;

19-0614 Friday “Daily Bugle”

19-0614 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 14 June 2019

TOPThe 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. President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Belarus 
  2. Treasury/OFAC Posts Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties 
  3. USTR Requests Comments on 2019 GSP Annual Product Review 
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Releases Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1911 
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  1. Deutsche Welle: “Germany Records Significant Drop in Weapons Exports in 2018”
  2. Euractive: “France’s Weapons Exports See Sharp Increase on European Market”
  1. C. Rodriguez & Z. Xie: “China MOT Ends NVOCC Registration Applications and Insurance Requirements for Chinese and U.S. NVOCCs”
  2. The Export Compliance Journal: “Men in Black – Models of Export Compliance”
  3. N. Kaluma, T. Declerck & M. Fernandez-Bertier: “The New Act of 2 May 2019: the Belgian Teeth to the EU blocking Regulation”
  4. QAD Precision: “Higher Education, Intellectual Property, and Export Controls”
  5. S. Lis, P. Amberg, A. Lamy: “US Government Imposes Comprehensive Restrictions on Exports/Reexports To Huawei and its Affiliates and Issues Executive Order To Secure Information and Communications Technology and Services in the US”
  1. ECS Presents “2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp” on 17-19 Sep in Annapolis, MD 
  2. FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 27 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands 
  3. List of Approaching Events: 140 Events Posted This Week, Including 5 New Events 
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (5 Jun 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 2019), DOS/ITAR (19 Apr 2019), DOT/FACR/OFAC (5 Jun 2019), HTSUS (4 Jun 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a11
.
President Continues National Emergency with Respect to Belarus

(Source: Federal Register, 14 June 2019.)
 
Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons to Undermine Democratic Processes or Institutions of Belarus
 
On June 16, 2006, by Executive Order 13405, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons to undermine Belarus’s democratic processes or institutions, manifested in the fundamentally undemocratic March 2006 elections; to commit human rights abuses related to political repression, including detentions and disappearances; and to engage in public corruption, including by diverting or misusing Belarusian public assets or by misusing public authority.
 
The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on June 16, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 16, 2019. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13405.
 
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
                            
(Presidential Sig.)

 
back to top
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a22
.
Treasury/OFAC Adjusts Civil Monetary Penalties

(Source: Federal Register, 14 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
84 FR 27714-27719: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties
 
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is issuing this final rule to adjust certain civil
monetary penalties (CMPs) for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
* DATES: Effective: June 14, 2019.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, 202-622-2410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … Method of Calculation
The method of calculating CMP adjustments applied in this final
rule is required by the FCPIA Act. Under the FCPIA Act and the Office of Management and Budget guidance required by the FCPIA Act, annual inflation adjustments subsequent to the initial catch-up adjustment are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year’s October CPI-U. As set forth in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-19-04 of December 14, 2018, the adjustment multiplier for 2019 is 1.02522. In order to complete the 2019 annual adjustment, each current CMP is multiplied by the 2019 adjustment multiplier. Under the FCPIA Act, any increase in CMP must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.
 
New Penalty Amounts
 
   OFAC currently is authorized to impose CMPs pursuant to five
statutes: The Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301-4341, at 4315) (TWEA); the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, at 1705) (IEEPA); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1212-1319, at 1250; 18 U.S.C. 2339B) (AEDPA); the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Pub. L. 106-120, 113 Stat. 1626-1636, at 1632; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, at 1906) (FNKDA); and the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19, 117
Stat. 631-637, at 634; 19 U.S.C. 3901-3913, at 3907) (CDTA).
   The table below summarizes the existing and new maximum CMP amounts.
 
————————————————————————
                                                                         Maximum CMP
                                             Existing                 amount
Statute                                  maximum CMP       effective June
                                             amount                 14, 2019
————————————————————————
TWEA………………………………        $86,976         $89,170
IEEPA……………………………..         295,141         302,584
AEDPA……………………………..       77,909            79,874
FNKDA……………………………..       1,466,485       1,503,470
CDTA………………………………        13,333            13,669
————————————————————————

In addition to updating these maximum CMP amounts, OFAC is also updating a reference to one-half the IEEPA maximum CMP from $147,571 to $151,292.

 
back to top
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EXIM_a33
.
USTR Requests Comments on 2019 GSP Annual Product Review

(Source: Federal Register, 14 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
84 FR 27830-17831: 2019 GSP Annual Product Review
 
* AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
* ACTION: Notice of hearing and requests to testify and for public
comments.
* SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
has accepted petitions submitted in connection with the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review for further review. This notice includes the schedule for submission of public comments and the date of a public hearing to review these petitions and products by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC).
* DATES: June 26, 2019 at midnight EDT: Deadline for submission of comments, pre-hearing briefs, and requests to appear at the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing on the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review.
   July 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. EDT: The GSP Subcommittee will convene a public hearing on all petitioned product additions, product removals, and competitive needs limitation (CNL) waiver petitions that it accepted for the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review. The hearing will be in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508, beginning at 1:30 p.m.
   August 15, 2019 at midnight EDT: Deadline for submission of post-hearing comments or briefs in connection with the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing.
   September 7, 2019: USTR expects that the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) will deliver a report to USTR providing advice on the probable economic effects of adding products to GSP eligibility, removing products from GSP eligibility, and granting CNL waiver petitions during the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review. Interested parties can post comments on the USITC report on www.regulations.gov using Docket Number USTR-2019-0001 (instructions for submissions are provided below). Comments are due ten calendar days after the publication date of the USITC’s public report.
   November 1, 2019: Effective date for any modifications that the President proclaims to the list of articles eligible for duty-free  treatment under GSP resulting from the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review and for determinations related to CNL waivers.
* ADDRESSES: USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, using docket number USTR-2019-0001. Follow the instructions for submitting comments in “Requirements for Submissions” below. For alternatives to
on-line submissions, please contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erland Herfindahl, Deputy Assistant USTR for GSP, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-2974 and the email address is gsp@ustr.eop.gov.

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a14
. Items Scheduled
for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions

(Source:
Federal Register
)
 
[No items of interest today]

 

 
back to top
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OGS_a25
. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a36.
DHS/CBP Releases Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1911
(Source:
CSMS# 19-000306, 14 June 2019.)
 
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1911 was created on June 11, 2019 and contains 4 ABI records and 1 harmonized tariff record.
 
System modifications were made to support the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Notice of Product
 
Exclusions: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. This Notice can be retrieved via this link.
 
Adjustments required by the verification of the 2019 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) are also included.
 
The modified records are currently available to all ABI participants and can be retrieved electronically via the procedures indicated in the CATAIR. For further information about the retrieval process, please contact your client representative.
All other questions regarding this message, please contact Jennifer Keeling via email.

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

OGS_a47.
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)

(Source:
State/DDTC
)

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a018
.
Deutsche Welle: “Germany Records Significant Drop in Weapons Exports in 2018”
(Source: Deutsche Welle, 14 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
The annual Weapons Export Report registered a 23% drop compared with 2017 according to media sources. The government says the decrease is a sign of Germany’s “restrictive and responsible weapons export policy.”
 
The report states that the German government approved a total of 11,142 weapons export requests, representing some €4.82 billion ($5.44 billion) in sales – a 23% decrease from 2017.
 
Most exports – 47.2% – went to the EU, NATO and NATO-allied countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Switzerland). …

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

NWS_a29
.
Euractive: “France’s Weapons Exports See Sharp Increase on European Market”

(Source: Euractive, 14 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
France’s arms sales in 2018 were worth €9.118 billion, up 30% compared to 2017. Exports to European countries are seeing a strong increase, according to the French Ministry for Armed Forces. …
 
For the first time, the sale of weapons from France to Europe represents 25% of France’s total sale of weapons, which amounts to a total of €2.293 billion. This is compared to an average of around 10% in previous years.
 
“This result is first and foremost the consequence of the European orientation we have given to our export policy,” the Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly wrote in the foreword to a report on arms sales prepared by his ministry. …

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

COMCOMMENTARY

COM_a010.
C. Rodriguez & Z. Xie: “China MOT Ends NVOCC Registration Applications and Insurance Requirements for Chinese and U.S. NVOCCs”

(Source: Husch Blackwell LLP, 12 June 2019.)
 
* Authors: Carlos Rodriguez, Esq., carlos.rodriguez@huschblackwell.com, 202 378 2365; and Zheng Xie, Esq., zheng.xie@huschblackwell.com, 202 378 2367, both of Husch Blackwell LLP.
 
Ironically, during the current China/U.S. tariff turmoil, the Ministry of Transport (MOT), Peoples Republic of China’s (PRC’s) is leading the deregulatory trend in ocean shipping as applicable to Non-vessel Operating Common Carriers (“NVOCCs”). The MOT has quietly deregulated burdensome registration application procedures for Non-vessel Operating Common Carriers (“NVOCCs”) from on or about February 27, 2019. The MOT has dropped formal application registration and insurance requirements for all NVOCCs, including U.S. NVOCCs. It is our understanding that as of now the prior registration certificates issued by MOT have no regulatory function or value. Currently, the requirements for registering NVOCCs has been substantially simplified as noted below. Until now, without the aforementioned Certificate U.S. NVOCCs could not issue their house bills in the U.S./China trade lanes without risk of substantial sanctions and penalties. However, also note that the NVOCC requirement by the Shanghai Exchange for filing rate ranges remains in place.
 
 
From on or about October 1, 2010, the Peoples Republic of China’s (PRC’s) Ministry of Transport (MOT) implemented Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) Freight Filing Rules referred to as Circular No. 40.   Since then until now, U.S. NVOCCs needed to apply to register with the MOT, and to show proof of “insurance” or of cash security deposits of up to RMB 800,000 or U.S. $125,000. Current MOT registrations for U.S. NVOCCs are now void and will require a simpler registration format to be described below. The application for the initial and renewal of the registration process was a burdensome one for U.S. NVOCCs which involved:
 
(a) an application form in Chinese;
 
(b) a feasibility study report;
 
(c) certified and authenticated U.S. corporate documentation by states, the State Department and the Chinese consulate;
 
(d) Power of Attorney and Agreements with Chinese liaison persons;
 
(e) bill of lading language had to conform to MOT requirements and in many instances the terms and conditions were required to be modified, and
 
(f) evidence of the “insurance” or of the cash security deposits of up to RMB 800,000 or U.S. $125,000.
 
The latter “insurance”/”security deposit” requirement was met in the U.S. as a result of agreements between the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”) and the MOT which allowed U.S. NVOCCs to increase their FMC bond by a China rider to raise the U.S. bond to the MOT requisite levels. These riders appear to be no longer required.
 
From our China sources, it appears that the registration process can now be handled by the U.S. NVOCC’s Chinese agents via a much simpler procedure at the province levels. At this time we are only aware of the MOT link in Shanghai as being able to process these applications for both domestic and foreign NVOCCs, including U.S. NVOCCs. The following is the applicable MOT link for this registration: http://wtis.mot.gov.cn/syportalapply/login . It appears that the MOT is not handling these initial registrations as renewals, but rather as new registrations. Nor are these being considered applications, but it is our opinion that all information requested must be provided in order for the registration to be accepted. The information being requested at this time is very basic corporate information.
 
It is our understanding that the Chairman of the FMC and other Commissioners may be soon meeting with MOT officials which we believe will lead to at least a formal recognition by the FMC that it will not be accepting China bond riders as they have been in the past. We will be keeping track of the MOT and FMC process to insure that the processes as we now understand them are being implemented, or if other matters will require attention.

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

COM_a111
.
The Export Compliance Journal: “Men in Black – Models of Export Compliance!”

(Source: The Export Compliance Journal, 13 June 2019.)
 
Men in Black: International is almost here, and it got us thinking about how our favorite secret organization governing extraterrestrial activity on Earth is actually an exemplary model for export compliance.
 
No, seriously-you might think we’re joking, but we’re not. Over the course of the last three movies, the Men in Black (MIB) have shown themselves to be at the top of the compliance game from which we, in the real world, could all stand to learn. Admittedly, we aren’t dealing with extraterrestrials posing an existential threat to life as we know it as, the Men in Black are, but the same principles still apply.
 
Here’s a quick rundown of how organizations can learn a thing or two about export compliance-courtesy of the MIB.
 
The Men in Black-clearly committed to Restricted Party Screening
 
MIB are first and foremost overseers of extraterrestrial visitors to Earth. How do they accomplish this? By making sure that unsavory aliens, or those that might be deemed to be a threat to humankind, don’t get entry beyond the MIB headquarters. One could safely assume that they functionally “screen” every extraterrestrial who lands on Earth before they are given the okay to roam among us. By that extension, screening is how they have been able to help keep Earth safe for so long. Though what watch lists they screen against shall remain a mystery!
 
This, of course, serves to show the importance of screening everyone your organization does business with. While it is unlikely that any of them are grotesque extraterrestrial creatures in disguise looking to annihilate the Earth, they could still be engaged in nefarious Earthly activities that governments around the world frown upon-such as terrorism and money laundering. By association, this can get any organization in trouble as well. The more you screen for denied and restricted parties to make sure everyone you transact with is in the clear, the better the odds that you will be in the clear too!
 
The Men in Black-committed to controlled technology compliance
 
The other export compliance-related theme in Men in Black, of course, is how they keep tabs on the technology that passes to and from alien hands. The first film, as an example, saw MIB attempting to keep a source of subatomic energy out of the hands of an alien bug who quite likely would have used it to wreak havoc on what and who knows where. Which means that in addition to screening, MIB is seeking to prevent controlled technology from landing in just anyone’s hands.
 
With this in mind, one can logically assume that the Men in Black are diligent about ensuring no controlled technology passes through to Earth beyond their HQ. In fact, they are so diligent, they don’t even want the ordinary people of Earth to know that aliens-and their technology-even exist. Cue the neuralyzer-the device they use to wipe the memories of anyone who may have had any contact with any alien technology (or the MIB in general). And for the record, the MIB is so secretive that as of the date of posting, “neuralyzer” has yet to be added to the United States Munitions List (USML)!
 
While we don’t recommend attempting to wipe the memory of unauthorized people who come into possession of your controlled technology, we do recommend prevention-that is, making sure you are doing your due diligence with classification, licenses, and all relevant documentation so that your controlled technology doesn’t end up in the hands of someone on a denied or restricted party list, or being shipped to a sanctioned or embargoes country. That way, you won’t find yourself ever wishing you had a should a government agency come knocking on your door.
 
Take an export compliance cue from the MIB
 
The stakes are high with the MIB, which is obviously why they can’t afford to be lax with their compliance measures. And while your organization may not be the only thing that stands between society and an extraterrestrial invasion, it is no less off the hook as far as export compliance obligations.
 
Not being careful about who you do business with, or who and where your products and technology end up, can lead to unwittingly aiding terrorists, criminals and other debarred parties. That road can lead to potential fines, criminal and civil liabilities, not to mention the bad press and publicity that can lead to a loss of business opportunities. So be like the Men in Black, and do your due diligence. We simply suggest not wiping people’s memories.

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

COM_a212
.
N. Kaluma, T. Declerck & M. Fernandez-Bertier: “The New Act of 2 May 2019: the Belgian Teeth to the EU blocking Regulation”

(Source: Allen & Overy LLP, 12 June 2019.)
 
* Authors: Nanyi Kaluma, Esq., nanyi.kaluma@allenovery.com, +32 2 780 26 38; Thomas Declerck, Esq., thomas.declerck@allenovery.com, +(32) 2 780 29 35; and Michael Fernandez-Bertier, michael.fernandez-bertier@allenovery.com, +(32) 2 780 29 35, all of Allen & Overy LLP.
 
The EU Blocking Regulation prohibits European businesses from complying with certain US extraterritorial sanctions and export controls targeting Iran and Cuba, catching them between a rock and a hard place.
 
The Belgian Act of 2 May 2019, which entered into force on 31 May 2019, gives teeth to the EU Blocking Regulation by providing for administrative fines of up to 10 % of a company’s turnover. The question is if and how these teeth will bite, but Belgian businesses are now faced with a “rock and an even harder place”.
 
Background
In August 2018, the EU amended Council Regulation n° 2271/96 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom dated 22 November 1996 (the EU Blocking Regulation) in response to the US’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its reintroduction of previously lifted sanctions targeting Iran (announced on 8 May 2018).
The purpose of the EU Blocking Regulation has always been to ensure that EU businesses may continue to make investment decisions freely in spite of the strong extraterritorial reach of certain US sanctions and export controls. The August 2018 amendment seeks to consolidate that position for EU businesses active in Iran after the 2018 US policy changes.
 
In a nutshell, the EU Blocking Regulation provides for both protections and prohibitions:
 
Protections
 
– non-EU court judgments or administrative decisions giving effect to the listed US sanctions and export controls cannot be enforced in the EU (article 4); and
 
– EU persons suffering damage as a result of compliance with the listed US sanctions and export controls have the right to recover those damages (article 6).
 
Prohibitions
 
EU persons are prohibited from complying with the listed US sanctions and export controls (unless exceptionally authorised to do so by the European Commission – article 5).
 
To ensure compliance with the EU Blocking Regulation, Member States must determine “effective, proportional and dissuasive” sanctions for any infringement in their jurisdiction of the obligations under the EU Blocking Regulation.
 
EU businesses between a rock and a hard place
 
As a result, EU businesses find themselves in a difficult predicament with no apparent solution:
 
– non-compliance with the US regime may lead to EU persons being targeted by US sanctions (eg resulting in restrictions or exclusion from the US market); yet
 
– EU persons are in breach of the EU Blocking Regulation if they comply with the very same US regime.
 
The implementation of the EU Blocking Regulation at national level, and in particular what enforcement measures are applied in the case of a breach, is a key influencing factor for EU persons in deciding what action to take.
 
The Belgian enforcement regime has long been criticised for being unclear. The purpose of the Act of 2 May 2019 is to establish a brand new enforcement regime for the EU Blocking Regulation, which will make it even more complicated for Belgian businesses to choose between the rock and the hard place.
 
A brand new enforcement regime for the EU Blocking Regulation
 
The Act of 2 May 2019 sets out the Belgian penalties for a breach of the EU Blocking Regulation, appoints a regulator to monitor compliance and implements a reporting system.
 
Monitoring
 
The Act of 2 May 2019 identifies the Treasury Administration of the Belgian Federal Public Service for Finance and for the Economy as the competent authority for monitoring compliance with the obligations under the EU Blocking Regulation.
 
The modalities should be further determined by Royal Decree.
 
Reporting
 
Whenever a EU person’s economic or financial interests are affected by the US sanctions or export controls listed in the EU Blocking Regulation, that EU person must inform the European Commission “either directly or through the competent authorities of the Member States” (article 2).
 
In addition, EU Member States must inform the European Commission of the measures taken under the EU Blocking Regulation and of all other relevant information pertaining to the EU Blocking Regulation (article 10).
 
The Act of 2 May 2019 now identifies the Belgian Federal Public Service for Foreign Affairs as the Belgian authority responsible for reporting to the European Commission under the EU Blocking Regulation.
 
Administrative fines
 
The Belgian Minister of Finance or Economy now has the authority to impose administrative fines for breaches of the reporting obligations and/or for breaches of the prohibition against complying with the listed US sanctions and export controls.
 
The fines range from:
 
– EUR 10,000 to 10% of the annual net turnover of the previous financial year for legal entities; and
 
– EUR 250 to EUR 5,000,000 for natural persons. These natural persons include the members of the statutory body and the executive committee of a legal entity or, if there is no executive committee, the persons participating in the effective leadership of that legal entity, to the extent that these individuals are responsible for the breach within that legal entity.
 
The amount of the fine will be determined taking into account all relevant circumstances, including: the seriousness and duration of the breach; the level of responsibility of the person concerned; the financial capacity of the person concerned (eg turnover or annual income); the benefit or advantage possibly obtained; the possible damage caused to third parties; the level of cooperation with the supervisory authorities; and any prior breaches by the person concerned.
 
The person concerned has the right to be heard by the authorities before a fine may be imposed.
 
The unexpected side dish: administrative fines for breach of EU sanctions
 
Since the recent amendments to the EU Blocking Regulation, there were discussions as to whether breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation were subject to criminal sanctions under the Act of 13 May 2003, which subjects breaches of EU sanctions to an imprisonment of between 8 days to 5 years and criminal fines of between EUR 200 to EUR 200,000 (after multiplication by 8 as a result of the Belgian surcharges applicable to criminal fines).
 
One would have expected the new Act of 2 May 2019 to clarify whether breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation were subject to the same regime.
 
Instead, the Act of 2 May 2019 simply cleans up out-dated references to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and adds the possibility for the Belgian Minister of Finance to impose administrative fines ranging from EUR 250 to EUR 2,500,000 for breaches of EU sanctions regulations… Not a word on breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation.  
 
So, contrary to what some had expected, the Act of 2 May 2019 does not extend the criminal penalties provided under the Act of 13 May 2003 to breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation.
 
We understand that the intention was effectively to subject breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation to administrative fines only (see above).
 
Our take aways
 
In summary, two parallel regimes now apply to sanctions-related breaches in Belgium, each with their own legal basis and penalties:
 
– breaches of the EU Blocking Regulation are subject to administrative fines under the new Act of 2 May 2019; and
 
– breaches of EU sanctions are subject to criminal and administrative sanctions under the Act of 13 May 2003 as amended by the Act of 2 May 2019. Note that the Act of 2 May 2019 does not establish any “una via” system to avoid the overlap of administrative and criminal sanctions (as is the case for instance in tax matters). Any combination of criminal and administrative sanctions will therefore need to be assessed against the ne bis in idem principle.
 
This is a patchy approach which might well be explained by the haste in which the Act of 2 May 2019 was finalised and enacted, a couple of weeks before the elections.
 
We are aware of talks regarding a comprehensive revision of the landscape of sanctions under Belgian law. This ambitious project appears to have been put off for now but, if it sees the day light in the future, it is said that the new system will be inspired by the principles underpinning the Belgian Anti-Money Laundering Act of 18 September 2017 in terms of supervision, reporting, liability and sanctions for breaches. A hint is already perceptible in the Act of 2 May 2019 as the administrative fines and related liability regime is identical to that of the Belgian AML Act.
 
With the Act of 2 May 2019, the “rock and a hard place” dilemma for Belgian businesses remains as troublesome as ever. With the Belgian authorities being granted extensive discretion in applying a wide range of administrative fines, it will remain to be seen if and how they will make the teeth to the EU Blocking Regulation bite.

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

COM_a313
.
QAD Precision: “Higher Education, Intellectual Property and Export Controls”
(Source: QAD Precision, 12 June 2019.) (Part II of II)
 
What Can Universities Do?
 
Universities need to take steps to ensure that researchers and staff do not violate export controls or allow sensitive IP to fall into unauthorized hands.
 
The IP that universities create can be both intellectually and financially valuable. By obtaining patents on their research and licensing these for use in commercial applications, universities have a valuable avenue to increase their revenues. However, in order to do this, universities and their researchers – including graduate students – need to protect this research.
 
Students may not realize that their research has commercial potential. They also need to know how to protect IP. If students and researchers publish data or release prototypes of inventions, universities may not be able to realize the gains from the commercial potential of this IP.
 
Educate Researchers About IP & Export Controls
 
The first step in any compliance program is education. Any organization, whether educational, commercial or governmental, needs to ensure that personnel are aware of export regulations and the penalties for violations.
 
University researchers – many of whom are graduate students – must understand the importance of protecting their work. Students, particularly in STEM fields, need to be aware that disclosing sensitive information, in person or electronically, may violate export regulations.
 
The vast majority of data breaches are unintentional. These include accidentally emailing or posting confidential information to the wrong recipient; careless handling of data; weak passwords or loss of devices with sensitive information.
 
Implement A Security Policy
 
Any organization that has access to confidential information or IP needs a clear security policy. The policy should clearly explain the rules and regulations governing data handling. All staff should be familiar with procedures and they should be strictly enforced.
 
Universities can also take steps to ensure that their systems are secure and that data cannot be copied onto external drives or accessed by outside actors.
 
Automate Compliance Screening as Standard
 
If university personnel ship samples, research materials and sensitive data to colleagues – whether locally or internationally – compliance screening is crucial.
 
Universities should introduce institution-wide controls to integrate automated compliance checks with shipping. As a result, all shipments are screened before they are cleared for transportation.
 
Automated compliance screening will ensure that research materials are not been sent to sanctioned countries or denied parties. Government and international bodies publish lists of individuals, entities and groups with whom it is illegal to trade. These denied party lists (DPLs) are subject to thousands of changes every year. It is, therefore, extremely challenging to screen shipments manually and still remain compliant.
 
An automated compliance solution will vet every shipment to ensure it can proceed. This includes DPL screening, determining end use, validating the country of destination and ensuring that any special documentation or actions are included. As a result, researchers and university staff will perform due diligence, and create an electronic audit trail to ensure the university has audit-ready records.
 
A comprehensive integrated solution will ensure that all your shipments are compliant with export controls, that all relevant transportation documentation is included, and enforce best practices across the institution.
 
Introduce Campus-Wide Shipping Procedures
 
If researchers are shipping samples that are time-sensitive, delicate, hazardous or require special handling, they must ensure that their packages are compliant with a carrier’s requirements. If not, these shipments may be delayed, lost or destroyed.
 
Furthermore, if researchers are sending international shipments they will need knowledge of import tariffs, packaging specifications, customs rules and compliance regulations. Desktop shipping solutions simplify this process and ensure that university rules, carrier specifications and export regulations are all met before a package can be released to a carrier.
 
Desktop shipping also allows university staff to seamlessly switch between carriers. In addition, desktop shipping software automates carrier compliant labeling, generates the appropriate shipping documentation for global destinations and manages denied party screening – all while using standardized procedures in line with the university’s specific shipping rules. Universities can thus use a single integrated system for compliance checks and shipping. This saves time as there is no need to alternate between systems, and prevents keystroke errors from having to re-enter information.
 
A university shipping solution must be able to handle the complexities of the research chain. Universities ship highly diverse contents, including living cells, common or experimental drugs and solvents, specimens, text books and research data. As universities work with increasing numbers of foreign partners, and as the regulatory environment becomes ever more tightly controlled, universities must improve their shipping processes, meet all export controls and protect their hard won IP.

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

COM_a414
. S. Lis, P. Amberg, A. Lamy: “US Government Imposes Comprehensive Restrictions on Exports/Reexports To Huawei and its Affiliates and Issues Executive Order To Secure Information and Communications Technology and Services in the US”

(Source: Global Compliance News, 13 June 2019.)

 
* Authors: Sylwia Lis, Esq., sylwia.lis@bakermckenzie.com, + 1 202 835 6147; Paul Amberg, Esq., paul.amberg@bakermckenzie.com, + 31 20 551 7913; and Alexandre Lamy, Esq., alexandre.lamy@bakermckenzie.com, + 1 202 835 1862, all of Baker McKenzie.
 
The US government has taken coordinated actions this week that target Huawei Technologies, effectively cutting it off from sourcing US products and technology and likely barring its products from being used in US communications infrastructure and networks. The US export/reexport restrictions targeting Huawei took effect immediately on 16 May 2019.
 
The expected prohibition on the use of Huawei products in US communications infrastructure is likely to take several months to implement.
 
Immediate Addition of Huawei and Its Affiliates to the Entity List
On 16 May 2019, the US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule (Final Rule) adding, with immediate effect, Huawei and 68 of its affiliates (collectively Huawei EL Entities) located in 26 countries to the Entity List (EL). As a result of the EL designation, no supplier – US or non-US, wherever located – may export, reexport, or transfer (in country) any commodity, software, or technology (items) subject to the Export Administration Regulations (items subject to the EAR) to the Huawei EL Entities unless authorized by a BIS license. The Final Rule (as well as BIS’s press release issued on 15 May), indicates that BIS’s decision to add Huawei to the EL was informed in part by allegations set out in the Department of Justice’s superseding indictment of Huawei on 28 January 2019, including alleged violations of US sanctions and obstruction of justice.
 
As noted above, the Final Rule became effective on 16 May 2019, its date of display on the Federal Register’s Public Inspection List, prior to when the rule is published in the Federal Register on 19 May 2019. This is an unusual approach in that EL designations typically take effect upon publication in the Federal Register. The Final Rule provides that shipments en route abroad a carrier to a port of export or reexport, pursuant to actual orders, as of 16 May 2019 are not affected by these new EL restrictions.
 
The EL identifies parties (e.g., businesses, research institutes, private and public organizations) that the US government has found act contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests. Though licensing requirements and review policies can vary for EL parties, BIS is requiring export licenses for all exports/reexports/transfers to the Huawei EL Entities of items subject to the EAR. BIS will review license applications with a presumption of denial. In addition, no EAR license exceptions may be used for exports/reexports/transfers of items subject to the EAR to the Huawei EL Entities. Entity List restrictions do not apply to owned/controlled subsidiaries of EL parties, provided such undesignated subsidiaries are not acting as agents, a front, or shell company of an EL party (see BIS FAQs).
 
The EL restrictions apply to items subject to the EAR destined for Huawei EL Entities even if such items are not normally controlled to the destination countries (e.g., items classified as EAR99). An item is subject to the EAR if it is:
 
– physically located in the United States
– of US origin, wherever located,
– manufactured outside the United States but incorporating more than de minimis levels of controlled US content (which is more than 25% for most countries including China, and more than 10% for sanctioned territories such as Iran)
– in some circumstances, foreign direct product of certain national security controlled US technology or software
 
In sum, the EL designation impacts Huawei’s supplier relationships in and outside the United States. Both US and non-US suppliers, wherever located, are prohibited from exporting/reexporting/transferring items subject to the EAR to the Huawei EL Entities without the required BIS license. Given the licensing policy of denial, the likelihood of obtaining a BIS license is low. Companies that are part of Huawei’s supply chain should immediately implement requisite internal controls to avoid running afoul of the EL restrictions. Violations of BIS licensing requirements stemming from the EL designation are subject to steep civil penalties applied on a strict liability basis, as well as criminal enforcement.
 
Finally, unlike designation as a Specially Designated National, EL restrictions are not a comprehensive ban on dealings with the designated parties. US and non-US parties may continue to conduct transactions with the Huawei EL Entities without the need for a BIS license so long as such transactions do not involve items subject to the EAR.
 
Future Measures to Secure US Communications Infrastructure
 
On 15 May 2019, the Trump administration also issued Executive Order 13873 on “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain” (Communications EO). An accompanying message to Congress from the White House explains that the Communications EO is meant to prohibit certain transactions involving information and communications technology where the Secretary of Commerce has determined that:
 
– The transaction involves information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned/controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary
 
– The transaction:
       – poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States
       – poses an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of United States critical infrastructure or the digital economy of the United States
       – otherwise poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
 
The Communications EO outlines several ways in which it may be implemented through rules and regulations, including but not limited to
 
– identifying persons owned/controlled by foreign adversaries
– identifying technologies or countries with respect to which transactions warrant particular scrutiny
– establishing procedures to license transactions otherwise prohibited
– identifying a mechanism and relevant factors for negotiation of agreements that may mitigate concerns identified in the Communications EO
 
The Secretary of Commerce is required to publish rules or regulations implementing the Communications EO within 150 days of its issuance (i.e., by 12 October 2019). It is expected that, once implemented, the Communications EO will bar Huawei products from being used in US communications infrastructure and networks.

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

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_1
15
. 
ECS Presents “2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp” on 17-19 Sep in Annapolis, MD

(Source: ECS)
 
* What: The 2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp, Annapolis, MD
* When:  September 17-19, 2019

* Sponsor:  Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
* ECS Speaker Panel: Suzanne Palmer, Mal Zerden, Lisa Bencivenga, Timothy Mooney, Matthew McGrath, Matt Doyle
* Register here or by calling 866-238-4018 or email

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

TE_2
16
.
FCC Presents “U.S. Export Controls: The EAR from a non-U.S. Perspective”, 27 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands 

(Source:
Full Circle Compliance

events@fullcirclecompliance.eu
.)

 
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 Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 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 Export Administration Regulations, including but not limited to: the U.S. regulatory framework, key EAR concepts and definitions, tips regarding classification and licensing, essential steps to ensure an EAR 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 Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective
* When: Wednesday, 27 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
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 International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (26 Nov 2019), and/or “The ABC of Foreign Military Sales” (29 Nov 2019). Please, see the
event page
for our combo deals.

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

TE_List17. 
List of Approaching Events: 140 Events Posted This Week, Including 5 New Events
(Sources: Editor and Event Sponsors)

Published every Friday or last publication day of the week, o
ur overview of Approaching Events is organized to list c
ontinuously available training, training events, s
eminars & conferences, and 
webinars. 
   
If you wish to submit an event listing, please send it to
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu
, composed in the below format:
 
    
#
 * Date: Location; “Event Title”; <Weblink>”; EVENT SPONSOR
 
   ”
*” = New or updated listing  

 
Continuously Available Training
 

* E-Seminars:US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls“; Export Compliance Training Institute; danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* Webinar: ”
Company-Wide US Export Controls Awareness Program“; Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 

* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness“; Export Compliance Solutions;
spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com

* Webinar Series: “Complying with US Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

* E-Seminars: “Webinars On-Demand Library“; Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
* Online: “International Trade Webinars“; Global Training Center
*
 
Online: “On-Demand Webinars“; “General Training“; Center for Development of Security Excellence; Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Online: “ACE Reports Training and User Guide“; DHS/CBP

* Online: ”
Increase Your International Sales – Webinar Archive“; U.S. Commercial Service

* Web Form: “Compliance Snapshot Assessment“; Commonwealth Trading Partners (CTP)
* Online: “
Customs Broker Exam Prep Course
“; The Exam Center
 
 
Seminars and Conferences

 

* Jun 17-20: San Diego, CA; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls“; ECTI

* Jun 17-21: Los Angeles, CA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

#
* Jun 19: Kerikeri, New Zealand; “Export Essentials: Session 1“; NZTE

* Jun 19-20: Washington DC;
 Export Controls & Technology Transfer Conference“; Squire Patton Boggs
* Jun 20: Kansas City, MO; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Jun 25: London, UK; “Introduction to Export Licensing Controls“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

* Jun 25: Melbourne, Australia; “ITAR/EAR/AU Export Control Awareness“; Goal Group

 
* Jun 25-26: Washington DC; “Advanced Forum on DCAA & DCMA Cost, Pricing, Compliance & Audits“; American Conference Institute

* Jun 26: London, UK; “Making Better Licence Applications“; UK/DIT

* Jun 26-28: Washington D.C.; “American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) Conference“; AAEI

*
 
Jul 3: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures – Export Training
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Jul 3: Cambridge, UK;
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners Course
“; UK/DIT
# * Jul 3: Kerikeri, New Zealand; “Export Essentials: Session 2“; NZTE 

 
* Jul 3: Leeds, UK; “New-to-Exporting Workshop“; Chamber International

*
 
Jul 4: Cambridge, UK;
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jul 4: Cambridge, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
“; UK/DIT
*
 
Jul 4: Bristol, UK;
Using Documentary Letters of Credit, Drafts and Bills”; 
BusinessWest
*
 
Jul 4: Sheffield, UK; “
An Introduction to Export
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce
*
 
Jul 8-9: Seattle, WA: “
Boot Camp: Achieving ITAR/EAR Compliance
“; Export Compliance Solutions (ECS);

Jul 8 – 10: National Harbour, MD; “
2019 Summer Back to Basics Conference
“; SIA

* Jul 9-11: Washington; “
BIS 2019 Annual Conference on Export Controls and Policy
“; Commerce/BIS

 
* Jul 10: New York, NY; “EU Financial Regulatory Round-Up: What U.S. Firms Should Know“; Akin Gump

*
 
July 10: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

*
 
Jul 11: Birmingham, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

* Jul 16: Atlanta, GA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Jul 16-19; Chicago, IL; “Export Boot Camp“; Amber Road

 
* Jul 17-18: Miami, FL; “
CTPAT Internal Auditor Training
“; Supply Chain Security International Inc.

#
* Jul 17-18: Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago; “Foreign Supplier Verification Programme“; ExporTT

 
* Jul 22: Adelaide, Australia; “Defence Export Controls Outreach“; Defence Export Controls

* Jul 23: Laredo, TX; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Jul 23-24; Chicago, IL; “
Trade Symposium“;
U.S. CBP

*
Jul 23-25; Washington D.C.; “Anti-Corruption Compliance for High Risk Markets“; American Conference Institute

*
Jul 24-25: St. Louis, MO; “
 Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS
* Jul 25: Dallas, TX; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson 

* Jul 29-30: New Orleans, LA; “Global Trade Educational Conference“; NCBFAA Educational Institute  

* Jul 31: Leeds, UK; “Export Documentation” Chamber International 
* Jul 31-Aug 1: Seattle WA; “11th Annual Pacific Northwest Export Control Conference: Export Risks and Threats in the Cyber Domain“; DoC/U.S. Commercial Service, DHS/Homeland Security Investigations, Seattle University, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

* Aug 1-2: Torrance, CA; “Customs Compliance for Import Personnel” Foreign Trade Association

* Aug 20-21: Cincinnati, OH;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“; Commerce/BIS

* Aug 20-21: Milpitas, CA;

Complying with U.S. Export Controls
“;
Commerce/BIS

* Aug 22: Los Angeles, CA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Aug 22: Milpitas, CA:

Encryption Controls
“;
Commerce/BIS

* Sep 2: Edinburgh, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners course“; UK/DIT

* Sep 2, 9, 16: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “Awareness training Export Control, Dual-use en Sancties“; FENEX  

* Sep 3: Edinburgh, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop“; UK/DIT
* Sep 3: Edinburgh, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop“; UK/DIT

* Sep 8-11: Chicago, IL; “2019 Annual Conference and Exposition“; National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ)

* Sep 10: Minneapolis, MN; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Sep 10-11: Portland, OR; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

* Sep 12: Nashville, TN; “
6th Annual Compliance and Government Investigations Seminar
“; Bass, Berry & Sims

* Sep 16-18: Winchester, UK; “
From EAR to ITARnity: Ever-challenging US Export Controls Compliance
” Squire Patton Boggs

* Sep 16-19: Austin, TX; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls (Sep 18-19) Seminar Series
“; ECTI
; 540-433-3977

* Sep 17: Chicago, IL; “
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Compliance Seminar
“; U.S. Census Bureau

*
 
Sep 17: Sheffield, UK; “
Customs Procedures and Compliance in International Trade
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce


Sep 17-19: Annapolis, MD; “
The ECS 2nd Annual ITAR/EAR Symposium
“; ECS

* Sep 18: Leeds, UK; “Export Documentation & Import Procedures“; Chamber International

 
* Sep 18-19: Los Angeles, CA; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS

*
 Sep 20: Las Vegas, NV; “
EAR and OFAC Fundamentals: Export Control Of Dual-Use Equipment
“; Barnes & Thornburg LLP

* Sep 24: Boston, MA; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Sep 24-25: Minneapolis, MN; “Complying with U.S. Export Controls“; Commerce/BIS
* Sep 24-25: San Francisco, CA; “West Coast Conference on FCPA Enforcement and Compliance“; American Conference Institute

* Sep 24-26: Los Angeles, CA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road

*
 
Sep 25: Bristol, UK; “
Classification of Goods – Using Commodity and Tariff Codes”; 
BusinessWest
* 
Sep 25: Bristol, UK; “
Incoterms® Rules 2010
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Sep 25: London, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
; The Institute of Export and International Trade
*
 
Sep 25: Sheffield, UK; “
Essential Incoterms – Getting it Rights
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

* Sep 25: Washington DC; “National Forum on FARA“; American Conference Institute

* Sep 25-26: Amsterdam, the Netherlands; “Defence Exports Annual Conference“; SMI

* Sep 26: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; “Global Trade Management: Turning trade challenges into opportunities” Amber Road

*
 
Sep 26: Bristol, UK; “
Understanding The Paperwork
“; BusinessWest

* Sep 30 – Oct 3; Amsterdam, NL; “
ITAR Controls / EAR/OFAC Commercial and Military Controls
“; ECTI
; 540-433-3977

* Oct 2-3: Toronto, Canada; “Canadian Forum on Global Economic Sanctions Compliance & Enforcement“; The Canadian Institute

* Oct 3: Chicago, IL; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Oct 3: Rotterdam, the Netherlands; “Trade Compliance Congres 2019“; Sdu

* Oct 3-4: London, UK; “The WorldECR Export Controls & Sanctions Forum 2019“; WorldECR

*
 
Oct 7: Munich, Germany; “
European and German Export Controls
“; AWA

* Oct 8: New York, NY; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson* Oct 14-17; Columbus, OH; “
University Export Controls Seminar
“; ECTI

*
Oct 15: Singapore; “
5th Asia Pacific Summit on Economic Sanctions Compliance and Enforcement
“; 
American Conference Institute

* Oct 15-16: Washington DC; “The WorldECR Export Controls & Sanctions Forum 2019“; WorldECR
* Oct 17: Leeds, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Foundation Workshop“; UK/DIT
* Oct 17: Leeds, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop“; UK/DIT

*
Oct 17: Sheffield, UK; “
Export Documentation – How and Why?” 
; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

* Oct 21-25: Chicago, IL; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

* Oct 22: Indianapolis, IN; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Oct 24: New York, NY; “The Fundamentals of Export Regulatory Compliance“; NEXCO 

Oct 28-29: Washington D.C.; “
2019 Fall Advanced Conference
“; SIA

* Oct 28-31; Phoenix, AZ; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI

* Oct 29: Montreal, Canada; “
Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson

* Oct 29-30; Tysons Corner, VA; “Conducting an internal Import/Export Audit“; Amber Road
* Oct 31: Toronto, Canada; “Trade Compliance & Policy” C.H. Robinson 

* Nov 11-14; Washington, DC; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI

* Nov 19-21: Tysons Corner, VA; “Export Controls Specialist – Certification“; Amber Road

*
 
Nov 20: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures – Export Training
“; BusinessWest
*
 
Nov 21: Bristol, UK; “
A Foundation Course in Importing
“; BusinessWest

*
 
Nov 26: Bruchem, The Netherlands; “The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance
* 
Nov 27: Bruchem, The Netherlands; ” The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective“; Full Circle Compliance
 
*
 
Nov 27: Manchester, UK; “
US & UK Export Controls: A Basic Understanding
“; The Institute of Export and International Trade

* Dec 2-6: Tysons Corner, VA; “Certified Classification Specialist (CCLS)“; Amber Road

*
 
Dec 4-5: Washington, DC; “
36th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; American Conference Institute

* Dec 9-12; Miami, FL; “
ITAR Controls / EAR & OFAC Export Controls Seminar Series
“; ECTI

* Dec 10-11: New York, NY; ” 
10th Annual New York Forum on Economic Sanctions“; American Conference Institute

*
 Dec 12-13; Washington D.C.; “
Coping with U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions 2019
“; Practicing Law Institute
 
2020

 
*
 
Jan 30-31: Houston, TX; “
14th Forum on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
“; 
American Conference Institute

* Feb 5-6; Munich, Germany; “Export Compliance in Europe Conference“; NielsonSmith

* Feb 20-21; Berlin, Germany; “
14. Exportkontrolltag
“; ZAR

* Feb 24-26; Las Vegas, NV; “Winter Back to Basics Conference“; Society for International Affairs

* Mar 3-5; Vienna, Austria; “Lehrgang Exportkontrolle & Export Compliance“; OPWZ

 
Webinars 


 

* Jun 19: Webinar: “
A Practical Guide to Screening
“; ECTI; 540-433-3977
#
* Jun 19: Webinar: “Commerce Control List (CCL) – Policy and Procedures“; RVG International
* Jun 19: Webinar: “
Update on U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement
“; DrinkerBiddle
* Jun 25: Webinar: “
Export Control and IT Modernization – Issues and Considerations
“;
ECTI; 540-433-3977  


* Jul 10: Webinar: “
EAR
“; Global Training Center

* Jul 11: Webinar: “ITAR“; Global Training Center 
* Jul 19: Webinar: “Managing Export Operations and Compliance“; Massachusetts Export Center; 617-973-6610

* Jun 19: Webinar: “
Update on U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement
“; DrinkerBiddle

* Sep 25: Webinar: “
EAR
“; Global Training Center
* Sep 26: Webinar: “
ITAR
“; Global Training Center

* Oct 29: Webinar: “Key updates on export controls and sanctions“; Baker McKenzie
* Dec 17: Webinar: “Managing Emerging Compliance Risks“; Baker McKenzie

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a118
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

 
* Harriet Beecher Stowe (Harriet Elisabeth Beecher Stowe; 14 Jun 1811 – 1 Jul 1896; was an American abolitionist and author. She came from the Beecher family, a famous religious family, and is best known for her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin(1852).  Stowe wrote 30 books.  She was influential for both her writings and her public stances and debates on social issues of the day.)
  – “The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.”
 
* Waylon Jennings (Waylon Arnold Jennings; 15 Jun 1937 – 13 Feb 2002; was an American singer, songwriter, and musician. In 1958, Buddy Holly arranged Jennings’s first recording session, and hired him to play bass. Jennings gave up his seat on the ill-fated flight in 1959 that crashed and killed Holly, J. P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, and Ritchie Valens. During the 1970s, Jennings was instrumental in the inception of Outlaw country movement, and recorded country music’s first platinum album, Wanted! The Outlaws, with Willie Nelson, Tompall Glaser, and Jessi Colter.)
 – “I may be crazy, but it keeps me from going insane.”
 
Friday’s funnies – U.S. State Jokes (to be continued):
* Alabama: When a visitor to a town in Alabama spotted a dog attacking a boy, he grabbed the animal and throttled it with his bare hands. An impressed reporter saw the incident and told him the next day’s headline would scream “Valiant Local Man Saves Child by Killing Vicious Animal!”  “I’m not from this town,” said the hero.  “Then,” the reporter said, “it will say ‘Alabama Man Saves Child by Killing Dog!'”  “Actually,” said the man, “I’m from New York.”  “In that case,” the reporter grumbled, “the headline will be ‘Yankee Kills Family Pet.'”
* Alaska: An Alaskan was on trial in Anchorage. The prosecutor leaned menacingly toward him and asked, “Where were you on the night of October to April?”
* Arizona: It’s so hot in Arizona, cows are giving evaporated milk and the trees are whistling for dogs.

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

EN_a219. 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.
 

*
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:
 
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: 5 June 2019: 
84 FR 25986-25989
: Restricting the Temporary Sojourn of Aircraft and Vessels to Cuba

 

*
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 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.
 

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 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
 

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 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 
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: 5 Jun 2019: 84 FR 25992; June 2019 Amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations [amendment of 31 CFR Part 515].
  

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: 4 June 2019: 
Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1910
 
  – HTS codes for AES are available 
here
.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here
.

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

EN_a320
. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories
(Source: Editor)
 

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

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

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