 

 SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8411BR
SC Johnson; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Senior Analyst, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 1525;

* Shell; Houston, TX; Trade Compliance Manager (Projects and Technology); Requisition ID: 98302BR;

* Shell; Krakow, Poland; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 100384BR;

* Shell; The Hague, The Netherlands; Trade Compliance Manager – Integrated Gas/New Energies; Requisition ID: 98522BR;
Sierra Nevada Corporation; Hurlburt Field, FL; International Trade Compliance Analyst II; Requisition ID: R0007284;
Smith & Nephew; Hull, United Kingdom; European Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: R31311;

* Societé Générale Securities Services; Munich, Germany; Sachbearbeiter Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 1800112L;  

Symantec; Tempe, AZ; 
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 47108;

Teledyne Technologies Inc.; Hawthorne, CA; 
Sr. International Trade Compliance Specialist
Thales; Brest, France; Export Control Manager (H/F); Requisition ID: R0052876
TLR Inc.; Portland, OR; 
Export Compliance Specialist

TE Connectivity; El Cajon, CA or Middletown, PA; 
Licensing Specialist
; Requisition 40514

* Teledyne Semiconductors; Saint-Egrève/Grenoble, France; Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 2019-8459;

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

Thales; New Delhi, India; 
Manager – Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID:

* United Technologies – Collins Aerospace; Cedar Rapids; Compliance Specialist-Government; Requisition ID: 01271793;

* United Technologies – Pratt & Whitney; East Hartford, CT; International Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 01279346;

University of California; San Francisco, CA; 
Export Control Officer
; Requisition ID: 51010;

* Volvo Cars; Göteborg, Sweden; Technical Expert – Export Controls;

* Wealth Ocean; Newport Beach, CA; Marketing & International Trade Specialist;

* Wellesley Asset Management; Wellesley, MA; Chief Compliance Officer;
World Wide Technology; Edwardsville, IL; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist

* Xilinx; San Jose, CA;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 155901
* YETI Coolers; Austin, TX; Inbound Logistics and Trade Compliance Manager

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


ECS Presents “Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities” on 26-27 Mar in Scottsdale, AZ

(Source: S. Palmer, 
* What: Managing ITAR/EAR Complexities; Scottsdale, AZ
* When: 26-27 March 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer, Lisa Bencivenga
* Register 
 or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail

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

Madison Int’l Trade Association’s Meeting Tomorrow in Madison, WI, Has Been Canceled

(Source: Editor)
The Madison International Trade Association (MITA) regrets that due to inclement weather, the export control conference scheduled for tomorrow, 12 February, has been canceled.  Watch this space for news of rescheduling.

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

TE_a221FCC Presents U.S. Export Controls Awareness Course: “ITAR & EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 9 April in Bruchem, the Netherlands

Our next academy course is specifically designed for beginning compliance professionals and those in a similar role who aim to stay up-to-date with the latest U.S. export control requirements that apply to non-U.S. transactions, and industry’s best practices.
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. that are subject to U.S. export controls, including: the U.S. regulatory framework, key concepts and definitions, tips regarding classification and licensing, essential steps to ensure a U.S. export control compliant shipment, how to handle a (potential) non-compliance issue, recent enforcement trends, and the latest and anticipated regulatory amendments.  Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
* What: Awareness Course U.S. Export Controls: ITAR & EAR from a Non-U.S. Perspective 
* When: Tuesday, 9 Apr 2010, 9.30 am – 4.30 pm (CET)
* Where: Landgoed Groenhoven, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Sponsor: Full Circle Compliance (FCC)
* Instructors: Michael E. Farrell (ITAR), and drs. Alexander P. Bosch (EAR)
* Information & Registration: HERE, or contact us at 
 or +31 6 15 65 02 09.
Register now and get a 10% Early Bird discount 
on the course fee!

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


Thomas A. Edison (Thomas Alva Edison; 11 Feb 1847 – 18 Oct 1931; was an American inventor and businessman, who has been described as America’s greatest inventor.  He is credited with developing many devices in fields such as electric power generation, mass communication, sound recording, and motion pictures. These inventions, which include the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long-lasting, practical electric light bulb, had a widespread impact on the modern industrialized world. He was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and teamwork to the process of invention.)
  – “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.”
Monday is pun day:
* When plumbers sleep do they have pipe dreams?
* That guy who was convicted of stealing a calendar got 12 months.
* When I was very young, I felt like a male trapped in a female’s body. Then I was born.

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

. 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 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.

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

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