;

19-0417 Wednesday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0417 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

[No items of interest noted today.] 

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. Commerce/Census Adds Port of Export Conde to AES
  4. DHS/CBP Releases Update Concerning Submitting Secion 232 Product Exclusions
  5. DoD/DSS Implements Section 842 of the NDAA
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  7. Australia Conducts Border Permits Review, Welcomes Industry Feedback Until 30 April
  1. Global Times: “U.S. Military Ties Could Be a Trap for India”
  2. Reuters: “EU Warns U.S. Against Exposing EU Firms in Cuba”
  3. Newsroom: “Military Tech in Sights with Foreign Investor Plans”
  4. Reuters: “Turkey Looking At New Trade Mechanisms with Iran To Avoid U.S. Sanctions”
  1. B. Webb: “Export Control 101: Commodity Jurisdiction”
  2. M. Volkov: “Standard Chartered Pays Over $1 Billion for Continuing Sanctions Violations (Part I of III)”
  3. O. Gonzalez: “Did You Know? Brexit and Customs Law”
  1. ICPA Presents “2019 EU Conference”, 15-17 May in London
  2. FCC Presents “Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (11 Apr 2019), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOJ/ATF (14 Mar 2018), DOS/ITAR (19 Mar 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (15 Mar 2018), HTSUS (2 Apr 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)

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

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

OGS_a33.
Commerce/Census Adds Port of Export Conde to AES 

(Source:
census@subscriptions.census.gov, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
The following Port of Export Code has been ADDED to the AES:
 
– Port of Export Code: 5589
– Description: Meacham International Airport, TX
– Allowed MOTs: Air and Passenger, Hand-Carried

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

OGS_a44.
DHS/CBP Releases Update Concerning Submitting Secion 232 Product Exclusions

(Source:
CSMS# 19-000194, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
BACKGROUND
 
On March 19 and September 11, 2018, the Department of Commerce (DOC) published in the Federal Register (FR) the process for parties to submit requests for exclusions from Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9705 on Adjusting Imports of Steel and Aluminum into the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. See 83 FR 12106 and 83 FR 46026.   
IMPORTER OF RECORD INFORMATION
 
Upon receipt of the approved product exclusion from the DOC, for the importer of record listed in the approved exclusion, please provide that company’s name, address and importer of record number, and the associated product exclusion number, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at 
Traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov. For approved quota exclusions, send a cc: of the information to 
HQQuota@cbp.dhs.gov. If submitting multiple exclusion numbers, consolidate into one email submission.     
 
CBP needs this information in order to activate the approved product exclusion number in ACE, so that entries can be filed with this product exclusion number. You must provide this information to CBP before the filer submits the exclusion number with entries to CBP. For quota exclusions, CBP must activate the product exclusion number before any quota exemption can be processed, and goods subject to the quota exemption can be released.

CBP activates approved product exclusion numbers in ACE on a weekly basis. CBP, in most circumstances, will activate by close of business Thursday of every week any product exclusion numbers with corresponding importer information submitted by close of business Monday to

 
traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov. Any entry filer can check whether a product exclusion number has been activated by submitting the exclusion number on an entry summary line.

Do not submit any product exclusion information to CBP until the Department of Commerce approves the product exclusion.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING PRODUCT EXCLUSION NUMBERS

Instructions on submitting entries to CBP of steel and aluminum products granted exclusions by DOC from the Presidential Proclamations are as follows:

Importers and filers importing products granted an exclusion should submit the product exclusion number based on the last six digits of the product exclusion docket number at 
Regulations.gov. The product exclusion number should be submitted in the Importer Additional Declaration Field (54 record) of the entry summary data, based on the following format:

For excluded steel mill articles = STLXXXXXX

For excluded aluminum articles = ALUXXXXXX

XXXXXX represent the last six digits of the 
Regulations.gov docket number; do not include spaces or special characters, such as hyphens.

Example: If a steel exclusion is granted under product exclusion docket number BIS-2018-0009-9002, the importer/filer should submit the exclusion number STL099002 (i.e. STL plus the last six digits of the docket number).

Please refer to the Importer’s Additional Declaration Detail (Input 54-Record) of the CBP and Trade Automated Interfaces Requirements (CATAIR) Manual for further guidance. The CATAIR document can be found 
here.

Only products from importer(s) designated in the product exclusion approved by the DOC are eligible for the exclusion from the Section 232 measures.

Steel importers are reminded to submit mill certificates with their import data as required by 19 CFR 141.89.

Do not submit the corresponding Chapter 99 HTS number for the Section 232 duties when the product exclusion number is submitted.  

   
UPDATE: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON SUBMITTING PRODUCT EXCLUSIONS ON EXCLUSIONS GRANTED BY DOC WITH EXPIRED HTS CLASSIFICATION

Instructions on submitting entries to CBP with expired HTS classification (HTS classification which are replaced in the HTSUS by new HTS classification(s)) are as follows:

If the HTS classification associated with an approved exclusion expires, CBP will add the corresponding new HTS classifications to the ACE exclusion data for those exclusions. Importers and filers will be able to file the exclusion number on applicable entries classified under the new HTS classification(s). Importers and filers can continue to file post summary corrections to request retroactive refunds on any applicable entries originally filed with the expired HTS classification.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Duty exclusions granted by DOC are retroactive on imports to the date the request for exclusion was accepted (date received) by the Department of Commerce. See Presidential Proclamations 9776 and 9777, August 29, 2018.

To request an administrative refund for previous imports of duty-excluded products granted by DOC, importers may file a PSC and provide the product exclusion number in the Importer Additional Declaration Field. If the entry has already liquidated, importers may protest the liquidation. 

Once products are excluded from the Section 232 measures, importers may claim Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) or African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) duty preferences on GSP and AGOA-eligible goods. If importers did not receive GSP or AGOA duty preferences on previous imports, and those imports are now covered by a retroactive duty exclusion, importers may request a refund of the duties subject to GSP or AGOA preferences through a PSC.

For more information about submitting Post Summary Corrections, see Section 11 of the ACE Entry Summary Business Rules and Process Document. The ACE Entry Summary Business Rules and Process Document can be found
here.

For more information, please refer to the March 19 and September 11, 2018 FR notices on requesting product exclusions. Questions related to Section 232 entry filing requirements should be emailed to 
traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov. For questions related to quota product exclusions filing requirements, email the Quota and Agriculture Branch, 
HQQuota@cbp.dhs.gov.

Questions from the importing community concerning ACE entry rejections involving product exclusion numbers should be referred to their CBP Client Representative.

This memo is located on 
CBP.GOV website by selecting 

Trade/Programs and Administration/Trade Remedies/Section 232

– Related CSMS No. 18-000663, 18-000606, 18-00042


back to top
 

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

OGS_a55.
DoD/DSS Implements Section 842 of the NDAA

(Source:
DoD/DSS, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
On April 10, 2019, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) directed DSS to accelerate the implementation of Section 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019.
 
Section 842 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 allows the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), to waive the National Interest Determination (NID)requirement for a U.S. company operating under a special security agreement (SSA) if the company has:
 
  (1) an “ultimate parent” located in a country that is part of the National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB), as defined in section 2500 of Title 10, U.S. Code (Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom);

  (2) previously been approved for access to proscribed information; and

  (3) a “demonstrated successful record of compliance” with the National Industrial Security Program
 
DSS has identified the legal entities that appear to meet the preliminary requirements of that statute and is in the process of reviewing those companies for a demonstrated successful record of compliance with the National Industrial Security Program. Within 30 days, DSS will provide USD(I) with recommendations for waivers of the requirement to obtain a NID prior to accessing proscribed information under the control and authority of the Secretary, which is limited to Special Access Program Information, Top Secret Information and, with the approval of the Director, National Security Agency, communications security information.

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

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

OGS_a7
7
. Australia Conducts Border Permits Review, Welcomes Industry Feedback Until 30 April

(Source:
Australia Defense Export Controls, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
Want to share your experience of Australia’s border permits system? Are there areas that are currently working well for you or your business, or do you have ideas for improvement?

The Department of Home Affairs are leading a Border Permits Review (the Review), seeking views of industry, the general public and government about regulatory and business process requirements for permits and associated licenses for importing and exporting prohibited goods.

The Review will identify opportunities to make regulatory and business process requirements for permits and associated licenses clearer and easier to understand, navigate and manage.

Read more about the Review and have your say before
submissions close on Tuesday 30 April 2019:
here.


back to top
 

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a18

Global Times: “U.S. Military Ties Could Be a Trap for India” 

(Source:
Global Times, 16 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
Given its desire for strategic autonomy in international affairs, India’s foreign policy can be characterized as non-aligned. However, in recent years, its deepening politico-military ties with the U.S. have somewhat altered its foreign policy. 

The U.S.-India Enhanced Cooperation Act (HR 2123) re-introduced last week by US Congressman Joe Wilson seeks to amend the US Arms Export Control Act and allow India a status on par with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members. In 2017, the US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) recognized India as a major defense partner. 

High-end military security agreements between India and the US were accelerated after the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement on October 10, 2008, which allowed India to break free of its nuclear apartheid and was hailed as the most important achievement of the United Progressive Alliance (2004-14) government under former prime minister Manmohan Singh. 

Apart from military commerce which has increased in both scale and quality, the institutionalization of Indo-U.S. military relations within the paradigm of the Indo-Pacific strategy challenges India’s notion of strategic autonomy. …

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

NWS_a29
.
Reuters: “EU Warns U.S. Against Exposing EU Firms in Cuba”
(Source:
Reuters, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
The European Union on Wednesday reiterated its opposition to European firms and citizens being caught out by U.S. sanctions on Cuba, calling on Washington to adhere to a 1998 agreement to grant a consistent waiver for EU companies and citizens.
 
  “The EU reiterates a strong opposition to the extraterritorial application of unilateral restrictive measures which is considers contrary to international law,” a spokesman for the EU executive told a briefing in Brussels.
 
The EU has serious concerns over the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to end the practice of suspending on a rotating six-month basis a section of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act that would allow such suits, principally from Cuban-Americans.

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

NWS_a3
10
.
Newsroom: “Military Tech in Sights with Foreign Investor Plans”
(Source: Newsroom, 17 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
The Government has announced the next phase of its plans to tighten up New Zealand’s overseas investment rules, including a possible “national interest test” to block deals which raise security concerns or other issues.
 
Ministers may also get the ability to block investments related to “dual-use technology” with both civilian and military applications – an area where China has stolen a march on the rest of the world.
 
Associate Finance Minister David Parker has launched public consultation for the second phase of the Government’s Overseas Investment Act reforms, following on from
the “foreign buyers ban” which became law in late 2018.
 
The consultation documents set out a range of options for tidying up the current laws, with Parker saying the Government’s aim was to cut back on “pernickety” requirements for foreign investors while also allowing politicians greater say over prospective transactions. …

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

NWS_a4
11
.
Reuters: “Turkey Looking At New Trade Mechanisms with Iran To Avoid U.S. Sanctions”
(Source:
Reuters, 17 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Wednesday Turkey is looking into establishing new trade mechanisms with Iran, like the INSTEX system set up by European countries to avoid U.S. sanctions reimposed last year on exports of Iranian oil.
 
Those sanctions followed President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from a 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and six world powers to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear program and stop backing militant proxies in the Middle East. …
 
France, Germany and Britain have opened a new channel for non-dollar trade with Iran to avert sanctions, dubbed The Instrument In Support Of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX).
 
Washington’s European allies opposed Trump’s move to abandon the 2015 deal, under which sanctions on Iran were lifted in return for Tehran accepting curbs on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has threatened to pull out of the deal unless the European powers enable it to receive economic benefits. The Europeans have promised to help companies do business with Iran as long as it abides by the deal. …
 
After reimposing sanctions on Iran, Washington granted waivers to eight nations including Turkey that reduced their purchases of Iranian oil, allowing them to keep buying it without incurring sanctions for six more months. …

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a1
12.
B. Webb: “Export Control 101: Commodity Jurisdiction”

(Source:
CTP
, 16 Apr 2019.)
 
* Author: Bruce Webb, Director, Technical Programs, CTP Compliance Solutions, contact 
here.
 
As technical specialists, we often get asked about Commodity Jurisdiction. The questions are simple but important and the answers are invaluable for newcomers to export control.
 
What is a Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination? The first and most basic step in export control is determining if your item (be it a physical product, software, technology, or service) requires an export license. To ascertain this, you must first verify which set of regulations pertain to that item. It may be the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or it may be the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Since the ITAR is administered by the State Department and the EAR is overseen by the Department of Commerce, you are trying to determine which jurisdiction your product belongs to, based on its technical characteristics or capabilities.
 
Why is a CJ important? The two sets of regulations, ITAR and EAR, are dramatically different in several ways: technical focus, control list structure, logic, terminology, licensing methodology and, most importantly, controlling agency. You need to determine jurisdiction to find out which set of regulations applies to you and your product(s). This has taken on new importance in recent years as Export Control Reform (ECR) has resulted in moving many items from ITAR to EAR control.
 
How do you perform a CJ?  To determine your jurisdiction, you must follow the commodity classification process, what is called the Order of Review. First you compare the item’s characteristics to the appropriate sections of the U.S. Munitions List (USML). If it is described there, the item is under the jurisdiction of ITAR.  If the item is not described in any of the USML’s 21 categories, you move next to the Commerce Control List (CCL) to see if it meets any of the technical descriptions there.  If the item is not called out on the CCL, it falls to a null classification of EAR99, the lowest level of concern.  In both the latter instances, the jurisdiction is the EAR.
 
When does this work typically occur? Determining jurisdiction and classification should be considered “Job #1” on an exporter’s checklist, not just for licensing purposes but also to determine the complexity of the resulting compliance requirements so that appropriate policies and procedures can be created, and various training sessions held.
 
Who does the work of determining jurisdiction and classification? If the issues are simple and your organization has appropriately trained in-house experts, you can likely self-classify.  If the items are complex and/or greater in volume, you can hire third party experts like CTP or law firms to do this specialized work. As a last option, if there are only a small number of items, you can apply to one of the regulatory agencies for an official determination – the Commerce Department, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) or the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) in the Department of State. Below we review the issues to consider when making a self-determination or applying to the government for a CJ.
 
What are the complicating factors in self-classification?
Export Control Reform (ECR) – The ECR initiative, occurring over the past six years and continuing, has made several important changes. Most evidently, the ECR has mandated the transfer of certain less sensitive military items from the USML to the CCL, that is, from ITAR to EAR jurisdiction. The rationale was to place the mundane military items under EAR rules versus the more stringent and onerous ITAR requirements, but, in the process, ECR has blurred the lines between the two control lists. It may be obvious that an Abrams Tank and an F-15 fighter aircraft are USML items, but, in both cases, certain parts and components for each are on the CCL. As a result, classification tasks that were once strict but simple have become more nuanced.
 
OEM Guidance – While it is still prudent to seek jurisdictional and classification information from the manufacturer of any given item (if the exporter is not the manufacturer), it is all too common that the OEM’s export classifications are out of date as a result of ECR. Use OEM guidance with caution. Perform complete or spot-check verifications if possible.
 
“Commercial-Off-The-Shelf” (COTS) – Confusion often stems from COTS products. Being a COTS item, in and of itself, does not provide enough information to determine jurisdiction. The classification depends on the potential capabilities. Here are two examples:
  – If a COTS item has a significant intelligence gathering capability and provides a potential military advantage, it will likely be controlled as a USML item regardless of origin.
  – COTS items that can be modified for military purposes, such as a commercial platform that has been fitted with military sensors or weapons, would likely be considered as a USML item.
 
Original Design Intent – Items may have been designed for military use but never used in a military application. These items would be assumed to be ITAR controlled so a CJ request would be needed to potentially obtain a more favorable, that is, EAR, jurisdiction determination.
 
Demilitarized Items – Another candidate for a CJ request would be an item that has been demilitarized and is now used commercially. A thorough review of the history of the item is a necessary step in determining whether an item is now properly subject to the EAR instead of the ITAR.
 
It is evident that the process of determining jurisdiction is not simple or easy, particularly when distinctions are subtle and/or subject to interpretation, or if the items involve fast-moving and emerging technology. It is critical to have experts on your team, either making these determinations directly or writing carefully crafted CJ requests, laying out the facts and arguments persuasively. 

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

COM_a2
13
.
M. Volkov: “Standard Chartered Pays Over $1 Billion for Continuing Sanctions Violations (Part I of III)”
(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 15 Apr 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
Global banks are the poster children of sanctions violations and the importance of trade compliance. At the top of the heap is Standard Chartered Bank.
 
In a long-awaited resolution of a multi-year investigation, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), the New York District Attorney’s (DANY), the Federal Reserve, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) and the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced a number of settlement agreements in connection with SCB’s violations of Iran Sanctions Programs.
 
Under the agreements, SCB agreed with the:
  – Justice Department to forfeit $240 million, a fine of $480 million and to extend its existing deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for an additional two years;
  – Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) to pay total penalties of $657 million; the Federal Reserve to pay penalties of $163 million; the New York Department of Financial Services to pay total penalties of $180 million; and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to pay total penalties of $133 million; and
  – New York District Attorney’s Office to pay a financial penalty of $292 million and extend its DPA with DA-NY for two years.
 
The Justice Department agreed to credit a portion of these payments and reduced its fine for SCB from $480 million to $52 million, along with the $240 million forfeiture.
 
After crediting these payments, SCB is paying a total of over $1.6 billion, consisting of: $240 million in forfeiture, $52 million to DOJ; $657 million to OFAC; $768 million (NY-DA, Federal Reserve, NYDFS and UK FCA).
 
At the same time, DOJ filed a new two-count felony information with the US District Court in the District of Columbia which added a second count to an original information filed on December 10, 2012. The first count filed in 2012 charged SCB with a criminal conspiracy from 2001 to 2007 to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In the 2012 settlement, SCB agreed to pay a criminal fine of $227 million.
 
In the newly-added second count, SCB agreed to defer prosecution of a second IEEPA conspiracy from 2007 to 2011, which resulted in SCB processing approximately 9,500 U.S. dollar transactions to benefit Iranian individuals and entities totaling approximately $240 million.
 
The Justice Department also announced the indictment of an Iranian national, Mahmoud Reza Elyassi, and the guilty plea of a former SCB employee for a criminal conspiracy to violate the Iran Sanctions Program.
 
SCB’s sanctions violations arose from activities in SCB’s Dubai and London offices. Elyassi, an Iranian national who maintained business accounts in SCB’s Dubai branch, conducted foreign currency transactions in US dollars. SCB’s former employees knew that Elyassi’s business organizations operated from Iran and benefit Iranian interests, and helped Elyassi disguise his Iran connections to avoid detection by SCB officials.
 
Elyassi and co-conspirators registered numerous general trading companies in the United Arab Emirates and then used these companies as front for money exchange transactions to benefit his business operations in Iran.
 
For its part, SCB admitted to processing approximately 9,500 US dollar transactions through the United States in violation of the Iran Sanctions Program. SCB has engaged in significant remediation including the enhancement of its US sanctions compliance program and improvements to its financial crime compliance program. SCB fully cooperated with the government’s investigation, including by producing significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing by individuals.

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

COM_a3
14.
O. Gonzalez: “Did You Know? Brexit and Customs Law”
(Source: Author, 12 Apr 2019.)
 
* Author: Oscar Gonzalez, Esq., Gonzalez, Rolon, Valdespino, & Rodriguez, LLC; 
oscarg@exportimportlaw.com, 1-214-720-7720.

Customs law may seem esoteric, but it has always played an oversized role in the world.  Tariffs can decide the fate of entire economies, and can be used in the form of sanctions to engage in economic warfare that can serve as prelude or as a complement to military intervention and escalation. 

You may not completely understand Brexit (there are very few who do), but you should at least appreciate that customs law is at the heart of the controversy of how or whether the UK should exit the European Union (EU). As long as the UK is part of the European Union, there are no physical or legal barriers, and thus people and commodities can pass freely, at the border of Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) and Ireland, the only land border that the UK has with the EU. The European Union is a customs union, which greatly simplifies international trade between the member countries. Tariff rates are harmonized and trade barriers reduced. There is, of course, a tradeoff for a member country, including a check on its ability to raise tariffs or engage in trade agreements independent from Brussels. If the UK eventually exits the EU, the extent and speed of that exit will determine whether that it is “soft” or “hard.”


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


TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a115. ICPA Presents “2019 EU Conference”, 15-17 May in London

(Source:
ICPA)
 
* What: 2019 EU Conference
  – Import and Export Track (click
here for the agenda)
  –
Professional Speakers
   – Hot Industry Topics
* When: 15-17 May 2019
* Where:
The Tower Hotel, London, United Kingdom.
* Sponsor: International Compliance Professionals Association (ICPA)
* Information & Registration: Click
here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TE_a216.
FCC Presents “Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands

 
This training course is designed for compliance officers, managers, and other professionals who aim to enhance their organization’s compliance efforts. The course will cover multiple topics and tackle various key questions, including but not limited to:
  – Setting the Scene: ensuring compliance in the export control and sanctions arena
  – What is expected from your organization? A closer look at the official frameworks and guidelines from U.S. and European government agencies
  – Key elements of an ICP
  – Best practice tips for enhancing your current compliance efforts  
  – Internal controls samples (policies, procedures, instructions)
  – Strategic benefits of having an ICP.
 
* What: Designing an Internal Compliance Program for Export Controls & Sanctions”
* Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 2019
* Location: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, The Netherlands
* Times:
  – Registration and welcome: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
  – Training course hours: 9.30 am – 4.30 pm
* Level: Intermediate
* Target Audience:  the course provides valuable insights for both compliance professionals, employees and (senior / middle) management working in any industry subject to U.S. and/or EU (member state) export control laws and sanctions regulations.
* Instructors: Drs. Ghislaine C.Y. Gillessen RA and Marco M. Crombach MSc.
* Information & Registration: click
here or contact us at 
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046. 

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

*
J. P. Morgan (John Pierpont Morgan Sr.; 17 Apr 1837 – 31 Mar 1913; was an American financier and banker who dominated corporate finance and industrial consolidation in the United States of America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Morgan arranged the merger of Edison General Electric and Thomson-Houston Electric Company to form General Electric, and assisted in forming the United States Steel Corporation, International Harvester, and AT&T.)
  – “A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.”
  – “Well, I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.”

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

EN_a318
. 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: 5 Apr 2019:
84 FR 13499-13513: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation
 

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: 11 Apr 2019: 84 FR 14608-14614: Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL) 
 
* 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: 14 Mar 2019: 84 FR 9239-9240: Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

 

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: 19 Mar 2019: 84 FR 9957-9959: Department of State 2019 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment. 
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 19 Mar 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 Mar 2019: 84 FR: 9456-9458: List of Foreign Financial Institutions Subject to Correspondent Account or Payable-Through Account Sanctions (CAPTA List) 
  
* 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: 2 Apr 2019:
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1905
[contains 792 ABI records and 176 harmonized tariff records].

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

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

EN_a0319
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, Vincent J.A. Goossen and Alexander Witt; and Events & Jobs Editor, Sven Goor. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 7,000 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