;

19-0801 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

19-0801 Thursday “Daily Bugle”

Thursday, 1 August 2019

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

inquiries and rates
.

[No items of interest today.] 

  1. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP Posts New Draft AE CATAIR and New ACE CATAIR Error Dictionary
  4. DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memos of Interest 19-22 and 19-36
  5. GAO Publishes New Report: “DLA: Small Businesses Participate in Reverse Engineering of Spare Parts”
  6. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  1. Deutsche Welle: “US Waives Iran Sanctions on Civil Nuclear Projects”
  1. L. Cass, S.J. Gardner & N.L. Gray: “DOJ’s ‘China Initiative’ – Five Things to Know”
  2. M. Mancuso, A. Rapa & A. Cotterill: “Economic Sanctions and Export Controls Update Q2 2019 (Part II of II)”
  1. ECTI Presents U.S. Country of Origin and Marking – Mastering the Rules and Avoiding Costly Mistakes Webinar: August 21, 2019
  2. FCC Presents “Designing an ICP for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Amendments: DHS/Customs (5 Apr 2019), DOC/EAR (27 June 2019), DOC/FTR (24 Apr 2018), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), DOE/AFAEC (23 Feb 2015), DOE/EINEM (20 Nov 2018), DOJ/ATF (14 Mar 2018), DOS/ITAR (19 Apr 2019), DOT/FACR/OFAC (23 July 2019), HTSUS (22 July 2019) 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

[No items of interest noted today.]

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11. Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
(Source: Federal Register, 1 August 2019.)

 

* Commerce/BIS; NOTICES; Meetings: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee [Pub. Date: 2 August 2019.]

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

OGS_a22
.
Commerce/BIS (No new postings.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

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

OGS_a33
.
DHS/CBP Posts New Draft AE CATAIR and New ACE CATAIR Error Dictionary
(Source: CSMS #39153451, 1 August 2019.)
 
A new Draft AE CATAIR chapter is now posted on CBP.GOV under the “Chapters: Drafts for Future Capabilities” tab at the following location.
 
A subsequent CSMS will be issued at a later date when the ‘future capability’ change within the Draft AE CATAIR is available in the CERTIFICATION environment for testing.
 
Additionally, a new version of the ACE CATAIR Error Dictionary (V13) is now posted on CBP.GOV at the following location.
 
A new error code (Q16) related to quota processing was added in this latest version of the error dictionary.

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

OGS_a44.
DoD/DSCA Posts Policy Memos of Interest 19-22 and 19-36
(Source: DoD/DSCA, 1 August 2019.)
 
– DSCA Policy Memo 19-22 Update to Interim Clarification on 10 USC § 333 has been posted.
 
Effective immediately, this memo updates the referenced DSCA policy regarding the use of funds. This modification allows a Section 333 proposal to be conditionally approved and congressionally notified one fiscal year (no more than one) in advance of an available appropriation.
 
– DSCA Policy Memo 19-36 Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM), Administrative Changes has been posted.
 
This memorandum updates the SAMM with clerical and administrative changes. This memorandum does not contain contextual policy changes.

 

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

OGS_a55.
GAO Publishes New Report: “DLA: Small Businesses Participate in Reverse Engineering of Spare Parts”

(Source:
GAO
, 31 July 2019.) 
 
 
What GAO Found
 
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is responsible for providing logistics support to the warfighter, including spare parts for military assets. From fiscal years 2015 through 2018, DLA initiated over 1,600 reverse engineering projects for spare parts at three of its commands-Aviation, Land and Maritime, and Troop Support. DLA uses reverse engineering to identify potential new sources for spare parts that are available from only one source and to achieve savings. DLA funded about 1,000 of the reverse engineering projects, while contractors funded the remaining 600 projects. Nearly two-thirds of all reverse engineering projects involved parts in five categories, with examples of the three largest categories illustrated in the figure.
 
GAO found that the majority of contractors conducting reverse engineering for DLA were small businesses. Specifically, DLA identified 124 contractors that conducted reverse engineering projects from fiscal year 2015 through 2018, 103 of which GAO determined were small businesses. According to small business representatives and DLA officials, reverse engineering is beneficial for small businesses and can help provide opportunities for additional business with DLA.
 
GAO found that the three DLA commands had processes to safeguard certain intellectual property in their reverse engineering efforts. Specifically:
 
Officials from all three commands stated they do not release drawings with limited data rights to contractors interested in reverse engineering parts.
 
Aviation and Land and Maritime officials stated that they check for patent markings on parts to ensure patented parts are not reverse engineered. Troop Support officials stated they do not check for patent marks because the parts they supply are often too old to have valid patents.
 
The small businesses GAO met with did not identify concerns with how DLA handles intellectual property. Further, DLA officials stated that they had not received any complaints from small businesses about their intellectual property being used inappropriately.
 
Why GAO Did This Study
 
The Department of Defense spends tens of billions of dollars annually to sustain military assets including aircraft, ships, and missiles. In support of this effort, DLA strives to maintain a competitive supplier base through reverse engineering-the process of examining an item, such as a spare part, with the intent of replicating its design. Contractors consider intellectual property, such as their technical data and patented material, essential to their success. DLA also takes steps to safeguard contractors’ intellectual property during reverse engineering.
 
The Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review DLA’s reverse engineering efforts, including the protection of small businesses’ intellectual property. This report describes (1) DLA’s reverse engineering programs and the extent to which small businesses participated in these programs from fiscal years 2015 through 2018; and (2) how DLA safeguards certain intellectual property within its reverse engineering efforts.
 
GAO analyzed data from three DLA commands-Aviation, Land and Maritime, and Troop Support, those that conduct reverse engineering-from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 19 reverse engineering projects involving 13 parts, selected to include a variety of characteristics, such as the size of the contractors involved. GAO reviewed DLA’s guidance and interviewed DLA officials and representatives from small businesses about safeguarding intellectual property as part of reverse engineering. 

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

OGS_a66. 
State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
(Source: State/DDTC)

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

NWSNEWS

NWS_a17
.
Deutsche Welle: “US Waives Iran Sanctions on Civil Nuclear Projects”
(Source: Deutsche Welle, 1 August 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
Without the waivers, the US would have to sanction European firms working on civil nuclear projects, White House officials said. European guarantors of the nuclear deal have vowed to salvage it after the US’ withdrawal.
 
The US on Wednesday announced it had extended waivers for civilian nuclear projects in Iran, allowing European countries to continue cooperation with Tehran.
 
The projects exempted from US sanctions include the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the Fordow fuel enrichment plant and the Arak heavy water reactor. …

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

COMMCOMMENTARY

COM_a18
.
L. Cass, S.J. Gardner & N.L. Gray: “DOJ’s “China Initiative” – Five Things to Know”
(Source: Quarles & Brady LLP, 31 July 2019.) [Excerpts.]
 
* Authors: Luke Cass , Esq., luke.cass@quarles.com, +1 (202) 780-2638; Stephen J. Gardner , Esq., stephen.gardner@quarles.com; + 1 (608) 283-2476; and Nikia L. Gray , Esq., nikia.gray@quarles.com, +1 (202) 372-9517, all of Quarles & Brady LLP.
 
Since the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced its “China Initiative” last year, it has filed over 20 criminal cases pertaining to economic espionage, trade secret, and export controls. According to the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for National Security, “The Department’s China Initiative is focused on preventing and prosecuting thefts of American technology and intellectual property for the benefit of China.” An FBI Assistant Director added that, “The FBI is committed to protecting institutions from adversaries who seek to steal sensitive American technology under the guise of research.”
 
Economic sanctions have been a foreign policy tool since as early as 1917 with the passage of the Trading with the Enemy Act. However, today the primary criminal statutory enforcement tool is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), which grants the President broad emergency powers to impose restrictions on property in international trade. 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B).
 
Export controls apply to a broad range of technological products, including physical shipments, cross-border electronic transmissions – such as by email or downloading from a remote computer server – and the disclosure of controlled technology to a non-U.S. citizen or permanent resident even if such transfers occur entirely outside of the United States. For those products that are implicated by the controls, a labyrinth of regulations exist that must be expertly navigated to avoid sanctions, including the Arms Export Control Act, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) administered by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security; and the trade and economic sanctions programs and regulations administered by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Certain restrictions are also country specific due to national security, foreign policy, nonproliferation, or other concerns. Violations of U.S. export control laws and regulations can result in variable civil penalties, including up to $500,000 per violation under the ITAR and up to $250,000 per violation under the EAR. Some also carry criminal penalties. For example, it is unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire, or cause a violation under the IEEPA and willful violations are criminal punishable by up to twenty years of imprisonment. 50 U.S.C. § 1705(a), (c).
 
The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the National Security Division is responsible for investigating and prosecuting economic espionage matters and criminal export violations of military and strategic commodities and technology. The DOJ’s “China Initiative” also formed a Working Group of United States Attorneys to provide guidance and advice.
 
Many universities and other research institutions have been contacted by the DOJ/FBI to bolster their export control review procedures. Several have recently been involved in issues of foreign students or visiting researchers attempting to abscond with export-controlled materials. Simply resting on the likelihood that the “fundamental research exemption” applies for university research activities may no longer be sufficient for such institutions. For higher education and research institutions, or industries that do business with China or otherwise involve intellectual property, or technology transfer, here are five important takeaways for how the DOJ’s “China Initiative” may impact future business:
 
– DOJ will continue to identify priority economic espionage, trade secret theft, and criminal export control cases. A recent case from Los Angeles involved the conviction of an electrical engineer after a six-week trial for conspiring to illegally export semiconductor chips with missile guidance applications to China. Expect similar cases to be brought in the near future, especially in districts with representation on the DOJ China Initiative’s U.S. Attorney Working Group, such as the Northern District of Alabama (Birmingham), Northern District of California (San Francisco), Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), District of Massachusetts, and Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
 
– Development of a strategy that addresses identification and compliance while taking into account non-traditional actors will be important in the future. Unlike in the past, non-traditional actors have invaded this space and DOJ has given several examples such as “researchers in labs, universities, and the defense industrial base” that are being coopted into transferring technology for foreign use. Having robust corporate policies, procedures, and compliance programs in place may lower risks.
 
– Colleges, universities, and research institution personnel must be educated about potential threats and “influence efforts on campus,” according to the DOJ. Information sessions and internal investigations, when necessary, can help identify vulnerable areas, threats, and breaches.
 
– Private industry must identify potential supply chain threats. The telecommunications sector remains particularly vulnerable with the looming transition to 5G networks. The Chinese telecom giant, Huawei, has been charged in Brooklyn, New York with IEEPA violations for allegedly skirting U.S. sanctions on Iran and in Seattle, Washington for its alleged theft of trade secrets of T-Mobile robotic technology.
 
– Measures to safeguard trade secret or proprietary information in this environment has never been more important. …

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

COM_a2
9
.
M. Mancuso, A. Rapa & A. Cotterill: “Economic Sanctions and Export Controls Update Q2 2019 (Part II of II)”
(Source: Kirkland & Ellis, 29 July 2019.)
 
* Authors: Mario Mancuso, Esq., mario.mancuso@kirkland.com, +1 202 389 5070, Anthony Rapa, Esq., anthony.rapa@kirkland.com, +1 202 389 5019, Abigail Cotterill, Esq., abigail.cotterill@kirkland.com, +1 202 389 5029, all of Kirkland & Ellis.
 
(Part I of II was included in the Daily Bugle of 31 July 2019.)
 
Sectoral Sanctions Enforcement
 
On April 25, OFAC announced a $75,375 settlement with Haverly Systems Inc. (Haverly), a New Jersey oil and gas software services company, for two apparent violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations. OFAC found that Haverly extended payment terms for software licensing and support services invoices to Russian oil and gas company Rosneft, a party on the Sectoral Sanctions Identification List (SSI List), in violation of the maturity tenor provided by the applicable sanctions (Directive Two).
 
Though OFAC found Haverly acted with reckless disregard in processing the payments despite receipt of rejected SWIFT messages, which at times noted potential sectoral sanctions issues, OFAC found the case to be non-egregious due to factors including the likelihood that it would have licensed the proposed payments, Haverly’s small size, and its remedial efforts to implement an SCP with regular risk assessments and appropriate screening.
 
Blocked Vessel Funds Transfers
 
On May 2, OFAC announced an $871,837 settlement with MID-SHIP Group LLC (MID-SHIP) for apparent violations of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations. Between February 2011 and November 2011, the New York-based marine transportation service company processed five electronic funds transfers, totaling approximately $472,861, for payments associated with two blocked vessels owned by IRISL.
 
OFAC noted MID-SHIP’s possession of information connecting the vessels to Iran, as well as the IMO numbers included on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), as indicators it had the ability to perform third-party diligence. The presence of multiple aggravating factors, including reckless disregard for compliance obligations and management knowledge that financial institutions had rejected at least two past payments, led OFAC to determine the case, which was not voluntarily disclosed, to be egregious.
 
Building on its 2018 and 2019 shipping advisories, OFAC emphasized the heightened need for compliance programs for companies operating in high-risk industries such as international shipping and logistics.
 
Cuba Travel-Related Services
 
On June 13, OFAC announced settlements with three providers of electronic travel booking services, Expedia Group, Inc. (Expedia), Hotelbeds USA Inc. (Hotelbeds), and Cubasphere Inc. (Cubasphere), for apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR).
 
Expedia entered into a $325,406 settlement for the voluntarily disclosed conduct of certain of its foreign subsidiaries that led to its dealing in blocked property of Cuba or Cuban nationals through the provision of travel assistance or travel-related services. Between April 2011 and October 2014, Expedia and its foreign subsidiaries provided travel-related services for travel between Cuba and countries other than the United States, or within Cuba.
 
OFAC emphasized that Expedia was slow to integrate one of its new foreign subsidiaries into its sanctions compliance system, including by failing to notify that foreign subsidiary that it was subject to U.S. law until 15 months after the acquisition.

Hotelbeds, the U.S. subsidiary of Spanish company Hotelbeds Group, agreed to a $222,705 settlement for assisting 703 persons with Cuba-related travel services in apparent violation of the CACR, conduct which it did not voluntarily disclose to OFAC.

Between December 2011 and June 2014, Hotelbeds knowingly provided travel services to non-U.S. persons by selling accommodations and giving instructions for payment to a Spanish account from which Hotelbeds was thereafter credited. OFAC noted that this practice resulted from a misplaced belief that the CACR would not prohibit Cuba-related transactions if the customers were not U.S. persons and the payments were not made through U.S. bank accounts.

Similarly, Cubasphere and its president entered into a $40,320 settlement for performing prohibited travel-related services to and within Cuba by providing 104 individuals with full-service tours on four trips to Cuba between December 2013 and February 2014.

OFAC found that Cubasphere and its president received direct payments from groups and individuals for activities associated with the trips to Cuba, and obtained Cuban visas and cover letters from U.S. religious organizations purportedly to engage in humanitarian and religious activities, which were later determined not to be an accurate reflection of the groups’ true sightseeing and tourism-based travel itineraries. The parties did not voluntarily disclose the matter to OFAC.

 
Conspiracy to Illegally Export
 
On May 22, New Jersey resident Gene Shilman pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA). The defendant pled guilty to conspiring to illegally ship export-controlled items including firearm components, night vision goggles, and bulletproof vests to Ukraine and Russia, without appropriate State or Commerce Department authorizations.
 
The conspiracy was organized by individuals outside of the United States, using Shilman’s email accounts to order regulated goods from various dealers in the United States and thereafter receive wire transfers from overseas locations to pay for the purchases.
On June 26, part-time Los Angeles resident and electrical engineer Yi-Chi Shih was convicted of conspiracy to violate IEEPA through illegal export of high-speed semiconductor chips known as monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) to China, and of other charges including mail and wire fraud. Together with Kiet Ahn Mai, who was also charged with conspiracy in January 2018 and pled guilty to smuggling in December 2018, Shih conspired to gain access to the computers of a U.S. company that manufactures MMICs by posing as U.S. customers looking to purchase custom MMICs for use in the United States.

Prosecutors alleged that Shih and Mai concealed that the MMICs would be shipped to China, and that the MMICs were to be sent to a BIS Entity List company, Chengdu GaStone Technology Company, of which Shih was the former president.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

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


TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1 11.
ECTI Presents U.S. Country of Origin and Marking – Mastering the Rules and Avoiding Costly Mistakes Webinar: August 21, 2019  
 
(Source: Danielle Hatch, danielle@learnexportcompliance.com)
 
* What: U.S. Country of Origin and Marking – Mastering the Rules and Avoiding Costly Mistakes
* When: August 21, 2019; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Melissa Proctor
* Register here or Danielle Hatch, 540-433-3977.

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

TE_a212. FCC Presents “Designing an ICP for Export Controls & Sanctions”, 1 Oct in Bruchem, the Netherlands

 
This training course is designed for compliance officers, managers, and other professionals who aim to enhance their organization’s compliance efforts. The course will cover multiple topics and tackle various key questions, including but not limited to:
   – Setting the Scene: ensuring compliance in the export control and sanctions arena
   – What is expected from your organization? A closer look at the official frameworks and guidelines from U.S. and European government agencies
   – Key elements of an ICP
   – Best practice tips for enhancing your current compliance efforts  
   – Internal controls samples (policies, procedures, instructions)
   – Strategic benefits of having an ICP.
* What: Designing an Internal Compliance Program (ICP) for Export Controls & Sanctions
* Date: Tuesday, 1 Oct 2019
* Location: Full Circle Compliance, Landgoed Groenhoven, Dorpsstraat 6, Bruchem, The Netherlands
* Times:
   – Registration and welcome: 9.00 am – 9.30 am
   – Training course hours: 9.30 am – 4.30 pm
* Level: Intermediate
* Target Audience:  the course provides valuable insights for both compliance professionals, employees and (senior / middle) management working in any industry subject to U.S. and/or EU (member state) export control laws and sanctions regulations.
* Instructors: Drs. Ghislaine C.Y. Gillessen RA and Marco M. Crombach MSc.
* Information & Registration: click
here or contact us at 
events@fullcirclecompliance.eu or 31 (0)23 – 844 – 9046.  

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

 
* Herman Melville
(Herman Melville (born Melvill); 1 Aug 1819 – 28 Sep 1891; was an American novelist, short story writer, and poet of the American Renaissance period. Among his best-known works are Typee (1846), a romantic account of his experiences of Polynesian life, and his masterpiece Moby-Dick (1851). The novella Billy Budd was left unfinished at his death but was published posthumously in 1924.)
  – “At sea a fellow comes out. Salt water is like wine, in that respect.”
  – “He who has never failed somewhere — that man can not be great.”

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

EN_a314
. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date?
(Source: Editor)

 

*
DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.  Implemented by Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection.

  – Last Amendment: 5 Apr 2019:
84 FR 13499-13513: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation
 


DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR)
: 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774. Implemented by Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Industry & Security.

  – Last Amendment: 27 June 2019: 84 FR 30593-30595: Revisions to the Unverified List


 
* 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 (4 July 2019) of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR (“BAFTR”), by James E. Bartlett III, is available for downloading in Word format. The BAFTR is a 152-page Word document containing all FTR amendments, FTR Letters and Notices, a large Index, and approximately 250 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, Census/AES guidance, and explanations of the numerous errors contained in the official text. Subscribers receive revised copies in Microsoft Word every time the FTR is amended. The BAFTR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website.  BITAR subscribers are entitled to a 25% discount on subscriptions to the BAFTR. Government employees (including military) and employees of universities are eligible for a 50% discount on both publications at www.FullCircleCompiance.eu.   

 

DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M. Implemented by Dep’t of Defense.
  – Last Amendment: 18 May 2016: Change 2: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary here.)
 
 
DOE ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ATOMIC ENERGY ACTIVITIES: 10 CFR Part 810; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 23 Feb 2015: 80 FR 9359, comprehensive updating of regulations, updates the activities and technologies subject to specific authorization and DOE reporting requirements. This rule also identifies destinations with respect to which most assistance would be generally authorized and destinations that would require a specific authorization by the Secretary of Energy.
 
DOE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 10 CFR Part 110; Implemented by Dep’t of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
  – Last Amendment: 20 Nov 2018, 10 CFR 110.6, Re-transfers.
 

* DOJ ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War.  Implemented by Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
  – Last Amendment: 14 Mar 2019: 84 FR 9239-9240: Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

 

DOS INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130. Implemented by Dep’t of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
  – Last Amendment: 19 Apr 2019: 84 FR 16398-16402: International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Transfers Made by or for a Department or Agency of the U.S. Government   
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition: 4 July 2019) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III. The BITAR is a 371-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 email, usually revised within 24 hours after every ITAR amendment. The BITAR is available by annual subscription from the Full Circle Compliance website. BAFTR subscribers receive a $25 discount on subscriptions to the BITAR, please contact us to receive your discount code.
 

* DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders.
Implemented by Dep’t of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

– Last Amendment: 23 July 2019: 84 FR 35307 – July 2019 Amendments to Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations; Transnational Criminal Organizations Sanctions Regulations; and Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [amendment of 31 CFR Parts 566, 590, and 594.] 

  

* 
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: 22 July 2019: Harmonized System Update (HSU) 1913  
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

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

EN_a0315
Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories

(Source: Editor) 

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

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., compiled by: Editor, James E. Bartlett III; and Assistant Editors, Alexander Witt and Sven Goor. The Ex/Im Daily Update is emailed every business day to approximately 7,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations. We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOE/NRC, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, FAR/DFARS, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations.  Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items.

* RIGHTS & RESTRICTIONS: This email contains no proprietary, classified, or export-controlled information. All items are obtained from public sources or are published with permission of private contributors, and may be freely circulated without further permission, provided attribution is given to “The Export/Import Daily Bugle of (date)”. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.  If you would to submit material for inclusion in the The Export/Import Daily Update (“Daily Bugle”), please find instructions here.

* CAVEAT: The contents of this newsletter cannot be relied upon as legal or expert advice.  Consult your own legal counsel or compliance specialists before taking actions based upon news items or opinions from this or other unofficial sources.  If any U.S. federal tax issue is discussed in this communication, it was not intended or written by the author or sender for tax or legal advice, and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter.


* SUBSCRIPTIONS: Subscriptions are free.  Subscribe by completing the request form on the Full Circle Compliance website

* BACK ISSUES: An archive of Daily Bugle publications from 2005 to present is available HERE.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top