;

19-0418 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0418 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 18 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. DHS/CBP Releases Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1906
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Publishes Update Concerning Venezuela-Related General Licenses, FAQs
  6. EU Issues Preliminary List of U.S. Products Considered for Countermeasures Amidst WTO Boeing Dispute
  1. China Business Review: “Defining ‘Emerging Technologies’: Industry Weighs in on Potential New Export Controls”
  2. Euractiv: “EU Lawmakers Rubber-Stamp European Defence Fund, Give Up Parliamentary Veto”
  3. Reuters: “UK Condemns U.S. Application of Cuba Sanctions to Foreign Companies”
  4. ST&R Trade Report: “More List 1 Goods from China Excluded from Section 301 Tariffs”
  1. M. Volkov: “Standard Chartered Bank’s Continuing Culture Challenges and Sanctions Compliance (Part II of III)”
  2. O. Gonzalez: “The U.S. Court of International Trade Decides Role of Juries in Penalty Cases”
  3. The FAQ of the Day: Temporary Import of Classified FMS Articles
  1. ECS Presents “2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp” on 17-19 Sep in Annapolis, MD
  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 (18 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)

 


* State/DDTC; RULES; International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Transfers Made by or For a Department or Agency of the U.S. Government.  This final rule revises ITAR § 126.4 to clarify when exports, reexports, retransfers, temporary imports, and performance of a defense service (collectively described as “transfers” for the remainder of this rule) may be made by or for an agency of the U.S. Government without a license, including by employees of the U.S. Government in the performance of their official duties. This rule expands the scope of this exemption to allow for permanent exports, reexports, and retransfers, in addition to temporary exports and imports, and to allow transfers by third parties acting for the U.S. Government.  [Publication Date: 19 Apr 2019.]
 
* Treasury/OFAC; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties [Pub. Dates: 19 Apr 2019.] 

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

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

OGS_a33.
DHS/CBP Releases Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1906

(Source: CSMS# 19-000198, 18 Apr 2019.)

Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1906 was created on April 17, 2019 and contains 414 ABI records and 85 harmonized tariff records.

Adjustments include those made as a result of the USTR’s Notice of Modification to Section 301 Action: China’s Acts Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. The Notice can be found in the Federal Register dated April 18, 2019, Vol. 84 No. 75, page 16310. It can be retrieved using the following the link:
here.

In addition, changes were also made to support PGA message set functionality. Modifications required by the verification of the 2019 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) are included as well. The modified records are currently available to all ABI participants and can be retrieved electronically via the procedures indicated in the CATAIR. For further information about this process, please contact your client representative. For all other questions regarding this message, please contact Jennifer Keeling via email at Jennifer.L.Keeling@cbp.dhs.gov.  

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

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

OGS_a55. Treasury/OFAC Publishes Update Concerning Venezuela-Related General Licenses, FAQs

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is designating Banco Central de Venezuela, or the Central Bank of Venezuela, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended by E.O. 13857, for operating in the financial sector of the Venezuelan economy.  Additionally, OFAC designated Iliana Josefa Ruzza Terán, pursuant to E.O. 13692, as amended, who is determined to be a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
 
OFAC is amending:
  • General License 3D – “Authorizing Transactions Related to, Provision of Financing for, and Other Dealings in Certain Bonds”;
  • General License 4A – “Authorizing New Debt Transactions and Transactions involving Certain Banks Related to the Exportation or Reexportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, Medical Devices or Replacement Parts and Components”;
  • General License 9C – “Authorizing Transactions Related to Dealings in Certain Securities”;
  • General License 15 – “Authorizing Transactions Involving Certain Banks Prohibited by Executive Order 13850 for Certain Entities”; and
  • General License 16 – “Authorizing Maintenance of U.S. Person Accounts and Noncommercial, Personal Remittances involving Certain Banks.”
 
OFAC is also issuing the following two new Venezuela-related general licenses in connection with this designation:
  • General License 19 – “Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to the Wind Down of Operations or Existing Contracts Involving Central Bank of Venezuela”; and
  • General License 20 – “Authorizing Official Activities of Certain International Organizations Involving Central Bank of Venezuela.”
 

Lastly, OFAC is issuing one FAQ related to today’s actions.

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

OGS_a66. EU Issues Preliminary List of U.S. Products Considered for Countermeasures Amidst WTO Boeing Dispute

(Source: European Commission, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
The European Commission has today launched a public consultation on a preliminary list of products from the United States on which the European Union may take countermeasures in the context of the ongoing Boeing dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
 
The public consultation will last until 31 May 2019.
 
On 11 April 2019, the WTO adopted its final compliance report in the Boeing dispute, confirming that U.S. subsidies to Boeing continue to cause significant harm to Airbus, including lost sales. Today’s publication comes as a follow-up to that decision. The public consultation aims to gather feedback from stakeholders who may be affected by the planned measures.
 
EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said:
 
European companies must be able to compete on fair and equal terms. The recent WTO ruling on U.S. subsidies for Boeing is important in this respect. We must continue to defend a level-playing field for our industry. But let me be clear, we do not want a tit-for-tat. While we need to be ready with countermeasures in case there is no other way out, I still believe that dialogue is what should prevail between important partners such as the EU and the U.S., including in bringing an end to this long-standing dispute. The EU remains open for discussions with the U.S., provided these are without preconditions and aim at a fair outcome
.
 
The list published today covers a range of items, from aircrafts to chemicals and agri-food products (including everything from frozen fish and citrus fruits to ketchup), that overall represent around USD20 billion of United States exports into the European Union. At an earlier stage of this dispute (in 2012), the EU made a request to the WTO to authorize the adoption of countermeasures worth up to USD12 billion, equivalent to the estimated damage caused to Airbus by the U.S. support to Boeing.
 
Based on this request, it is however for a WTO appointed arbitrator to determine the exact appropriate level of countermeasures. The EU is taking steps towards requesting the arbitrator to resume its work. A final list, based on the products included in today’s list, will be drawn up by the EU taking into account the arbitrator’s decision in the near future.
 
Background
 
On 11 April 2019, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization adopted the reports in which the Appellate Body, the highest WTO instance, confirmed that the U.S. has not taken appropriate action to comply with the WTO rules on subsidies, despite the many rulings against it in the course of this long dispute. Instead, it has continued unabatedly its illegal support of its aircraft manufacturer Boeing to the detriment of Airbus, the European aerospace industry and its many workers. In its ruling of 28 March 2019, the Appellate Body:
 
   – confirmed the Washington State tax program continues to be a central part of the U.S. unlawful subsidization of Boeing. This is a comprehensive program scheduled to run up until 2040 with a continuous increase of subsidies expected throughout that period. Boeing will receive an estimated total of USD6 billion in tax savings for the period 2006-2040;
   – found that a number of ongoing instruments, including certain NASA and U.S. Department of Defense procurement contracts, research and development programs, and South Carolina job tax credits, constitute subsidies that may cause economic harm to Airbus;
   – confirmed that Boeing continues to benefit from an illegal U.S. tax concession that supports exports (the Foreign Sales Corporation and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion, or FSC/ETI). This subsidy has already been qualified as prohibited, which means illegal under WTO rules.
 
For More Information
 

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a17
.
China Business Review: “Defining ‘Emerging Technologies’: Industry Weighs in on Potential New Export Controls”
(Source:
China Business Review
, 17 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
In November 2018, Peter Navarro, a leading White House advisor on China trade policy,
delivered a talk expounding on a central tenet of the Trump Administration’s economic policy: revitalizing American manufacturing is critical not only to spurring economic growth, but also to strengthening the defense industrial base. Warning against China’s perceived technological ambitions, Navarro
explained that the emerging industries of the future will provide “good jobs at good wages” for Americans for generations to come. Keeping these jobs in the United States would minimize the security risk of being “dependent on foreigners” for critical skills or technology. This melding of economic and national security, reflecting thinking broadly shared in the defense and intelligence communities, may be animating the implementation of
new legislation calling for potential new export controls on “emerging and foundational technologies.”
 

Major companies and trade associations, however, are concerned about where this effort may lead. …

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

NWS_a28
.
Euractiv: “EU Lawmakers Rubber-Stamp European Defence Fund, Give Up Parliamentary Veto”
(Source:
Euractiv, 18 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
MEPs signed-off a deal establishing the multi-billion European Defense Fund (EDF) on Thursday (18 April), giving up parliamentary oversight of the EU’s military subsidies program.
 
According to plans, approved by EU lawmakers with 328 votes in favor, 231 against and 19 abstentions, the EDF is set to receive an estimated €13 billion in the EU’s next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) and will finance research projects.
 
However, the partial agreement does not yet include the final financial figures as the seven-year EU budget still needs to be approved by the next Parliament.
 
The fund aims to strengthen Europe’s defense industry and reduce duplication in defense spending by co-funding defense research with member states. …
 

However, … the agreement reached runs risk to “boost the export of arms to authoritarian regimes” as there are currently no common export controls at EU level. …

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

NWS_a39
.
Reuters: “UK Condemns U.S. Application of Cuba Sanctions to Foreign Companies”
(Source:
Reuters, 18 Apr 2019.)
 
Britain said it was concerned by new attempts by the United States to require foreign companies to abide by U.S. sanctions on Cuba that have been rejected by Britain and other European countries.
 
“The extraterritorial application of … sanctions, which we consider to be illegal under international law, threaten to harm UK and EU companies doing legitimate business in Cuba by exposing them to liability in U.S. courts,” Britain’s foreign office said in a statement on Thursday.
 
“We will work alongside the EU to protect the interests of our companies,” the statement added.
 

On Wednesday, Washington imposed new sanctions and other punitive measures on Cuba and Venezuela, seeking to ratchet up pressure on Havana to end its support for Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicolas Maduro.

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

NWS_a4
10
.
ST&R Trade Report: “More List 1 Goods from China Excluded from Section 301 Tariffs”
 
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has announced a third batch of products to be excluded from the additional 25 percent duty imposed on some $34 billion worth of imports from China (List 1 goods). These exclusions will be retroactive to July 6, 2018, and remain in place until April 18, 2020. USTR notes that it will continue to issue decisions on pending exclusion requests on a periodic basis.
 
The exclusions cover the following products and reflect 348 separate exclusion requests.
 
– pumps for countertop appliances for serving beer (HTSUS 8413.19.0000)
– roller machines designed for cutting, etching, or embossing paper, foil, or fabric (HTSUS 8420.10.9080)
– water oxidizers and chlorinators (HTSUS 8421.21.0000)
– ratchet winches designed for use with textile fabric strapping (HTSUS 8425.39.0100)
– continuous action elevators and conveyors designed to convey mineral materials (HTSUS 8428.33.0000)
– counterweight castings of iron or steel designed for use on fork lift and other works trucks (HTSUS 8431.20.0000)
– tines, carriages, and other goods handling apparatus and parts designed for use on fork lift and other works trucks (HTSUS 8431.20.0000)
– parts of drill sharpening machines (HTSUS 8466.93.9885)
– outer shells of hydraulic accumulators (HTSUS 8479.90.9496)
– parts of mechanical awnings and shades (HTSUS 8479.90.9496)
– certain parts of metal shredders (HTSUS 8479.90.9496)
– steering wheels designed for watercraft (HTSUS 8479.90.9496)
– pressure regulators of brass or bronze (HTSUS 8481.10.0090)
– pipe brackets of aluminum designed for installation into air brake control valves (HTSUS 8481.90.9040)
– push pins and C-poles of steel designed for use in variable force solenoid valves (HTSUS 8481.90.9040)
– ball bearings of a width not exceeding 30 mm (HTSUS 8482.10.5032)
– inductor baseplates of aluminum (HTSUS 8504.90.9690)
– parts of soldering irons and soldering machines (HTSUS 8515.90.4000)
– motor vehicle gear shift switch assemblies (HTSUS 8536.50.9065)
– pressure switches designed for use in heat pumps and air-conditioning condensers (HTSUS 8536.50.9065)
– instruments for measuring or checking voltage or electrical connections (HTSUS 9030.33.3800)
 
These exclusions must be claimed using new HTSUS subheading 9903.88.07. They are available for any product that meets the specific product description, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. USTR notes that the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the product descriptions set forth in its notice and not by the product descriptions in any particular request for exclusion.

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a1
11. M. Volkov: “Standard Chartered Bank’s Continuing Culture Challenges and Sanctions Compliance (Part II of III)” 

(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 16 Apr 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
Standard Chartered Bank certainly has its troubles. You know a company is in trouble, however, when it breathes a sigh of relief after paying nearly $1.1 billion in fines and penalties and compares itself to BNP Paribas, the global French bank, which paid over $8 billion for pervasive US sanctions violations.
 
The Justice Department and OFAC have had a target-rich environment when reviewing global bank compliance with US sanctions. It is an important enforcement priority because global banks cannot engage in US dollar transactions without compliance with US sanctions – it is as simple as that.
 
According to the Factual Statement (
here), the Justice Department confronted SCB officials with evidence of the criminal conduct and SCB provided substantial cooperation in the government’s investigation by providing significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing by SCB employees and customers involved in the scheme. In addition, since mid-2013, SCB has engaged in significant remediation of its US economic sanctions compliance program.
 
SCB’s continuing violations of the Iran Sanctions program was the result of a conspiracy conducted by two employees and a significant Iranian client at SCB’s Dubai branch during the years 2007 to 2011. In August 2007, SCB enacted a policy to suspend Iran business. Certain customers in SCB’s Dubai office sought to continue US dollar transactions with Iranian entities using deceptive means.
 
The two former SCB employees (Persons A and B) appear to be cooperating with the criminal investigation and will testify against the Iranian national, Mahmoud Reza Elyassi.
 
Persons A and B helped Elyassi open commercial accounts in SCB’s Dubai office knowing that the accounts were fronts for Elyassi’s business operations in Iran. Persons A and B helped Elyassi and other persons conduct transactions involving US dollars to benefit Elyassi and his Iranian businesses.
 
Persons A and B also advised Elyassi on ways to structure financial transactions to avoid detection of any connection to Iran. Persons A and B also provided false information in order to disguise the Iran connections of Elyassi and his companies. In several instances other financial institutions rejected payment requests from SCB on behalf of Elyassi’s companies, Persons A and B provided false information to conceal Iranian connections to try and resolve compliance concerns.
 
Over half of the US dollar transactions occurred because of deficiencies in SCB’s compliance program that allowed customers to order US dollar transactions via fax and online payment instructions submitted from sanctions countries, including Iran, without confirming the location of the customer requesting the transaction. SCB compliance employees in the UAE were aware of these risks and did not take adequate steps to identify the location of the customers.
 
In the case of Elyassi, Persons A and B knew that Elyassi resided in Iran and operated business accounts at SCB’s Dubai branch. Elyassi was listed in SCB bank records with both UAE and Iranian contact information, including a fax and phone numbers beginning with the +98 country code prefix assigned to Iran. SCB also maintained records of Elyassi’s Iranian passport. In a recorded phone call, Elyassi told Person B that he was in Iran and invited Person B to visit him in Iran.
 
Between 2008 and 2010, SCB stopped multiple payments for one of Elyassi’s companies based on Iran-related references in the payment instructions, includi8ng the names of various cities in Iran, as well as references related to Iran shipping lines. In June 2009 and September 2009, SCB blocked two outgoing payments from an ELyassi company to Iran banks. In August 2010 and again in January 2011, SCB was aware that outgoing payments from one of Elyassi’s companies were rejected by other financial institutions due to Iranian connections.
 
Person A and B also provided false and misleading information to SCB compliance in order to disguise Elyassi’s Iran connections. For example, Person A told SCB compliance that Elyassi did not have any branch operations outside of Dubai.
 
In December 2010, SCB decided to terminate its banking relationship with one of Elyassi’s companies based in part on the number of payment requests stopped by SCB and other correspondent banks because of Iran sanctions concerns. Persons A and B helped Elyassi to create a new company account for a second Elyassi company to resume the transactions. Elyassi named a non-Iranian person as the nominee of the new company and Persons A and B knew that Elyassi continued to control the operation of the new company. Elyassi was authorized to sign for the new account and much of the contact information was the same as the prior, closed account.
 
Persons A and B instructed Elyassi on how to structure transactions going forward to avoid suspicion by SCB and other banks. For example, in a recorded telephone call, Person A told Elyassi not to send payments to Iranian individuals directly from the new company account but to have the nominee transfer the funds from the company’s SCB commercial account to the nominee’s personal account at SCB Dubai and then send payments to the Iran individuals to avoid having the company account monitored and possibly closed. Eventually, SCB Dubai closed this second company account in September 2011.
 
Persons A and B assisted other Iranian nationals with accounts at SCB Dubai to circumvent Iran sanctions to complete US Dollar transactions.
 
By December 2009, SCB officials knew that SCB Dubai’s SME business posed a high risk of Iran sanctions violations because of: (1) the close proximity of Dubai to Iran; (2) the large number of Iran nationals operating SMEs in Dubai; and (3) corporate clients associated with Iran nationals. Additionally, senior SCB officials were aware of the risk that UAE-based general trading companies could be subsidiaries or branches of parent companies in Iran.
 
In May 2011, high-level SCB compliance employees had compiled a list of GTC customers of SCB Dubai whose transactions were being declined based on potential Iran Sanctions violations. SCB compliance professionals were not able to block a large number of suspect transactions.
 
SCB’s compliance program was not equipped to mitigate the significant risks of Iran-related transactions in SCB’s Dubai office. It was insufficiently staffed and inadequately resources. Although SCB was aware of the high-risk nature of many of its SCB Dubai customers, SCB failed to allocate sufficient employees to review customer due diligence and KYC documents

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

COM_a2
12
.
O. Gonzalez: “The U.S. Court of International Trade Decides Role of Juries in Penalty Cases” [Excerpts.]
(Source: Author, 17 Apr 2019.)
 
* Author:  Oscar Gonzalez, Esq., Gonzalez, Rolon, Valdespino, & Rodriguez, LLC; 
oscarg@exportimportlaw.com, 1-214-720-7720.

Law firms often represent importers in penalty cases brought by CBP under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The cases are usually resolved at the administrative level, but CBP constantly threatens throughout to call in its big gun, in the form of the U.S. Department of Justice, to sue to collect the penalty in the U.S. Court of International Trade if the importer does not pay the penalty or agree to sign a statute of limitations waiver, a concession we seldom endorse.   
 
Let us assume that CBP refers a penalty case to the US Department of Justice and the DOJ sues an importer. Will a judge or a jury determine the importer’s fate at trial?  
 
That was the issue in 
U.S. v. Univar, a recent case from the US Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT concluded that when determining whether an importer has a right to a jury trial in a penalty case, culpability must be decided separately from any penalty amount. On the question of whether the importer violated 19 U.S.C. § 1592, the importer may have either a judge or a jury (if the request is timely) decide. However, once the importer is found to have violated 19 U.S.C. § 1592, only a judge may determine the penalty amount. The importer has no right to have a jury determine the penalty amount. 
 

This decision matters because an importer may prefer a jury trial if it thinks that a jury is likely to be more sympathetic to its plight. The Government tends to prefer to litigate before judges (a trial without a jury is called a bench trial) because judges are generally perceived to be less prone to emotional appeals. However, there are no absolutes in litigation and the strategies vary as much as the personalities, facts, and the parties’ financial wherewithal of any particular case. 

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

(Source: State/DDTC, 27 Apr 2018.)

 
Q: Part 123.4(a)(5) provides an exemption for the temporary import and subsequent export of unclassified defense articles approved for import under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and executed under a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). Is there a similar exemption for classified FMS articles?
 
A:
Yes. The import and subsequent export of both classified and unclassified FMS defense items executed under a LOA are examples of “transfers,” as described in §126.6(c) of the ITAR. Provided the criteria of §126.6(c) are fully satisfied, you may use the exemption covered in this section.


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


TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a114. ECS Presents “2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp” on 17-19 Sep in Annapolis, MD

(Source: S. Palmer,
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com
.)
 
* What: The 2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp; Annapolis, MD
* When: 17-19 September 2019
* Where:
Chart House 
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel: Suzanne Palmer, Mal Zerden, Lisa Bencivenga, Timothy Mooney, Matthew McGrath, Matt Doyle
* Register 
here
 or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com 

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

TE_a215.
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


David Ricardo (18 Apr 1772 – 11 Sep 1823 was a British political economist, one of the most influential of the classical economists along with Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and James Mill.)
  – “The exchangeable value of all commodities rises as the difficulty of their production increases.”
 

Clarence Darrow (Clarence Seward Darrow; 18 Apr 1857 – 13 Mar 1938; was an American lawyer and a leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He defended high-profile clients in many famous trials of the early 20th century, including teenage thrill killers Leopold and Loeb for murdering 14-year-old Robert “Bobby” Franks (1924); and teacher John T. Scopes in the Scopes “Monkey” Trial (1925), in which he opposed statesman and orator William Jennings Bryan.  Although Darrow dropped out of college and law school and studied law on his own, his wit and eloquence made him one of the most prominent attorneys and civil libertarians in the nation.)
  – “The law does not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business.”

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

EN_a317
. 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: 18 Apr 2019:
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1906 

  – HTS codes for AES are available here.

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

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

EN_a0318
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