19-0501 Thursday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0501 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Wednesday, 1 May 2019

  1. Commerce/BIS: Announces MPETAC Meeting on 14 May in Washington, DC
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. Treasury/OFAC: “Important Technical Notice for Users of the OFAC Website and Sanctions List Data Files”
  5. EU Extends Restrictive Measures Concerning Myanmar/Burma
  1. Denmarks Radio: “Danish Bunker Company Involved in Case of Jet Fuel for Air Strikes in Syria”
  2. Expeditors News: “EU to Delay Deployment of Certain Electronic Customs Systems”
  3. NOS: “MIVD: China Spies on Dutch Defense”
  4. Reuters: “Trump Threatens ‘Full’ Embargo on Cuba Over Venezuela Security Support”
  1. F. Baird, D. Hughes & M. Jones: “US – Cuba Sanctions: EU Blocking Regulation Engaged as Trump Plans to Allow Lawsuits Over Confiscated Cuban Property”
  2. J. Haggin: “India and Turkey to Lose GSP Status”
  3. J. P. Yormick & L. B. Kalamas: “The Deemed Export Rule: Balancing Requirements Under U.S. Export Control and Anti-Discrimination Laws”
  4. M. Volkov: “OFAC Enforcement Action Underscores Russia Sectoral Sanctions – Corruption, Crime & Compliance”
  1. Alexander Bosch, Former Senior Associate at Full Circle Compliance, Moves to Signify
  1. FCC Presents “The ABC of Foreign Military Sales”, 28 November 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 Apr 2018), DOT/FACR/OFAC (15 Mar 2018), HTSUS (18 Apr 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 


84 FR 18476 – 18477:
Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on May 14, 2019, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution 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 processing equipment and related technology.
Open Session
(1) Opening remarks and introductions.
(2) Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.
(3) Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last
Wassenaar meeting.
(4) Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export
Administration Regulations.
(5) Other business.
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
Sec. Sec. 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. Yvette Springer at
, no later than May 7, 2019.
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on April 19, 2019, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec. 10(a) (1) and 10(a) (3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.

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


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

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

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

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

Treasury/OFAC, 1 May 2019.)
The US Department of Treasury is initiating a renewal of the public certificate securing the www.treasury.gov website, including OFAC’s sanctions lists downloads. This announcement is especially important for users that utilize command line interfaces to download OFAC’s sanctions list data. The existing certificate (expiring June 6, 2019) will be replaced on May 16, 2019 at 9PM. This process will take roughly 3-6 hours for the replacement certificate to be distributed worldwide.
If your application pins or otherwise trusts the serial number of the existing certificate as part your application functionality, you may need to update your configuration to trust the renewed certificate. The renewed public certificate, effective May 16, 2019 at 9PM, can be downloaded here. To prevent loss in functionality, please ensure that your applications trust this certificate by the May 16th replacement date.
After the renewed certificate is deployed on May 16, you may view the renewed certificate publically via the following instructions.

Please contact OFAC technical support at 1-800-540-6322 Option #8 or O_F_A_C@treasury.gov with any questions that you may have about this change. 

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

EU Extends Restrictive Measures Concerning Myanmar/Burma 
(Source: Official Journal of the European Union, 30 Apr 2019.)
* Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/672 of 29 April 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Myanmar/Burma
* Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/678 of 29 April 2019 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma  

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


Denmarks Radio, 28 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
Danish police are looking into possible sanctions violations by the company Dan-Bunkering.
The Danish company Dan-Bunkering plays a key role in a case involving illegal supplies of at least 30,000 metrics tons of jet fuel for the civil war in Syria, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) reports based on U.S. Court Records and confidential information possessed by Danish Authorities.
Dan-Bunkering is part of Bunker Holding A/S, which is the world’s second-largest bunker company.
According to the information, Dan-Bunkering has supplied jet fuel for the Russian shipping company Sovfracht which in turn has supplied Russian fighter planes in Syria; fighter planes that have carried out air strikes in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The deliveries allegedly took place from January 2016 to May 2017. …

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

8. Expeditors News: “EU to Delay Deployment of Certain Electronic Customs Systems”

(Source: Expeditors News, 29 Apr 2019.)
On April 25, 2019, the European Parliament and Council of the EU published regulation (EU) 2019/632 announcing a delay in the shift to a “complete use of electronic systems between economic operators and customs authorities”.
The regulation states that 3 groups of systems will continue to be worked on past the original deadline:
– National electronic systems (systems that manage customs declarations, declarations of temporary storage, notifications of arrival);
– Existing electronic systems that “must be upgraded to take account of certain requirements of the [Union Customs] Code; and
– Three new trans-European electronic systems (systems that will manage customs status, customs debts, and centralized clearance).
The first group of systems will require deployment by 2022, while the second and third groups will require deployment by 2025.
Per the regulation, “despite the efforts made by the Union and some of the Member States at budgetary and operational levels to complete the work within the time limit given, it has become evident that some systems can only be partially deployed” by the original deadline of December 31, 2020.

– EU Regulation (EU) 2019/632 can be found here. 

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

NOS, 1 May 2019.) (In Dutch)
[Excerpts; Unofficial translation by Alexander Witt of Full Circle Compliance.]
China is actively trying to gather military intelligence in the Netherlands. The Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) writes this in its annual report.
“The threat to the Dutch defense is theft to military-technological knowledge and technology that can be used both militarily and in civil society,” states the MIVD.

According to the military intelligence service, several digital espionage activities were discovered in 2018. Not only from China, but also from Russia. The MIVD calls the activities of both countries alarming. …  

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

(Source: Reuters, 30 Apr 2019.) [Excerpts.]
President Donald Trump threatened on Tuesday to impose a “full and complete embargo” and further sanctions on Cuba if its Communist leadership does not immediately end its military support for Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicolas Maduro. …
Trump’s threat against Cuba marked an intensification of a U.S. campaign in recent weeks to pressure Cuba over its role in Venezuela, although some experts and former U.S. officials say Trump and his aides have overstated Cuban involvement in the Venezuelan crisis.
“If Cuban Troops and Militia do not immediately CEASE military and other operations for the purpose of causing death and destruction to the Constitution of Venezuela, a full and complete embargo, together with highest-level sanctions, will be placed on the island of Cuba,” Trump said on Twitter. …

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


Stewarts Law, 30 Apr 2019.)
* Authors: Frances Baird, Esq., fbaird@stewartslaw.com, +44 (0)20 7822 8083; David Hughes, Esq., dhughes@stewartslaw.com, +44 (0)20 7822 8188; and Marc Jones, Esq., mjones@stewartslaw.com, +44 (0)20 7822 8053 . All of Stewarts Law LLP.
The latest twist in President Trump’s US sanctions policy could have significant consequences for investors in Cuba and has prompted sharp reaction from the EU Commission. Frances Baird, an associate specializing in international sanctions disputes, explains the implications for individuals and corporates with business interests in Cuba.
Legal landscape
Title III of The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (the “Helms-Burton Act”), gives US nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban state on or after 1 January 1959 a right to bring a civil action for damages against any individual or organisation who “traffics” in that property. “Trafficking” is defined widely to include the use, sale, transfer, control, management and other activities to the benefit of a person. These stretch to “engag[ing] in a commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from a confiscated property”, and “profit[ing] from trafficking by another person in confiscated property”.
Title III has been suspended by every US administration since it was enacted, but on 17 April 2019 the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, announced that the current suspension will not be renewed. On that basis, Title III will come into effect on 2 May 2019, enabling US persons to bring civil claims in the US courts against those involved in trafficking.
Potential targets
Given that Title III has never been tested, it is difficult to predict precisely how it will be interpreted by the US courts, in particular who will be deemed to be involved in “trafficking”. The statute’s broad drafting extends further than direct owners of and investors in “confiscated” Cuban property and the following types of businesses could find themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits in the US:
– shareholders in Spanish hotel chains with Cuban operations;
– investors in LSE-listed funds with Cuban property interests;
– institutions that have acted as lenders to hotel chains for the development of properties on “confiscated” Cuban land; or
– businesses engaged in profitable trade with Cuban businesses that are based on or utilise “confiscated” property (eg a Chinese supplier of air conditioning units to a resort or apartment complex, or a European supplier of materials to a Cuban factory operating on “confiscated” land).

International reaction
The implications of Title III coming into effect are potentially highly significant: US assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, Kimberly Breier, has stated that the US government has certified claims worth approximately $8bn, and that there could be tens of billions of dollars’ worth of as-yet uncertified claims.
The EU and several states (including Spain, Canada and the UK) have spoken out in strong opposition to the move. In a joint statement by High Representative/Vice President Federica Mogherini and Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström, the EU reiterated its “strong opposition to the extraterritorial application of unilateral Cuba-related measures that are contrary to international law”, and stated that “the EU will consider all options at its disposal to protect its legitimate interests, including in relation to its WTO rights and through the use of the EU Blocking Statute”.
Implications for EU businesses
The Blocking Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 2271/96) (referred to in the EU statement as the Blocking Statute) applies to Title III. The Blocking Statute gives a dual layer of protection to any EU person facing a Title III claim in the US.
First, US courts’ judgments relating to Title III claims will not be recognized or enforced in the EU. Second, where any EU person is sued in the US under Title III and ordered to pay damages, that EU person can, under Article 6, sue the US claimant in the EU courts for exactly the same amount. In effect, Article 6 creates a ‘claw-back’ right enabling the EU person to recover in the EU courts whatever it is ordered to pay in the US courts. (The operation of the Blocking Regulation is discussed in full detail in a previous article – US Iran Sanctions and the EU Blocking Regulation – private law claims for damages).
The wide definition of “EU Person” (Article 11) includes all EU-incorporated companies, including subsidiaries of non-EU companies, and all EU and non-EU nationals residing or doing business in the EU.
Investors incorporated outside the EU may therefore wish to consider how their Cuban investments are held. Those held directly by or through US entities will be most vulnerable to the enforcement of any claims brought under Title III. Conversely, those held through EU-based institutions will have the protection of the Blocking Statute, and in particular the Article 6 right to claim damages in the EU courts. International companies may wish to consider whether to move Cuban investments into EU-based structures in order to benefit from this protection and consider carefully the structure of any new investments directly or indirectly involving Cuban property. This may be a particularly relevant consideration for investors based outside of the EU, in particular China, the largest non-EU investor in Cuba.

EU persons doing business involving Cuban property, or profiting from such business, whether directly or indirectly should be aware of the risk of claims against them in the US under Title III.   In anticipating such claims, those at risk should take advice on the available protections under the EU Blocking Statute, including any potential alternative structures that may help them to secure that protection. Any EU persons faced with claims in the US, if and when Title III is implemented, should take advice on their ability to seek damages in the EU under Article 6 of the EU Blocking Regulation. 

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

. J. Haggin: “India and Turkey to Lose GSP Status”
(Source: Total Logistics Resource Inc., 

* Author: Judy Haggin, Senior Director of Compliance, TLR, 
, 971-634-1477

On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Office announced that the U.S. intends to terminate India’s and Turkey’s designations as beneficiary developing countries under the GSP program.  By statute, these changes may not take effect until at least 60 days after the notifications to Congress and the governments of India and Turkey. It will then be enacted by a Presidential Proclamation. Unless the 60 days is extended, the removal of GSP for these countries will take effect tomorrow, May 3, 2019. 

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program allows certain products to enter the United States duty-free if they meet the eligibility criteria for preferential treatment. GSP is a trade preference program that the U.S. offers to many of the world’s poorest countries to assist them in growing their economies through trade. GSP is the largest and oldest U.S. trade preference program, established in 1974, and covers approximately 5,000 products from 120 beneficiary developing countries. 

To continue to be granted the duty-free benefits, GSP countries must meet the following criteria: respecting arbitral awards in favor of U.S. citizens or corporations, combating child labor, respecting internationally recognized worker rights, providing adequate and effective intellectual property protection, and providing the U.S. with equitable and reasonable market access. If a country violates any of these criteria, they can be removed from the program. 

Countries can also be “graduated” from the GSP program depending on factors related to economic development. Factors that are considered in determining if a country is ready to graduate include: an increase in Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, declining poverty rates, and export diversification, by trading partner and by sector. In other words, they have developed enough economically that they no longer require duty-free benefits to be a significant global player in trade. 

The Trump administration notified Congress on March 4th of its intention to terminate India’s and Turkey’s GSP designations. India’s termination from GSP results from its failure to provide the U.S. with assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors. As this is a performance factor, India could be reinstated if it changes its policies to provide the U.S. with the market access required. 
Turkey’s termination from GSP is the result of a finding that it is sufficiently economically developed and is ready to graduate from the program. While this is a positive finding for Turkey, U.S. companies will no longer enjoy the duty-free benefits on the products they are importing from Turkey, resulting in higher costs.  

Country reviews are currently ongoing for Bolivia, Ecuador, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Thailand, and Uzbekistan.

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

(Source: Ohio DEC, 30 Apr. 2019)
* Authors: Jon P. Yormick, Esq., jyormick@phillipslytle.com; and Luke B. Kalamas, Esq., lkalamas@phillipslytle.com. Both of Phillips Lytle LLP.
In a press release issued earlier this year, the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it reached a settlement agreement with Honda Aircraft Company, LLC (“Honda Aircraft”), resolving a claim that Honda Aircraft had violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when, in an effort to comply with U.S. export control laws, Honda Aircraft refused to consider or hire certain employment-authorized non-U.S. citizens because of their citizenship status.
In recent years, the DOJ has increased its enforcement efforts on this very issue, focusing on employers that violate the INA due to a misinterpretation of their obligations under U.S. export control laws. There is no indication this trend will slow any time soon. As a result, employers with products and technologies that are subject to U.S. export control laws must proceed cautiously and ensure their hiring practices comply with both export control and anti-discrimination laws.
Intersection of the INA and U.S. Export Control Laws
Under the INA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employment-authorized individuals based on their citizenship, immigration status or national origin. [FN/1] As such, employers are generally prohibited from considering – or even inquiring about – the citizenship or immigration status of current employees and applicants. However, the INA does not prohibit discrimination because of “citizenship,” which is otherwise required in order to comply with a law, regulation or executive order. [FN/2]
Under U.S. export control laws, the unauthorized export or transfer of controlled goods, technology or software to a foreign country is prohibited. For instance, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regulate defense articles and services, as well as technical data related to defense articles and services, while the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) control commercial articles, technologies and software that have both civilian and military applications.
Notably, under the “deemed export” rule, the release of controlled technical data (under the ITAR) or technology (under the EAR) to a non-U.S. person is deemed to be an export to his or her country. Under the ITAR and EAR, U.S. persons include U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, and “protected individuals” under the INA (i.e., individuals granted asylum or refugee status).
Honda Aircraft and Related DOJ Enforcement and Guidance
In the February 2019 press release regarding its settlement with Honda Aircraft, the DOJ alleged that Honda Aircraft published at least 25 job postings that required applicants to be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to be considered for the available positions. Based on its investigation, the DOJ concluded that Honda Aircraft’s violation of the INA was due to a misunderstanding of the company’s requirements under the ITAR and EAR. The DOJ indicated that, while the ITAR and EAR may limit the unauthorized transfer of controlled technology to non-U.S. persons, they do not require or permit employers to restrict hiring to only U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, who hold so-called “green cards.” Under the settlement terms, Honda Aircraft agreed to pay a civil penalty of $44,626 and provide training on the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions for certain employees.
In March 2016, the DOJ released a Technical Assistance letter, providing guidance on when and how employers may ask applicants about their citizenship or immigration status to comply with export control laws, including the ITAR and EAR. In its letter, the DOJ explained that, to the extent an employer asks such questions, they should be (1) limited to positions that are subject to export control laws, (2) asked of all job applicants and (3) asked only to determine whether the employer will need an export license for certain individuals in particular positions. The DOJ further explained that employers should avoid rejecting a job applicant based on his or her answers.
Finally, showing the enforcement trend, last year the DOJ reached similar settlements with two (2) employers accused of violating the INA by hiring only U.S. citizens for positions involving ITAR-controlled information. The first employer settled a civil penalty of $17,457, while the second employer agreed to pay a $132,000 penalty. Both employers were also required to provide training and modify their hiring policies to comply with the INA going forward.
What Should Employers Do Now?
In light of the DOJ’s guidance and recent enforcement actions, employers should review their current internal policies to ensure they comply with both U.S. export control and anti-discrimination laws. As the DOJ settlements demonstrate, the potential liability for violating such laws can be substantial.
[FN/1] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) also prohibits discrimination based on national origin.

[FN/2] The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing Title VII, has taken a similar position, indicating that “[w]hen U.S. citizenship is required by federal law, the failure to hire an individual because he or she is not a U.S. citizen does not constitute national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII.” 

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

Volkov Law Group Blog, 30 Apr 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC”) continues its enforcement run. In a recent case against Haverly Systems, Inc., OFAC sent an important reminder to US companies about compliance with the Ukraine-Russia Sectoral Sanctions Program.
Haverly paid roughly $75,000 for two violations of the Ukraine-Russia Sectoral Sanctions (SSI). In two transactions, Haverly violated Directive 2 of the Ukraine-Russia the 90-day maturation limitation on new debt involving a designated entity, in this case Roseneft.
Rosneft and its affiliates were originally designated on the SSI List in the original Directive 2 issued on July 16, 2014, and in Directive 4 on September 12, 2014. As a result of its designation in Directive 2, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in conduct with Rosneft and its affiliates involving “transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt of longer than 90 days maturity of Rosneft], [its] property or [its] interests in property.”
Haverly did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC. The facts surrounding the violations occurred in 2015 – on August 19, 2015, Haverly issued two separate invoices to Rosneft related to the licensing of software and purchase of software support services. Although the invoices originally contained payment due dates of between 30 and 70 days from the date of issuance, approximately 70 days after the issuance of the invoices, Rosneft notified Haverly that it required certain corrected tax documentation in order to make the payment. It took Haverly several months to obtain the corrected tax documentation. Following receipt of the tax documentation, Rosneft made the payment on the first invoice, which Haverly received on May 31, 2016, approximately nine months after its issuance.
The violation was identified by a financial institution involved in the transactions. From May 31, 2016 to October 27, 2016, Rosneft made four attempts to pay Haverly’s second invoice, but the financial institution rejected the transactions after determining the transaction was prohibited by OFAC’s regulations as debt of greater than 90 days maturity of an SSI entity subject to Directive 2. Haverly was notified of these rejections, including by SWIFT messages, which identifgied the specific sanctions violations.
Notwithstanding these notifications, Haverly made no attempt to address the sanctions issues. Haverly did not have a sanctions compliance program and did not understand the collection of the debt was prohibited. Haverly did not contact OFAC nor seek any guidance concerning the matter. Instead, Haverly re-issued the second invoice, at the direction of Roseneft, and changed the dates to conform to the 90-day limitation. Haverly then received the payment from Roseneft.
In reaching the settlement, OFAC noted that: Haverly demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. economic sanctions requirements by repeatedly ignoring warning signs that its conduct constituted or likely constituted a violation of OFAC’s regulations; Haverly’s management team had actual knowledge of the conduct giving rise to the apparent violations; and Haverly did not possess a formal OFAC sanctions compliance program at the time the apparent violations occurred.
Interestingly, OFAC noted that it would have likely approved the transactions if Haverly had sought a specific license to complete the transactions. Haverly also implemented a sanctions compliance program that included appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer and implementation of a risk-based compliance program with screening designed to review all current and future clients of Haverly for OFAC purposes.

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


MS_a115. Alexander Bosch, Former Senior Associate at Full Circle Compliance, Moves to Signify Netherlands

(Source: Editor, 1 May 2019.)

Alexander Bosch, previously Senior Associate at Full Circle Compliance, B.V., and Assistant Editor of the Daily Bugle, has joined Signify Netherlands, B.V., as Global Trade Compliance Officer Exports Control as of 1 May 2019.
Contact Alexander at alexander.bosch@signify.com or +31 6 1775 6415.


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


TE_a116. FCC Presents “The ABC of Foreign Military Sales”, 28 November in Bruchem, the Netherlands

This training course is specifically designed for compliance professionals and those in a similar role working for government agencies or companies (temporarily) obtaining U.S. export-controlled articles and technology procured through government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.).
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. working with U.S. export-controlled articles and technology procured through FMS, including: the U.S. regulatory framework, with a special focus on the AECA, key concepts and definitions, and practical compliance tips to ensure the proper handling of FMS-acquired articles and technology. Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
* What: The ABC of Foreign Military Sales
* When: Thursday, 28 Nov 2019
– Welcome and Registration: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
– Training hours: 9.30 am – 4.00 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 International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (26 Nov 2019), and/or “U.S. Export Controls: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (27 Nov 2019). Please, see the event page for our combo deals.

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


* Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1 May 1881 – 10 Apr 1955; was a French idealist philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist, and took part in the discovery of the Peking Man. He conceived the vitalist idea of the Omega Point, a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving.)
  – “Growing old is like being increasingly penalized for a crime you haven’t committed.”
* Joseph Addison (1 May 1672 – 17 Jun 1719; was an English essayist, poet, playwright, and politician.)
  – “Cheerfulness is the best promoter of health, and is as friendly to the mind as to the body.”

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

. 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.   


  – 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.

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

Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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


* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; Assistant Editors, 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