;

19-0506 Monday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0506 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 6 May 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/ICE: “Chicago-Area Man Convicted of Conspiring to ‘Straw Purchase’ Handguns for Export to Egypt”
  4. DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memo 19-31
  5. DoD/DSS Announces eMASS as the Official System of Record for Assessment and Authorization (A&A) Actions
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  7. Singapore Customs Updates of Interest: Exchanges Rates and HCES
  1. American Shipper: “CBP to Use Analytics To Strengthen Trade Enforcement”
  2. Deutsche Welle: “U.S. Cracks Down Iran’s Uranium Enrichment”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “No New Denials as China Tariff Exclusion Reviews Continue”
  1. M. Volkov: “DOJ’s New Corporate Compliance Guidance: Training and Communications, Reporting and Investigations, Third-Party Management and Mergers and Acquisitions (Part III of V)”
  2. V. Collin: “Brexit Insight From the EU-27: France”
  3. W. Segall, N. C. I. Nweke & D. Woodrum: “Trump Administration Authorizes Lawsuits Against Companies that Deal in Property Confiscated by the Cuban Government and Tightens Other Sanctions Against Cuba” (Part II of II)
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 154 Openings Posted This Week, Including 20 New Openings 
  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
  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 (29 Apr 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 Department; NOTICES; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Technology Security/Clearance Plans, Screening Records, and Non-Disclosure Agreements

[Pub. Date: 7 May 2019.]


back to top
 

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

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

(Source:
DHS/ICE, 6 May 2019.) [Excerpts.] 
 
A federal jury on Wednesday convicted a Chicago-area man of conspiring to “straw purchase” several handguns on behalf of a woman who allegedly tried to smuggle the weapons into Egypt. …  
 
Omran Ismail, 53, of Burbank, Illinois, was found guilty of both counts against him: one count of conspiracy to knowingly make a materially false statement to a licensed dealer and knowingly and willfully smuggle firearms on a common carrier, and one count of acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer by means of a materially false statement.
 
Evidence at trial revealed that in November 2013, Ismail purchased four handguns from a licensed firearms dealer in Tinley Park, Illinois, and then immediately transferred the guns to co-defendant Ola Sayed so that Sayed could bring them to Egypt.
 
The guns were discovered in Sayed’s checked luggage at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago as she attempted to board a flight to Cairo, Egypt, via London.
 
Sayed, 47, of Palos Park, Illinois, was charged in the conspiracy but fled and is considered a fugitive.
 
The conspiracy count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison; the straw purchasing count is punishable by up to 10 years.
 
“Straw purchasers play a crucial role in enabling the unlawful possession of guns and the violence that could follow,” said U.S. Attorney Lausch. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who engage in these illicit transactions.”
 
According to evidence presented at the three-day trial, Ismail purchased four 9mm firearms from the dealer on Nov. 18, 2013.
 
Sayed accompanied Ismail to the gun store, and Ismail falsely represented to the dealer that Sayed was his wife.
 
When he purchased the firearms, Ismail completed a federal form falsely certifying that he was the “actual buyer.”
 
Ismail picked up the guns from the dealer five days later, at which time he confirmed that all of his answers on the form were “still true, correct, and complete.”
 
Ismail then immediately transferred all four firearms to Sayed, so that Sayed could take the firearms with her to Egypt.
 
Sayed purchased two additional 9mm firearms, and then took all six guns with her to O’Hare Airport on Dec. 23, 2013, according to the charges pending against her.
 
Authorities at the airport discovered the guns in Sayed’s checked luggage as she waited to board her flight, the charges allege. …  
 

U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis set sentencing for Dec. 3, 2019.

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

(Source: 
DoD/DSCA, 6 May 2019.)


 
 
This memorandum updates SAMM Chapter 9.15 and C9.16 to strengthen the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s (DSCA) financial management of the FMS Administrative Surcharge Trust Fund Account and the FMS Contract Administrative Services (CAS) Cost Clearing Account. These SAMM updates also support DSCA’s efforts to fulfill the recommendations outlined in the Government Accounting Office’s reports numbered 18-401 and 18-553.
 
As stated in the attached revision, SAMM C9.15 is expanded to include an Account Upper Control for the FMS Administrative Surcharge Trust Fund Account. This control will enhance DSCA’s financial oversight of this account and manage the growth of the account’s cash balance.
 
As stated in the attached revision, SAMM C9.16 establishes policies for management of the FMS CAS Cost Clearing Account, including the establishment of an account safety level and upper control limit, an annual account assessment, and a comprehensive rate review every five years. These steps will enhance DSCA’s financial oversight of this account.
 
If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact Mr. Floyd Baker, DBO/FPA (703) 697-9726) or Mr. Stephen Suh, DBO/FPA, (703) 697-8899).

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

(Source:
DoD/DSS, 6 May 2019.)
 
The NISP instance of the Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) is now the official system of record for Assessment and Authorization (A&A) actions.   In addition to completing all the NISP eMASS Account prerequisites (SAAR, Cyber Awareness Challenge Training, and eMASS Computer Based Training), Industry users must complete the New User Registration in the NISP eMASS instance.
 
Once the New User Registration is complete, Industry user accounts can be activated. The NISP eMASS Account and Access Procedures Job Aid is posted on the NISP eMASS Information and Resource Center.
 

Note: DISA has identified an issue with New User Registration when accessing NISP eMASS via an ECA. DISA is implementing a patch that will resolve this issue by May 10th. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the NAO eMASS Mailbox. 

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

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

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

NWSNEWS

(Source:
American Shipper, 3 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
The agency on Thursday released its strategy for 2020-2025 in which it highlighted predictive analytics as a potential tool for trade enforcement.
 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) wants to use more data and analytics to strengthen trade enforcement and compliance, the agency said in its 2020-2025 strategy document released Thursday.   
“CBP will take an enterprise-wide approach to data analytics, using tools and capabilities that empower personnel in various roles to access and explore scenarios, potential outcomes and relationships that exist within available data and ensure program sustainment through data governance,” the document states.     
 
The agency plans to “collect and connect quality data,” including intelligence and risk assessments, to provide predictive analytics supporting an “actionable common operating picture” that ensures that trade personnel, as well as agents and officers, have “relevant quality information” to conduct trade enforcement activities. …

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

NWS_a2
9
.
Deutsche Welle: “U.S. Cracks Down Iran’s Uranium Enrichment”

(Source:
Deutsche Welle, 4 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
The U.S. renewed most of its sanction waivers for the Iranian civilian nuclear program on Friday, but allowed two key waivers to lapse.
 
It will now start imposing sanctions on Iranian exports of enriched uranium that had been allowed under the nuclear deal controversially rejected by the Trump administration.
 
The five waivers that were extended were renewed for 90 days, permitting continued work at several Iranian nuclear sites. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal allowed Russia and several European nations to help maintain the facilities and convert them into exclusively civilian facilities.
 
Most of those activities will be allowed to continue, with stricter controls on one nuclear site. Works at the Arak, Fordow and Bushehr power plants and facilities can continue; however, the Bushehr site can no longer be expanded. …

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

NWS_a3
10
. ST&R Trade Report: “No New Denials as China Tariff Exclusion Reviews Continue 

 
The Trump administration recently approved more requests for exclusions from the additional tariffs it has imposed on imports from China but has not issued any additional denials over the last month, according to information made available by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Most such requests are still under consideration but USTR is making progress in conducting its reviews.
 
Importers should be aware that approved exclusions are available for any product that meets the specific product description, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. In addition, the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit subheading or the specific product description to which it applies, not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request. Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg can help companies understand whether their products are among those that have been excluded from these tariffs.
 
Background
 
Following a Section 301 determination that China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory, the Trump administration has levied higher tariffs on Chinese goods in stages. The first phase imposed a 25 percent additional tariff on $34 billion worth of imports as of July 6 (List 1 goods), and exclusion requests were due by Oct. 9. The administration extended that tariff to another $16 billion worth of goods (List 2 goods) as of Aug. 23 and accepted exclusion requests through Dec. 18.
 
A ten percent additional tariff was imposed on so-called List 3 goods (valued at about $200 billion) as of Sept. 24. A scheduled March 2 increase in this tariff to 25 percent has been indefinitely postponed. Administration officials have said they will not provide any exclusion request process for these goods unless that increase occurs, although Congress has directed USTR to create such a process.
 
Update on Exclusions
 
Information from USTR indicates that as of April 26 USTR had denied 5,311 of requests for exclusions from the tariffs on List 1 goods (unchanged from 4,535 a month earlier) and granted 1,441 (up from 1,091; click here for a full list of approved exclusions).
 
The remainder of the List 1 requests are listed as being at one of four stages. Of these, 1,081 are undergoing an initial review of whether the request should be granted based on specified criteria (down from 1,133), and 3,001 are being reviewed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to determine whether the exclusion would be administrable (down from 3,299). None are currently in the first stage, in which comments are accepted, or the final stage, in which the exclusion has been granted and is being prepared for publication in the Federal Register.
 

USTR has also received 2,931 exclusion requests for List 2 goods. Of these, comments are being accepted on one; 1,347 are undergoing substantive review (down from 1,790) and 1,577 (up from 1,141) are being reviewed for administrability. None are currently listed as having been approved or denied or as being in the final stage. 

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a111.
M. Volkov: “DOJ’s New Corporate Compliance Guidance: Training and Communications, Reporting and Investigations, Third-Party Management and Mergers and Acquisitions (Part III of V)”
(Source:
Volkov Law Group Blog, 3 May 2019. Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group,
mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
 
The Justice Department’s new Corporate Compliance Guidance is keyed to the concept of a “well-designed compliance program.”  Under this concept, we first examined risk assessments and policies and procedures.  DOJ’s Corporate Compliance Guidance also addresses training and communications, reporting and investigations, third-party management and mergers and acquisitions.  As explained herein, DOJ’s new guidance advances ethics and compliance expectations, with the exception of mergers and acquisition where it falls short of capturing current pronouncements and expectations.
 
Training and Communications
 
In the training and communications function, DOJ’s Guidance emphasizes training and certification for all directors, officers, relevant employees and, where appropriate, agents and business partners.  In delivering training programs and communications, companies are advised to “tailor” such information to the “audience’s size, sophistication, or subject matter expertise.”  As an example, DOJ cites companies providing real-life examples and scenarios to underscore and highlight prior compliance incidents.  Further, DOJ cites the importance of determining how the company measures the effectiveness of its training program.
DOJ’s expectations cover a number of important issues in the training and communications functions.  In particular, DOJ asks whether training has been provided to “relevant control functions,” “high risk and control employees,” and “supervisory employees.”  The implication of these listed subjects is that the company has to properly tailor its training program to employees based on risk and control functions, including supervisors.  On more specific issues, DOJ cites the need to provide training in language appropriate for the audience, in what form (online or in-person) and the reason for that decision, including testing of employees.
 
Under the communications prong, DOJ’s Guidance asks whether senior management has communicated its position concerning misconduct, whether such communications include anonymized information about specific disciplinary actions companies and the type of misconduct at issue, and whether the company offers guidance resources.
 
Reporting and Investigations
 
The DOJ Guidance includes examination of whether a company’s compliance program offers an “efficient and trusted mechanism” for employees to confidentially (or anonymously) report breaches of the company’s code of conduct, company policies or suspected misconduct.  As part of this inquiry, this factor includes an assessment of the company’s “pro-active measures to create a workplace atmosphere without fear of retaliation, appropriate processes for submission of complaints and processes to protect whistleblowers.”  Guidance at 6.  In handling complaints companies have ensure “the routing of complaints to proper personnel, timely completion of thorough investigations, and appropriate follow-up and discipline.
 
Under the DOJ Guidance, a company has to offer an anonymous reporting avenue, publicize the reporting mechanisms, and assess the serious ness of an allegation to make sure it is properly investigated and resolved.  A Company’s compliance function should have full access to all reporting and investigation information.
 
Companies also have to ensure that their internal investigations are properly scoped, accurately assessed in terms of seriousness, independently conducted, properly documented, and conducted by a qualified and independent investigator.  In response to specific deficiencies identified in reviewing internal investigations, DOJ will examine whether the reporting and investigating mechanisms are sufficiently funded, whether the company is collecting,  tracking and analyzing reporting and investigation data and identifying patterns of misconduct or other weaknesses for compliance deficiencies.
 
Third-Party Management
 
Under third-party risk management, DOJ’s Guidance reiterates many important principles emphasized by DOJ in prior guidance and enforcement actions.  In particular, DOJ stated that due diligence should reflect the size and nature of the company or transaction, the qualifications and associations of third-party partners, including the agents, consultants and distributors.  DOJ will also examine if the company identified the third-party’s reputations and relationships with foreign officials and the business rationale for needing the third party in the transaction.  For example, DOJ cites the importance of examining the contract terms to ensure that it includes a specific description of the services to be performed, confirmation that the third party is actually performing the work, and compensation commensurate with the work in that industry and region.  As to post-engagement monitoring, DOJ points to the need to use various tools such as “updated due diligence, training, audits, and/or annual compliance certifications.
 
In setting out relevant issues in third-party risk management, DOJ intends to focus on whether the company’s third-party risk process corresponds to the nature and level of enterprise risk identified by the company; whether the company adequately verifies the business rationale for using the third-party; that appropriate contract terms are included; whether the company adequately considered and analyzed the compensation and incentive structures for the third parties; how the company monitors its third parties; whether the company has secured audit rights and exercised those rights; and whether the company has conducted training of its third parties.
 
Finally, DOJ intends to review whether a company tracks red flags identified and resolved in the due diligence process; whether a company keeps records of third parties that are rejected in the due diligence process (o they are not hired at a later date), and whether a company reviewed similar third parties after identifying misconduct committed by a third party. 
 
Mergers and Acquisitions
 
DOJ’s Guidance relating to mergers and acquisitions is questionable in its failure to include several policy pronouncements previously articulated by DOJ officials and prior enforcement actions.  The focus of DOJ’s merger and acquisition discussion is on pre-acquisition due diligence, and omits any meaningful discussion of post-acquisition audit principles.
In the pre-acquisition area, DOJ’s Guidance notes the importance of the due diligence process to accurately determine the target company’s value.  In particular, DOJ seeks to determine whether post-acquisition misconduct was identified during due diligence, how the due diligence was conducted, and what general policies and procedures are in place.  DOJ asks generally whether the compliance function was integrated into the merger, acquisition and integration process, and what process the company has to track and remediate misconduct or risks identified during the due diligence process.

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

COM_a2
12
.
V. Collin: “Brexit Insight From the EU-27: France”
(Source:
Brexit Legal, 2 May 2019.)
 
* Author: Véronique Collin, Esq.
Veronique.collin@squirebp.com. Of Squire Pattong Boggs, Paris.
 
The French Parliament authorized the government to take measures – known as orders (ordonnance) – which should otherwise be taken pursuant to law, in order to map out the consequences of a “no-deal” Brexit. The government had either six months or a year to pass those orders, following publication of the law.
 
The government was authorized to take any measure relating to the control of goods to and from the UK and relating to the administrative status of legal entities established in the UK and carrying out business in France. The orders define the conditions pursuant to which economic activities related to the UK and goods flowing to and from the UK can carry on.
 
The orders provide, in some instances, pragmatic adjustments to existing French legislation, unusual exemptions, and simplified administrative procedures and shorter delays to allow regularization of the status of corporates or individuals concerned.
 
By way of example, the orders cover the following matters:
  – The carrying on by the beneficiaries of licenses and authorizations for the transfer of products and materials (e.g. satellites, space rockets, etc.) to the UK, delivered pursuant to Articles L.2335-10 and L.2335-18 of the Code of Defense, prior to the exit of the UK, of the supply of such products and materials until the term of such licenses and authorizations
  – The access of French entities to interbanking payment and settlement and delivery systems of third-party countries (including, of course, the UK) by ensuring the final nature of

transactions effected through these systems
  – The designation of a competent authority to supervise activities linked to securitization
  – The introduction of specific rules for the management of certain collective investments
  – The continuity of the use of framework agreements (typically ISDA documentation) in the realm of financial services
  – The “sécurisation” of the conditions in which agreements entered into prior to the loss of recognition of licenses granted to UK entities in France will be performed
  – The continuity of the transport of persons and goods between France and the UK through the Channel tunnel
 
The obvious aim of the orders is to preserve the interests of France and the status of French citizens and other persons whom European legislation protects.
 
Last but not least, a simplified temporary procedural regime is envisaged to enable the carrying out of works needed to build, modify or develop, with a degree of urgency, premises, facilities or port, train, airport or road infrastructures, as required to re-establish a control of goods to and from the UK.
 
The consequences of these measures could greatly affect not only the property of individuals, but also that of corporates, with a probable impact on their activities, which may not be neglected. Indeed, derogations and adjustments brought changes to the legislation relating to expropriation, urban planning, zoning, preservation of cultural or historical sites, roadway, public domain, public procurement, rules applicable to maritime ports, public consultation and environmental assessment. It is clear that the wording of the orders was dictated by the urgency of the actions to take.
 
Other issues French corporates will face include:
  – The transfer of personal data to the UK
  – The export/import of goods
  – The access to funding to the extent it used to be provided by UK entities

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

COM_a3
13
.
W. Segall, N. C. I. Nweke & D. Woodrum: “Trump Administration Authorizes Lawsuits Against Companies that Deal in Property Confiscated by the Cuban Government and Tightens Other Sanctions Against Cuba” (Part II of II)
(Source:
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 1 May 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Authors: Wynn Segall, Esq.,
wsegall@akingump.com; Nnedinma C. Ifudu Nweke, Esq.,
nifudu@akingump.com; and Dallas Woodrum,Esq.,
dwoodrum@akingump.com. All of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
 
Limitations
 
There are a number of practical and legal limitations for plaintiffs seeking to sue under Title III, some of which could, in some cases, make it impossible to pursue actions or to enforce judgments. These limitations include:
 
Actions Excluded from Suit: The term “trafficking,” while broadly defined, does not include “transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such travel.” [FN/13] Thus, U.S. persons traveling to Cuba pursuant to specific or general authorization by the Office of Foreign Control (OFAC) would not be a target of a lawsuit for staying at a hotel that was previously expropriated by the Cuban government.
 
Additionally, the term “trafficking” does not include (1) the delivery of international telecommunications signals to Cuba; (2) trading or holding securities publicly traded or held, unless done with a Specially Designated National (SDN); and (3) transactions and uses of property by a person who is both a citizen and resident of Cuba, provided that person is not an official of the Cuban government or Communist Party of Cuba. [FN/14]
 
Personal Jurisdiction over Defendants: The U.S. Constitution requires that, for a court to exercise power over a defendant, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum where it is being sued-a concept known as personal jurisdiction. It will likely be difficult for plaintiffs to establish personal jurisdiction over non-U.S. defendants that do not have business in the U.S., particularly when the defendants’ “trafficking” activities also occurred abroad.
 
Statute of Limitations: There is a two-year statute of limitations that prohibits an action from being brought “more than two years after the trafficking giving rise to the action has ceased to occur.”15 Additionally, as explained above, plaintiffs who were entitled to bring claims before the FCSC during the two Cuba Claims Programs, but did not, are barred from bringing suit under Title III.
 
Evidentiary Challenges: Plaintiffs may run into challenges proving that defendants “knowingly” and “intentionally” trafficked in their property, establishing ownership over a claim, or determining the value of a claim, particularly since many foreign governments and courts will object to discovery requests related to Title III suits. As mentioned below, certain foreign blocking statutes prohibit foreign persons and companies from complying with discovery obligations in Title III cases.
 
Challenges in Enforcing Judgments: Plaintiffs who successfully obtain Title III judgments may encounter difficulties enforcing them. If a defendant does not have any assets in the U.S., a plaintiff will be unable to enforce a judgment in his or her favor domestically and would have to go through the complicated process of trying to enforce the judgment abroad. Moreover, as explained below, Canada and the EU have signaled that their courts will not enforce judgments obtained in the U.S. under Title III, and other foreign courts may similarly decline.
 
EU and Canadian Response
 
The EU and Canada quickly condemned the Trump administration’s move to allow implementation of Title III and threatened to enforce their established blocking measures against U.S. sanctions on Cuba to protect EU and Canadian companies. [FN/16] These measures respectively prohibit EU and Canadian courts from enforcing judgments obtained under Title III and permit EU and Canadian persons to pursue counterclaims against Title III plaintiffs in European and Canadian courts.
 
Additionally, the EU has threatened to reinstate a case against the U.S. before the WTO, which was initiated following enactment of the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, but was subsequently suspended in 1998 based on assurances from the Clinton administration that the U.S. would waive implementation of Title III. [FN/17]
 
In that context, it appears likely that implementation of Title III will create legal challenges and litigation in other countries and multilateral venues. Some of these challenges may present defendants in Title III cases with certain protection from discovery obligations or judgment enforcement outside the United States.
 
Mitigating Risk
 
It remains to be seen how Title III lawsuits will proceed, as judicial proceedings for such claims are unprecedented. However, given the potential for substantial damages that U.S. courts could award under Title III, companies and investors with established or prospective trade or investment interests associated with Cuba should exercise care to perform due diligence to identify and help safeguard against litigation risk and other complications that could result from Title III lawsuits. This may include seeking disclosure of business and ownership records for property and property interests associated with Cuba, as well as including focused contractual clauses, representations, covenants, and indemnities in commercial agreements to establish assurances and protections against potential risks associated with Title III litigation. Among other measures, such steps may help mitigate the risk of being sued, establish a potential defense against allegations of knowing and intentional trafficking, and provide a basis for other structural business and legal protections. Additionally, for any company with active business in Cuba, performing diligence on property associated with activities in Cuba may be helpful to identify potential litigation risk and develop strategies and mechanisms to limit that risk and defend its commercial interests.
 
Plaintiffs that initiate lawsuits under Title III will also face related challenges and risks. As discussed above, Title III plaintiffs may face significant jurisdictional, procedural, and evidentiary hurdles that could effectively prevent them from enforcing a final judgment rendered by a U.S. court against a defendant. Plaintiffs with interests in Canada or the EU should also consider the possibility that they could face counterclaim litigation risks if they pursue Title III claims.
 
Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act: Visa Restrictions on Foreign Nationals Who Deal in Confiscated Property
 
On April 17, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton also announced that the Trump administration would actively enforce Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, which restricts the issuance of U.S. visas for foreign nationals that “traffic” in property confiscated from U.S. nationals. The restriction covers any individual who, after March 12, 1996, (1) “has confiscated, or has directed or overseen the confiscation of” such property, or “has converted [it] for personal gain,” or (2) “traffics” in such property. Furthermore, the restriction applies to (3) “a corporate officer, principal, or shareholder with a controlling interest of an entity which has been involved in the confiscation” of such property, or is a “spouse, minor child, or agent” of a person described in (1), (2), or (3). Importantly, unlike Title III, the process for enforcing visa restrictions under Title IV falls within the purview of the U.S. Department of State, rather than U.S. courts.
 
Active enforcement of Title IV could cause a significant number of foreign nationals to be denied entry into the U.S. For example, certain foreign nationals who work at buildings that the Cuban government expropriated from U.S. nationals could potentially fall under this provision. Furthermore, a foreign national who has been an officer or controlling shareholder of an entity that “traffics” in property confiscated from U.S. nationals may be denied a U.S. visa, as well as his or her spouse or children. However, it remains to be seen how the Department of State will enforce Title IV.
 
To date, this provision has only been used a handful of times in the past. Most notably, in 1996, the State Department used this provision to deny visas to the director of Canadian company Sherritt International Corporation, as well as other top officers of the company and their immediate families. As noted in the company’s 2018 annual report, the action had the collateral effect of making recruitment of directors for the company more challenging, given the risk that directors, their spouses, and children could be prohibited entry into the U.S. [FN/18] The Trump administration’s renewed focus on Title IV could generate similar concerns for officers and major shareholders of other non-U.S. companies that engage in business in Cuba involving property previously expropriated from U.S. nationals that could be subject to U.S. claims.
 
New Travel and Financial Services Sector Restrictions and Other Sanctions Measures
 
In addition to announcing that the administration would allow and actively pursue implementation of Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act, on April 17, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that the Department of the Treasury will implement other measures to roll back certain Cuba sanctions relief that occurred under the Obama administration. The measures announced include restrictions on “nonfamily travel” to Cuba by U.S. persons and rescinding a general license issued by OFAC that allowed U.S. banks to process certain “U-turn” transactions involving Cuba. Additionally, the administration announced a cap on personal family remittances to Cuba of $1,000 per person per quarter. Finally, effective April 24, 2019, the administration added five entities owned by the Cuban military or intelligence services, including Cuban airline Aerogaviota, to the “Cuba Restricted List,” prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in direct financial transactions with such entities.
 
As of the date of this publication, only the additions to the Cuba Restricted List have been implemented. OFAC is expected to issue guidance and necessary amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations in the coming weeks to implement these additional sanctions measures announced on April 17, 2019.
 
Conclusion
 
The measures announced by the Trump administration on April 17, 2019 mark a significant escalation of U.S. sanctions against Cuba. In the near term, implementation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, in combination with the other sanctions measures announced by the Administration, can be expected to further worsen U.S.-Cuba relations and bilateral relations between the U.S. and the EU and Canada, as well as elevate perceived risks of doing business in Cuba for both U.S. and non-U.S. companies.
 
——-
  [FN/13] Id. at § 4(13)(B)(iii).
  [FN/14] Id. at § 4(13)(B)(i)-(iv).
  [FN/15] Id. at § 302(a)(5)(C).
  [FN/16] See Joint Statement by Federica Mogherini, Chrystia Freeland and Cecilia Malmström on the decision of the United States to further activate Title III of the Helms-Burton (Libertad) Act, European Union (Apr. 17, 2019),
here.
  [FN/17] See Joint Statement by Federica Mogherini and Cecilia Malmström on the decision of the United States to further activate Title III of the Helms-Burton (Libertad) Act, European Union (Apr. 14, 2019),
here.
  [FN/18] See Sherritt International Corporation, Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Management Information Circular, May 4, 2018,
here at 16.

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


MSEX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

MS_a114. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 154 Openings Posted This Week, Including 20 New Openings 

(Source: Events & Jobs Editor) 
 

Published every Monday or first business day of the week. Please, send job openings in the following format to 
 
jobs@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.

 
* COMPANY; LOCATION; POSITION TITLE (WEBLINK); CONTACT INFORMATION; REQUISITION ID
 

#
” New or amended listing this week

 

* Abbott; Irving, TX; Customs and Trade Compliance Analyst 
#
* Abbott; Sylmar, CA; Compliance Director

* Adient; Plymouth, MI;
Director Americas Regional Compliance
; Requisition ID: R-03478
*
 
AeroVironment; Simi Valley, CA; Trade Compliance Specialist II; Requisition ID: 333

*
Agility; Houston, TX; Ocean Export Team Leader;

* Airbus; Blagnac, France; Internship Compliance et Export control; Requisition ID: 1819-X12

* Airbus; Getafe, Spain; Export Control Officer; Requisition ID: 10447448 XX EN EXT 1

#
* Ajilon; Grapevine, TX; Import Export Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: US_EN_7_849168_2557836


*
Allnex; Drogenbos, Belgium; Head of Trade Compliance EMEA

*
 
AM General; Auburn Hills, MI; 
International Compliance Analyst
 


* American Showa, Inc.; Columbus, OH; Trade Compliance Specialist; LoAnn Burt  
 


* Ansys; Pittsburgh, PA;
Paralegal – Compliance and Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 7535

*Arrow Electronics; Arlington, TX or Centennial, CO or Phoenix, AZ or Reno, NV; Officer, Global Trade Management & Compliance; Requisition ID: R169517
* Arrow Electronics; Hong Kong, China; Global Trade Management & Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: R168802

* ASML; Veldhoven, the Netherlands; Customs & Export Control Classification Specialist; Requisition ID: req9253

* Autodesk; San
Rafael, CA (SF Bay Area) or Portland, OR; 
Export Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 19WD31812


#
* BAE Systems; Williamstown, Australia; Assistant Export Control Officer; Requisition ID: BAE/1391315EXT

* Bass Pro Shops; Springfield, MO; Global Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: R055089


*
 
Beiersdorf; Hamburg, Germany; International Trade Expert

#
* Belk; Charlotte, NC; Sr Manager – Global Trade & Customs Compliance; Skyler Evans; Requisition ID: JR-20062

* Bloomberg; London, United Kingdom; 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 71755

#
* BMW Manufacturing; Spartanburg, SC; SECT MGR Customs Compliance; Requisition ID: 190001DP
#
* Boehringer Ingelheim; Milan, Italy; Internship Compliance; Requisition ID: 192007

* Bristol-Myers Squibb; New Brunswick, NJ; 
Director Global Customs & Trade
; Requisition ID: R1509390_EN

* Brooks; Chelmsford, MA; Senior Import / Export Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: R0822

#
* Continental; Fairlawn, OH; Import Specialist, International Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 117416BR
#
* Continental; Nürnberg, Germany; Specialist Customs & Foreign Trade (m/f/d); Requisition ID: 114014BR

* Cummins Inc; Global; Global Export Controls Manager; Barbara Flynn; Requisition ID: IRC380364


* Cummins Inc; Export Controls Analyst Senior; Barbara Flynn; Requisition ID: IRC351977

* Danaher – Beckman Coulter Diagnostics; Brea, CA;
Global Export Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: BEC014282

* Danaher – Leica Microsystems; Wetzlar, Germany; Trade Compliance Manager – EMEA (m/f/d); Requisition ID: LEI004901

* Dell; Bukit Mertajam, Malaysia; Analyst, Import/Export; Requisition ID: R60622

* Dell; Bukit Mertajam, Malaysia; Specialist, Import/Export; Requisition ID: R45267

#
* Deloitte; Zaventem, Belgium; Experienced Junior/Senior Customs and Global Trade Consultant; Requisition ID: 1800009Q

* Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken; The Hague, the Netherlands; Stage bij Directoraat-Generaal Buitenlandse Economische Betrekkingen – afdeling Exportcontrole en Strategische Goederen


EDCO; Eindhoven, the Netherlands;  Customs & Trade Compliance Coordinator

* Elbit Systems of America; Merrimack, NH; 
Licenses & Agreements Officer
; Requisition ID 2019-6948

* Engenium; Orlando, FL;
Import/Export Compliance Specialist 

*
 
Erickson Inc.; Portland or Central Point, OR; 
Import Specialist

Susan Colletto
; Requisition ID 927130

* Esri; Redlands, CA; Export Compliance Specialist

*
 Expeditors; Krefeld, Germany; 
Clerk Import / Export
 
*
 Expeditors; Bedfont, United Kingdom; 
Customs Brokerage Clerk
 

* Flexport; Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Regional Compliance Manager

* FLIR; Arlington, VA, Elkridge, MD, and Nashua, NH;
Senior Manager, Global Export Licensing (Commercial); Requisition ID: REQ12110

* Fortive – Tektronix; Beaverton, OR; Chief Compliance Counsel

* Fourstar Group USA; Milford, MA; 
Import Manager/Customs Compliance/Classification Specialist
 


GCP Applied Technologies; Cambridge, MA; 
Trade Compliance Manager
 

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 22832BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; 
Trade Compliance Classification Leader
; Requisition ID: 22671BR

* General Atomics; San Diego, CA; Import/Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 23069BR

* Gulfstream Aerospace; Savannah, GA;
Trade Compliance Project Manager Sr
; Requisition ID: 142611  

* Harley-Davidson; Milwaukee, WI; Logistics Lead – Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 826  

*
Harris Corporation; Van Nuys, CA; Trade Compliance Senior Specialist; Richard Wellbrock; Requisition ID: ES20192103-30606

* Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc; State Dept, DDTC; Washington, DC; 
Commodities Jurisdiction Analyst
 

* Henkel; Rocky Hill, CT;
Global Trade Manager
; Requisition ID: 190001EB

* Hitachi Vantara; Singapore; Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 1003050 (026187)
* Honeywell; any SPS location, U.S.; Export Compliance Manager (North America); Requisition ID: HRD45798
* Honeywell; Paris, France; Export Compliance Lead; Requisition ID: HRD60078
* Huntington Ingalls Industries; Fairfax, VA; Contracts/Business Administration Manager; Requisition ID: 18613

* IGT; Reno, NV; Global Trade Analyst; Requisition ID: 1171

* Illumina; Great Abington, United Kingdom; 
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 16204-JOB 
* Illumina; San Diego, CA; 
Associate Director, Global Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 16094-JOB
* Illumina; Woodlands, Singapore; Manager, Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 16361-JOB

*
 Infineon; El Segundo, CA; 
Manager, Export Control
; Requisition ID: 33841

* Infineum; Milton Hill, United Kingdom; Global Trade Compliance Project Advisor 
#
* Integra LifeSciences; Plainsboro, NJ; Import/Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 2019-29346

*
 
IPG Photonics; Oxford, MA; 
Global Director Trade Compliance 
* Irving Shipbuilding; Halifax, NS, Canada; Manager, Export Compliance; Requisition ID: 19000058

* Itron; Austin, TX; Compliance & Regulatory Counsel; Requisition ID: 1900030
 


* Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI; Director, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: WD30055791295

*
 
Keeco Home; Hayward, CA; Director Customs and Compliance

* Kirkland’s; Brentwood, TN; 
Customs Compliance Program Manager
; Requisition ID: 2019-8158

*
Koch Chem Tech; Tulsa, OK; Import/Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 052017

* KPMG; Chicago, IL or New York, NY or Washington D.C.;
Export and Sanctions Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 41146

* Kubota; Grapevine, TX; 
Manager, Import & Export Compliance
; Requisition ID: 228

*
 
Leidos; Columbia, MD; International Trade Manager / Export Compliance; Req. ID: R-00005745

* Leonardo DRS; Arlington, VA; Trade Compliance Import Manager; Requisition ID: 93515

* Leonardo DRS; Melbourne, FL; 
Senior Supply Chain Analyst – Small Business Compliance
; Requisition ID: 91669

* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA; International Licensing Analyst; Requisition ID: 468160BR


* Lockheed Martin; Orlando, FL; 
International Trade Compliance Specialist / International Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 467458BR

* Lockheed Martin; Stratford, CT; International Trade Compliance Authorization Owner; Requisition ID: 479245BR

* Lockheed Martin Aeronautics; Palmdale, CA; Export Compliance Site Lead; Requisition ID: 477630BR

* Lutron Electronics Co; Lehigh Valley, PA; Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 4025

* Mastercard; O’Fallon, MO; Manager, Legal Compliance, Export Controls Compliance; Requisition ID: R-84414

* Meggitt; Miami, FL; 
Trade Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: 37514
* Meggitt; Rockmart, GA; 
Trade Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: 37846

* Mercury Systems; multiple locations; Principle Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 19-226

* Mercury Systems; multiple locations; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 19-203

*
Navigos Search; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Legal & Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: JO-1904-415857
* Netflix; Los Angeles, CA; Specialist, Trade Compliance


*
 Newell Brands; Norwalk, CT; 
Manager of Trade Operations 

* Northrop Grumman; Herndon, VA;
Principal International Trade Compliance Analyst Level 3 or 4
; Requisition ID: 19007160  

* Northrop Grumman; Rancho Bernardo, CA; Sr. Manager, International Trade Compliance; Contact: Fred Czarske at 310-332-7606, fred.czarske@ngc.com; Requisition ID: 19008010

#
* Northrop Grumman; Redondo Beach, CA, San Diego, CA or Melbourne, FL; Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 19013440

* Nouryon; Radnor, PA; Global Trade Compliance Manager; Requisition ID: 190001UJ

* Parexel; Kiev, Ukraine; Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 51579BR

* PCCW Limited; Herndon, VA; Manager – International Trade Compliance (Americas)career-corporate@pccw.com; Requisition ID: MITC-0419-US


* PCCW Limited; Hong Kong, China; Manager – International Trade Compliance (Asia)career-corporate@pccw.com; Requisition ID: MITC-041900-HK

* PerkinElmer; Shelton, CT or Boston, MA or Hopkinton, MA or Waltham, MA;
Senior Director Global Transportation and Logistics
; Requisition ID: JR-004907

* Philips; Best, the Netherlands;
Head of Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 308818

* Pinpoint Pharma; Lincolnshire,IL; Export Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 351

* Project Alpha – Centre for Science and Security Studies KCL; London, United Kingdom; Internship Opportunity

#
* Qorvo; Richardson, TX; Import/Export Analyst; Requisition ID: 0008593

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Global Trade Authorization Owner; Requisition ID: 137660BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; Import Ctl&Compliance Advisor; Requisition ID:136269BR

* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA/McKinney, TX/Rosslyn, VA; Senior Analyst Global Trade Management; Requisition ID: 136411BR
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA/McKinney, TX; Senior Manager, Global Trade Strategy; Requisition ID: 135692BR
* Raytheon; McKinney, TX: Senior Analyst Global Trade Licensing; Requisition ID: 136939BR

* Raytheon; Tuscon, AZ;
Manager Export-Import Control
; Requisition ID: 134614BR


* Raytheon; Tuscon, AZ;
Senior Export Licensing and Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 135002BR

* Repligen; Waltham, MA; Senior Manager, Global Trade Compliance

* Saab Defense and Security USA LLC; East Syracuse, NY;
Senior Import and Classifications Analyst 

*
 SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
;
Danielle.Cannata@sabic.com
; Requisition ID: 8411BR

* Sarepta Therapeutics; Cambridge, MA;
Director, Logistics & Global Trade Compliance 
* Science and Engineering Services, LLC; Huntsville, AL; Trade Compliance Administrator; Requisition ID: 946
* Shell; Houston, TX; Advisor Trade Controls; Requisition ID: 105518BR

* Siemens; München, Germany; Director (m/f) Compliance Audit – Export Controls and Customs (ECC); Requisition ID: 104465 

* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst I; Requisition ID: R0007830

* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst I; Requisition ID: R0008021

* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA;
International Trade Compliance Analyst II
; Requisition ID: R0007508

* Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA; International Trade Compliance Analyst II; Requisition ID: R0007996
*
Sierra Nevada Corporation; Arlington, VA / Sparks, NV / Centennial, CO; International Trade Compliance Manager II; Requisition ID: R0007901
 


#
* SIG SAUER, Inc.; Newington, NH; Director of Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 1114

* Signify; Eindhoven or Amsterdam, the Netherlands;  
Legal Export Control Officer
; Requisition ID: 289784

* Solenis; Wilmington, DE; Global Trade Compliance Specialist II; Requisition ID: R0002807

#
* Synopsys Inc.; Remote, U.S.; Director, Global Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 20358BR


TE Connectivity; El Cajon, CA or Middletown, PA; Licensing Specialisttbaker@te.com; Requisition 40514 

* Tesla, Inc.; Fremont, CA; Program Manager, Tariff Strategy; Requisition ID: 46503 


* Textron Aviation; Wichita, KS; 
Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 269127

* Thales; Stuttgart, Germany;
Trade Compliance Spezialist (M/W/D)
; Requisition ID: R0054290

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Monza, Italy; Trade Compliance Specialist – Pharma; Requisition ID: 88807BR

* ThermoFisher Scientific; Loughborough, United Kingdom;
Global Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 90337BR

* Trek Bicycle; Waterloo, WI;  
Trade Compliance Manager  
* U.S. Department of the Army – U.S. Army Security Assistance Command; Redstone Arsenal, AL; Security Assistance Policy Specialist; Requisition ID: 60590  

#
* United Technologies – Collins Aerospace; Cedar Rapids, IA; Export Licensing Specialist (ITC); Requisition ID: 01311691
#
* United Technologies – Collins Aerospace; Cedar Rapids, IA; Sr. Product Classification Specialist; Requisition ID: 01311991
#
* United Technologies – Collins Aerospace; Rockford, IL; International Trade Compliance Intern; Requisition ID: 01308699
#
* United Technologies – Collins Aerospace; Windsor Locks, CT; Associate Director Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: 01308017

*
 
University of California; San Francisco, CA; 
Export Control Officer
; Requisition ID: 51010

* University of Manchester; Manchester, United Kingdom; Export Control Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: PSX-13808

* UPS; Münchenstein, Switzerland; Customs & Trade Compliance Coordinator; Requisition ID: 052228

* Velocity Electronics; Austin, TX; 
Director of Global Trade Compliance 
* Veridos GmbH; München, Germany; 
Ausfuhrbeauftragter (Export Control Officer m/w/d
; Requisition ID: 1677

#
* Viasat; Carlsbad, CA; Global Trade Analyst; Requisition ID: 2824

* Vigilant GTS; Remote Position, U.S.; Global Trade Compliance Account Manager

* Walt Disney; Kissimmee, FL; Trade Compliance Analyst (Project Hire); Requisition ID: 654599BR

* Wealth Ocean; Newport Beach, CA; Marketing & International Trade Specialist

* Xilinx; San Jose, CA;
 
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 155901
* YETI Coolers; Austin, TX; Inbound Logistics and Trade Compliance Manager  


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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a115. 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 specifically 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: via the
event page 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). Please, see the event page for our combo deals.

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

*
Soren Kierkegaard (Søren Aabye Kierkegaard; 5 May 1813 – 11 Nov 1855; was a Danish philosopher, theologian, poet, social critic and religious author who is widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher.)
  – “Once you label me you negate me.” 
 
*
Karl Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 Mar 1883; was a German philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary.)
  – “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
 
*
Maximilien Robespierre (Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre; 6 May 1758 – 28 July 1794) was a French lawyer and politician, as well as one of the best known and most influential figures associated with the French Revolution. He is best known for his role what was later called the “reign of Terror” and his disputed role in political trials and executions, including his own.)
  
– “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”
 
Monday is pun day:
* What do you do with a dead chemist?  Barium.
* I bet the person who created the door knocker won a Nobel prize.
* Towels can’t tell jokes. They have a dry sense of humor.

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

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 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: 29 Apr 2019: 84 FR 17950-17958: Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections Sanctions Regulations [amendment of 31 CFR Part 579 to implement EO 13848] 
  
* 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