;

[Corrected.] 17-0609 Friday “Daily Bugle”

[Corrected.] 17-0609 Friday “Daily Bugle”

Friday, 9 June 2017

TOPThe Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, containing changes to export/import regulations (ATF, Customs, NISPOM, EAR, FACR/OFAC, FTR/AES, HTSUS, and ITAR), plus news and events. Subscribe here for free subscription. Contact us for advertising inquiries and rates. [Editor’s Note: Please discard the Friday Daily Bugle sent at 4″19pm today, which contained an incorrect Table of Contents. This is the corrected version.] 

  1. Commerce/BIS Posts Reminder of Offsets Reporting Requirements for Calendar Year 2016 
  1. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions 
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.) 
  3. DHS/CBP Announces ACE PRODUCTION Outage, 10-11 Jun
  4. DHS/CBP Clarifies PSC requirements for TIB (Entry Type 23)
  5. DHS/CBP Posts Foreign Currency Exchange Rate information
  6. DHS/ICE: “Atlanta HSI, CBP Establish Coordination Center to Promote Trade Enforcement”
  7. DoD/DSCA Publishes SAMM and Policy Memorandum, 4-10 Jun
  8. State/DDTC: (No new postings.)
  9. EU Amends and Corrects Restrictive Measures Concerning Iran, North Korea, Terrorism, and Syria
  1. ST&R Trade Report: “Dates and Deadlines: NAFTA, Classification, Exports, Trade Policy”
  1. D. DiBari, W. Wysong & G. Kleinfeld: “DC Circuit Upholds OFAC’s Broad Interpretation of Transshipment Prohibition on US-Origin Goods to Iran”
  2. G.R. Tuttle III: “You Can Now Resubmit a Protest for Post Importation Preference Claims Previously Rejected as Non-Protestable”
  3. R.C. Burns: “Senate Moves Forward on New Iran Sanctions”
  1. Friday List of Approaching Events
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Latest Changes: ATF (15 Jan 2016), Customs (27 Jan 2017), DOD/NISPOM (18 May 2016), EAR (26 May 2017), FACR/OFAC (10 Feb 2017), FTR (19 Apr 2017), HTSUS (26 Apr 2017), ITAR (11 Jan 2017)
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 

EXIMEX/IM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

EXIM_a1

1. Commerce/BIS Posts Reminder of Offsets Reporting Requirements for Calendar Year 2016

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
 
82 FR 26775-26776: Reminder of Offsets Reporting Requirements for Calendar Year 2016
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice; annual reporting requirements.
* SUMMARY: This notice is intended to remind the public that U.S. companies are required, pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA), to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign companies that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. Consistent with the DPA, U.S. companies are also required to report annually to Commerce information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which an offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. Such reports from calendar year 2016 must include relevant information and must be submitted to Commerce no later than 15 June 2017. …
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald DeMarines, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: 202-482-3755; fax: 202-482-5650; email: ronald.demarines@bis.doc.gov.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: …
   The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in part 701 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130). Offsets are also applicable to certain items controlled on the Commerce Control list (CCL) and with an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) including the numeral “6” as its third character (“600 series” items). The CCL is found in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations.
   An example of an offset is as follows: A company that is selling a fleet of military aircraft to a foreign government may agree to offset the cost of the aircraft by providing training assistance to plant managers in the purchasing country. Although this distorts the true price of the aircraft, the foreign government may require this sort of extra compensation as a condition of awarding the contract to purchase the aircraft. As described in the regulations, U.S. companies are required to report information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign companies that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. companies are also required to report annually information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. …
 
   Dated: 6 June 2017.
Matthew S. Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.  

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a12
. Ex/Im Items Scheduled for Publication in Future Federal Register Editions
 

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

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

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

(Source:
CSMS #17-000339, 9 June 2017.)
 
There will be an ACE PRODUCTION Outage Saturday evening, June 10, 2017 from 2200 ET to 0400 ET Sunday, June 11, 2017.
 
ACE will perform infrastructure maintenance activities, and the following ACE Deployment will take place during this time:
 
ACE Import Manifest
  – CAOM-11009: Fix for A3 (FDA PN Rejected) and A1 (FDA PN Advisory) messages sometimes getting sent to Trade in wrong sequence.
 
ACE CQ Query (Cargo/Manifest/Entry Release Query)
  – CAOM-9506: Fix for CQ Query failures due to BOL Number size larger than response can support (12 characters). If BOL number is greater than 12 characters, it will be truncated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
CSMS #17-000338, 9 June 2017.)
 
This message clarifies the PSC requirements for TIB (Entry Type 23). Changes to data elements of a TIB can be performed via PSC. However, a PSC may not change a TIB entry to another entry type, nor can a PSC change a non TIB entry to a TIB entry.  

A federal register notice will be send to the public clarifying these requirements in the coming months. Please contact ASCACE@cbp.dhs.gov if you have any further questions or comments. 

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

(Source:
CSMS #17-000336, 8 June 2017.)
 
The daily foreign currency exchange rate information is currently available on CBP.gov.
 
The foreign currency exchange rates are available in both EXCEL format and PDF format. Both file formats are easily downloadable for use by trade.
 
As of 8 July 2017 the foreign currency exchange rates and its related currency rate query will no longer be provided via ABI. The rates will only be available on CBP.gov here.
 
Please email ASKACE@cbp.dhs.gov if you have any further questions or comments.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:
DHS/ICE) [Excerpts.]
 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Atlanta Special Agent in Charge Nick Annan and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Acting Atlanta Field Office Director Robert M. Del Toro signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the agencies Wednesday to implement the Atlanta Trade Enforcement Coordination Center (TECC). The signing of this memorandum in Atlanta establishes the eleventh TECC around the country, which exist to promote interagency collaboration, information sharing, and more efficient communication in an effort to enhance the trade enforcement mission of the member agencies.
 
The TECCs are established at the recommendation of a Commercial Fraud Working Group Field Evaluation and Implementation Plan which was issued by HSI and CBP Headquarters in January 2012. One of the recommendations of this plan was to establish integrated commercial fraud units at the field level. Many of the recommendations in the plan were met by integrating CBP and HSI commercial fraud units into the TECCs, which are co-located at ports of entry.
 
The Atlanta TECC will identify, inspect and investigate foreign trade suspected of being fraudulently imported through Atlanta. …
 
The TECC agreement provides for increased communication and information sharing about foreign imports and commercial fraud investigations. It will help to establish better processes for combating trade fraud and create a united form for pursuing prosecutions.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

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

 
Regulations:
  – Council Regulation (EU) 2017/964 of 8 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
  – Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/965 of 8 June 2017 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/150
  – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/970 of 8 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
 
Decisions:
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/974 of 8 June 2017 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
  – Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/972 of 8 June 2017 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/154
  – Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/975 of 8 June 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
 
Corrigenda:
  – Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria ( OJ L 139, 30.5.2017 )
  – Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria ( OJ L 139, 30.5.2017 )
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NWSNEWS

 
Following are highlights of regulatory effective dates and deadlines and federal agency meetings coming up in the next week.
 
  – 12 Jun: deadline for comments to USTR on NAFTA renegotiation objectives
  – 12 Jun: effective date of final revocation or modification of CBP rulings
  – 15 Jun: deadline for offset agreement/transaction reports to BIS
  – 16 Jun: deadline for comments to CBP on commercial invoice
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMCOMMENTARY

 
* Authors: David DiBari, Esq., david.dibari@cliffordchance.com, 202-912-5098; Wendy Wysong, Esq., wendy.wysong@cliffordchance.com, 202-912-5030; and George Kleinfeld, Esq., george.kleinfeld@cliffordchance.com, 202-912-5126. All of Clifford Chance.
 
On May 26, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a portion of a $4,073,000 civil penalty assessed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) against a California-based sound system wholesaler for violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (“ITSR”). However, the Court upheld OFAC’s broad interpretation of the ITSR that a violation occurs if an exporter has reason to know its exports to a third country are intended to be re-exported to Iran.
 
OVERVIEW
 
The case, Epsilon Electronics Inc. v. US Dep’t of Treasury, is a rare example of a partially successful appeal against an OFAC enforcement action under § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The US Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in regard to thirty-four alleged ITSR violations related to shipments to a third country, thereby upholding OFAC’s broad interpretation of the transhipment prohibition in ITSR § 560.204 and rejecting arguments that the “inventory exception” applied. However, the US Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions that OFAC further consider the basis for five other alleged violations and the total monetary penalty imposed for the thirty-four alleged ITSR violations.
 
The decision is available here.
 
BACKGROUND
In July 2014, OFAC issued a Penalty Notice assessing a $4,073,000 fine against Epsilon Electronics (“Epsilon”), a US-based car electronics company, for violating ITSR § 560.204 with respect to thirty-four shipments of audio equipment made to Asra International (“Asra”), a Dubai-based distributor, between 2008 and 2011 and five shipments made in 2012.
 
Section 560.204 states in relevant part:
 
. . . the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that:
 
(a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran
 
OFAC alleged that Epsilon had reason to know the goods were intended to be re-exported to Iran because, among other things, information from Asra’s website suggested the company was distributing exclusively in Iran.
 
Epsilon challenged the penalty in the US District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2014, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement action. Epsilon argued, among other things, that OFAC’s 2002 “Guidance on Transshipments to Iran” (the “2002 Guidance”) creates an exception to ITSR § 560.204 that allows US persons to export goods (that are not controlled under the US Export Administration Regulations) to distributors for their general inventory, even if the distributors later re-export the goods to Iran, provided the US exports were not specifically intended for re-export to Iran and/or the distributor’s sales were not predominantly to Iran. (Often referred to as the “inventory exception.”)
 
In March 2016, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of OFAC, rejecting Epsilon’s reading of the 2002 Guidance and holding that OFAC had sufficient evidence that Epsilon had reason to know that Asra intended to ship the goods to Iran given that Asra’s dealings at the time primarily were in Iran. 168 F. Supp. 3d 131.
 
REASON TO KNOW
 
On appeal, Epsilon again argued that the 2002 Guidance provided a safe harbor under the inventory exception. In addition, Epsilon argued that none of the thirty-nine shipments violated the ITSR because OFAC failed to produce substantial evidence showing that the shipments actually entered Iran.
 
The Court of Appeals reviewed the appellant’s claims under the APA § 706(2)(A) “arbitrary and capricious” standard. With respect to the ITSR, the Court held that § 560.204(a) unambiguously does not require a showing that goods entered Iran, only evidence of “(1) the exportation of goods to ‘a person in a third country’ and (2) ‘knowledge or reason to know’ that the third-country recipient plans to send the goods on to Iran.”
 
Furthermore, the Court held that the 2002 Guidance did not create an exception to § 560.204 or a safe harbor where an exporter knew or had reason to know goods were destined for Iran. Significantly, OFAC was not required to show that Epsilon in fact was aware that Asra’s dealings primarily were in Iran, but only that the information was available from, for example, Asra’s website.
 
Based on the foregoing, the Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling that OFAC had substantial evidence that Epsilon had reason to know that Asra would re-export its products to Iran for each of the thirty-four shipments made between 2008 and 2011.
 
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS
 
As to the remaining five shipments, in 2012, the Court of Appeals noted that OFAC had received copies of emails between Epsilon and Asra indicating that Asra would distribute Epsilon’s products in Dubai around the time of the five shipments. The emails were sent after Epsilon had received a January 2012 cautionary letter from OFAC concerning exports to Iran. The Court remarked that Epsilon could have believed that the five shipments were intended for Dubai, not Iran, and held that the administrative record, which included an internal OFAC memo, “failed to offer a sufficient explanation for why it did not credit the email evidence.”
 
Having found OFAC’s penalty with respect to the five shipments arbitrary and capricious, the Court considered the appropriateness of the penalty imposed for the thirty-four earlier shipments. After reviewing OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines, the Court concluded that OFAC had considered the five 2012 shipments (which occurred after the receipt of the cautionary letter) as an aggravating factor in its penalty assessment. The aggravating factor was applied to the penalty for all of the shipments. Based on this, the Court held that the penalty for the five shipments could not be severed, and remanded the case for OFAC to reconsider the penalty and the basis for the five alleged 2012 violations in a manner consistent with the Court’s opinion.
 
TAKEAWAYS
 
Examples of federal courts reviewing-let alone modifying- OFAC enforcement actions are few and far between. The Epsilon case is noteworthy in this regard, even though the appellant did not succeed in having the penalty overturned in its entirety. The case may embolden others to take a more aggressive defensive posture against future OFAC penalties where the factual or legal basis for the Penalty Notice is ambiguous.
 
On the other hand, the Court’s affirmation of OFAC’s interpretation of § 560.204 serves as a reminder of the importance of conducting adequate due diligence on customers and counterparties to look for ‘red flags’ that the products or services are intended for, or are likely to be re-exported to, sanctioned countries in violation of OFAC regulations. It also shows deferral to OFAC’s interpretation that the reason to know standard can be applied if there is relevant publicly available information, such as information on a website, even if the US person does not actually review it.
 
The case also offers insights into OFAC’s discretionary penalty calculation. OFAC found the thirty-four shipments to be violations, but found them non-egregious, perhaps because they did not find actual knowledge by Epsilon of Asra’s intention to ship to Iran. Further, penalty reductions available under the OFAC Enforcement Guidelines continue to create a significant incentive for voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation with OFAC investigations and settlements.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
* Author: George R. Tuttle III, Esq., Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, george.tuttle.iii@tuttlelaw.com, 415-986-8780.
 
Pursuant to the Court of International Trade (CIT) decision in Zojirushi American Corp v. U.S., Slip Op. 16-78 (August 4, 2016), CBP is permitting the use of the protest mechanism set forth in section 19 USC 1514 for those Preference Programs (e.g. Free Trade Agreements (FTA)) and Special Trade Legislation programs (STL) that do not have the statutory post-importation mechanism set forth under 19 USC 1520(d). 
 
Time is of the essence if your company wishes to pursue these matters. Protestants who wish to have their protests reconsidered must resubmit their protests within 180 days of the issuance of the February 15, 2017 memorandum, i.e. on or about August 14, 2017
 
If the original protest submission claiming preferential tariff treatment after importation was rejected as non-protestable, Protestants may request reliquidation of the entry through a new protest or through a letter which should include the following:
 
* Statement that this a resubmission of a previous preference claim that was rejected as non-protestable.
* Copy of the original protest showing that it was rejected as non-protestable.
* Certification of origin (or data elements) for the tariff-shift model FTAs that are subject to section 514: 
  – Australia FTA (AUFA) and 
  – Singapore FTA (SGFTA).
* Affidavit in lieu of a certification of origin for the following Free Trade Agreements: 
  – Bahrain FTA (BHFTA),
  – Israel FTA (ILFTA),
  – Jordan FTA (JOFTA), and
  – Morocco FTA (MAFTA).
* Affidavit in lieu of a certification of origin for the following Special Trade Legislation programs:
  – African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA),
  – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA),
  – Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA),
  – Civil Aircraft Agreement (CAA),
  – Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
  – Insular Possessions,
  – Intermediate Chemicals for Dyes (Intermediate Chemicals),
  – Agreement on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products (Pharma), 
  – Etc.
 
Re-submission may be done electronically through the ACE Protest Module via the ACE Portal or by hardcopy to the CBP Port of Entry.
 
Unliquidated entries under these programs may be processed using current Post Entry Amendment (PEA) or Post Summary Correction (PSC) procedures.
 
The Preference Programs (i.e. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Special Trade Legislation programs (STLs)) that are subject to 19 USC 1514 and do not have the statutory post-importation mechanism under 19 USC 1520(d) are:
 
  – African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),
  – Australia FTA (AUFTA),
  – Bahrain FTA (BHFTA),
  – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery ACT (CEBRA),
  – Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA),
  – Civil Aircraft Agreement (CAA),
  – Generalized System of Preferences (GSP),
  – Insular Possessions,
  – Israel FTA (ILFTA),
  – Intermediate Chemicals on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products (Pharma), and
  – Singapore FTA (SGFTA).
 
For preference programs that by law have a post-importation provision (i.e., Dominican Republic-Central America FTA (CAFTA-DR), Chile FTA (CLFTA), Columbia TPA (COTPA), Korea TPA (UKFTA), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Oman FTA (OMFTA), Panama TPA (PATPA), Peru TPA (PETPA)), a 520(d) post-importation claim remains the only appropriate mechanism to seek preference when not claimed at the time of importation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(Source:  
Export Law Blog, 8 Jun 2017.
 Reprinted by permission.)
 
* Author: R. Clifton Burns, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, Wash DC,
Clif.Burns@bryancave.com
, 202-508-6067)
 
Yesterday, and only hours after the ISIS attack on Tehran, the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a vote of 91-8 to allow a vote on S.722, the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. News reports suggest that further action on the bill, which is otherwise likely to pass the Senate, is being delayed for the moment based on a desire to tack onto the bill new Russia sanctions.
 
The pending legislation follows the pattern of recent Iran sanctions legislation. Rather than affirmatively imposing specific sanctions, the legislation would require the President to impose a variety of sanctions, including asset blocking, against companies and individuals, including foreign companies and individuals, who the President determines has assisted Iran in certain activities. Those activities are aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program, assisting Iran’s violations of human rights, and materially contributing to the transfer of arms to Iran.  Additionally, the President is directed to impose blocking and transactional sanctions on the “officials, agents, or affiliates” of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
 
Iran has argued, not surprisingly, that the Senate Bill is inconsistent with the JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. The strongest argument in this regard concerns the secondary sanctions imposed on non-U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Iran. Under section 1.8 of Annex II to the JPCPOA, the E.U. commits to lift its arms embargo on Iran. And under section 5.1.2 of Annex II, the United States commits to “license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

The proposed legislation would require the President to impose sanctions on foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies that engage in arms deals with Iran, which would appear to violate that commitment. Although nothing in the U.S. commitments forecloses it from imposing secondary sanctions on wholly-foreign companies that engage in arms trading with Iran, it would difficult to argue that the JPCPOA prevented secondary sanctions on foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies but not on wholly-foreign companies.
 
Of course, any violation here would be purely prospective. Under section 20.1 of Annex V, the arms embargo is not lifted until eight years after Implementation Day. Moreover, no violation would occur until the President actually designated a company under the proposed legislation, which may or may not ever happen. So although the proposed legislation might ultimately lead to a potential violation of the JCPOA, the simple adoption of the bill itself would not.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a215
. Friday List of Approaching Events

(Sources: Event sponsors.) 
 
Published every Friday or last publication day of the week. Send events to
apbosch@fullcirclecompliance.eu
, composed in the below format:

* DATE: PLACE; “TITLE;” SPONSOR; WEBLINK; CONTACT (email and phone number)

#” New listing this week:   
 
Continuously Available Training:
* Executive Masters: “
International Trade Compliance
;” University of Liverpool;
exed@liverpool.ac.uk
;
+44 (0) 20 768 24614
* E-Seminars: “
US Export Controls” / “Defense Trade Controls
;” Export Compliance Training Institute;
danielle@learnexportcompliance.com 
* On-Line: “
Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R)
;” Commerce/BIS; 202-482-2227
* E-Seminars: “
Webinars On-Demand Library
;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
 
Training by Date:

* Jun 11-13: Dublin IRL; “ICPA Dublin Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org
 

* Jun 12-14: Arlington VA; ”
8th Advanced Forum on DCAA & DCMA Cost, Pricing, Compliance & Audits;” American Conference Institute

* Jun 12-15: San Francisco; “
United States Export Control (EAR/OFAC/ITAR) Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977

* Jun 12: Shanghai China; “
5th Advanced China Forum on Import Compliance
;” American Conference Institute

* Jun 13: Philadelphia PA; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Jun 13: Webinar; ”
Using Incoterms® Properly to Avoid Disputes;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jun 14: Frankfurt am Main, Germany; “BAFA / BIS Export Control and Compliance Update 2;” Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle  

* Jun 14: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “Intermediate Seminar;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation; denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Beginners Workshop
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Making Better License Applications
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 
* Jun 15: Kegsworth, Derby UK; “
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military
;” UK/BIS Export Control Organisation;
denise.carter@bis.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jun 20: The Hague; “
Trade Controls: Current Challenges and Critical Issues from a US and EU Perspective
;” Netherlands International Chamber of Commerce

* Jun 20: Webinar; ”
International Payment Options 101;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jun 21-22: Miami FL; “Miami Forum on Anti-Corruption;” American Conference Institute

* Jun 21: Brussels, Belgium;
Export Controls and Economic Sanctions: US & EU Update 2017
;” International Chamber of Commerce Belgium

* Jun 21: Webinar; ”
Trade Preferences: One Goal, Different Approaches;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com

Jun 22: Sydney, Australia; “
ITAR, EAR and AU Export Controls Training
;” Defence Connect

*
Jun 26: London, UK; “
Smart Practice in Trade Security
;” Trade Security Journal

* Jun 27: Webinar; ”
Duty Drawback Reforms in the Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Bill;” Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.;
webinarorganizers@strtrade.com 

* Jul 5: Cambridge UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jul 5: Cambridge UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Jul 10-12; Baltimore MD; “
2017 Summer Back to Basics Conference
;” Society for International Affairs


* July 11-12: Seattle WA; “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;” spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018 / 410-757-1919

* Jul 17-19: Hilton Head Island SC; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars
*
Jul 20: Webinar; ”
Destination Control Statements;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP

* Jul 26-27: Oklahoma City OK; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Jul 26-27
: Seattle WA; “
2017 Export Controls Conference
;” Dept. of Commerce/U.S. Commercial Service, Dept. of Homeland Security/Homeland Security Investigations, Seattle University, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

*
Jul 27: Webinar; ”
Site Visits, Enforcement Actions, and Voluntary Disclosures;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP
*
Aug 1: Webinar; ”
Consideration for Exporting to China;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP

* Aug 14-16: McLean VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

*
Aug 17: Webinar; ”
Export Controls in the Cloud;” Shipman & Goodwin LLP

* Sep 4-9: Galveston TX;ICPA Conference at Sea;”

International Compliance Professionals Association; wizard@icpainc.org

* Sep 4: Glasgow, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 5: Glasgow, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 6: Nashville TN; ”
AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Sep 12-13: Annapolis MD; “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp;” spalmer@exportcompliancesolutions.com; 866-238-4018 / 410-757-1919

* Sep 12-13: Louisville KY; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 12-13: Milpitas CA; ”
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;” Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 12-13: Wash DC; “Interactive Export Controls Workshop;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Sep 14: Milpitas CA; “
Encryption Controls;”
Dept. of Commerce/Bureau of Industry and Security

* Sep 18-21: Austin TX; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar; ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977 * Sep 18-20: Las Vegas NV; “Basics of Government Contracting;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Sep 20-22: Houston TX; ”
Advanced Topics in Customs Compliance Conference;” Deleon Trade LLC
* Sep 27: Oxford, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Sep 27-28: Rome, Italy; “Defence Exports 2017;” SMi

* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 
* Sep 28: Oxford, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Oct 2-5: Columbus OH; “University Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Oct 12: Boston MA; “AES Compliance Seminar;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Oct 22-24: Grapevine TX; “
Annual ICPA Fall Conference
;” International Compliance Professional Association;
Wizard@icpainc.org 

* Oct 23-24: Arlington VA; “
2017 Fall Advanced Conference
;” Society for International Affairs

* Oct 30-Nov 2: Phoenix AZ; “
ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar
;” ECTI;
jessica@learnexportcompliance.com
; 540-433-3977
* Nov 5-7: Singapore; ”
ICPA Singapore Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 6-8: Chicago IL; “Basics of Government Contracting;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Nov 7: Norfolk, VA; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;
” Dept. of Commerce/Census
Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Nov 9-10: Shanghai, China;
ICPA China Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 

* Nov 13-16: Wash DC; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977

* Nov 15: Leeds, UK; ”
Intermediate Seminar;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Beginners Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Licenses Workshop;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Leeds, UK; ”
Control List Classification – Combined Dual Use and Military;” UK Department for International Trade;
denise.carter@trade.gsi.gov.uk 

* Nov 16: Nijkerk, the Netherlands; “Training Export Control;” evofenedex * Dec 4-7: Miami FL; “ITAR Defense Trade Controls / EAR Export Controls Seminar;” ECTI; jessica@learnexportcompliance.com; 540-433-3977 * Dec 5: San Juan PR; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov

* Dec 6: Wood Ridge NJ; “
AES Compliance Seminar
;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau;
itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 7: Laredo, TX; “AES Compliance Seminar in Spanish;” Dept. of Commerce/Census Bureau; itmd.outreach@census.gov 

* Dec 11-13: Sterling VA; “
Basics of Government Contracting
;” Federal Publications Seminars

* Mar 11-14: San Diego CA; ”
ICPA Annual Conference;”
International Compliance Professionals Association;
wizard@icpainc.org 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a116
. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

* Bill Burr (William Frederic Burr, born June 10, 1968, is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor, and podcaster. He recently played Patrick Kuby in the AMC crime drama series Breaking Bad, and created and starred in the Netflix animated sitcom F Is for Family. In 2017, Rolling Stone ranked him 17th on its list of 50 best stand-up comics of all time.)
  – “Don’t be like, ‘Alright, I got my hour down, people are coming to see me now. Now, I’m going to lean on the mike stand.’ No, you gotta work even harder now. You got to top what you already did. Because they’ll find someone else.”
 
* Jackie Mason (born Yacov Moshe Maza 9 Jun 1931, was a rabbi before becoming an American stand-up comedian and film and television actor. He is ranked #63 on Comedy Central’s list of 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all-time.)
  – “I have enough money to last me the rest of my life unless I buy something.”
 
* William Pollard (10 Jun 1828 – 26 Sep 1893, was a writer, teacher, and Quaker minister. He was co-author, with Frith and W.E. Turner, of the influential book A Reasonable Faith.)
  – “It is not always what we know or analyzed before we make a decision that makes it a great decision. It is what we do after we make the decision to implement and execute it that makes it a good decision.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
A lawyer moved into town and wanted to rent a house. He knew if he admitted he had twelve children, no one would rent to him because they feared the children would destroy the house. He could not say that he had no children, because that would be at lie and, as we know, lawyers cannot lie.  So he had an idea: He sent his wife for a walk to the cemetery with eleven of their children. He took the remaining one with him to see homes with the real estate agent. He liked one of the houses and said he wanted to rent it. The house owner asked, “How many children do you have?” He answered, “I have twelve children.” The owner asked, “Where are the others?” The lawyer answered, looking down with a sad look, “They are in the cemetery with their mother.” And that’s the way he was able to rent a house for his family without lying.  MORAL: It is not necessary to lie. You only have to choose the right words.  Lawyers don’t need to lie … they are creative.
  — Laura Lyons, Fremont, CA 

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

EN_a217. 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.  Changes to applicable regulations are listed below.
 
*
ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS
: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
  – Last Amendment:
15 Jan 2016: 81 FR 2657-2723: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm
 
*
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199
  – Last Amendment: 27 Jan 2017: 82 FR 8589-8590: Delay of Effective Date for Importations of Certain Vehicles and Engines Subject to Federal Antipollution Emission Standards [New effective date: 21 March 2017.]; and 82 FR 8590: Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions
[New effective date: 21 March 2017.]

* DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): DoD 5220.22-M
  – 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 canceled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM  (Summary here.)

* EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774 
  – Last Amendment: 26 May 2017: 82 FR 24242-24248: Addition of Certain Persons and Revisions to Entries on the Entity List

  
*
FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR)
: 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
  – Last Amendment: 10 Feb 2017: 
82 FR 10434-10440: Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties 
 
*
FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR)
: 15 CFR Part 30
– Last Amendment: 
19 Apr 2017: 
82 FR 18383-18393: Foreign Trade Regulations: Clarification on Filing Requirements 
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available 
here.
  – The latest edition (19 Apr 2017) 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 footnotes containing case annotations, practice tips, and Census/AES guidance.  Subscribers receive revised copies 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.

 
*
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA)
, 1 Jan 2017: 19 USC 1202 Annex. (“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 Apr 2017: Harmonized System Update 1703, containing 2,512 ABI records and 395 harmonized tariff records.
  – HTS codes for AES are available

here
.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available
here.
 
*
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR)
: 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130
  – Latest Amendment: 11 Jan 2017: 82 FR 3168-3170: 2017 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment
  – The only available fully updated copy (latest edition 8 Mar 2017) of the ITAR with all amendments is contained in Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“BITAR”), by James E. Bartlett III.  The BITAR contains all ITAR amendments to date, plus a large Index, over 750 footnotes containing 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.  

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

EN_a318
. 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.

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

EPEDITORIAL POLICY

* The Ex/Im Daily Update is a publication of FCC Advisory B.V., edited by James E. Bartlett III and Alexander Bosch, and emailed every business day to approximately 8,000 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, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, 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. Any further use of contributors’ material, however, must comply with applicable copyright laws.

* 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.

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Use the Safe Unsubscribe link below.

Scroll to Top