;

19-0214 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0214 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 14 February 2019

[No items of interest noted today.]

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL and Al-Qaida
  5. German BAFA Publishes February Export Control Newsletter
  1. Defense One: “Cyber Deterrence Done Right: The Coordinated Actions Against Huawei”
  2. Global Trade News: “The Growing Risk of Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains”
  3. ITNews: “Australian Defense’s Bid for New Technology Restrictions Scuttled by Thom Review”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “Liquidated Damages for Violations of ISF Importer Rule to Begin March 15”
  1. A. Kerr: “Is Your Philippine Operation Fully Customs Compliant?”
  2. J. Reeves & K. Heubert: “Democrats Propose Legislation to Halt Export Reform of Commercially Available Firearms and Ammunition”
  3. P. Fudacz: “New NAFTA? – What NAFTA Practitioners Can Expect Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”
  1. ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” on 30 Apr – 1 May in Nashville, TN
  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 (12 Feb 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

  

* Treasury/OFAC; NOTICES; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Pub. Date: 15 Feb 2019.]
 
* U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; NOTICES; Hearing [Pub. Date: 15 Feb 2019.] 

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

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

(Source: 
Commerce/BIS)

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

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

OGS_a44
EU Amends Restrictive Measures Concerning ISIL and Al-Qaida

(Source: 
Official Journal of the European Union, 14 Feb 2019.)
 
Regulations

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/257 of 13 February 2019 amending for the 294th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organizations

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

OGS_a55
German BAFA Publishes February Export Control Newsletter 

(Source: 
German BAFA, 4 Feb 2019.) 
 
The German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) has published its February 2019 Export Control Newsletter (in German).  The newsletter is available 
here.

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a16.
Defense One: “Cyber Deterrence Done Right: The Coordinated Actions Against Huawei”

(Source: 
Defense One, 13 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
By marshalling the collective power of its allies, the U.S. may have finally found a model for imposing costs on cyber adversaries.
 
An 
arrest in Canada. 
Another in Poland. Government bans in 
Canberra
Wellington, and 
Tokyo. Corporate snubs and ostracism in 
South Korea
Britain
Germany, and France. The 
loss of purchase orders by one of the world’s largest wireless providers. And now a 
13-count indictment by the U.S. Justice Department. It has been a bad few months for Chinese telecommunication titan Huawei. Unleashing the collective power of its democratic allies, the United States may have finally found the formula for imposing real costs on its cyber adversaries. 
The indictment unsealed on Jan. 28 alleges that Huawei willfully violated 
U.S. sanctions on Iran and repeatedly lied to U.S. financial institutions and federal authorities about Huawei’s business in Iran. …  

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

NWS_a27
Global Trade News: “The Growing Risk of Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains” 

(Source: 
Integration Point Blog, 13 Feb 2019.) 
 
Those of us in the business of global trade compliance are well aware of the increased attention in recent years to the issue of forced labor. This is not a new problem, but incidents in recent years with well-known brands, coupled with new legislation designed to curb behavior of this type, has increased the importance of supplier due diligence for those operating in global markets.
 
On January 31, 2019, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued its first 
fine to e.l.f. Cosmetics for violating the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), as it applies to North Korean labor under the North Korean Sanctions Regulations (NKSR).  The initial statutory maximum civil monetary penalty amount for the apparent violations was US$40,833,633. This enforcement action indicates that government agencies are watching closely for violations of this nature.
 
In 2017, CAATSA became law.  CAATSA reverses the burden of proof for imported merchandise believed to be the product of labor by North Korean citizens or nationals, 
wherever located.  Under Section 302A, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can prohibit import “unless the importer can demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that North Korean forced labor was not involved in the production of the merchandise.”
  The burden of proof is with the importer.
 
This combined with the provisions in the U.S. Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), which allows CBP to issue Withhold Release Orders based on the belief “that goods are being, or are likely to be, imported in violation of the Customs forced labor statute,” should indicate that this issue is being taken seriously.
 
The OFAC violation stated e.l.f. Cosmetics appears to have violated the NKSR by importing 156 shipments of false eyelash kits from two suppliers located in the People’s Republic of China that contained materials sourced by these suppliers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). e.l.f. Cosmetics imported the kits from on or about April 1, 2012 to on or about January 28, 2017.  Furthermore, the violation stated that “throughout the time period in which the apparent violations occurred, ELF’s OFAC compliance program was either non-existent or inadequate.”
 
Multiple aggravating factors were noted:
  (1) The apparent violations may have resulted in U.S.-origin funds coming under the control of the DPRK government, in direct conflict with the program objectives of the NKSR;
  (2) e.l.f. Cosmetics is a large and commercially sophisticated company that engages in a substantial volume of international trade; and
  (3) e.l.f. Cosmetic’s OFAC compliance program was either non-existent or inadequate throughout the time period in which the violations occurred, and 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.
 
e.l.f. Cosmetics was able to reduce the penalty to $996,080 as the result of an immediate prior disclosure, as well as having no prior history of violations in the previous 5 years, among other factors.
 
This enforcement action by OFAC draws attention to the risks for companies that do not conduct supply chain due diligence when sourcing products from overseas.  A solid strategy would be for companies to develop, implement, and maintain a risk-based approach to sanctions compliance and to implement processes and procedures to recognize and alleviate areas of risks.  This could include, but is not limited to, implementing supply chain audits with country-of-origin verification; conducting mandatory training for suppliers; and routinely and frequently performing audits of suppliers.
 
Reinforcing the heightened attention to the issue of forced labor, on February 4, 2019, U.S. CBP issued a 
Withhold Release Order, effective immediately, against tuna and tuna products from the Tunago No. 61 based on information obtained by CBP indicating the tuna is harvested with the use of forced labor. The order requires detention at all U.S. ports of entry of tuna and any such merchandise manufactured wholly or in part by the Tunago No. 61. Importers of detained shipments are provided an opportunity to export their shipments or demonstrate that the merchandise was not produced with forced labor.
 
The above incidents underscore the importance of integrating an automated supplier risk management and denied party screening solution into your supply chain management strategy. In an unforgiving global market, it has become increasingly important to conduct due diligence when sourcing materials, no matter the region. Implementing a solid strategy not only demonstrates due diligence, but helps your company to avoid fines, penalties, and possible damages to the brand.  In light of recent events, now is an ideal time to have a conversation with your stakeholders to consider implementing Supply Chain Compliance and Denied Party Screening solutions to assess and mitigate risk.

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

NWS_a38
ITNews: “Australian Defense’s Bid for New Technology Restrictions Scuttled by Thom Review”

(Source: 
ITNews, 14 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
More nuanced approach needed to address legislative gaps.
 
An independent review of Australia’s tough export control laws has conspicuously tempered the Department of Defense’s demands for sweeping new powers and suggested it work better with stakeholders to address perceived gaps in the legislation. 

The government on Wednesday released the much-awaited report [
available here
] from the former Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Vivienne Thom’s review of the Defense Trade Controls Act 2012.
 
The review probed whether the legislation, which regulates the supply of military and so-called ‘dual-use’ technologies overseas, continues to provide “appropriate levels of regulation and security for controlled technologies”.
 
It also looked at whether operation of laws continued to align with international best practices for export controls were not “unnecessarily restricting trade”. … 

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

NWS_a49
ST&R Trade Report: “Liquidated Damages for Violations of ISF Importer Rule to Begin March 15” 

(Source: 
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 14 Feb 2019.)
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced that on March 15 it will begin issuing liquidated damages claims for violations of an April 2018 rule expanding the definition of the importer security filing importer for certain types of shipments. Enforcement had originally been slated to begin Jan. 21 but was delayed due to the recent federal government shutdown.
 
ISF importers must transmit an ISF to CBP no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard a vessel destined to the U.S. (or any time prior to lading for foreign cargo remaining on board). The ISF consists of either ten data elements for shipments of goods intended to be entered into the U.S. or delivered to a foreign-trade zone or five data elements for shipments entirely of FROB cargo or goods intended to be transported as immediate exportation or transportation and exportation in-bond shipments.
 
Under previous regulations, the ISF importer was the party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the U.S. by vessel, typically the goods’ owner, purchaser, or consignee or an agent such as a licensed customs broker. However, these regulations limited the definition of ISF importer for specified types of shipments: for FROB cargo, the ISF importer was the vessel-operating common carrier, and for IT and T&E in-bond shipments and goods to be delivered to an FTZ, the ISF importer was the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation.
 
CBP concluded that these limitations did not reflect commercial reality and in some cases designated a party as the ISF importer even though it had no commercial interest in the shipment and limited access to the ISF data. In some cases, the party responsible may not even have been involved in the importation at the time the ISF had to be filed.
 
As a result, CBP’s April 2018 final rule expanded the definition of ISF importer to place responsibility for filing the ISF with the party causing the goods to enter the limits of a port in the U.S. and most likely to have access to the required ISF information. Specifically, for FROB shipments the ISF importer could be a non-vessel-operating common carrier as well as a VOCC, and for IE and T&E in-bond shipments and goods to be delivered to an FTZ the ISF importer could be the goods’ owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent (e.g., a licensed customs broker, carrier, or NVOCC).
 
However, CBP said that while this rule shifted the legal responsibility for filing the ISF in these instances it would not change who actually submits the data in the “vast majority of cases.”

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a110
A. Kerr: “Is Your Philippine Operation Fully Customs Compliant?”

(Source: 
Mayer Brown, 8 Feb 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
* Author: Anthony Kerr, Esq., 
anthony.kerr@mayerbrown.com. Of Mayer Brown. 
 
The Post Clearance Audit (PCA) function in the Philippines is finally back with the Bureau of Customs (BOC). This is where it should have always been, as this function is the primary backstop that allows customs to facilitate the movement of goods across its borders. The function was moved from the BOC to the Department of Finance in 2014. In October 2017 Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 46, returning the function back to the BOC under the renamed Post Clearance Audit Group. In January 2019, the customs commissioner and the finance secretary of the Philippines finally signed Customs Administrative Order 01-2019, which kick start the implementation of the PCA and the Prior Disclosure Program will come into effect on 15 February 2019. … 

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

(Source: Reeves & Dola LLP Alert, 13 Feb 2019.) [Available by subscription via J. Reeves.] 
 

Katherine Heubert, Esq., 
kheubert@reevesdola.com. Both of Reeves & Dola LLP. 
 
On February 12, 2019, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), joined by Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), introduced legislation to halt the proposed rewrite of U.S. Munitions List (USML) Categories I, II, and III. The text of the legislation is not yet available for review, but the text of the bill (
S.459)should be accessible shortly through the Library of Congress on 
www.congress.gov
 
In a 
press release the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations issued yesterday, the proposed Stopping the Traffic in Overseas Proliferation of Ghost Guns Act would:
 
  – “Prohibit the transfer of small arms/light weapons, and the technical manufacturing information related to them (including 3D Printed guns), to the Department of Commerce;
  – Maintain the statutory restriction on publishing 3D Printing gun information, including via the Internet;
  – Prohibit the ability of the State Department to suspend the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations without 30-day prior notice to Congress.”
 
Similar legislation appears to also have been introduced in the House (
H.R.1134) to amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the removal of certain items under category I, II, or III of the United States Munitions List. So far, the House bill has six cosponsors, all Democrats, from the states of New York, Rhode Island, Florida, Illinois, California and Massachusetts.
 
As we have covered extensively in our 
previous alerts on the transition rules, the proposed rewrite of USML Categories I, II, and III would revise the scope of the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to control only those articles that provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage or, in the case of weapons, are inherently for military end use. Such items will remain on the USML, while items no longer warranting control under the ITAR will be transitioned to the Commerce Control List and be subject to the licensing provisions of the Export Administration Act, administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security. 
 
As many of you already know, USML Categories I, II, and III are the last USML categories to actually go through the revision process, although they were among the 
first categories the Obama Administration drafted for transition back when Export Control Reform was initially rolled out. All other USML Categories have been officially revised already, some with multiple amendments. And so, it is important to restate in the face of predictable political push back, 
this is not a decontrol of the items identified for removal from the USML. Rather, it is a right-sizing of U.S. export controls. 
 
We will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation. While it is possible that the House version may pass, it is unlikely the Senate will take it up. However, this serves as a reminder that there is still a “tough row to hoe” for the final Congressional Notification process for the USML Category I, II, and III rewrites.

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

(Source: 
Braumiller Law Group PLLC, 11 Feb 2019. 
 
* Author; Paul Fudacz, Esq., Braumiller Law Group, PLLC. 
 
Many importers are aware that the United States, Canada, and Mexico have negotiated a replacement treaty for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The new agreement is called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and was announced by President Trump on October 1, 2018.  
 
While the agreement must still be ratified, many trade compliance professionals are wondering whether their training and on-the-job experience gained in connection with the NAFTA will become obsolete, or will they otherwise need an abundance of new training to become proficient with the USMCA. The good news is that the basic compliance elements that most hands-on NAFTA compliance professionals are familiar with will remain in place. These include the following:
 
Rules of Origin – The Rules of Origin are found under Chapter 4 of the USMCA.  See: 
HERE.
 
Under the USMCA the major preference criteria categories used under the NAFTA will remain, for example under USMCA Chapter 4.2, preference criteria A (Goods Wholly Obtained or Produced), B (Goods Satisfying the Applicable Product-Specific Rules of Origin), etc.  However practitioners that utilized the less-commonly used preference criteria D, E and F should carefully review the USMCA rules as a certain number of these provisions have undergone changes.
 
Further the fundamental concepts of Tariff Shift, Regional Value Content, Net Cost, Transaction Value, Indirect Materials, Intermediate Materials, Self-produced materials and De Minimis also remain.  However, many of the product specific rules of origin (i.e., the HTSUS Note 12(t) rules) have been revised, especially in the automotive sector, where NAFTA practitioners will need to review these rules and determine if any changes have occurred that might impact their particular products.
 
Also remaining of paramount importance is that USMCA practitioners preparing certificates of origin obtain proof from outside suppliers that their products qualify under the USMCA.  As before, the best way to do this is to obtain a USMCA certificate, or other written certification, from your suppliers when preparing your own certificates.  The only difference under USMCA will be that there will no longer be a prescribed form for certification as there is under NAFTA but instead the new certification must include certain data elements. 
 
In addition, another essential element of your NAFTA compliance efforts that has not gone away is the requirement to maintain detailed records related to the USMCA claims, as well as the qualification process. Importers making claims under the USMCA will be required to obtain and maintain USMCA certificates prior to making a USMCA claim, and when completing a USMCA certificate to accompany an export shipment. The certifying company must maintain detailed records sufficient to permit cross-border auditors to validate any USMCA claims and validate the USMCA certificates provided.
 
Other noteworthy changes include:
 
  
New De Minimis Provision – Under the NAFTA the de minimis threshold was 7%, meaning a product could qualify for NAFTA preferential treatment provided that no more than 7% of its non-originating content failed to make the required tariff shift.  Under the USMCA this threshold is raised to 10%
 
  
New Provision Related to “Cores” under Article 4.4 – Treatment of Recovered Materials Used in the Production of a Remanufactured Good.  Under the NAFTA there was recurring difficulty and confusion regarding the treatment of “cores” that were reclaimed from used merchandise (for example a water pump casting) and used in the production of remanufactured articles.  Article 4.4 provides more clarity that should assist producers of remanufactured articles.
 
Given our current political climate there is no guarantee that the USMCA will be ratified or may possibly undergo further changes, however from a hands-on NAFTA practitioners standpoint there will be many elements of the USMCA that should remain familiar. At the same time, practitioners need to understand the changes and incorporate these into your compliance processes as applicable.  This is especially true for any changes to the rules of origin that may apply to the specific products you need to certify, as these will determine whether your future USMCA claims are made properly and will withstand an audit.

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


TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a113. 
ECS Presents “Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges” 30 April to 1 May in 
Nashville

(Source: S. Palmer, spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com.)
 
* What: Mastering ITAR/EAR Challenges; Nashville, TN
* When: April 30-May 1, 2019
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer; Lisa Bencivenga; Timothy Mooney, Debi Davis, Matthew McGrath, Matt Doyle
* Register here or by calling  866-238-4018 or email

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES


Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. 14 Feb 1818 – 20 Feb 1895; was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, gaining note for his oratory and incisive antislavery writings. In his time, he was described by abolitionists as a living counter-example to slaveholders’ arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens. Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.)
  
– “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
  – “People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get.”

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

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

 

*
DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.

  – Last Amendment: 14 Jan 2019: 84 FR 112-116: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Material from Bulgaria; and 84 FR 107-112: Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Material From China 
 

DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Industry & Security.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Dec 2018: 83 FR 65292-65294: Control of Military Electronic Equipment and Other Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML); Correction [Concerning ECCN 7A005 and ECCN 7A105.]
 
* DOC FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30.  Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
  – Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018: 83 FR 17749-17751: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.
  – The latest edition (1 Jan 2019) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR contains all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu.   

 

DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M. Implemented by Dep’t of Defense.
  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary here.)
 
 
DOE ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ATOMIC ENERGY ACTIVITIES: 10 CFR Part 810; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 23 Feb 2015: 80 FR 9359, comprehensive updating of regulations, updates the activities and technologies subject to specific authorization and DOE reporting requirements. This rule also identifies destinations with respect to which most assistance would be generally authorized and destinations that would require a specific authorization by the Secretary of Energy.
 
DOE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 10 CFR Part 110; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Nov 2018, 10 CFR 110.6, Re-transfers.
 

* DOJ ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War.  Implemented by Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
  – Last Amendment: 15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm.  

 

DOS INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130. Implemented by Dep’t of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
  – Last Amendment: 4 Oct 2018: 83 FR 50003-50007: Regulatory Reform Revisions to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 1 Jan 2019) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, over 800 footnotes containing amendment histories, case annotations, practice tips, DDTC guidance, and explanations of errors in the official ITAR text. Subscribers receive updated copies of the BITAR in Word by email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment. The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website. BAFTR subscribers receive a $25 discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please contact us to receive your discount code.
 
* DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders. 

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

  – Last Amendment: 15 Nov 2018: 83 FR 57308-57318: Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions Regulations
  
* USITC HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA), 1 Jan 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: 
12 Feb 2019: 
Harmonized System Update 1901
 [contains 397 ABI records and 89 harmonized tariff records.] 

  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

EN_a0316
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories” published 
here

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, Alexander P. Bosch and Vincent J.A. Goossen; and Events & Jobs Editor, Alex Witt. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 6,500 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission, provided attribution is given to “The Export/Import Daily Bugle of (date)”. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.  If you would to submit material for inclusion in the The Export/Import Daily Update (“Daily Bugle”), please find instructions here.

* CAVEAT: The contents of this newsletter cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.


* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website

* BACK ISSUES: An archive of Daily Bugle publications from 2005 to present is available HERE.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top