19-0603 Monday “Daily Bugle'”

19-0603 Monday “Daily Bugle”

Monday, 3 June 2019

The Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, DOE/NRC, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FAR/DFARS, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe here. Contact us for advertising 

inquiries and rates

  1. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments Concerning Forms 748P, 748P-A, and 748P-B 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  4. Dutch Government Answers Parliamentary Questions re Supervising Foreign Students
  1. South China Morning Post: “China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on $60 Billion of US Goods Kick in, Fanning Fears of Extended Trade War”
  2. ST&R Trade Report: “Tariffs on All Imports from Mexico to Begin June 10”
  3. Telecompaper: “IEEE Drops Restrictions on Huawei”
  1. J. Cottle, N. Cheallachain, & K. Harnisch: “DOJ Expands on its Processes for Evaluations of Corporate Compliance Programs”
  2. E. Dall & T. Keatinge: “Securing the Supply Chain: Implementing North Korea Sanctions Beyond Banking (Part I of II)”
  3. T. Murphy: “U.S. Threatens to Impose Duties on All Articles Imported from Mexico over Immigration Issues”
  4. T. Soliman & J. Zhang: “China to Establish an “Unreliable Entities” List”
  1. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 146 Openings Posted This Week; 20 New Openings 
  1. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Bootcamp: Achieving Compliance” on 8-9 Jul in Seattle, WA
  2. FCC Presents: “U.S. Export Controls: The ITAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 26 Nov 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 (24 May 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 (21 May 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 


EXIM_a11. Commerce/BIS Seeks Comments on Forms 748P, 748P-A, and 748P-B

(Source: Federal Register, 3 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
84 FR 25521: Submission for OMB Review;
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
* Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
* Title: Simple Network Application Process and Multipurpose Application Form.
* Form Number(s): 748P, 748P-A, 748P-B.
– OMB Control Number: 0694-0088.
– Type of Request: Regular submission.
– Estimated Total Burden Hours: 31,878 hours.
– Estimated Number of Respondents: 64,616 respondents.
– Estimated Time per Response: 49 minutes per response.
Needs and Uses: BIS administers a system of export and re-export controls in accordance with the EAR. In doing so, BIS requires that parties wishing to engage in certain transactions apply for licenses, submit Encryption Review Requests, or submit notifications to BIS through, the Simplified Network Application Process-Redesign (SNAP-R), the System for Tracking Export License Applications (STELA), the Multipurpose application Form BIS 748P and its two appendices 748P-A and 748P-B, or by submitting an Advisory Opinion request pursuant to the instructions in §
748.3(c) of the EAR.
– Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.
– Frequency: On occasion.
– Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department.

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


OGS_a12. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register, 3 June 2019.)

* USTR; NOTICE; Product Exclusions: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation [Pub. Date: 6 June 2019.] 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
(Source: Commerce/BIS) 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

OGS_a45. Dutch Government Answers Parliamentary Questions regarding Supervising Foreign Students

Dutch Government, 3 June 2019.)
Dutch Government has released
answers to questions asked by Parliament on 11 April 2019 regarding supervising students and researchers in the Netherlands from high-risk countries.

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


South China Morning Post: “China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on US$60 Billion of US Goods Kick In, Fanning Fears of Extended Trade War”

South China Morning Post, 31 May 2019.) [Excerpts]
China on Saturday raised tariffs to a maximum 25 per cent on US$60 billion worth of US products in retaliation for Washington’s latest tax increase on Chinese goods, fanning fears that the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies will not end soon. …
The Chinese leadership led by President Xi Jinping had indicated it would implement further retaliatory measures against Washington, depending on what Trump does. China has recently hinted at restricting its supply of rare earth minerals to the United States. …
The tariffs, which came into effect on Saturday, cover a total of 5,140 US products including liquefied natural gas as well as petrochemical and food goods, whose tariff levels were lifted to up to 25 per cent from the current 10 per cent.
China, meanwhile, is the world’s dominant supplier of rare earths that are vital to the production of hi-tech goods like hybrid cars and mobile phones. The US is believed to receive around 80 per cent of its rare earth imports from China. … 

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

. ST&R Trade Report: “Tariffs on All Imports from Mexico to Begin June 10”

Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 3 June 2019.) [Excerpts]
In an effort to push Mexico to address immigration issues, the White House has announced that a five percent tariff will be imposed on goods from Mexico effective June 10. If Mexico’s response is not deemed sufficient, tariffs will be increased according to the following schedule.
– 10 percent on July 1
– 15 percent on August 1
– 20 percent on Sept. 1
– 25 percent on Oct. 1
Rates will remain at 25 percent thereafter until Mexico “substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming in through its territory.”
The president took this action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which has previously been utilized to freeze or block assets of foreign governments or nationals. 
Similar to previous tariff actions initiated by the administration, we anticipate this action to mean additional tariffs on top of existing rates of duty, including on NAFTA qualifying goods. We expect a 
Federal Register notice prior to initiation of these tariffs that will provide additional details clarifying the scope of the action. …

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

. Telecompaper: “IEEE Drops Restrictions on Huawei” 

Telecompaper, 3 June 2019.)
The IEEE has restored access for Huawei and its employees to the peer review of research by its members, after earlier 
blocking the Chinese company in order to comply with the US export controls on Huawei. The US-based research group said it requested clarification from the US Department of Commerce and the new information received showed that the restrictions were not necessary. 
As a result, Huawei and its affiliates may participate as peer reviewers and editors in the IEEE publication process. All IEEE members, regardless of employer, can continue to participate in all of the activities of the IEEE. 
The group said the initial, more restrictive approach was “motivated solely by our desire to protect our volunteers and our members from legal risk”. With the clarification received, this risk has been addressed. 

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


 J. Cottle, N. Cheallachain, & K. Harnisch: “DOJ Expands on Its Processes For Evaluations Of Corporate Compliance Programs” 

Norton Rose Fulbright, May 2019.)
* Authors: Jeffrey Cottle, Esq.,
+1 202 662 4753;  Niamh Cheallachain, Esq.,
+1 212 318 3033; Kevin Harnisch, Esq.,
+1 202 662 4520; all of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.
On April 30, 2019, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released new guidance that provides substantial insight into how the agency evaluates corporate compliance programs. The guidance codifies elements long understood as DOJ priorities for evaluating an operationally effective corporate compliance program and applies them to 
all corporate investigations, not just FCPA matters. Determining the adequacy and effectiveness of a corporate compliance program has long been one of the key “Filip Factors” that the DOJ uses in determining whether to charge a corporation with any wrongdoing. USAM 9-28.300(A)(5). This new guidance elaborates on six key points within that overarching question, namely: policies and procedures, training and communications, a confidential reporting structure and investigation process, third-party management, and mergers and acquisitions. The bottom line is that when evaluating a corporate compliance program, the DOJ will be sharply focused on answering three fundamental questions: 
  1) Is the corporation’s compliance program well-designed?; 
  2) Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith? (i.e., is the program being implemented effectively?); and 
  3) Does the corporation’s compliance program work in practice?
Key takeaways
Companies should periodically refresh their risk assessments and allocate compliance resources accordingly
The guidance emphasizes the need to implement a risk-based compliance approach, tailored to the company’s individual risk profile. In fact, the guidance explicitly recognizes that prosecutors may credit the quality and effectiveness of a compliance program that devotes appropriate resources and attention to high-risk operations, even if it fails to prevent an infraction in a low-risk area. In order to demonstrate that a compliance program is appropriately tailored to the relevant risks, companies should periodically refresh their risk assessments in order to capture and address the evolving risk landscape. This is the most expansive articulation that the DOJ will accept risk-based resource allocation, and “officially” harmonizes the Department’s position with that of other global enforcement agencies such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office.
“Tone-at-the-top,” training and culture remain critical
It should come as no surprise that DOJ prosecutors will form an opinion about a company’s compliance culture. Whether a company has an effective compliance culture is a subjective assessment that is difficult to measure. The guidance, however, provides some important insights into what DOJ expects to see in this regard. A significant component of this analysis is whether and how the compliance culture is embedded in day-to-day operations. Embedding can be accomplished in several ways, including by ensuring that policies and procedures are easily accessible and understood by all employees, including foreign employees, and by providing tailored training based on employee roles and positions. Corporations should also consider implementing other mechanisms for measuring compliance culture, such as using employee surveys, town halls, or other means by which to determine whether employees are comfortable with escalating concerns, and to obtain their views on whether management leads by example. Given the focus on training in the guidance, companies should also reference applicable or relevant industry models to attempt to measure the success of training programs and their impact on employee understanding and comprehension of the issues. Moreover, prosecutors will examine the application of incentives and disciplinary measures as motivators for compliance and deterrents for non-compliance.
Effective remediation reduces chances of a monitor
Pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, prosecutors are required to assess “the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at the time of the offense, as well as at the time of a charging decision.” Thus, how a compliance program has evolved since the time of the infraction through the time of DOJ investigation can have an important impact on the ultimate resolution of the matter, including whether a compliance monitor should be appointed. The updated guidance underscores the trend that corporate compliance monitors should only be appointed where a corporation’s controls are deemed ineffective or inappropriately resourced at the time of resolution. In order to determine the efficacy of a corporation’s remediation efforts, prosecutors will assess the steps taken by a company in response to an incident to ensure that similar instances of misconduct are unlikely to recur or go undetected. Prosecutors will also evaluate the sustainability of a compliance program by determining whether a company performed a root-cause analysis and how the results of that root-cause analysis have been incorporated into the design and operation of its compliance program. If a compliance program is deemed effective by the time DOJ completes its investigation, it is much less likely that the DOJ will insist upon a monitor.
While the updated guidance is intended for use by prosecutors, it also serves as a useful guide to help corporations craft a compliance program that will withstand DOJ scrutiny. It illustrates the depth of the analysis prosecutors are expected to undertake, and solidifies DOJ’s clear expectation that a “paper program” simply is not enough. With the publication of this guidance, prosecutors will likely expect companies to incorporate the key elements into their compliance frameworks.

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

E. Dall & T. Keatinge: “Securing the Supply Chain: Implementing North Korea Sanctions Beyond Banking (Part I of II)”

* Authors: Emil Dall Esq.,
emild@rusi.org, Tom Keatinge Esq.,
. Both of The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
Ensuring the global supply chain is not abused by North Korea to evade international sanctions requires a systemic approach. The current response is failing, and the involvement of a far greater range of private sector actors is urgently needed.
The latest report published by the UN Panel of Experts established to monitor the implementation of sanctions measures against North Korea makes for alarming reading. Despite North Korea being subject to one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes ever adopted by the UN, and the ongoing efforts by the US to put North Korea under a ‘
maximum pressure‘ sanctions campaign, the ability of the country to circumvent those restrictions in the pursuit of its nuclear ambition remains – seemingly – undiminished.
In their 
March 2019 report, the UN Panel investigators drew the stark conclusion that North Korea’s sanctions evasion activities ‘render the latest UN sanctions ineffective’. These are the measures adopted primarily since 2016 to restrict North Korea’s ability to export commodities ranging from seafood to coal and to cut its import of crucial oil supplies, in addition to the existing restrictions on the import of goods and technology related to the development of the country’s nuclear program.
Efforts to curtail the North Korean regime’s finances and isolate it from global markets have not forced North Korea to cease trading. Rather, as an increasing number of trading activities move from the legal to the sanctioned space, North Korea has adopted new evasion tactics as rapidly as sanctions have been agreed at the UN. One example is the use of ship-to-ship transfers, a way for the regime to circumvent sanctions against North Korea-flagged vessels and continue sending and receiving restricted commodities by transferring them from/to non-sanctioned vessels in international waters. The UN Panel noted that ‘these transfers have increased in scope, scale and sophistication’ with illicit transfers of petroleum products to North Korea having ‘greatly accelerated’ in 2018.
Another consequence of expanded sanctions measures is the range of actors across the supply chain – from traders, shipping companies, freight-forwarders, insurance companies and commodity brokers – who now have a key role in implementing North Korea sanctions.
Notwithstanding this widening range of actors, it appears that rather than cracking down on all fronts to effectively implement sanctions measures, by including sectors such as seafood, textiles and agricultural products, the global community – led by the US – has been determined to focus on the one activity they perceive will matter most to North Korea, namely countering illicit ship-to-ship transfers used to import oil and export coal. Furthermore, within these two supply chains the implementation focus seems to be on a restricted number of actors.
Meanwhile, smaller private sector actors and those involved in non-oil and coal sector supply chains feel minimal imperative to do the sort of concerted thinking required to implement North Korea sanctions effectively. This is a role that still needs to be defined, and urgently, if the international community is committed to implementing the entire range of sanctions measures against North Korea.
Sanctions Beyond the Banking Sector
When it comes to countering North Korea’s financial activities (known as countering proliferation finance, or CPF), this responsibility is covered by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter on issues of financial crime. In 2012 it added CPF to its mandate, requiring countries to effectively implement targeted financial sanctions against proliferators, including North Korea, without delay. These expectations are, in turn, ultimately implemented by the banking sector, for whom North Korean sanctioned individuals and entities have been a concern since at least 2006 when the UN first adopted asset-freezing measures against actors involved in North Korea’s nuclear program.
At the time this responsibility was added, sanctions were – in contrast to today – relatively straightforward. However, since 2016, the picture has become far more complex. UN financial sanctions requirements now include activity-based sanctions which require constant vigilance and sophisticated analysis by banks to implement effectively. These include restrictions on relationships with North Korean financial institutions, the operation of bank accounts by North Korean diplomats or the establishment of joint ventures with North Korean entities.
In recent years, the banking sector has been scrutinized and penalized for failures (at best) to implement sanctions effectively and (at worst) providing schemes to circumvent restrictions. The sector has therefore had the time and pressure to develop and implement strategies for dealing with North Korea sanctions exposure.
However, since 2016 the UN has expanded its North Korean sanctions regime to include restrictions on the earnings capacity of the country. This has involved adopting bans on the export of coal, iron ore and other key minerals; seafood, agricultural products, textiles and machinery; and North Korean foreign labor, all activities which previously provided the North Korean leadership with up to 
$3 billion in annual revenue. The UN has also placed strict limits on North Korea’s imports of oil and petroleum products, seen as key to the long-term functioning of the North Korean state apparatus.
Prior to this expansion, UN trade restrictions on North Korea focused primarily on preventing the regime from procuring, shipping and acquiring illicit technology and dual-use items related to its development of nuclear weapons. In contrast, the trading activities added since 2016 are activities that would otherwise be unrestricted, unless carried out by North Korea, on behalf of North Korea or for the benefit of North Korea. This has meant that companies that have previously been untroubled by issues of sanctions compliance must now consider North Korea as part of their risk picture. Simply focusing implementation efforts on the banking industry is therefore no longer enough.
In contrast to the global financial ‘supply chain’, which merely involves the banking industry, the global network that supports the transport of goods and commodities relies on a range of industries, from the broker who sources the required commodities or the ship which transports them, to the ship owner and the insurer of the ship itself, its cargo or its crew. One weak link in this supply chain can render the whole process vulnerable to abuse.
Notwithstanding the existence since 2016 of these more complex, activity-based sanctions on North Korea, awareness of their existence – and the restrictions and responsibilities they bring with them – is limited. For many in these industries North Korea sanctions risk is a new experience, one which, in some cases, they seem unwilling or unprepared, to accept. Furthermore, even those that recognize their expanded responsibilities struggle to determine how their business might be abused by North Korea and may therefore choose to decide that the risks illuminated in the Panel reports and the activities addressed in North Korea-related UN Security Council resolutions, do not apply to them.
Insuring the Front Line
One example is the insurance industry. Despite 
UN Security Council Resolution 2397, adopted in December 2017, mandating countries to restrict ‘provision of insurance or re-insurance services’ to any vessel involved in sanctions evasion on behalf of North Korea, the industry did not immediately adapt its practices in response. 
A RUSI study published in July 2018 highlighted how the sector was ‘hindered from fulfilling this role’ due to lack of risk awareness, and a reliance on screening against sanctions lists of designated entities and individuals, rather than attempting to proactively identify sanctions-evasion behavior as many global banks have done.
These findings were echoed by the UN Panel of Experts who reminded member states that ‘insurance providers are financial institutions’ and therefore subject to the same requirements as banks to restrict North Korea’s illicit financing. Similarly, 
updated guidance by the FATF in February 2018 underlined the importance of extending CPF measures beyond banks to include insurance and trading companies. Furthermore, in November 2018 the UK and US governments co-hosted 
an event in London for the insurance industry to demonstrate how insurers can play a more active role in stopping North Korea’s illicit shipping practices, by monitoring the movement of vessels and the corporate networks that control them. Civil society initiatives such as RUSI’s 
Project Sandstone, an effort to expose North Korea shipping networks using open-source data, can help insurers in this effort.
Yet the failure to secure the supply chain lies not only with the private sector actors that facilitate the global movement of goods. Governments and international organizations that supervise and monitor this activity also bear responsibility. For example, the lack of focus both from policymakers and sanctions-enforcement agencies on what insurers are expected to do to implement sanctions, means that they have not felt sufficient pressure to develop their understanding of North Korea sanctions as distinct from other sanctions risks.
Recent efforts by the insurance industry to adapt to this new reality should be noted. A Lloyd’s of London 
bulletin in April 2019 provided the industry with red flags and risk factors relating to North Korea’s shipping practices and noted that (re)insurers are ‘expected to understand their sanctions risk profile’. This is a significant step forward for an industry where awareness of the risks posed by North Korea gaining access to insurance products in the London insurance market has been low.
More of this guidance is needed, not just to insurers but across other industries, to reverse the false sense of security that North Korea sanctions do not affect them.

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

. T. Murphy: “U.S. Threatens to Impose Duties on All Articles Imported from Mexico over Immigration Issues”

(Source: Author) [Excerpts]
* Author: Ted Murphy, Esq.; Baker & McKenzie LLP; 1-202-452-7069; 
31 May 2019.  Yesterday, President Trump announced that, beginning on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose additional duties on all articles imported into the United States from Mexico (via land, sea or air) on an escalating schedule until Mexico does more to stop the flow of illegal migrants to the United States.  This tweet was then followed by a longer statement issued by the White House (available
here). That statement accuses Mexico of “passive cooperation in allowing [the] mass incursion” of illegal migration to the United States over many years (e.g., not enforcing its own strong immigration laws, not instituting stricter border controls on its southern border with Guatemala, etc.) and says that this “constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”  In response, President Trump is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose additional duties on all articles imported into the United States from Mexico until the “migration crises is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico” (as determined by the United States).  More specifically, the statement lays out the following escalating schedule:

  – June 10, 2019 – 5% additional duty imposed on all articles imported into the United States from Mexico
  – July 1, 2019 – 10% additional duty imposed
  – August 1, 2019 – 15% additional duty imposed
  – September 1, 2019 – 20% additional duty imposed
  – October 1, 2019 – 25% additional duty imposed
Tariffs will then remain at 25% until “Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory.”
There are a few points to keep in mind here. 
First, the statement is a threat of future action.  While everyone should take this threat seriously, there is a week for the United States and Mexico to resolve the issue and avoid the imposition of duties (which would certainly involve Mexico doing more to stem the flow of migrants from Central America through its territory).  That said, if enough is not done, we fully expect that these duties will be imposed and will remain in place until President Trump is satisfied that Mexico does more.  
Second, if the duties are imposed, they are in addition to whatever duties are currently due on articles.  So, if an article imported from Mexico enters the United States duty free today under NAFTA, it will be subject to a 5% duty rate as of June 10
th.  In short, eligibility does not impact these additional duties; they are paid regardless of NAFTA qualification. 
Third, the additional duties will be paid by the U.S. importers.  Given that much of the Mexico-U.S. trade is between related parties (e.g., a wholly-owned assembly factory or maquila/IMMEX company producing articles imported into the United States by a U.S. parent/affiliate), the duties will be borne by U.S. interests.  As the White House statement makes clear, though, the Administration is aware of this – “[i]f Mexico fails to act, Tariffs will remain at the high level, and companies located in Mexico may start moving back to the United States to make their products and goods.”  So, either Mexico does more to stop the migrants transiting its territory on the way to the United States, or companies will start moving their production facilities from Mexico to the United States (or some third country).  . . .

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

T. Soliman & J. Zhang: “China to Establish an ‘Unreliable Entities’ List”

Mayer Brown, 3 June 2019.)
* Authors: Tamer Soliman, Esq., tsoliman@mayerbrown.com, +1 202 263 3292; Jing Zhang, Esq., jzhang@mayerbrown.com, +1 202 263 3385. Both of Mayer Brown.
On May 31, 2019, China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) announced at a press conference that the country will soon establish a new “unreliable entities list” regime.1 MOFCOM further explained that, pursuant to relevant Chinese laws and regulations, foreign enterprises, organizations and individuals who fail to obey market principles, depart from the spirit of contact, or block or cease to supply Chinese enterprises for non-commercial reasons and who seriously harm Chinese enterprises’ rights and interests will be added to the “unreliable entities list.” Specific measures against the entities so designated will be announced later. The new “unreliable entities list” will be based on, among other authorities, China’s Foreign Trade Law, Anti-Monopoly Law and State Security Law.
No official statement has yet been made regarding when the initial list will be announced and what specific restrictions would apply to the listed entities under Chinese law. However, we expect that MOFCOM’s Bureau of Industry, Security, Import and Export Control will soon publish detailed guidance regarding the new regime.
In addition, even though the announcement made no direct reference to the United States recently adding Chinese telecommunication giant Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) to its Entity List,2 China’s measure is widely seen as related to that US action as well as the broader trade dispute between China and the United States. Notably, MOFCOM’s announcement specifically mentioned concerns about “unilateralism”; “trade protectionism”; and “blocking, ceasing to supply or taking other discriminatory measures against Chinese enterprises.” To the extent that China’s action targets companies that comply with recent US export control, procurement and other trade restrictions involving Huawei and other Entity List entities, it raises potentially challenging conflict of law issues that should be considered carefully by companies with dealings in both jurisdictions.
[FN/2] Mayer Brown Legal Update, US Government Restricts Certain Exports to Huawei and Affiliates by Adding It to Entity List While Permitting Temporary Narrow Exceptions(May 22, 2019), https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2019/05/us-government-restricts-certain-exports-to-huawei-and-affiliates-by-adding-it-to-entity-list-while-permitting-temporary-narrow-exceptions.

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


MS_a113. Monday List of Ex/Im Job Openings: 146 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 

” New or amended listing this week
* Abbott; Orlando, FL;
Senior Compliance Analyst 
* Abbott; Sylmar, CA;
Compliance Director 
* Accenture; Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Contract Analyst – Trade Compliance 
* Adient; Plymouth, MI;
Director Americas Regional Compliance
; Requisition ID: R-03478
* AeroVironment; Simi Valley, CA;
Trade Compliance Specialist II
; Requisition ID: 333;
* Agility; Basel, Switzerland;
Zolldeklarant/in Export
Agility; Houston, TX;
Ocean Export Team Leader 
* Agility; Philadelphia, PA; Air Export Coordinator
* Alumeco; Odense, Denmark;
Trade Compliance Manager 

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

* AMAG Pharmaceuticals; Waltham, MA;
Associate, Logistics & Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 1386
* American Showa, Inc.; Columbus, OH;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; LoAnn Burt, 
* ASML; San Diego, CA; 
Customs & Export Control Classification Specialist
Requisition ID: req9558
* Autodesk; San
Rafael, CA (SF Bay Area) or Portland, OR; 
Export Compliance Officer
; Requisition ID: 19WD31812
* Belk; Charlotte, NC;
Sr Manager – Global Trade & Customs Compliance
Skyler Evans
; Requisition ID: JR-20062
* BMW Manufacturing; Spartanburg, SC;
SECT MGR Customs Compliance
; Requisition ID: 190001DP
* Boehringer Ingelheim; Milan, Italy;
Internship Compliance
; Requisition ID: 192007
* Brooks; Chelmsford, MA;
Senior Import / Export Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: R0822
* Cisco Systems, Inc.; Charlotte, NC;
Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 1261937
* Cisco Systems, Inc.; San Jose, CA or Research Triangle Park, NC; Customs Project Manager / Business Analyst; Requisition ID: 1263171
* Cloudflare; Austin, TX, San Francisco, CA, Washington D.C.; International Trade Compliance Manager
* Continental; Fairlawn, OH;
Import Specialist, International Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 117416BR
* Crane Aerospace & Electronics; Burbank, CA; Sr. Export Compliance Analystmichelle.domingo@craneae.com; Requisition ID: 7908
* Cruise; San Francisco, CA; Program Manager – Trade and Compliance; sherry.horowitz@getcruise.com; Requisition ID: 1276
* Danaher – Leica Microsystems; Wetzlar, Germany; Chief Compliance Officer; Requisition ID: LEI004530
* Danaher – Pall; Port Washington, NY; Legal Intern Compliance (Unpaid); Requisition ID: PAL003246
* Dell; Bukit Mertajam, Malaysia;
Specialist, Import/Export
; Requisition ID: R45267
* DHL; Hong Kong, China;
Regional Compliance Officer, APEC
; Requisition ID: req78306
* Elbit Systems of America; Merrimack, NH; 
Licenses & Agreements Officer
; Requisition ID 2019-6948
* Engenium; Orlando, FL;
Import/Export Compliance Specialist 
* ESCO; Portland, OR; Global Trade Compliance
* 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
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Government Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 23607BR
* General Atomics; San Diego, CA;
Government Regulatory Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 23576BR

* 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; Paris, France;
Export Compliance Lead
; Requisition ID: HRD60078
* Huntington Ingalls Industries; Centreville, VA;
Import Export Administrator
; Requisition ID: 2019-1943
* Hypertherm; Hanover, NH;
Export & Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: R41
* IGT; Reno, NV;
Global Trade Analyst
; Requisition ID: 1171
* IKEA Purchasing Services; King of Prussia, PA;
Regional Customs Manager, Americas 
* 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 Technologies, El Segundo, CA;
Senior Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 31215;
* Integra LifeSciences; Plainsboro, NJ;
Import/Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2019-29346
* IPG Photonics; Oxford, MA;
Global Director Trade Compliance 
* Itron; Austin, TX;
Compliance & Regulatory Counsel
; Requisition ID: 1900030
* Izpal Corporation; Bangkok, Thailand; Assistant Import/Export Manager
* Johnson Controls; Milwaukee, WI;
Director, Global Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: WD30055791295;
* Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; Washington DC;
Junior Export Controls/Sanctions Associate 
* 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
; Requisition ID: R-00005745;
* Lennox International; Shanghai, China;
Trade Compliance Lead 
* Lenovo; Bratislava, Slovakia; Customs Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 73198
* Lenovo; Guandong, China; AP Trade Compliance Specialist; Requisition ID: 73183
* 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
* Leonardo DRS; St Louis, MO;
Export/Trade Compliance Specialist

; Requisition ID: 94325
Liberty Ltd; London, United Kingdom; Import & Export Coordinator (Entry-Level)
* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA;
International Licensing Analyst
; Requisition ID: 468160BR;
* Lockheed Martin; Arlington, VA;
International Licensing Analyst Staff
; Requisition ID: 480803BR
* Lockheed Martin Aeronautics; Palmdale, CA;
Export Compliance Site Lead
; Requisition ID: 477630BR
* Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems; Liverpool, NY, Moorestown, NJ, Owego, NY, Stratford, CT;
Intl Licensing Analyst Stf
; Requisition ID: 483502BR
* Lutron Electronics Co; Lehigh Valley, PA;
Trade Compliance Coordinator
; Requisition ID: 4025;
* ManTech; Hanover, MD; Process & Training – ITAR Specialist; Requisition ID: R00435
* Mastercard; O’Fallon, MO;
Manager, Legal Compliance, Export Controls Compliance
; Requisition ID: R-84414
* 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;
Manager, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 19-349
* Microsoft; Redmond, WA;
Export Control Manager
; Requisition ID: 609856
* MSD; Boxmeer, the Netherlands; Specialist Trade Compliance; Requisition ID: COM000865
* Navigos Search; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;
Legal & Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: JO-1904-415857
* Nestlé; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia;
Trade Investment & Compliance Supervisor 
* Netflix; Los Angeles, CA;
Specialist, Trade Compliance
* Newell Brands; Norwalk, CT;
Manager of Trade Operations
* Norsk Hydro; Chicago, IL;
Senior Manager Trade Compliance  
* Northrop Grumman, Falls Church, VA, Int’l Trade Compliance Analyst 4, Requisition ID: 19010228

* 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, 
; Requisition ID: 19008010
* Northrop Grumman; Redondo Beach, CA, San Diego, CA or Melbourne, FL; 
Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 19013440
* Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems; Dulles, VA;
Sr. Principal International Trade Compliance Analyst
; Requisition ID: 19015953
* Orica; Gauteng, South Africa; Officer – Import/Export; Requisition ID: 6205
* Ormat Technologies; Reno, NV;
Manager, Global Trade Compliance 
* Parexel; Kyiv, Ukraine;
Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 51579BR
* Philips; Best, the Netherlands;
Head of Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 308818
* Pinpoint Pharma; Lincolnshire, IL;
Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 351
* Qorvo; Richardson, TX;
Import/Export Analyst
; Requisition ID: 0008593
* Qualcomm; Bangalore, India;
Export Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: N1969832
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA; 
Global Trade Authorization Owner
; Requisition ID: 137660BR
* Raytheon; El Segundo, CA;
Import Ctl&Compliance Advisor
; Requisition ID:136269BR
* Raytheon; Tuscon, AZ;
Manager Export-Import Control
; Requisition ID: 134614BR
* Rockwell Automation; Mayfield Heights, OH and Milwaukee, WI;
Senior Analyst, Import/Export Compliance
; Requisition ID: 85004BR
* Saab Defense and Security USA LLC; East Syracuse, NY;
Senior Import and Classifications Analyst 
* SABIC; Houston TX; 
Senior Analyst, Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 8411BR
* Sarepta Therapeutics; Cambridge, MA;
Director, Logistics & Global Trade Compliance 
* Shell; Houston, TX;
Advisor Trade Controls
; Requisition ID: 105518BR
* 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
* Spin Master; Bratislava, Slovakia;
Logistics Coordinator – Trade Compliance Analyst 
* Sun Chemical; Cincinnati, OH, Northlake, IL, Parsippany, NJ;
Global Trade Compliance Specialist
; Requisition ID: 2019-2733
* Synopsys Inc.; Remote, U.S.;
Director, Global Trade Compliance
; Requisition ID: 20358BR
* TE Connectivity; El Cajon, CA or Middletown, PA; 
Licensing Specialist; 
; 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; Boulder, CO or Atlanta, GA or Boston, MA or Remote, NY; Compliance Specialist III; Requisition ID: 91186BR
* ThermoFisher Scientific; Franklin, MA; Sr. Trade Compliance Analyst; Requisition ID: 90074BR
* Torres Law, PLLC; Dallas, TX; 
Import/Export Consultant-Legal

* Trek Bicycle; Waterloo, WI;
Trade Compliance Manager 
* Uber; Amstelveen, the Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Operations Analyst 
* Uber; Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
Trade Compliance Analyst 
* 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;
* Van Oord; Rotterdam, the Netherlands;
Trade & Customs Compliance Specialist 
* 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 
* World Wide Technology; Oude Meer, the Netherlands;
Logistics and Trade Compliance Manager
; Requisition ID: 19-0415
* XPO Logistics; Greenwich, CT;
Compliance Paralegal 
* XPO Logistics; Greenwich, CT;
Director, Trade Compliance Counsel 
back to top 

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


TE_a114. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Bootcamp: Achieving Compliance” on 8-9 Jul in Seattle, WA

(Source: S. Palmer,
* What: ITAR/EAR Bootcamp:  Achieving Compliance; Seattle, WA
* When: July 8-9, 2019
* Where:
Sheraton Grande 
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel:  Suzanne Palmer, Mal Zerden
* Register 
 or by calling 866-238-4018 or e-mail

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

TE_a115. FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The ITAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 26 Nov 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.
* 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.

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


Marquis de Sade (Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade; 2 Jun 1740 – 2 Dec 1814; was a French nobleman, revolutionary politician, philosopher and writer, famous for his libertine sexuality. His works include novels, short stories, plays, dialogues, and political tracts. Sade is best known for his erotic works, which combined philosophical discourse with pornography, depicting sexual fantasies with an emphasis on violence, suffering, criminality, and blasphemy against Christianity. He gained notoriety for putting these fantasies into practice. The words sadism and sadist are derived from his name.)
 – “It is always by way of pain one arrives at pleasure.”
William Hone (3 Jun 1780 – 8 Nov 1842; was an English writer, satirist, and bookseller. His victorious court battle against government censorship in 1817 marked a turning point in the fight for British press freedom.)
 – “A good lather is half the shave.” 
Monday is pun day:

* Why didn’t the lion win the race? Because he was racing a cheetah.
* Why did the man dig a hole in his neighbor’s backyard and fill it with water? Because he meant well.

* What happens to nitrogen when the sun comes up? It becomes daytrogen.

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

. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)


The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), but are updated as amended in the Federal Register.  The latest amendments to applicable regulations are listed below.

: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.
  – Last Amendment: 5 Apr 2019: 
5 Apr 2019: 84 FR 13499-13513: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation

: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Industry & Security.

  – Last Amendment:
24 May 2019: 84 FR 24018-24021: Revisions to Country Group Designations for Venezuela and Conforming Changes for License Requirements; and 84 FR 24021: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of an Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of an Entity From the Entity List [Correction to 14 May 2019 Entity List Amendment.]    

: 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 
  – 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 
.  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 

: 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 

: 10 CFR Part 810; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, under the 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.

; 10 CFR Part 110; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the 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

: 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 is a 361-page Word document containing 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 download, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment. The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance 
. 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: 
21 May 2019: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1908

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

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; and Assistant Editors, Alexander Witt and 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