;

19-0425 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0425 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 25 April 2019

  1. Commerce/BIS: Materials Technical Advisory Committee to Meet on 9 May in Washington, DC
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. Commerce/Census: “How to Choose the Correct Port of Export”
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  5. Treasury/OFAC Announces Settlement Agreement with Haverly Systems, Inc.
  6. UK ECJU: “Registered Companies Allowed to Use the Open General Trade Control License (Maritime Anti-Piracy)”
  1. Financial Times: “US Export Controls Are No Guarantee Against China’s AI Advances”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Five Countries Could Face U.S. Sanctions After May 1 Over Iran Oil Imports”
  3. WorldECR: “Export Controls to Be Introduced To Japanese Universities”
  1. K. Meloni, T. Petch & S. Powell: “Brexit Essentials: Is a Customs Union the path to Brexit? (Part I of II)”
  2. M. Utterback: “U.S. Trade News: 37 Chinese Companies Placed on Department of Commerce Unverified List”
  1. FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 26 November in Bruchem, The Netherlands
  2. ICPA Presents “2019 EU Conference”, 15-17 May in London
  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 Apr 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_a11
. Commerce/BIS: Materials Technical Advisory Committee to Meet on 9 May in Washington, DC 

(Source: 
Federal Register, 23 Aug 2018.)
 
84 FR 17379: Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting
 
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 9, 2019, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
 

The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 9, 2019, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
 
Agenda – Open Session
 
(1) Introductions and opening remarks by senior management
(2) Presentation by Dr. Rocco Casagrande, ”UN Weapons Inspections in Pre-War Iraq”
(3) Questions and Answers
(4) Notice of Inquiry for Sprayers and Foggers
(5) Open session report by regime representatives
 
Agenda – Closed Session
 
(6) Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
 
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at Joanna.Lewis@bis.doc.gov, no later than August 30, 2018.
 
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting.
 
However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email. The Assistant Secretary for
Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce
Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

 

For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register)

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

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

OGS_a34
.
Commerce/Census: “How to Choose the Correct Port of Export”

(Source: Global Reach Blog, 25 Apr 2019.)
 
Have you tried to file Electronic Export Information (EEI) in the Automated Export System (AES) but the information is rejected by the system based on the port of export? What would be the correct port of export you should report? This is one of the most frequently asked questions from the trade community.
 
Let us suppose, for example that you are creating an export filing for an air shipment that will depart from San Francisco, Calif. You have entered port of export code 2809 for San Francisco. However, the AES generated a fatal error message with response code 133: Port of Export Must Be An Air Port. How do you choose the correct port of export? First, let us take a look at how a port of export is defined.
 
What is the port of export?
 
Per the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) 30.1(c), the port of export is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seaport or airport where the goods are loaded on the aircraft or vessel that is taking the goods out of the United States, or the CBP port where exports by overland transportation cross the U.S. border into Canada or Mexico.
 
Resources to help you choose the correct port of export.
First, verify the port of export code that you are reporting in the AES is valid for the mode of transportation of your shipment. Appendix D of the Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) on the CBP’s website is an important resource, and it provides a full list of export port codes as well as valid modes of transportation for each port.
 
When looking at Appendix D, you will notice that port of export code 2809 for San Francisco is not valid for air shipments. However, port of export code 2801 for San Francisco International Airport is valid:  
 
 

Port of Export Codes
 
It is considered best practice to contact the carrier of your shipment and verify the port of export information.
 
Please note, if you receive a fatal error after reporting an invalid port of export code, you must correct and retransmit your export filing using the correct port of export code to receive a valid Internal Transaction Number (ITN) prior to exporting your shipment. Your goods cannot be exported without an ITN.
 
For guidelines on how to resolve AES fatal errors, you may refer to Appendix A of the AESTIR and locate the three-digit response code as well as resolution guidance. If you have further questions, please contact the Data Collection Branch at 800-549-0595 using option 1 or via email to askaes@census.gov.

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

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

OGS_a56. Treasury/OFAC Announces Settlement Agreement with Haverly Systems, Inc.

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 25 Apr 2019.)
 
Haverly Systems, Inc. (“Haverly”), a New Jersey corporation with offices in Texas and California, has agreed to pay $75,375 to settle its potential civil liability for two apparent violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 589 (URSR). Specifically, from on or about May 31, 2016 to on or about January 11, 2017, Haverly apparently violated Directive 2 under Executive Order 13662, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (“Directive 2”), and § 589.201 of the URSR, when it transacted or otherwise dealt in new debt of greater than 90 days maturity of JSC Rosneft (“Rosneft”), an entity identified by OFAC on the Sectoral Sanctions Identification List as subject to Directive 2.  OFAC determined that Haverly did not voluntary self-disclose the apparent violations to OFAC, and the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case.
 
For more information, please visit the following web notice.
New information on OFAC Civil Penalties and Informal Settlements is now available.

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

OGS_a67. UK ECJU: “Registered Companies Allowed to Use the Open General Trade Control License (Maritime Anti-Piracy)”
 
 

(Source:
UK ECJU
, 25 Apr 2019.)
 
The UK Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) within the Department of International Trade (TID) has published a list with companies registered and approved to use the maritime anti-piracy Open General Trade Control License (OGTCL).
 
This Open General Trade Control License (OGTCL) provides, subject to certain conditions, export licensing coverage for maritime anti-piracy services that traverse the ‘high risk area’.
 
The license permits those who have registered to use it, to do any act, the effect of which is to supply, deliver or transfer any of the controlled goods listed in schedule 1 between any 2 overseas territories that are not listed in schedule 2.
 
The update can be read here.

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

NWSNEWS

(Source:
Financial Times, 25 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
In February, Michael Kratsios, one of Donald Trump’s top advisers on technology, gave a short speech at a Washington think-tank that revealed the White House’s thinking on artificial intelligence. The US had not yet reached its “potential” in the field, despite being the global leader, he said. This meant it had to “embrace new discoveries so that future is made in America, by America, and for the benefit of our great American people”. …
 
On top of that, in mid-November, the Trump administration had proposed to include AI and robotics in a list of emerging technologies that were being considered for export controls, a treatment normally reserved for weapons and other products with possible military applications. Within artificial intelligence, the US administration suggested eight categories that might be subject to trade restrictions, including neural networks and deep learning, genetic computation and computer vision.
 
Among the categories of robotics that could face restrictions are micro drone and robotic systems and swarming technology.
 
The new export controls are expected to be narrowed significantly when the policy is finalized in the coming months. But technology groups – and many experts – are nervous that they could undercut America’s ability to innovate by discouraging research across borders that is pivotal to the AI sector in the US. …

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

NWS_a2
9. ST&R Trade Report: “Five Countries Could Face U.S. Sanctions After May 1 Over Iran Oil Imports”

 
The U.S. could impose economic sanctions against five countries as early as May 2 if they do not halt their imports of crude oil from Iran, according to a recent announcement from the State Department.
 
In August 2018 the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement designed to curtail Iran’s nuclear program. The administration then reinstated in November a number of Iran-related sanctions, including a prohibition on foreign country purchases of crude oil from Iran. A six-month waiver from that ban was granted to allow the eight largest buyers of such oil to continue importing limited amounts, but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced April 22 that those waivers (known as significant reduction exceptions) will not be renewed when they expire May 1.
 
As a result, the U.S. could begin imposing economic sanctions as early as May 2 against countries that received waivers unless they halt their imports of crude oil from Iran. Press sources note that Greece, Italy, and Taiwan have already done so but that China, Japan, Korea, India, and Turkey have not. Several of those countries reportedly expressed concern about the U.S. move and may not comply.
 
According to the State Department, sanctions could include losing access to the U.S. financial system and the ability to do business with the U.S. or U.S. companies.

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

(Source:
WorldECR, 25 Apr 2019.)
 
Japan’s Mainichi newspaper reports that the Japanese government ‘is set to formulate guidelines calling on universities in Japan that collaborate with foreign companies for joint research projects to develop legal compliance systems to prevent technology drain.’ The move comes in response to increased US and Chinese regulation of projects where controlled technology is involved.
 
The newspaper reports that the move is “aimed at averting risks of Japanese universities being subject to sanctions by those countries.”
 
“It is the first time for the Japanese government to draw up guidelines to control universities over their joint study projects with foreign enterprises,” says Mainichi adding, “under the guidelines, which the government eyes to put together by this Fall, universities are expected to be urged to take measures such as securing experts to ensure thorough management of research information and results.”
 
It notes that while companies and Japanese government entities have a developed culture of compliance with the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act and other regulations, ‘domestic universities have lacked such integrated systems…Through the upcoming guidelines, the government is seeking to establish a system to strictly control research information and results by having universities comply with the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act and other regulations.’

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a111
. K. Meloni, T. Petch & S. Powell: “Brexit Essentials: Is a Customs Union the Path to Brexit? (Part I of II)”

 

* Authors: Katherine Meloni, Esq., kathrine.meloni@slaughterandmay.com; Tolek Petch, Esq., tolek.petch@slaughterandmay.com; and Stephen Powell, Esq., stephen.powell@slaughterandmay.com. All of Slaughter and May.  

 
The possible formation of a customs union between the EU and the UK after Brexit has recently emerged as a central topic of discussion, including between the Conservative and Labour Parties. Whilst we covered customs unions early in this series of briefings, this change in the political agenda has made it more important for business to be in a position to assess their advantages and disadvantages. So, this briefing recalls the characteristics and consequences of a potential customs union between the EU and the UK.
 
What is the EU customs union?
 
The EU Treaties establish a customs union between all EU Member States which covers all trade in goods and prohibits the imposition of customs duties on imports and exports, as well as all charges of equivalent effect. It requires all EU Member States to apply the same customs tariff, known as the Common External Tariff, in their relations with third (i.e. non-EU) countries. The EU customs union means that EU Member States have no power to conduct an independent trade policy in respect of matters covered by the EU customs union or common commercial policy.
 
Can non-EU Member States enter into a customs union with the EU?
 
Yes. Each of Turkey, Andorra and San Marino has a customs union with the EU. This is not, however, the EU customs union.
 
What is a customs union?
 
The EU is not the only example of a customs union in the world. MERCOSUR in South America is another example. A customs union is an arrangement between customs territories that meets the requirements set out in the GATT, which is part of the World Trade Organization treaties governing international trade. There are two basic requirements for a customs union:
a)  the duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce are eliminated on substantially all the trade between the territories of the union within the scope of that union; and
b)  the same duties and regulations of commerce are applied by each member of the union.
 
Point (b) is the main distinction between customs unions and free trade agreements. It should be noted that there are exceptions, and the EU has, despite its customs union with Turkey, imposed anti-dumping measures on Turkey.
 
Are there legal restrictions on the terms of a customs union under international law? Can they be enforced?
 
Yes. Any WTO Member that believes it is disadvantaged by a purported customs union that does not comply with a) and b) above may bring a case before the WTO dispute settlement bodies. The UK would face litigation risk entering into a non-compliant customs union with the EU.
 
What are the main advantages of a customs union?
 
The principal advantage of a customs union is the elimination of all customs duties and measures of equivalent effect on goods covered by the union which, once they have entered the union and the common external tariff has been paid on them, may circulate without further tariffs. Customs unions also eliminate the need for “rules of origin” (i.e. rules determining the trade origin of goods) as between members of the union because there is a common external tariff on all goods entering the customs union from outside. Most economists consider that these features reduce the costs and friction to trade. The principal disadvantage of a customs union is that it restricts the ability of the members of the customs union to conduct an independent trade policy for goods.
 
What does a customs union not cover?
This depends on the terms of the customs union and is, therefore, a subject for negotiation between the parties. The EU- Turkey customs union excludes agricultural products (except processed agricultural products) as well as certain other goods. There is no legal reason why the UK could not negotiate a customs union with the EU that covered all goods (including agricultural products) or only certain categories, if both parties considered it to be advantageous.
 
What does a customs union mean for services?
 
Nothing. A customs union applies to tariffs and other customs duties levied at the border on goods. The barriers to the cross-border provision of services are generally regulatory. About 80% of the UK economy is composed of services industries.
 
What does a customs union mean for combined goods and services agreements?
 
Many goods are provided alongside related services, for example in the IT, telecoms and engineering sectors. In the context of a customs union, it is necessary to separate the goods element from the provision of services. The goods provided under the agreement will generally be able to move between countries in the customs union free of tariffs. Unless otherwise agreed between the EU and UK, the services element will need to comply with the relevant local rules that apply to the provision of the service.
 
Can countries in a customs union negotiate free trade agreements with third countries?
 
Yes, and they are expected to do so. However, in the context of an EU-UK customs union, the terms of the UK’s free trade agreement must, so far as goods are concerned, replicate those agreed by the EU. This would be similar to Turkey’s position under the EU-Turkey customs union: Turkey may not enter into a free trade agreement with a third country unless a free trade agreement has been entered into between that country and the EU. Whenever the EU opens negotiations with a trading partner for a new free trade agreement, it requests the other party to negotiate in parallel with Turkey a free trade agreement in the same terms. This is known as the “Turkey clause”. A third country’s refusal to negotiate with Turkey does not, however, prevent the EU from entering into a free trade agreement with the third country.
 
Would the UK automatically have the benefit of existing EU free trade agreements negotiated before Brexit with third countries?
 

No. The UK would need to roll over or re- negotiate those agreements, while complying with the terms of the customs union. The Department for International Trade (DIT) has already rolled over a number of FTAs to apply after Brexit. 

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

COM_a212
. M. Utterback: “37 Chinese Companies Placed on Department of Commerce Unverified List”

 
* Author: Meg Utterback, Esq.meg.utterback@cn.kwm.com. Of King & Wood Mallesons.
 
On 11 April 2019, the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a Final Rule (84 FR 14608) adding fifty companies to the Unverified List (UVL).  The UVL is a list of foreign persons or entities, who are parties to a transaction involving a US export, re-export or in-country transfer of US goods or technology, and whose “bona fides” or legitimacy the BIS has not been able to confirm through an end-user check.  Thirty-seven of the fifty companies added are Chinese mainland, six are from Hong Kong SAR, and one Indonesian designation appears to be a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE).  The newly-designated Chinese entities are mostly universities, institutes, engineering and technology companies and logistics companies.  Some of the UVL subjects are well-known in China and not lacking in bona fides.  Trade actions are being used more and more under the current US Administration and the subjects of the actions are often Chinese entities.
 
What is the UVL?
 
The UVL can be found at Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The UVL contains names of foreign persons and entities who have been involved in an export, re-export or in-country transfer of items subject to the EAR and for whatever reason could not be verified as a reliable actor. BIS performs end-use checks, which can be a pre-license check or a post-shipment check. The end-user may be contacted via mail or phone or other means to verify the end-user information, the export and the end-use. If BIS cannot confirm the end-user data, then the bona fides of the person or entity, specifically the person’s or entity’s legitimacy and reliability relating to the end-use and end-user of the item subject to the EAR, is called into question. According to BIS, “[t]he inability of foreign persons subject to end-use checks to demonstrate their bona fides raises concerns about the suitability of such persons as participants in future exports, re-exports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR and indicates a risk that such items may be diverted to prohibited end-uses and/or end-users.” Accordingly BIS adds them to the UVL. The persons or entities are placed on the UVL and not placed on the Entity List, because there is only a suspicion and not harder evidence of a breach or potential breach of US export control laws. The suspicion can be the product of an incomplete check-for example, a receptionist refuses the call, an ill-informed sales person refuses to confirm certain information, or an address on the BIS-submitted documents omits a key detail and letters seeking confirmation for the end-use check are repeatedly returned or unanswered. 
 
The problem with being placed on the UVL is that the subject entity is no longer able to avail itself of license exceptions for receiving US exports, re-exports, and transfers (in-country). Even shipments that do not involve items subject to license under the EAR require the exporter to obtain and maintain a record (UVL Statement) from the person or entity listed on the UVL whenever they engage in a transaction with the exporter. Exporters who see the entity on the UVL may be skeptical of the legitimacy of the person or entity as a trading partner and end-user. An exporter may also be concerned about its reputational risk if it engages in transactions with an entity on the UVL. Thus, the UVL listing has a chilling effect on trade for the person or entity placed on the List.
 
Getting Off the List
 
If you are on the UVL, you can apply to BIS for removal pursuant to 15 CFR 744.15(d). In requesting removal, the foreign person or entity shall convincingly demonstrate to BIS the bona fides of the person or entity as a participant in transactions involving US exports, re-exports and transfers. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement will render a decision removing the person or entity if BIS is satisfied with the legitimacy and reliability of the person or entity as a party to future transactions involving items subject to the EAR. 
 
Staying Off the List
 

Too often Chinese parties are caught by these types of US regulations simply because they have not prepared and trained staff internally to anticipate these inquiries. There is a natural tendency of staff to reject calls, ignore English letters, or refuse to confirm or deny information when asked. Companies with significant trade involving US-origin goods should have a designated team in the purchasing department that manages the company’s involvement in these transactions. Calls, letters, or other inquiries on any trade issue should be immediately directed to this designated person or team. That person or team should have sufficient training or understanding of the issues that can arise under US and other foreign laws. By managing the process, you can ensure a positive outcome and the continued success in your business.

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


TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a113. FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 26 November in Bruchem, the Netherlands

 
This intermediate-level training course is designed for compliance professionals and those in a similar role who aim to stay up-to-date with the latest International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) requirements that apply to non-U.S. transactions.
 
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. that are subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, including but not limited to: the U.S. regulatory framework, key ITAR concepts and definitions, tips regarding classification and licensing, essential steps to ensure an ITAR compliant shipment, how to handle a (potential) non-compliance issue, recent enforcement trends, and the latest regulatory amendments, including the latest U.S. Export Control Reform developments. Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
 
Details
* What: U.S. Export Controls: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective
* When: Tuesday, 26 Nov 2019
   – Welcome and Registration: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
   – Training hours: 9.30 am – 4.30 pm
* Where: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Information & Registration: here or contact FCC at events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or + 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046
* This course can be followed in combination with “U.S. Export Controls: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (27 Nov 2019), and/or “The ABC of Foreign Military Sales” (29 Nov 2019). 

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

TE_a214. 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.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

Oliver Cromwell (25 Apr 1599 – 3 Sep 1658; was an English military and political leader. He served as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1653 until his death, acting simultaneously as head of state and head of government of the new republic.)
  – “Do not trust the cheering, for those persons would shout as much if you or I were going to be hanged.”
  – “No one rises so high as he who knows not whither he is going.”

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

EN_a316
. 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 Apr 2019: 84 FR 16398-16402: International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Transfers Made by or for a Department or Agency of the U.S. Government   
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 19 Apr 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_a0317
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