19-0628 Friday “Daily Bugle”

19-0628 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 28 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. Correction: In yesterday’s Daily Bugle, Item # 5, “Smart with Sanctions Lists,” was incorrectly attributed to Dr. Pascal Ditté as author. The article was composed by the staff of the WorldECR Journal.

  1. Treasury/OFAC Amends North Korea Sanctions Regulations
  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Publishes Guidance on Fifth Round of Products Excluded from Section 301 Duties (Tranche 1)
  4. State/DDTC: (No new postings.) 
  5. EU Amends Iraq Sanctions
  1. Insidetrade: “Proposed Export-Control Rule on ‘Foundational’ Technologies Expected Soon”
  2. Reuters: “Shares in Germany’s Brenntag Drop on Dual-Use Chemicals Sale to Syria”
  3. ST&R Trade Report: “Export Controls, Enforcement Among New Items on DOC Regulatory Schedule”
  4. UWN: “University Leaders Fear Curbs on Free Flow of Scholars”
  1. American Shipper: “Legislation Would Increase Congress’ Tariff Authority”
  2. K. C. Georgi, M.M. Hassoun & R.K. Alberda: “Why Your ITAR Empowered Official Truly Has to be Empowered and Actually Know the ITAR: Reviewing the Darling Consent Agreement”
  3. K. O’Brien, C. Streatfeild & B. T. Peele III: “Suppliers to the US Beware: Increased Compliance and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties”
  4. M. Volkov: “Lessons Learned from the Walmart FCPA Enforcement Action (Part III of III)
  5. Y. Sheffi: “Weaponizing Trade Puts Global Supply Chains in the Cross Hairs”
  1. ECS Presents “2nd Annual ECS ITAR/EAR Symposium and Boot Camp” on 17-19 Sep in Annapolis, MD
  2. FCC Presents “The ABC of FMS”, 28 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  3. List of Approaching Events: 125 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 (27 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 (26 Jun 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 


Treasury/OFAC Amends North Korea Sanctions Regulations
(Source: Federal Register, 28 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
84 FR 30868-30870: Technical Amendments to North Korea Sanctions Regulations
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the North Korea Sanctions Regulations to update references to descriptive text that appears in certain entries on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and the List of Foreign Financial Institutions Subject to Correspondent Account or Payable-Through Account Sanctions (CAPTA List).
* DATES: Effective: June 28, 2019.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
On March 5, 2018, OFAC amended and reissued in their entirety the North Korea Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 510 (the “Regulations”) (83 FR 9182, March 5, 2018). Since that time, for clarity, OFAC has made two technical changes to certain text that appears on OFAC’s website and that is referenced in the Regulations.
This rule conforms the corresponding references in the Regulations to accurately reflect the amended website text. First, this rule updates references to descriptive text that appears in certain entries on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). This descriptive text provides additional information concerning secondary sanctions related to Executive Order 13810 of September 20, 2017 (“Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea”) (82 FR 44705, September 25, 2017) (E.O. 13810). Section 4 of E.O. 13810 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose certain sanctions (often referred to as secondary sanctions) on any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to meet certain specified criteria. With respect to a foreign financial institution determined to meet any of the relevant criteria, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may: (i) Prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States with respect to such foreign financial institution; or (ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person of such foreign financial institution. These prohibitions are implemented in Sec. Sec. 510.210 and 510.201(a)(3)(vi) of the Regulations, respectively. …


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


. Items Scheduled
for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions

(Source: Federal Register, 28 June 2019.)

* Commerce/BIS; NOTICES;
– Meetings: Materials Technical Advisory Committee
– Meetings: Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee [Pub. Date: 1 July 2019.]

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

. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a34. DHS/CBP Publishes Guidance on Fifth Round of Products Excluded from Section 301 Duties (Tranche 1)

(Source: CSMS #19-000332, 28 June, 2019.)
On June 4, 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative published Federal Register (FR) Notice 84 FR 25895 announcing the decision to grant the fifth round of certain exclusion requests from the 25 percent duty assessed under the Section 301 investigation related to goods from China (Tranche 1). The product exclusions announced in this notice will apply as of the July 6, 2018 effective date and will extend for one year after the publication of the Federal Register Notice 84 FR 25895.
As set out in the Annex to the Federal Register Notice (84 FR 25895), the exclusions are established in two different formats: (1) as an exclusion for an existing 10-digit subheading from within an 8-digit subheading covered by the $34 billion action, or (2) as an exclusion reflected in specially prepared product descriptions. In particular, the exclusions take the form of one 10-digit HTSUS subheading, and 88 specially prepared product descriptions.
In accordance with the 83 FR 67463 notice, the exclusions are available for any product that meets the description in the Annex, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. Further, the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the product descriptions in the Annex to the Federal Register Notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.
The functionality for the acceptance of the fifth round of products excluded from Section 301 duties is available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as of June 11, 2019.
Instructions for Filing Entries Subject to Product Exclusions:
Instructions on submitting entries to CBP containing products granted exclusions by the USTR from the Section 301 measures in 84 FR 25895 are as follows:
In addition to reporting the regular Chapters 84, 85, 86 & 90 classifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTSUS classification 9903.88.10 (Articles the products of China, as provided for in U.S. note 20(m) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the U.S. Trade Representative) for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion.
Importers shall not submit the corresponding Chapter 99 HTS number for the Section 301 duties when HTS 9903.88.10 is submitted.
Additional Information:
Duty exclusions granted by the USTR are retroactive on imports to the initial effective date of July 6, 2018. To request an administrative refund for previous imports of duty-excluded products granted by the USTR, importers may follow the same entry filing instructions as above to file a PSC on unliquidated entry summaries. If the entry has already liquidated, importers may protest the liquidation.
Reminder: When submitting an entry summary in which a heading or subheading in Chapter 99 is claimed on imported merchandise, importers should refer to CSMS 18-000657 (Entry Summary Order of Reporting for Multiple HTS in ACE).
Imports which have been granted a product exclusion from the Section 301 measures, and which are not subject to the Section 301 duties, are not covered by the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) provisions of the Section 301 Federal Register notices, but instead are subject to the FTZ provisions in 19 CFR part 146.
For more information, please refer to the June 4, 2019 Federal Register notice 84 FR 25895.
Questions from the importing community concerning ACE entry rejections involving product exclusion numbers should be referred to their CBP Client Representative. Questions related to Section 301 entry filing requirements should be emailed to Traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov.

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

State/DDTC: (No new postings.)


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

OGS_a56. EU Amends Iraq Sanctions

(Source: Official Journal of the European Union, 28 June 20219.)
* Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1103 of 27 June 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq.


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


Insidetrade: “Proposed Export-Control Rule on ‘Foundational’ Technologies Expected Soon”

(Source: Insidetrade, June 28, 2019.) [Excerpts.]
Industry sources expect the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on “foundational technologies” within the next two weeks, a move they hope will provide some clarity on how the agency will craft new export controls. The notice is the next expected step in the implementation of the 2018 Export Control Reform Act. BIS last November issued an ANPRM for new export controls on “emerging” technologies. The notice is expected as soon. …

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

Reuters: “Shares in Germany’s Brenntag Drop on Dual-Use Chemicals Sale to Syria”

(Source: Reuters, 26 June 2019.)
Shares in German chemicals distributor Brenntag dropped on Wednesday on a report that the company sold substances to a company in Syria that could go into chemical weapons, among other uses. …
Brenntag, whose shares were down 5.8% at 1400 GMT, said a Swiss subsidiary supplied chemicals diethylamine and isopropanol in 2014, in line with relevant laws and regulations, to Syrian drugmaker Mediterranean Pharmaceutical Industries (MPI) to produce a pain killer. …
The German company said it did not circumvent European Union export restrictions and said the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs had confirmed compliance with export regulations. …

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

ST&R Trade Report: “Export Controls, Enforcement Among New Items on DOC Regulatory Schedule”

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 27 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
Tighter controls on exports of specific products and to particular countries, as well as updated export enforcement provisions, are among the new items on the Department of Commerce’s most recent semiannual regulatory agenda. This document lists the following regulations affecting international trade that could be issued within the next year as well as rulemaking proceedings that have been in process for some time and are not as likely to see further progress in the near term. The expected timeframes for issuance of the rules are indicated in parentheses. …

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

UWN: “University Leaders Fear Curbs on Free Flow of Scholars” 
(Source: University World News, 27 June 2018.) [Excerpts.]

Rapid changes in immigration policies, including new United States government restrictions on research talent, will only hurt global science and retard its associated benefits to society, the president of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Thomas Rosenbaum, told a gathering of university leaders from countries of the Pacific Rim, including the US, Canada, Latin America, China and the Asia-Pacific. …
Referring clearly to recent policies by US President Donald Trump’s administration restricting visas for scientists from China and some other countries, Rosenbaum told the gathering of presidents of research-intensive Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) meeting in California on Tuesday, “a governmental over-reaction will hurt ourselves as much as anyone else, slowing science and its associated benefits for society”. …
He referred to the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which controls the export of classified defence and military-related technologies. It does not apply to information in the public domain. …

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


American Shipper: “Legislation Would Increase Congress’ Tariff Authority”

(Source: American Shipper, 27 June 2019.) [Excerpts.]
The bill, introduced in the House Tuesday, would limit new or additional tariffs imposed by the president to 120 days unless approved by Congress.
Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., introduced a bill Tuesday that would enhance Congress’ role in decisions by the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imported goods.
The Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019 would require congressional approval for national security tariffs, which could last for no longer than 120 days unless Congress authorizes the action through an affirmative vote. The provision would apply directly to tariffs imposed by the president – who would retain authority to impose new or additional tariffs for national security purposes – under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. …

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

K. C. Georgi, M.M. Hassoun & R.K. Alberda: “Why Your ITAR Empowered Official Truly Has to be Empowered and Actually Know the ITAR: Reviewing the Darling Consent Agreement”
(Source: Arent Fox, 27 Jun 2019.)
* Authors: Kay C. Georgi, Esq., kay.georgi@arentfox.com; +1 202 857 6293; Marwa M. Hassoun, Esq., marwa.hassoun@arentfox.com, +1 213 443 7645; and Regan K. Alberda, Esq., regan.alberda@arentfox.com, +1 202 775 5771, all of Arent Fox.
On February 26, 2019, Darling Industries, Inc. (Darling) entered into a $400,000, 18-month consent agreement with the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to settle six alleged violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
The key issue was Darling’s ITAR Empowered Official (EO), who was neither empowered nor an expert. DDTC is sending a message to industry with this action: your EO must have both sufficient familiarity with the ITAR to determine the legality of a transaction and sufficient authority to stop a transaction.
Each year, DDTC enters into a handful of consent agreements with companies for violations of the ITAR, when it determines harm to national security and/or significant gaps in a compliance program. Lesser violations are addressed through a process which typically includes: (1) disclosing documented evidence of a complete investigation of the violations, (2) identifying the root causes, and (3) proving implementation of appropriate corrective actions to prevent subsequent violations. DDTC can request independent audits to verify compliance issues have been addressed before closing a company’s (voluntary or directed) disclosure of ITAR violations. When DDTC does choose to enter into a consent agreement, it highlights areas of concern that it expects companies to ensure are addressed within their own compliance programs.
In the case of Darling’s consent agreement with DDTC, the violations at issue were not of particular national security concern because the unauthorized exports were made to US allies, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Conversely, DDTC took issue with (1) Darling’s lack of a documented export compliance program; (2) lack of a qualified EO; and (3) lack of initiative to address unauthorized exports and compliance program deficiencies for nearly two years after the issues were identified by a third party auditor.
The third party auditor Darling engaged identified not only unauthorized exports and compliance program deficiencies, but also found no formal jurisdiction and classification process and the absence of additional personnel trained in ITAR compliance. The audit described “decades of systematic, reoccurring violations,” but Darling did not file a voluntary disclosure until 22 months after the audit. The report found additional issues of concern, but DDTC chose not to charge Darling with those violations as a result of mitigation, including submitting a voluntary self-disclosure, entering into a tolling agreement, and self-initiating compliance program improvements.
The failure to appoint a qualified Empowered Official is a new issue to be highlighted by DDTC. The charging letter indicated that Darling appointed an EO that was not qualified under the ITAR (22 CFR § 120.25) because the individual was not in a position of having authority for policy or management within the organization and did not understand the provisions and requirements of the export regulations. DDTC stated that, “[t]he Empowered Official prepared, signed, and submitted license application that reflected a deficient understanding of the licensing process and the regulations.” Section 120.25 of the ITAR stipulates that an EO must have the “independent authority to (i) inquire into any aspect of a proposed export, temporary import, or brokering activity by the applicant; (ii) verify the legality of the transaction and the accuracy of the information to be submitted; and (iii) refuse to sign any license application or other request for approval without prejudice or other adverse recourse.” To execute these duties, an EO must have enough familiarity with the ITAR to determine the legality of a transaction and also have enough authority within the company to stop the transaction if there is an issue of export compliance.
The takeaways from this consent agreement are particularly impactful for smaller and mid-sized entities that may not be dedicating adequate resources towards hiring, training, and retaining qualified export compliance personnel and maintaining a robust ITAR compliance program. Even if it is necessary to utilize existing personnel to serve in export compliance roles, companies must ensure that these employees receive sufficient training on the ITAR and export compliance requirements. Secondly, the person selected to serve as an EO must meet the requirements for this role as set forth in the ITAR, including having authority for policy or management within the company, and most importantly the ability to hold, question, and ultimately stop a transaction with the full support of management if the EO has export compliance concerns. Finally, violations must be disclosed in a timely manner after discovery. While Darling made efforts to assess its compliance program by engaging an outside auditor, it disclosed the report’s findings of violations long after the audit, a primary factor for DDTC in entering the consent agreement.

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

K. O’Brien, C. Streatfeild & B. T. Peele III: “Suppliers to the US Beware: Increased Compliance and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties”

(Source: International Trade Compliance Blog, 27 June 2019.)
* Authors: Kevin O’Brien, Esq., kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com, +1 202 452 7032; Christine Streatfeild, Esq., christine.streatfeild@bakermckenzie.com, +1 202 835 6111; and B. Thomas Peele III, Esq., thomas.peele@bakermckenzie.com, +1 202 452 7035, all of Baker Mckenzie.
US tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels, and numerous antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders on finished and raw input products have put exporters in a bind. On one hand, sourcing and supply chain decisions have become more complex and uncertain. On the other, opportunities have grown for companies in countries that are not subject to certain tariffs or that are able to obtain exclusions from the tariffs. This increased activity in imposing duties also comes with a heightened focus on US import compliance. Companies in the Asia-Pacific region should be aware of the scrutiny that covered imports face and, in particular where a related entity in the US acts as the importer, should ensure that they understand the scope of the AD/CVD orders and applicable duty rates.
To see the Full alert, please click here.

back to top 

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

M. Volkov: “Lessons Learned from the Walmart FCPA Enforcement Action (Part III of III)”

(Source: Volkov Law Group Blog. Reprinted by permission.)
* Author: Michael Volkov, Esq., Volkov Law Group, mvolkov@volkovlaw.com, 240-505-1992.
(Part II of III can be found in the Daily Bugle of 26 June 2019.)
This is a tough posting – frankly, there are so many lessons learned from the Walmart case that they could fill a book, or an e-book at least. I will focus on some of the big issues.
Walmart should breathe a sigh of relief. The compliance cloud hanging over its heard for so long is now gone, except with one big caveat – Walmart has a monitor for two years.
When the Walmart controversy developed, everyone (including me) expected Walmart to suffer a significant penalty, exceeding $1 billion. However, Walmart escaped this mess with only a $282 million settlement. Walmart did well.
At the same time, however, Walmart spent approximately $900 million on remediation, lawyers, consultants and billions in its own time and resources. That is not chump change.
Business Growth without Compliance: Walmart is a textbook example of how a limited focus on business growth without consideration of compliance needs and controls will result in disaster. It should be cited by every compliance officer who needs to argue that an aggressive business strategy has to be coupled with appropriate compliance support. A failure to recognize this connection is certain to lead to compliance problems. When the business gets out ahead of compliance, the business is unlikely to focus adequately on compliance risks.
Gatekeepers: Compliance and Audit Authority:
The Walmart factual statements is replete with instances when legal, compliance and most especially internal audit findings, recommendations or other concerns were ignored, brushed aside, manipulated or allowed to die by delay. If gatekeepers do not have adequate authority to raise concerns, stop a deal and require remediation, a company will suffer real and significant compliance damage. When issues are raised, there is a written record of such concerns. If they are not fixed or addressed in some credible manner, each instance of failure to follow up can be used as evidence of criminal intent. A company that authorizes internal audit to identify weaknesses in compliance controls has to back up internal audit by requiring company actors to fix the identified problems by a specific data. Someone has to be designated as the responsible official and held accountable for a failure to address the issue. Compliance and legal problems have to be accorded the same considerations.
Third-Party Risks: We have heard so much on third-party risk management. Walmart is yet another example of third parties who were regularly used to funnel bribery payments. The absence of adequate controls is striking because it is a basic list of requirements that stand as a bare minimum required under today’s standards: (1) a business justification; (2) a specific review of the third party’s qualifications and government associations; (3) documentation of services provided; (4) review of invoices for appropriate and reasonable fees; (5) certifications of compliance; (6) written contractual anti-corruption warranties; (7) audit rights; (8) monitoring of third party activities.
Walmart’s use of third parties subcontractors and subagents demonstrated the risks associated with use of these intermediaries for illicit purposes. If a company encounters a situation where the business or an existing third party proposes to engage a subcontractor or subagent, such arrangements should be scrutinized closely. It is critical that a business justification exists for use of such subcontractors and subagents.
Independent Investigations:
It seems almost implausible by today’s standards but somehow Walmart executives and officials manipulated Walmart’s initial internal investigation to ensure that it never substantiated allegations of bribery in Mexico. The ringleader at the executive level in Walmart Mexico eventually was assigned to investigate allegations against himself. Talk about improper – is it so implausible that we will never see such a blatant failure to adhere to independence again?
Don’t Trust Local Lawyers/Professionals:
Unfortunately, the Walmart case is likely to add to the library of lawyer jokes and disparaging comments. After all, the primary culprits in Mexico were local lawyers who were more than happy to pay bribes, collect fees and then engage in a coding system for bribery payments in the invoices sent to Walmart. What else can you say?
The lesson learned is that professionals in foreign countries who interact on behalf of your company have to be subjected to the same due diligence standards as any other high-risk vendor or supplier interacting with government officials. This lesson extends to other professionals, including accountants, tax professionals (especially in China), lobbyists, consultants and others who interact with the government on your company’s behalf.

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

Y. Sheffi: “Weaponizing Trade Puts Global Supply Chains in the Cross Hairs”

(Source: LinkedIn, 24 June 2019.)
* Author: Yossi Sh, effi, Director, MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, sheffi@mit.edu, +1 617 253 5316.
The Trump administration’s “America First” battle cry in trade negotiations may curry favor among its supporters in the United States, but weaponizing trade policy in this way undermines the fine-tuned supply chains that companies have meticulously constructed over recent decades.
Consumers across the globe – including Americans – ultimately pay the price in the form of more expensive goods and elevated uncertainty.
Multiple fronts
It seems that the administration is determined to open up a new front in this war every month. A recent example is President Trump’s threat at the end of May 2019 to impose an escalating series of tariffs on Mexico unless the country makes more of an effort to combat illegal immigration into the US. A week or so later, an agreement was apparently reached that enabled the Trump Team to lift the threat. However, the tariffs could still be activated if Mexico fails to deliver results over the coming months, so the uncertainty remains.
Ongoing disputes with China continue to rack up casualties. “US agriculture exporters should brace themselves for a prolonged trade war that will continue to erode their share of the all-important China market because China won’t budge on certain demands, and Trump’s self-image is inflated by being tough on China,” said the Journal of Commerce on June 17, 2019.
China and Mexico are not the only countries that are feeling the heat. India has announced a 70% tariff on various American products including apples and almonds in retaliation for increased duties on steel and aluminum imported from India. The US is unhappy with India’s trading relationship with Iran.
Companies are being caught in the crossfire too. For instance, AP reports that revenues for Chinese telecom giant Huawei will be $30 billion less than forecast over the next two years as a result of trade restrictions imposed by the US. Huawei is on America’s “Entity List,” which means that American companies are effectively barred from selling components to the Chinese company.
More hostile landscape
It can be argued, with justification, that such measures are long overdue given China’s checkered history as a trading partner, especially its propensity for co-opting foreign companies’ intellectual property. Indeed, in many respects, China began the process of weaponizing trade policy.
However, the Trump Administration’s escalation of the war is unprecedented in modern times, and the long-term consequences could be dire. Furthermore, the administration has not prepared the country for a protracted trade war, and thus may be forced to retract or lose the 2020 elections.
To respond, companies are being forced to reconfigure supply chains built over many years to deliver goods across the globe as efficiently as possible. As my colleagues at the MIT Center for Transportation (MIT CTL) describe in MIT CTL’s recent blog post, two examples are Walmart and Cisco. Walmart has apparently made it possible for suppliers to respond swiftly to tariff increases with requests for price rises. Cisco is reducing its reliance on China in anticipation of higher tariffs.
Such actions are the tip of the commercial iceberg. America’s heightened aggressiveness in trade circles raises many questions about how companies should operate going forward. “Companies that are the economic engines of countries need to think about changing their modus operandifrom being optimized for a low-tariff policy environment to a completely different design suited to high tariffs and trade barriers,” says the MIT CTL post. Most importantly, companies should build flexibility into their supply chains so they can quickly respond to changing international circumstances. Such flexibility is expensive, and is part of the price companies and consumers pay for the uncertainty.
Also, the trade landscape is fast becoming more hostile for countries that lack the negotiating muscle of leading powers such as the US and China. Consider, for example, the United Kingdom’s prospects. If Brexit supporters get their way and the UK crashes out of the European Union, it will likely turn to the US for a trade deal. Realistically, the US is in no mood to grant concessions. The UK will probably be forced to accept a one-sided deal, tilted in the US favor, and to comply with conditions in areas such as environmental regulation that the Brits may find onerous.
The weakening of third-party trade adjudicators such as the World Trade Organization will make it easier for powerful nations to impose their will on smaller countries. Both America and China appear to be ever more willing to flout international trade norms and the supra-national organizations that enforce them.
Finally, wielding trade agreements as weapons may eventually erode US influence on the world stage – not enhance it. Other countries may develop workarounds that exclude the US. For instance, when President Trump pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement last year, 11 countries including Australia, Chile, Japan, and Singapore signed a similar agreement which covers a market of nearly 500 million people. America’s exclusion from the deal undoubtedly weakens the pact, said the BBC,but by exiting the agreement the US could lose an estimated 0.5% boost to its GDP and an additional $2 billion “because firms in member countries have an incentive to trade with each other instead of with American companies,” said the BBC.
Enduring changes
International trade connects the world’s economies as never before, and supply chains that deliver goods globally are the glue that binds countries together. Weakening or breaking those bonds will undermine the free flow of goods, and promote antagonism that could lead to even more destructive conflicts. Nations that trade goods are generally less likely to trade bombs.
This is not to say that Chinese trading practices are harmless. In fact, US calls for better protection of intellectual property, stopping forced technology transfers, the elimination of non-tariff barriers, etc., are seen as fair demands (outside of China). However, the lack of nuance in the US administration’s approach to trade policy in general and to trade with China in particular, may have permanently changed the way global commerce is conducted.
Importantly, many Democrats in the US Congress support President Trump’s aggressive trade policy. Consequently, even if a Democrat wins in 2020, the new president will surely pick up the trade weapon President Trump bequeaths him or her to pursue their political agenda. While Democratic trade policy may be executed with more refined speeches and less bravado, its populist roots are not dissimilar to the current policy. Consequently, regardless of who wins in November 2020, we’d better rethink the way countries do business internationally.

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


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
* Where:  Chart House
* 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

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

FCC Presents “The ABC of FMS”, 28 Nov in Bruchem, the Netherlands
This training course is specifically designed for compliance professionals and those in a similar role working for government agencies or companies (temporarily) obtaining U.S. export-controlled articles and technology procured through government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.).
The course will cover multiple topics relevant for organizations outside the U.S. working with U.S. export-controlled articles and technology procured through FMS, including: the U.S. regulatory framework, with a special focus on the AECA, key concepts and definitions, and practical compliance tips to ensure the proper handling of FMS-acquired articles and technology. Participants will receive a certification upon completion of the training.
* What: The ABC of Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
* When: Thursday, 28 Nov 2019
– Welcome and Registration: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
– Training hours: 9.30 am – 4.00 pm
* Where: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, the Netherlands
* Information & Registration: here or contact FCC at events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or + 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046
* This course can be followed in combination with “U.S. Export Controls: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (26 Nov 2019), and/or “U.S. Export Controls: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) from a non-U.S. Perspective” (27 Nov 2019). Please, see the event page for our combo deals

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

List of Approaching Events: 125 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 
If you wish to submit an event listing, please send it to
, 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;

* E-Seminars: “ITAR/EAR Awareness“; Export Compliance Solutions;

* 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

Jul 3: Bristol, UK; “
Introduction to Export Procedures – Export Training
“; BusinessWest
Jul 3: Cambridge, UK;
Strategic Export Control: Intermediate Practitioners Course
* 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
Jul 4: Cambridge, UK; “
Strategic Export Control: Licenses Workshop
Jul 4: Bristol, UK;
Using Documentary Letters of Credit, Drafts and Bills”; 
Jul 4: Sheffield, UK; “
An Introduction to Export
“; Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

* Jul 4: Sydney, Australia; “ITAR, EAR and Australian Export Controls“; International Trade Advisors

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 18: Chippenham, UK; “The Second Defence Assets Subject to Special Controls (ASSC) and Export Controls Forum“; Team Defence Information

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

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

* Jul 23-24; Chicago, IL; “
Trade Symposium“;

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

* Jul 24: Darwin, Australia: “Defence Export Controls Outreach“; Australian DoD

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

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

* Aug 22: Milpitas, CA:

Encryption Controls

* Aug 29: Berlin, Germany; “Informationsveranstaltung Beraterschulung“; BAFA

* 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
; 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: Brisbane, Australia; “Defence Export Controls Outreach“; Australian DoD

* 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”; 
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 25-26: London, UK; “Decoding Trade Controls, Sanctions and Regulations on Dual-Use Goods“; KNect365

* 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
; 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: Perth, Australia; “Defence Export Controls Outreach“; Australian DoD

* 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

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

* 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

* 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

* 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

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



* Jul 10: Webinar: “
“; 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: “
“; Global Training Center
* Sep 26: Webinar: “
“; Global Training Center

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

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


. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

* Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778; was a Genevan philosopher, writer and composer. His political philosophy influenced the progress of the Enlightenment throughout Europe, as well as aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political, economic and educational thought. His Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are cornerstones in modern political and social thought. He was interred as a national hero in the Panthéon in Paris, in 1794, 16 years after his death.)
 – “Plant and your spouse plants with you; weed and you weed alone.”
 – “Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.”   

Friday funnies – U.S. State Jokes (in alphabetical order):
* Delaware:  A DuPont chemist walks into a pharmacy and asks the pharmacist, “Do you have any acetylsalicylic acid?” “You mean aspirin?” says the pharmacist. “That’s it!” say the chemist. “I can never remember that word.”
* Florida: My parents didn’t want to move to Florida, but they turned 65 and that’s the law.
* Georgia:  All directions start with “Go down Peachtree …” and include the phrase, “When you see the Waffle House …”
Today is National Logistics Day!
(Source: National Day Calendar, notice courtesy of Laura Lyons, Laura.Lyons@efi.com.)

National Logistics Day™ is observed annually on June 28th in appreciation for the importance that the logistics industry plays in both our national and global economies.  The first air cargo flight took place in 1910 between Dayton and Columbus, increasing the speed that goods could be delivered in the U.S. In 1956, the first container ship sailed from the port of New Jersey to Texas, forever changing how goods would move around the world. 

To celebrate, visit www.NationalLogisticsDay.com to read interesting facts about the logistics industry, grab a copy of the official holiday logo, or download a complimentary copy of the 
Logistics Careers For Dummies®
 eBook. You can also use the #NationalLogisticsDay hashtag to give social media shout-outs to friends, family, or colleagues that work in the logistics and supply chain fields.

back to top 

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

EN_a220. 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: 27 June 2019: 84 FR 30593-30595: Revisions to the Unverified List


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

, 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: 26 June 2019: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1912
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

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

Review last week’s top Ex/Im stories in “Weekly Highlights of 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