<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>RSS Feed</title><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/index.html</link><description>Global Trade Expertise Hot Topics/News</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2007 Global Trade Expertise </dc:rights><dc:date>2011-09-02T23:55:53-07:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:Jennifer Kessinger" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:58:50 -0700</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>Jennifer Kessinger</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Global Trade Expertise Hot Topics &#x26; News</itunes:name><itunes:email>info@globaltradeexpertise.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:category text="International Trade"/><itunes:keywords>international, trade, import, export, customs</itunes:keywords><itunes:subtitle>Your resource for international trade information and assistance.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary>Hot topics and news affecting the international trade community with regard to U.S. customs laws and regulations&#x2c; export controls under both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. State Department&#x2c; and international trade policy and politics.</itunes:summary><itunes:image href="http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/podcast_channel.png" /><item><title>CBP Adopts Changes to Country of Origin Rules Applicable to Certain Commodities</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2011-09-02T23:55:53-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bb96a37959479326fffcfac261dfd085-518.php#unique-entry-id-518</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bb96a37959479326fffcfac261dfd085-518.php#unique-entry-id-518</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) posted a final rule in the Federal Register amending the country of origin rules applicable to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber, rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products, as codified in part 102 of the CBP regulations. 

... The tariff shift rule in CBP regulations has been amended for commodities classified in headings 7301 through 7307, HTSUS, and now provides for a change within heading 7307 from fitting forgings or flange forgings to fittings or flanges made ready for commercial use by certain processing, including beveling, bore threading, center or step  boring, face machining, heat treating, recoining or resizing, taper  boring, machining ends or surfaces other than a gasket face, drilling  bolt holes, and burring or shot blasting. 

...The tariff shift rule for merchandise classified in headings 4901 through 4911, HTSUS, has been amended to include a specific rule for heading 4909, providing for a change to that heading from any other heading except from heading 4911 when the change is a result of adding text.   According to CBP, the effect of this change will enable the country of origin of all printed greeting cards to be determined according to the country of initial printing of literary text, photographs, graphic designs, or illustrations. 

...The tariff shift rule for subheading 9001.10, HTSUS, which encompasses optical fibers and optical fiber bundles and cables, has been amended to provide for a change to 9001.10 from any other subheading, except from subheading 8544.70, HTSUS, or glass preforms of heading 7002, HTSUS. 

...Tariff shift rule for subheading 1904.90, HTSUS, which encompasses certain rice preparations, has been amended to provide for a change to subheading 1904.90 from any other heading, except from heading 1006, HTSUS, or wild rice of subheading 1008.90, HTSUS. 

...102.21(c)(3)(ii) has been amended to add the words &ldquo;fabrics of chapter 59 and&rdquo; so that the amended text now reads &ldquo;Except for fabrics of chapter 59 and goods of heading * * *.&rdquo;   The proposed rule explained that this change would have the effect of ensuring that fabrics of chapter 59, HTSUS, derive their country of origin from where the fabric is formed, consistent with the statute. 

In addition, the tariff shift rule for goods classified in headings 6210 through 6212, HTSUS, has been amended by creating a separate rule for heading 6212, which encompasses &ldquo;brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted.&rdquo;   In the proposed rule, CBP noted that the existing tariff shift rule for headings 6210 through 6212 does not provide for the possibility of knit-to-shape goods, even though the body-supporting garments of heading 6212 may be knot to shape. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts New Dual and Third Country National Guidance</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2011-08-15T13:27:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/462b56de517c8722a9b242ce2388f8fd-517.php#unique-entry-id-517</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/462b56de517c8722a9b242ce2388f8fd-517.php#unique-entry-id-517</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of State&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted updated Guidelines for Implementing New Dual National/Third-Country National Policy for Agreements.   On its website, DDTC states:


The following guidance relates to the August 15, 2011 implementation of the new &sect;126.18 rule on dual and third country nationals.   The first document relates to the changes to agreements and will be incorporated into the new Guidelines as well.   D-TCN AG Guidance Final.


The following notional implementation plan is a suggested approach, but is by no means the only way of complying with the rule and its core principle of preventing diversion of defense articles to unauthorized end-users and end-uses.   Consistent with local national laws and programs for the control/protection of defense articles/technologies and consistent with the need for private entities to protect proprietary data, technology security plans should be designed with a comprehensive and individualized approach to securing sensitive data of all kinds with appropriate measures for physical security and personnel clearances.   D-TCN Policy Implementation Final.


Additional guidance and clarification is provided in the attached Frequently Asked Questions relating to both of the above documents.   D-TCN FAQs Final.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Notice of Open Meeting of PECSEA</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2011-08-24T12:33:26-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/191e79235c50ecc074c25a8179f107db-516.php#unique-entry-id-516</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/191e79235c50ecc074c25a8179f107db-516.php#unique-entry-id-516</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 24, 2011, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that the President&rsquo;s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on September 19 and 20, 2011, 10 a.m., at the Sofitel Hotel Miami, 5800 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, Florida 33126. 


The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons. 


BIS states that, &ldquo;A limited number of seats will be available for the public sessions on both days. ...  To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSEA.   Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting.   However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSEA members, the PECSEA suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to

...Export Control Reform Field Hearing.


...Welcome and Remarks by the Chairman and Vice Chair.

...Presentation of Papers or Comments by the Public.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes New &#x201c;Best Practices&#x201d; for Industry to Guard Against Unlawful Diversion through Transshipment Trade</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-08-31T12:25:23-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/24ba8ab618fe7f3fe15562d55276ee9c-515.php#unique-entry-id-515</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/24ba8ab618fe7f3fe15562d55276ee9c-515.php#unique-entry-id-515</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a new &ldquo;best practices&rdquo; guide for to help guard against the diversion of dual-use items shipped to a transshipment "hub," or to any intermediate country before being shipped to the country of ultimate destination. 

...Transshipment is a routine and growing part of legitimate world trade with logistical benefits, but also can be used illegally to disguise the actual country of ultimate destination.   Transshipment practices may also create a risk that items are diverted to unauthorized end-users or end-uses.


&ldquo;These new best practices provide a formidable tool to help secure trade through transshipment hubs,&rdquo; said Assistant Secretary for Export Administration Kevin J. 

...The following new best practices will help exporters, re-exporters, freight forwarders and other parties to comply with US export control regulations and laws and augment BIS&rsquo;s Export Management and Compliance Guidelines. 

...	&bull;	Seek to utilize only those trade facilitators and freight forwarders that administer sound export control management and compliance programs that include transshipment trade best practices.


...	&bull;	Provide the ECCN or the EAR99 classification to freight forwarders for all export transactions and report the classifications in the Automated Export System (AES), if applicable.


	&bull;	Use information technology to the maximum extent feasible to augment "know your customer" and other due-diligence measures in combating the threats of diversion and increase confidence that shipments will reach authorized end-users for authorized end-uses.


...This set of best practices, aimed at U.S industry, supports one of ten best practices suggested by the State Department&rsquo;s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation to foreign governments at the Global Transshipment Seminar in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in March 2011. 

...Dual-Use Items Subject to the Export Administration Regulations, Particularly through Transshipment Trade&rdquo; are posted on the BIS website.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian National Sentenced to Four Years in Prison for Conspiracy to Illegally Export Prohibited Parts to Iran </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Iran</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-08-15T12:22:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/180ba582b8d97f44227c0973932460ec-514.php#unique-entry-id-514</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/180ba582b8d97f44227c0973932460ec-514.php#unique-entry-id-514</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Davoud Baniameri, 38, an Iranian national who maintained a residence and business in California was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison after he pleaded guilty in May to one count of conspiracy to export goods and technology to Iran without a license from the U.S.   Department of Treasury in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and one count of attempting to export defense articles on the U.S. 

...According to the plea agreement, sometime before October 10, 2008, Mousavi, based in Iran, contacted Baniameri in California and requested that he purchase and export radio test sets from the United States to Iran, through Dubai.&nbsp;   Baniameri agreed and over the next few months negotiated the purchase of three Marconi radio test sets from a company in Illinois.&nbsp;   Baniameri arranged for the radio test kits to be sent to him in California, where he shipped them to Dubai, for ultimate transshipment to Iran, without the required export license. 

...The plea agreement also states that, sometime before August 10, 2009, Mousavi contacted Baniameri and requested that he purchase and export to Iran via Dubai 10 connector adapters for the TOW and TOW2 missile systems.&nbsp;   Baniameri agreed to purchase the items on behalf of Mousavi, and over the next few months, he admitted that he and his co-defendants attempted to purchase 10 connector adaptors from a company in Illinois, which unbeknownst to them, was in fact a company controlled by law enforcement.&nbsp;   In September 2009, Baniameri admitted that he directed Telemi to take possession of the connector adaptors in California after having paid $9,450 to a representative of the Illinois company.&nbsp;   To further facilitate the export of these items to Iran, Baniameri arranged to fly from the United States to Dubai and then from Dubai to Iran.&nbsp;   Baniameri did not attempt to obtain a license from the U.S. government for the export of the connector adaptors.&nbsp; ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Applicants Must Use the Newly Revised Commodity Jurisdiction Form (DS-4076)</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-08-05T12:20:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a3b349b5c4b72162b86593a43f17aff7-513.php#unique-entry-id-513</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a3b349b5c4b72162b86593a43f17aff7-513.php#unique-entry-id-513</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls posted on its web site a notice that, effective immediately, applicants must use the newly revised DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction form, Version Number 1.2.   All prior versions will be rejected at the time of submission. 

One significant change appears in Block 12 where a &ldquo;none&rdquo; check box has been added, which will allow applicants to indicate when there is no equivalent U.S. or foreign product.   Another change in Block 19 gives the applicant the option of directing DDTC to correspond with the applicant by email, to include notification of the final determination, rather than by means of the U.S.   Postal Service.&nbsp;  The new guidelines have been posted here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New Executive Order Blocks Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibits Certain Transactions With Respect to Syria</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Syria</category><dc:date>2011-08-18T12:17:28-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/df58ec5bb0ca90bcb9cf3808baf57481-512.php#unique-entry-id-512</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/df58ec5bb0ca90bcb9cf3808baf57481-512.php#unique-entry-id-512</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 18, 2011, in response to the Syrian Government&rsquo;s continuing escalation of violence against the people of Syria, President Obama signed Executive Order 13582 (E.O.) that imposed additional sanctions against the government of Syria. 

The E.O. blocks all Government of Syria&rsquo;s assets that are within the U.S. or within the control of any U.S. person, including any overseas branches.   In addition, the E.O. prohibits: 

(1) new investment in Syria by a U.S. person; 

(2) exports, reexports, sales, or provisions of direct or indirect services to Syria from the U.S., or by a U.S. person, wherever located; 

(3) imports into the U.S. of petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin; 

(4) any dealing by a U.S. person related to petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin; and (5) any approval, financial facilitation, or guarantee by a U.S. person of transactions by a foreign person where the transaction would be prohibited to a U.S. person. 

These sanctions are in addition to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13338 of May 11, 2004 (as amended), which blocks property of certain persons and prohibits the export of certain goods to Syria.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Recent OFAC Enforcement Actions </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-08-16T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4cbad3321e4cb76e72da1f86c4da27f5-511.php#unique-entry-id-511</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4cbad3321e4cb76e72da1f86c4da27f5-511.php#unique-entry-id-511</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[OFAC determined that Norton did not voluntarily self-disclose the violation to OFAC and that the violation constituted a non- egregious case. 

...The assessed penalty reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration that Norton had knowledge or reason to know that the conduct, activity, or transaction giving rise to the violation involved port charges with respect to a ship calling in Iran; Norton did not have a compliance program in place at the time of the violation; Norton has instituted remedial measures by adopting procedures to comply with OFAC&rsquo;s regulations in the future; Norton cooperated with OFAC by promptly responding to OFAC&rsquo;s administrative subpoena and providing OFAC all relevant information regarding the violation; and Norton has not been subject to an OFAC enforcement action in the five years preceding the date of the violation.

CMA CGM (America) LLC (CCA), of Norfolk, VA, has remitted $374,400 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, occurring between December 2004 and April 2008.   OFAC alleged that CCA, a global container shipping company, facilitated the exportation of goods from foreign ports to Sudan on at least two occasions and, in 28 separate transactions, accepted payments for shipping services provided by its foreign parent company, CMA CGM, or its foreign affiliates, in connection with shipments between third countries and Cuba, Iran, or Sudan. 

...OFAC determined that CCA did not voluntarily self-disclose the matter to OFAC and that the alleged violations constituted a non-egregious case. ...  The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following: the alleged violations appear to have resulted from a pattern of conduct over a period of approximately three years; given the size and scope of CCA&rsquo;s operations and the nature of its international business, it appears to have lacked an adequate compliance program to avoid U.S. sanctions violations; some of the goods exported from third countries to Cuba and Iran may have qualified as agricultural/medical products under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and, thus, may have been eligible for a license; CCA and CMA CGM have undertaken remediation to ensure that such alleged violations do not recur; CCA had not been the subject of OFAC penalties within the past five years; and CCA cooperated with OFAC throughout the investigation, including by requesting the cooperation of CMA CGM and its foreign affiliates in gathering relevant transaction data, and by agreeing to toll the statute of limitations.

...OFAC alleged that SGNY dealt in Iranian-origin services and/or facilitated transactions by a foreign person where the transactions by the foreign person would have been prohibited by the Regulations if performed by a U.S. person.   Specifically, OFAC alleged that SGNY, as the issuing bank of two letters of credit between two non-sanctioned parties, processed two payments under those letters of credit involving the shipment of cargo transported aboard vessels owned and/or managed by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines of Tehran, Iran, an Iranian entity. 

...The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following: SGNY improved its compliance program in response to the apparent violations by enhancing its internal controls related to screening trade finance transactions, and provided additional training to staff involved in processing such transactions; SGNY cooperated with OFAC&rsquo;s investigation and resolution of this matter; and OFAC has not issued a penalty notice or Finding of Violation against SGNY in the five years preceding the transactions at issue.

...OFAC determined that Heritage did not voluntarily self-disclose this matter to OFAC and the alleged violation constituted a non-egregious case. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Will Discontinue Mailing Paper Liquidation Notices to ABI Filers</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2011-08-17T11:50:11-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/873844635e23a076a1ed0400e6cbe18f-510.php#unique-entry-id-510</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/873844635e23a076a1ed0400e6cbe18f-510.php#unique-entry-id-510</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 17, 2011, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a final rule in the Federal Register amending Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to the method by which U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues courtesy notices of liquidation to importers of record whose entry summaries are filed in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). 

Currently, CBP provides an electronic courtesy notice to the ABI filers and a paper courtesy notice to the importer of record.   In an effort to streamline the notification process and reduce printing and mailing costs, CBP will discontinue mailing paper courtesy notices of liquidation.   Effective September 17, 2011, all ABI filers (importers of records and brokers that file as the agent of an importer of record) will receive electronic courtesy notices.   In addition, all importers of record with an Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Secure Data Portal Account can monitor the liquidation of their entries by using the reporting tool and the ACE Secure Data Portal Account.   Importers of record whose entries are not filed through ABI will continue to receive paper courtesy notices of liquidation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Revises Customs Bond Forms 301 and 301A</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2011-08-16T11:48:25-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/caf8263d78f3548a83c40ac2179afef4-509.php#unique-entry-id-509</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/caf8263d78f3548a83c40ac2179afef4-509.php#unique-entry-id-509</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Effective August 16, 2011, CBP announced that the new CBP Forms 301 (Customs Bond) and 301A (Addendum to CBP Form 301) are available via the &ldquo;Forms&rdquo; link on the Customs and Border Patrol&rsquo;s (CBP) website. 

Until January 1, 2012, the previous version of the CBP Form 301 (with an expiration date of 12/31/2010) or the revised CBP Form 301 (expiration date 3/31/2014) will be accepted by the CBP.   Beginning January 1, 2012, CBP will only accept the revised version of the CBP Forms 301 and 301A (with an expiration date of 3/31/2014). ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Singapore National Agrees to &#x24;100&#x2c;000 Fine and 25-year Denial Order to Settle Export Conspiracy Charges</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-08-10T11:46:35-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/34f9ef8e3caee64375b464ab046ec375-508.php#unique-entry-id-508</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/34f9ef8e3caee64375b464ab046ec375-508.php#unique-entry-id-508</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 10, 2011, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that Jianwei Ding of Singapore has agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty and have his export privileges denied for a period of 25 years, to settle allegations that he conspired to violate the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by knowingly and willfully attempting to export carbon fiber to China for use by the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) without the required export licenses. 

The carbon fiber at issue is controlled by BIS for nuclear non-proliferation and national security reasons and was valued at approximately $315,000.   According to BIS, from February 2007 through April 2008, Ding conspired with others to export two types of the carbon fiber to CAST in China, via Hong Kong and Singapore, without the required Department of Commerce license. 

BIS alleges that BIS used his position as a manager of several Singapore-based companies to acquired items for CAST.   In addition, He directed the activities of individuals and entities in the United States and Singapore to deceive U.S. suppliers and avoid detection by law enforcement, and provided the money used to obtain the controlled materials for export from the U.S. to China.

Ding received repeated warnings that an export license was required for the export of carbon fiber to China.&nbsp;   After the material had been purchased and stored in New York as part of the scheme, Ding ultimately directed a co-conspirator by email to export some carbon fiber to Hong Kong and some to a company under Ding&rsquo;s control in Singapore.&nbsp;

The items were stopped by Special Agents of BIS&rsquo;s Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) before they could be exported.&nbsp;   Ding subsequently was arrested when he attempted to enter the U.S. and is now incarcerated in a federal prison.   Prior to settling BIS&rsquo;s administrative charge, Ding entered a guilty plea to criminal charges of conspiracy to violate the EAR and was sentenced to a period of 46 months imprisonment.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Effective September 26&#x2c; 2011&#x2c; ITAR Registration Fees to be Submitted Electronically </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-07-28T11:44:41-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b5dded3cfc6d590335b2e92507b8f9bb-507.php#unique-entry-id-507</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b5dded3cfc6d590335b2e92507b8f9bb-507.php#unique-entry-id-507</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 28, 2011, Department of State issued a final rule in the Federal Register amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to change the method of payment of registration fees. 

Effective September 26, 2011, registration fees must be submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) electronically. 

Previously, registrants submitted registration fees to the DDTC by check or money order, and these payments were processed manually.   According to the Department of State, electronic submission of registration fees will simplify the collection and verification of payments, eliminate the need to manually process and collect returned payments, and eliminated the possibility of lost payments.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Session and Panel Presentations from Update 2011 Conference on Export Controls &#x26; Policy</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-07-21T13:07:16-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a4363b72f30c3131ff8fe14b5e75621c-506.php#unique-entry-id-506</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a4363b72f30c3131ff8fe14b5e75621c-506.php#unique-entry-id-506</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted on its website session and panel presentations from Update 2011 Conference on Export Control & Policy that detail the status of Export Control Reform implementation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Proposed Revisions to EAR re: Control of Items that No Longer Warrant ITAR Control Under the USML</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2011-07-15T13:05:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5de129643289f0005b8d352abb5d4a9b-505.php#unique-entry-id-505</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5de129643289f0005b8d352abb5d4a9b-505.php#unique-entry-id-505</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 15, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a rule in the Federal Register proposing a new regulatory construct for the transfer of items on the USML that, in accordance with section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the President determines no longer warrant control under the AECA and that would be controlled under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Commerce Control List (CCL) once the congressional notification requirements of section 38(f) and corresponding amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and its USML and the EAR and its CCL are completed.  

This rule also proposes amending the EAR to establish a process by which certain items moving from the USML to the CCL would be made eligible for License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA), and proposes EAR amendments related to movement of USML items to the CCL, such as new definitions of relevant terms, including &ldquo;specially designed,&rdquo; &ldquo;end items,&rdquo; &ldquo;parts,&rdquo; and &ldquo;components.&rdquo;   The proposed rule also establishes a new holding Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) in which items that warrant a significant level of control, but are not otherwise classified on the CCL, may be temporarily placed.

Finally, the rule proposes the transfer of an initial tranche of items from USML Category VII (Tanks and Military Vehicles) to the CCL.

Comments to BIS are due September 13, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Adds the New State of the Republic of South Sudan</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Sudan</category><dc:date>2011-07-09T13:04:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/61192137a3b22ffc7f3b0a5d7345e2b3-504.php#unique-entry-id-504</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/61192137a3b22ffc7f3b0a5d7345e2b3-504.php#unique-entry-id-504</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 13, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) adding controls on exports and reexports of U.S.-origin dual-use items to a new nation, the Republic of South Sudan. 

In January 2011, the region of Southern Sudan held a referendum to determine whether that region would remain part of Sudan or become a separate, independent nation.   On February 7, 2011, the referendum commission announced that the region of Southern Sudan had voted to become a separate nation, effective July 9, 2011. 

On February 7, 2011, recognizing this development in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), President Obama announced the intention of the U.S. to formally recognize the Republic of South Sudan as a sovereign state in July, 2011. 

BIS amended the EAR to reflect the July 9, 2011 formal recognition by adding the new nation, the Republic of South Sudan, to the Commerce Country Chart.   The new country is included in Country Group B, which will render the destination eligible for certain export and reexport License Exceptions.   The controls that continue to apply to &ldquo;Sudan&rdquo; under the EAR will not apply to the Republic of South Sudan.

This rule is effective July 9, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Former Managing Director of PPG Paints Trading (Shanghai) Co.&#x2c; Ltd.&#x2c; Charged with IEEPA and EAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-07-08T13:02:15-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b38157f3ccd8eb98d6ba60e582d4701-503.php#unique-entry-id-503</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b38157f3ccd8eb98d6ba60e582d4701-503.php#unique-entry-id-503</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 8, 2011, the Bureau of Security and Security (BIS) announced that Xun Wang, a former Managing Director of PPG Paints Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary of U.S.-based PPG Industries, Inc., has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and other related offenses.

Specifically, Wang, 51, is accused of conspiring to export and reexport, and exporting and reexporting specially designed, high-performance epoxy coatings to the Chashma 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Chashma II) in Pakistan, a nuclear reactor owned and/or operated by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. 

...Wang was arrested on the indictment on June 16, 2011, at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport and transferred to the District of Columbia. 

...The indictment against Wang is related to the December 21, 2010, guilty plea of PPG Paints Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ...  Together, PPG Paints Trading and its parent company, PPG Industries, Inc., paid $3.75 million in criminal and administrative fines and over $32,000 in restitution. 

...According to the indictment against Wang, in January 2006, PPG Industries sought an export license for the shipments of coatings to Chashma II. ...  Following that denial, Wang and her co-conspirators agreed upon a scheme to export and reexport the high-performance epoxy coatings from the U.S. to Chashma II, via a third-party distributor in People&rsquo;s Republic of China (PRC), without the required export license from the DOC.

The indictment further alleges that from June 2006 through March 2007, Wang and other co-conspirators intentionally concealed from PPG Industries that the paint would be delivered to Chashma II.   Specifically, they falsely stated that the coatings were to be used at a nuclear power plant in China, the export of goods to which would not require a license from the DOC.   The indictment alleges that, through these means, Wang and her co-conspirators took part in three shipments of coatings from the United States to Chashma 2 without the required license.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Now Posting the Status of Commodity Jurisdiction Cases</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2011-07-15T12:54:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/271b564b227762f466c18bd64bd8997b-502.php#unique-entry-id-502</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/271b564b227762f466c18bd64bd8997b-502.php#unique-entry-id-502</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Department of State&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) is now weekly posting the processing status of commodity jurisdiction (CJ) requests.   Users can look up the status of their case by the commodity jurisdiction case number via the CJ Status Spreadsheet.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Instructions re: Post-Importation Preference Program Claims with a Classification Change</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2011-06-23T12:50:23-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d814ddabf3730e857a2ab2acb4b7e8cd-501.php#unique-entry-id-501</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d814ddabf3730e857a2ab2acb4b7e8cd-501.php#unique-entry-id-501</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 23, 2011, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued instructions for the trade community regarding post-importation preference program claims under 19 U.S.C. &sect; 1520(d) that involve a tariff classification change. 

The instructions provide that if a preference claim is not made at the time of importation, post-importation preference claims can be made within one year from the date of importation.   This statutory provision does not allow for other changes and/or amendments to an entry summary, therefore importers and brokers must use existing regulatory provisions to make corrections to an entry summary. 

CBP instructions also state that, &ldquo;when a post-importation preference program claim under 19 USC 1520(d) is presented on an unliquidated entry which also requires a Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification change, the tariff change should be presented as a Post Entry Amendment (PEA) or Post Summary Correction (PSC) in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), simultaneously with the 520(d) submission.&rdquo;

PSC functionality was deployed in ACE effective June 4, 2011.    Therefore, 520(d) claims should reference any PSC filed in ACE to ensure any classification changes are taken into account prior to the processing of the 520(d).    For ACE entry summaries importers or filers should also add language to the PSC Filing Explanation Record that confirms the filing of the 520(d) claim.

When a post-importation preference program claim under 19 USC 1520(d) is presented on a liquidated entry which also requires a HTSUS classification change, the tariff change should be presented as a 19 USC 1514, protest, simultaneously with the 520(d) submission.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>North Carolina CEO Fined for Unauthorized Exports to Libya</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-07-01T12:41:30-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/594bd410996401e3c966557729ac28a1-500.php#unique-entry-id-500</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/594bd410996401e3c966557729ac28a1-500.php#unique-entry-id-500</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 1, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that Mohammed El-Gamal, also known as Moe Zayed El-Gamal (Gamal), President and CEO of Applied Technology, Inc.   (ATI) of Kenansville, NC, has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $340,000 to settle allegations that he violated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting controlled networking equipment to Libya without the required export licenses.  

BIS alleged that on three occasions during June and July of 2006, Gamal sent networking equipment, controlled for Anti-Terrorism reasons, to the General Electric Company of Libya, without the required Department of Commerce licenses.   In connection to one of these shipments, agents searched an ATI employee flying from Detroit, MI to Libya and found three computer cards hidden in his carry-on luggage. 

To settle the administrative case, Gamal agreed to conduct a compliance audit of ATI covering the first year of exports following the settlement, put in place a compliance program, attend BIS export compliance training, and complete an audit for past exports.

On February 14, 2011, Gamal also pleaded guilty in the District Court for District of Columbia to one count of Material False Statements made to agents in the course of investigation.   On May 16, 2011, he was sentenced by United States District Judge to pay a fine of $5,000, to perform 100 hours of community service, and to serve two years supervised probation.&nbsp;   The judge also ordered Gamal to provide monthly reports to the Department of Commerce regarding his export activities during the probationary period.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Amends Libyan Sanctions Regulations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Libya</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2011-07-01T12:36:52-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c7798f4053783ba8062a6167088f6db9-499.php#unique-entry-id-499</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c7798f4053783ba8062a6167088f6db9-499.php#unique-entry-id-499</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 1, 2011, the Department of the Treasury&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. &sect; 570, to implement Executive Order 13566 dated February 25, 2011.   The regulations have been published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public.   OFAC intends to supplement this part of the regulations in the future. 

Effective July 1, 2011, sections 570.506 and 570.508 replace and supersede General License Nos. 3 and 2, respectively, which have been removed from OFAC&rsquo;s web site.   General License Nos.   1B, 4, and 5, as well as certain statements of licensing policy, are not being incorporated into the Regulations at this time and remain available on OFAC&rsquo;s web site. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Changes to ECCN 4A003 and Revisions to License Exception APP</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-06-24T21:35:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f509d55cfc9aa067e6bf5b8474638b67-498.php#unique-entry-id-498</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f509d55cfc9aa067e6bf5b8474638b67-498.php#unique-entry-id-498</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 24, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule revising the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar List) maintained and agreed to by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA) at the December 2009 WA Plenary Meeting (the Plenary) that relate to Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 4A003.


This rule also makes corresponding revisions to License Exception APP, the de minimis rule, and post shipment verification reporting requirements in the EAR.


Additionally, this rule moves Albania and Croatia from Computer Tier 3 to Computer Tier 1 in the section of the EAR dedicated to export control requirements for high performance computers.   The Administration believes Albania and Croatia are eligible to be treated as Computer Tier 1 countries because their governments have made the necessary reforms to allow the countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and have adopted accepted global standards in export controls.


This rule is effective on June 24, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Revokes the Suspension of a &#x24;2M Penalty and Accelerates Payment of Outstanding &#x24;5.2 Penalty for Balli Group</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-06-13T21:25:20-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0a2c96a1b266b3b2dd8d34c7e2a76ae0-497.php#unique-entry-id-497</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0a2c96a1b266b3b2dd8d34c7e2a76ae0-497.php#unique-entry-id-497</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 13, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that in response to a May 20, 2011 order revoking the suspension of a $2M civil penalty and invoking the acceleration clause for the two remaining $2.6M installment payments, Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation paid a total of $7.2M in civil penalties.


BIS and the Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) had entered into an agreement with Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation Ltd. (collectively &ldquo;Balli&rdquo;) in February 2010, with civil penalties totaling $15M, originally suspending $2M, regarding allegations that Balli conspired to export or reexport commercial aircraft from the United States to Iran in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR).   This case represented the largest civil penalty ever imposed by BIS.


In his revocation order, BIS Assistant Secretary Mills stated: "[Balli] failed in my judgment to arrange its business and financial affairs in such a manner as to ensure compliance with its civil penalty payment obligations &ndash; obligations that were imposed, moreover, as a result of Balli&rsquo;s egregious conduct that violated U.S. export control laws and provided support to Iran and its proliferation efforts."


BIS previously had charged that between 2005 and 2008 Balli conspired with an Iranian airline to export or reexport U.S.-origin Boeing 747 aircraft to Iran without the required U.S. ...  Specifically, three of the aircraft were flying on routes in and out of Iran using Iranian flight numbers while under the operational control of the Iranian airline.   Balli allowed the aircraft to continue to be operated contrary to U.S. export control laws, despite warnings from BIS and the manufacturer.   Additionally, Balli misled and concealed information from BIS regarding the role the Iranian airline played in the acquisition and financing of the aircraft via funds from the Iranian Foreign Exchange Reserve Fund.


BIS also had charged that from July 2008, through September 2008, Balli took actions prohibited by a BIS order temporarily denying its export privileges.   Balli conducted negotiations with persons, including another person subject to the Temporary Denial Order, concerning financing, receiving and/or using three additional U.S.-origin aircraft that had been exported from the United States and are subject to the EAR.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Seeks Comments on Export/Import Licenses&#x2c; Agreements&#x2c; Reports&#x2c; and Record Maintenance Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2011-06-30T21:20:46-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e5a22ff9e37687ac9ce295be4b73679f-496.php#unique-entry-id-496</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e5a22ff9e37687ac9ce295be4b73679f-496.php#unique-entry-id-496</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 30, 2011, the Department of State posted a notice in the Federal Register seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection requirements for the following: 

	&bull;	DSP-5: Application/License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Defense Articles and Related Unclassified Technical Data; 

	&bull;	DSP-61: Application/License for Temporary Import of Unclassified Defense Articles; 

	&bull;	DSP-73: Application/License for Temporary Export of Unclassified Defense Articles; 

...	&bull;	DSP-85: Application/License for Permanent/Temporary Export or Temporary Import of Classified Defense Articles and Classified Technical Data; 

	&bull;	DSP-94: Authority to Export Defense Articles and Services Sold under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program; 

	&bull;	DSP-6, DSP-62, DSP-74, DSP-84, DSP-119: Application for Amendment to License for Export or Import of Classified or Unclassified Defense Articles and Related Technical Data; 

	&bull;	Request for Approval of Manufacturing License Agreements, Technical Assistance Agreements, and Other Agreements;

	&bull;	Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, or Commissions in Connection with the Sale of Defense Articles or Services; and

...Comments are due to the Department of State within 60 days from June 30, 2011 or by August 29, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ITA Seeks Comments Regarding Cooperation between the US and EU </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>ITA </category><category>Export</category><category>EU</category><dc:date>2011-06-23T21:19:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3ed43cc5c84f3ecb89251ebf28e24850-495.php#unique-entry-id-495</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3ed43cc5c84f3ecb89251ebf28e24850-495.php#unique-entry-id-495</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 23, 2011, U.S.   Department of Commerce International Trade Commission (ITA) reopened the comment period regarding regulatory cooperation activities between the U.S. and the EU that would help eliminate to reduce unnecessary divergences in regulation and in standards that impede U.S. exports. 

ITA seeks comments on the following possible types of cooperative regulatory activities between the United States and the European Union:  Information-sharing agreements; technical assistance; memoranda of understanding, mutual recognition agreements; collaboration between regulators before initiating rulemaking proceedings; agreements to align particular regulatory measures; equivalency arrangements; and accreditation of testing laboratories or other conformity assessment bodies. 


These comments will serve as a basis for discussion with the European Union on regulatory cooperation activities to undertake which will support the President's National Export Initiative and serve as a basis for discussion within the U.S.&mdash; EU High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum.


Comments are due August 8, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Seeks Comments on Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Customs Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2011-06-13T21:17:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/783bcf1f90ce7ae57d0e38d2a2add835-494.php#unique-entry-id-494</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/783bcf1f90ce7ae57d0e38d2a2add835-494.php#unique-entry-id-494</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 13, 2011, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on an information collection requirement concerning the Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred.  

CBP Form 4609, the Petition for Remission of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred, is completed and filed with the CBP Port Director by individuals who have been found to be in violation of one or more provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, or other laws administered by the CBP.   Persons who violate the Tariff Act are entitled to file a petition seeking mitigation of any statutory penalty imposed or remission of a statutory forfeiture incurred.   This petition is submitted on CBP Form 4609 and used by CBP personnel as 

a basis for granting relief from forfeiture or penalty. 


Comments are due by August 12, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts a New Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2011-06-03T21:15:12-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec32176c269bb9c6edeec6bfa6e68410-493.php#unique-entry-id-493</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec32176c269bb9c6edeec6bfa6e68410-493.php#unique-entry-id-493</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that effective June 3, 2011, applicants must download and use the updated DS-4074 Version 1.1.    All prior versions of the form will be rejected.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Will No Longer Mail Copies of Approved Bond Submissions to the Bond Principals</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2011-06-01T21:11:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a17b1abee7c42e221c6a7fc310a5b152-492.php#unique-entry-id-492</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a17b1abee7c42e221c6a7fc310a5b152-492.php#unique-entry-id-492</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection&rsquo;s (CBP) Revenue Division will no longer mail copies of approved bond submissions to bond principals via U.S. mail.   Principals can confirm the approval of all continuous bond submissions including new bonds, riders, and terminations via ACE portal account access.   The trade community can also validate continuous bond approvals using other electronic methods such as the Automated Broker Interface and Automated Surety Interface. 

The Revenue Division will provide copies of recently approved continuous bond submissions at no charge if a valid request is received from a principal associated with the bond as follows:


...Requests received after 30 calendar days may use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process.

	&bull;	The request must identify the specific documentation being requested, such as a copy of a new bond, rider, or termination paperwork.   The request must reference the applicable 9-digit CBP bond number and the principal&rsquo;s importer number.

	&bull;	These email requests must use an email subject line that begins with the words &ldquo;Bond Copy Request&rdquo;.

The Revenue Division will only provide requested copies as an email &lsquo;reply&rsquo; to received requests which fully satisfy all of the above conditions.   In addition to the above, principals continue to have the option of obtaining copies of continuous bond paperwork via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process at any time.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP E-Allegation Leads to Criminal Conviction</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Customs</category><category>Antidumping</category><dc:date>2011-06-15T21:08:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/03f56c2de41e83b2518b514b02abc44d-491.php#unique-entry-id-491</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/03f56c2de41e83b2518b514b02abc44d-491.php#unique-entry-id-491</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 15, 2011, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection&rsquo;s (CBP) announced that analysts of its trade fraud targeting unit, responding to a complaint filed through E-Allegations, CBP&rsquo;s online trade violation reporting system, uncovered a transshipment scheme to avoid paying antidumping duties on imported steel-wire hangers.   The scheme was identified in December 2009 after analyzing a commercial allegation.  

Analysts pursued the lead, piecing together information about a Mexican manufacturer who appeared to be involved in the alleged illegal scheme where the hangers were shipped form China to the U.S., sent to Mexico, and then imported back into the U.S. as products of Mexico.    The 55-count indictment in the Southern District of California included conspiracy, entry of goods by means of false statements, false statement, wire fraud, and money laundering.  

The filing resulted in the sentencing of the responsible individual from Tijuana, Mexico, to 70 months in federal prison and an order to pay more than $3 million in restitution to the U.S. government as well as a forfeiture of more than $4 million in proceeds gained through the illegal transshipment scheme. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nationals of Four Countries Indicted for Supplying Iran with U.S. Military Aircraft Components</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-06-23T21:06:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0491912a5b172d5ede322f3fedcfbf2a-490.php#unique-entry-id-490</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0491912a5b172d5ede322f3fedcfbf2a-490.php#unique-entry-id-490</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice announced that seven individuals and five companies based in the U.S., France, the UAE, and Iran have been indicted in the Middle District of Georgia for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to illegally export military components for fighter jets and attack helicopters from the U.S. to Iran.   Specifically, eight of the defendants were charged with conspiring to violate and violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations, as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States, money laundering and false statement violations. 

One of the defendants and his company were sentenced on June 22, 2011, with the individual receiving almost five years in prison. 

...The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to export components for attack helicopters and fighter jets to Iran without the required U.S. export licenses.   These components included military parts for the Bell AH-1 attack helicopter, the UH-1 Huey attack helicopter, as well as the F-5 and F-4 fighter jets.

One of the defendants and his company in the U.A.E. are alleged to have placed orders and purchased military aircraft parts, including those for the Bell AH-1 attack helicopter, from a defendant and his company in the U.S., who then exported the aircraft parts to the U.A.E. 

One defendant in Illinois is alleged to have placed orders and purchased U.S. aircraft parts from another defendant in Georgia on behalf of an Iranian national and his company in Iran.    The charges specify that the defendant in Georgia and other defendants exported the aircraft parts to Iran via defendants in France. 

...A maximum penalty for an AECA violation is 20 years in prison, and an IEEPA violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.    Money laundering carries a maximum 20 years in prison, while making false statements carries a maximum of five years in prison.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements Strategic Trade Authorization License Exception</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-06-16T21:03:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5c5d3166fb8155cb75f615d1cf170f47-489.php#unique-entry-id-489</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5c5d3166fb8155cb75f615d1cf170f47-489.php#unique-entry-id-489</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 16, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted a final rule in the Federal Register that adds the Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) license exception to the Export Administrations Regulations (EAR).   STA authorizes the export, reexport, and transfer (in- country) of specified items to destinations that pose relatively low risk that those items will be used for a purpose that licensing requirements were designed to prevent.  

To use the STA license exception, parties to the transaction must exchange notifications and statements designed to provide assurance against diversion of such items to other destinations.   The exception is only relevant to exports, reexports, and transfers for which a license is required under the EAR.   Thus, if the EAR do not impose an obligation to apply for and receive a license before exporting, reexporting, or transferring an item subject to the EAR, STA is not relevant to the transaction. 

STA license exception is expected to facilitate exports between the U.S. and partner countries while enhancing the competitiveness of U.S.&rsquo;s key industrial base sectors. 

The final rule is effective June 16, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Final Determination on Country of Origin of Pocket Projectors</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-05-24T18:43:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0516b49114cbbacef841c0fb07fcd95a-488.php#unique-entry-id-488</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0516b49114cbbacef841c0fb07fcd95a-488.php#unique-entry-id-488</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 24, 2011, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a final determination concerning the country of origin of pocket projectors in the Federal Register. 


In the determination, CBP stated that:


CBP was asked to consider two manufacturing scenarios, under which certain operations would be performed in Taiwan or in China.   Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the manufacturing and testing operations performed in Taiwan do not substantially transform the non-TAA country components.   The light engine module and the PCBA main board are the essence of the projectors and it is at their production where the last substantial transformation occurs.   Therefore, when the light engine module and PCBA main board module are assembled and programmed in China, the country of origin of the projectors is China for purposes of U.S. government procurement.   However, if the light engine module and PCBA main board module are assembled and programmed in Taiwan, then the country of origin of the projectors is Taiwan for purposes of U.S. government procurement.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Assistant Commissioner Allen Gina Testifies on AD/CV Duties</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>CBP</category><category>Policy</category><category>Antidumping</category><dc:date>2011-05-06T18:19:03-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2eed78f3f6472265f43135e41c14978c-487.php#unique-entry-id-487</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2eed78f3f6472265f43135e41c14978c-487.php#unique-entry-id-487</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 6, 2011, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) posted the testimony of CBP Assistant Commissioner Allen Gina, Office of International Trade, before the Senate Finance Committee International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness Subcommittee.   Gina discussed CBP&rsquo;s role in detecting and preventing the circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD) on imported goods.  


Gina&rsquo;s testimony highlighted CBP&rsquo;s enforcement stance, provided examples of actions and initiatives performed in support of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws, and presented some of the challenges CBP faces while enforcing those laws.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Guidance on CBP Form 28 and 29 Language</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2011-05-24T18:13:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eb671455496e31f23815a7cc07bc33ec-486.php#unique-entry-id-486</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eb671455496e31f23815a7cc07bc33ec-486.php#unique-entry-id-486</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection&rsquo;s (CBP) policy concerning the appropriate issuance of CBP Form 28, Request for Information and CBP Form 29, Notice of Action.


...The CBP Form 28 is used by CBP when there is insufficient information in the entry summary package to determine admissibility, appraised value, or classification of imported merchandise. 

...CBP has advised the field to limit the use of the CBP Form 28 for the purposes stated above and not extend its use as notification that a formal investigation has commenced as a matter of enforcement policy, not a matter of law.   The preferred mechanism to inform the importer of the commencement of an investigation is by correspondence on CBP letterhead or the CBP Form 29.


CBP has also advised the field that the CBP Form 28 shall not be used to request proof of a properly executed valid power of attorney.   CBP shall request proof of a properly executed valid power of attorney during a broker compliance visit or via an individually drafted letter.


...Generally, as stated in 19 CFR 152.2, an entry which is entered at a rate or value of merchandise which is too low, or the import quantity exceeds that of the entered quantity, and the estimated aggregate increase in duties exceeds $15, CBP will notify the importer of the specific nature of the difference.   If the rate advance is a proposed action, the importer is afforded 20 days, from the date of CBP mailing the CBP Form 29, to furnish CBP with specific reasons why the rate advance should not be issued.


It is CBP&rsquo;s goal to act uniformly in providing legal notification to the appropriate party when proposing or taking certain actions.   CBP should avoid using language on these forms such as &ldquo;failure to provide information could lead to penalties under 19 USC 1592&hellip;&rdquo; or &ldquo;this office is investigating the classification of&hellip;&rdquo; if in fact an investigation is not already in process. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Publishes Final Rule on Dual and Third-Country Nationals Employed by Foreign End Users</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC </category><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-05-16T16:38:27-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6808cb77e7043a409cd54d4de6337435-485.php#unique-entry-id-485</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6808cb77e7043a409cd54d4de6337435-485.php#unique-entry-id-485</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 16, 2011, the Department of State published a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to establish a policy to address those who are unable to implement the exemption for intra-company, intra-organization, and intra-government transfers of defense articles and defense services by approved end-users to dual national and third-country nationals who are employees of such approved end-users. 


Prior to making transfers to certain dual national and third-country national employees under this policy, approved end-users must screen employees, make an affirmative decision to allow access, and maintain records of screening procedures to prevent diversion of ITAR-controlled technology for purposes other than those authorized by the applicable export license or other authorization.


The Department of State is amending parts 124 and 126 of the ITAR to reflect new policy regarding end-user employment of dual nationals and third-country nationals.   As a part of the President&rsquo;s Task Force on Export Control Reform, the previous policy regarding the treatment of dual nationals and third-country nationals employed by approved end users was re-evaluated.   A proposed rule to eliminate the separate licensing requirement for dual nationals and third-country nationals employed by licensed end-users was presented for public comment.   The proposed rule had a comment period ending September 10, 2010.   Thirty-two parties filed comments recommending changes, which the DDTC analyzes and addresses in the publication. 


The rule is effective August 15, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts Testimony of Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher on Export Controls Reform</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2011-05-12T16:33:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2db439f5edcd60699163678f2c825c56-484.php#unique-entry-id-484</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2db439f5edcd60699163678f2c825c56-484.php#unique-entry-id-484</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 12, 2011, Department of State posted testimony of Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher on export controls reform before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

The Under Secretary testified that the task force created to develop the new export controls regime is currently implementing Phase II. ...  Munitions List (USML) and the Commerce Control List (CCL) so that they use common technologies and structures. 

The Under Secretary said that, &ldquo;State, Commerce, and Treasury are also in the process of adopting the Department of Defense&rsquo;s export licensing computer system, which will be part of a unified, cross-government computer system for export control purposes.   As part of this effort, exporters eventually will use a single form for applications to State, Commerce and Treasury. 

...To address commodity jurisdiction determination issues, the State Department is working with the Departments of Defense and Commerce to create a &ldquo;bright line&rdquo; between munitions and dual-use items, which will finally provide clear guidance to exporters on commodity jurisdiction issues.   Ellen Tauscher stated that, &ldquo;this is necessary to update our system that is still designed with the assumption that technologies are developed for the military and only later find their way into the commercial sector, whereas, today, that is often the exception rather than the rule.&rdquo;

As part of the USML review, agencies are developing a process for transferring items from the USML to the CCL which includes deciding on the appropriate licensing requirements on items that are moved to the CCL. 

The Under Secretary also noted the Obama Administration also wants to improve the process for notifying Congress about arms sales and the transfer of items from the United USML as over the years the &ldquo;process has become lengthy and unpredictable.&rdquo; 

The Under Secretary concluded that Phase III will complete the reform process by creating the &ldquo;four singularities&rdquo; &ndash; a single control list, a single information technology system, a single enforcement coordination agency, and a single licensing agency. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BAES Agrees to &#x24;79M Consent Agreement with DDTC</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-05-17T16:05:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/82c4154d847a4fe429c0b994236c7222-483.php#unique-entry-id-483</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/82c4154d847a4fe429c0b994236c7222-483.php#unique-entry-id-483</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, judgment was filed against BAE Systems plc (&ldquo;BAES&rdquo;) for conspiracy to violate certain U.S. laws, including the Arms Export Control Act (&ldquo;AECA&rdquo;).   On May 16, 2011, the Department issued an Order after entering into a Consent Agreement with BAES regarding alleged civil violations of the AECA and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) committed by BAES.   See Proposed Charging Letter here.


Under the Consent Agreement, BAES agrees to pay a total civil penalty of $79 million.   Sixty-nine million dollars will be paid through several installments: (1) $18M to be paid within 10 days of the Order; (2) $17M to be paid within 1 year of the Order and then on each of the 2nd and 3rd anniversaries of the order; (3) $3M will be suspended on the condition that BAES has applied this amount to self-initiated, pre-Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures; and (4) $7M will be suspended on the condition that BAES applies this amount to the Consent Agreement authorized remedial compliance measures and for the purpose of defraying a portion of the costs associated with the specified remedial compliance measures. 


The Consent Agreement also outlines that as a result of the conviction, BAES was statutorily debarred but there was an immediate lifting of the debarment.   The Consent Agreement also outlines a policy of denial concerning certain non-U.S. subsidiaries of BAES involved in activities related to the conviction (BAE Systems CS&S International, Red Diamond Trading Ltd., and Poseidon Trading Investments Ltd., and their subsidiaries, divisions and business units, and successor entities), which means that there will be a presumption of denial of license and other applications involving these entities.   DDTC posted guidance on its website to exporters regarding a policy of denial for BAE Systems plc.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Final Rule Amending CCL</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-05-12T15:58:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d6214e1d14af2b0dafe686c5624b49ff-482.php#unique-entry-id-482</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d6214e1d14af2b0dafe686c5624b49ff-482.php#unique-entry-id-482</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 20, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Commerce Control List (CCL) to conform with the Wassenaar Arrangement 2010 Plenary Agreements Implementation. 


This final rule revises the CCL to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar List) maintained and agreed to by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA) at the December 2010 WA Plenary Meeting (the Plenary).   The Wassenaar Arrangement advocates implementation of effective export controls on strategic items with the objective of improving regional and international security and stability.   To harmonize the CCL with the changes made to the Wassenaar List at the Plenary, this rule amends entries on the CCL that are controlled for national security reasons in Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Parts I & II, 6, 7, 8, and 9, revises reporting requirements, and adds and amends definitions in the EAR.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian National Pleads Guilty to Illegally Exporting Missile Components and Radio Test Sets to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-05-31T15:43:17-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/81c5442946ac80fc17b98c2d01fac672-481.php#unique-entry-id-481</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/81c5442946ac80fc17b98c2d01fac672-481.php#unique-entry-id-481</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Davoud Baniameri, 38, of Woodland Hills, CA, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to export goods and technology to Iran without a license or approval from the U.S.   Department of Treasury, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and one count of attempting to export defense articles on the U.S. 

...Baniameri, who remains in federal custody, faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for violating IEEPA and a maximum of 20 years in prison for violating AECA and a maximum fine of $250,000 on each count. 

...10, 2008, Mousavi, based in Iran, contacted Baniameri in California and requested that he purchase and export radio test sets from the United States to Iran, through Dubai.   Baniameri agreed and over the next few months negotiated the purchase of three Marconi radio test sets from a company in Illinois. ...  At no time did Baniameri obtain or attempt to obtain a license from the U.S. government for the export of the radio test sets.


...10, 2009, Mousavi contacted Baniameri and requested that he purchase and export to Iran via Dubai 10 connector adapters for the TOW and TOW2 missile systems.   Baniameri agreed to purchase the items on behalf of Mousavi, and over the next few months, he admitted that he and his co-defendants attempted to purchase 10 connector adaptors from a company in Illinois, which unbeknownst to them, was in fact a company controlled by law enforcement.   In September 2009, Baniameri admitted that he directed Telemi to take possession of the connector adaptors in California after having paid $9,450 to a representative of the Illinois company. ...  At no time did Baniameri obtain or attempt to obtain a license from the U.S. government for the export of the connector adaptors. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Statement on Suspension of Export Licenses to Syria</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-05-18T15:40:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a00de0a445e6be05a0bb9dea2b71eb68-480.php#unique-entry-id-480</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a00de0a445e6be05a0bb9dea2b71eb68-480.php#unique-entry-id-480</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 18, 2011, BIS issued the following statement:


Effective May 18, 2011, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) suspended certain licenses for the export and reexport to Syria of U.S. origin parts and components needed for the overhaul/refurbishment of certain long-range, high capacity commercial aircraft not currently in service.   Due to the commission of human rights abuses related to political repression in Syria, export and reexport of these items is now deemed contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.   BIS took this action under the authority of Section 750.8 of the Export Administration Regulations and all persons holding relevant licenses have been notified of this action.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Testimony of Under Secretary Hirschhorn on the President&#x27;s Export Control Reform Initiative</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2011-05-12T15:36:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0c74edad94474f66915e59e1148c4a4-479.php#unique-entry-id-479</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0c74edad94474f66915e59e1148c4a4-479.php#unique-entry-id-479</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 12, 2011, Under Secretary of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Eric Hirschhorn, testified before the U.S.   House of Representatives&rsquo; Committee on Foreign Affairs in its Hearing on &ldquo;Export Controls, Arm Sales, and Reform: Balancing U.S.   Interests, Part I.&rdquo; 


Hirschhorn testified regarding:


	1	The Current Export Control Role of the Department of Commerce


	2	Changes at the Department of Commerce 


	⁃	List Review & Licensing Policy


...	⁃	Compliance and Enforcement


	3	The Export Enforcement Coordination Center


	4	The Role of Congress in Export Controls
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mexico Joins ATA Carnet System</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2011-05-02T15:28:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2576fb97d14fd13e9805a140a87d7e7e-478.php#unique-entry-id-478</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2576fb97d14fd13e9805a140a87d7e7e-478.php#unique-entry-id-478</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 2, 2011, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) announced that Mexico will join the ATA (Admission Temporaire/Temporary Admission) Carnet System on May 16, 2011. 

ATA Carnets are international customs documents that allow for the duty and tax-free temporary import and export of goods for up to one year.

ICC emphasized in its press release that Mexico&rsquo;s large economy and geographic position make it both an important international trading partner and transit point for goods.   Mexico is the U.S.&rsquo; second-largest export market and its third-largest trading partner.   Mexican exports to the US in 2009 were worth US$185 billion, representing approximately 80% of the country&rsquo;s total exports, according to U.S.   State Department figures. 

Mexico became 71st country to accept ATA Carnets.    According to ICC, more than 160,000 Carnets are issued every year worldwide, for goods with a total value of over US $20 billion.   ATA Carnets in Mexico will be administered by the Mexico City National Chamber of Commerce (CANACO).]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Trade Policy Staff Committee Seeks Comments on Expansion of the Information Technology Agreement</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Policy</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2011-05-06T15:26:03-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/48a674fbff6a3c42ee308d6d85063ab0-477.php#unique-entry-id-477</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/48a674fbff6a3c42ee308d6d85063ab0-477.php#unique-entry-id-477</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 6, 2011, the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) posted a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on whether the U.S. should undertake negotiations to expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and, if so: (1) Which additional information and communications technology (ICT) products the U.S. should seek to include and provide duty-free treatment under the ITA, including both products that existed when the ITA was concluded in 1996 but that were not covered under the agreement as well as products that have been developed since then; and (2) which U.S. trading partners that are significant producers or consumers of ICT products that are not currently participants in the ITA the United States should seek to have join the ITA. 

Currently, there are 73 ITA signatories, representing appx. 97 percent of world trade in ITA products.    The ITA requires participants to eliminate import duties on covered products.   The elimination of duties under the agreement has helped to generate substantial growth in ICT trade.   Industry sources estimate that global trade in products currently covered under the ITA grew from $1.2 trillion in 1996 to $4.0 trillion in 2008.

The ITA currently covers computers and computer equipment, semiconductors and integrated circuits, computer software products, telecommunications equipment, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and computer-based analytical instruments.   The list of covered products has not been expanded since the ITA was concluded in 1996. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC No Longer Accepts DSP-85 License Application in Paper Form</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2011-05-13T15:23:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28c9e48209824d3cba380c89a65ad03d-476.php#unique-entry-id-476</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28c9e48209824d3cba380c89a65ad03d-476.php#unique-entry-id-476</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Effective May 13, 2011, Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) Licensing no longer accepts the multi-page DSP-85 license application in paper form.    All submissions must now be made using the DSP-85 downloadable and fillable form, and mailed or delivered to DDTC.   The DSP-85 form may be found under the Licensing tab under &ldquo;Forms&rdquo;.    The content of the form has not been changed.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Syria Licenses Revoked</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Syria</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-04-29T13:49:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a655e5aa409e8dbaf32388cc1b775726-475.php#unique-entry-id-475</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a655e5aa409e8dbaf32388cc1b775726-475.php#unique-entry-id-475</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Effective April 29, 2011 the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has revoked certain licenses for the export and reexport to Syria of items relating to VIP aircraft used to transport senior officials of the Syrian government.   Due to the commission of human rights abuses related to political repression in Syria, export and reexport of these items is deemed contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.   BIS took this action under the authority of Section 750.8 of the Export Administration Regulations and all persons holding relevant licenses have been notified of this action.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Individuals Indicted for Conspiracy to Export Computer-related Equipment to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Iran</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-04-21T13:40:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/af3bc31725fb60dfdaa67460bc8b3965-474.php#unique-entry-id-474</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/af3bc31725fb60dfdaa67460bc8b3965-474.php#unique-entry-id-474</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that Jeng &ldquo;Jay&rdquo; Shih, a U.S. citizen, and his Queens, N.Y. company, Sunrise Technologies and Trading Company, were indicted in the District of Columbia on 27 counts relating to the illegal export of computer-related equipment to Iran without first having obtained the required Department of Treasury license. 


According to the indictment, Commerce Department agents visited Shih&rsquo;s business in New York in 2006 where they informed Shih about U.S. laws governing the export of goods from the U.S. to other countries, particularly embargoed countries like Iran.  

...In interviews with agents, the agent indicated that he and his company in Dubai had purchased million worth of laptops from Shih in recent years for shipment to Iran.&nbsp; 

...According to the indictment, Shih also told the cooperating individual how to avoid detection when shipping goods to Iran by using fake invoices and indicated that he treated the seizure of some of his shipments as a &ldquo;loss&rdquo; when reporting business income and loses on his U.S. taxes.


If Shih is convicted, he will face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine for each of the IEEPA counts and five years for each false statement count, all related to this illegal exports case. 


DOJ also reported that Massoud Habibion, 48, aka &ldquo;Matt Habibion&rdquo; or &ldquo;Matt Habi, and Mohsen Motamedian, 43, aka &ldquo;Max Motamedian&rdquo; or &ldquo;Max Ehsan,&rdquo; both U.S.  citizens, and their Costa Mesa, California, company, Online Micro LLC, were indicted in the District of Columbia on 32 counts relating to the illegal export of computer-related equipment to Iran without the required Department of Treasury license. 


The indictment against Habibion and Motamedian alleges that a company in Dubai, referenced above in Shih&rsquo;s case, purchased millions of dollars worth of laptop computers from Online Micro and that these computers were subsequently shipped to Iran.&nbsp;   According to the affidavit, the cooperating agent for the Dubai company told federal agents that Habibion and Motamedian sold roughly $300,000 worth of computers to the Dubai company each month and that Habibion and Motamedian fully understood that the computers were destined for Iran.


...In addition, the indictment alleges that in a Jan. 5, 2011, meeting, Habibion told the cooperating individual to lie to federal agents about conducting business in Iran, stating, &ldquo;If they ask you, for instance, &lsquo;Do you do business in Tehran?&rsquo; 

...If Habibion or Motamedian are convicted, they will face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine for each of the IEEPA counts and five years for each false statement count relating to this illegal exports case. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>All Registered SNAP-R Companies Must Designate an Administrator by June 9&#x2c; 2011&#xa0;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2011-04-30T13:08:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/93baf77edfbec1c859d46cc51cd795dd-473.php#unique-entry-id-473</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/93baf77edfbec1c859d46cc51cd795dd-473.php#unique-entry-id-473</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted a reminder on its website that all registered&nbsp;Simplified Network Application Process Redesign (SNAP-R) companies must designate an administrator by&nbsp;June 9, 2011. 


After this date, all active SNAP-R user accounts associated to the company&rsquo;s company identification number (CIN) without a designated company administrator will become inactive until at least one company administrator is designated.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Executive Order Prohibits Imports from North Korea</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>North Korea</category><category>President</category><category>Import</category><dc:date>2011-04-19T13:01:14-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c950dab9a0c2c181c81bff3e1d3b893f-471.php#unique-entry-id-471</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c950dab9a0c2c181c81bff3e1d3b893f-471.php#unique-entry-id-471</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 18, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order that, effective April 19, 2011, prohibits all direct or indirect importation of goods, services, and technology form North Korea.   Unless exempt, all imports into the U.S. from North Korea must be authorized. 


The Order leaves in place all existing sanctions imposed under Executive Orders 13466 and 13551. 


Executive Order 13466 of 2008 declared a national emergency pursuant to International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the U.S. posed by the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula. 


Executive Order 13551 of 2010 expanded the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 and blocked the property and interests in property of three North Korean entities and one individual. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Seeks Comments on Proposed Changes to ITAR re: Defense Services </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>State</category><dc:date>2011-04-14T12:54:28-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4fdca8ff198ddd4bf2fe3b66a338a5a3-470.php#unique-entry-id-470</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4fdca8ff198ddd4bf2fe3b66a338a5a3-470.php#unique-entry-id-470</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 13, 2011, the Department of State (DOS) proposed to amend parts 120 and 124 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to update the policy regarding defense services, to clarify the scope of activities that are considered a defense service, and to provide definitions of &ldquo;Organizational-Level Maintenance,&rdquo; &ldquo;Intermediate-Level Maintenance,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Depot-level Maintenance,&rdquo; and to make other conforming changes. 


After review of the ITAR, DOS determined that the current definition of defense services in &sect;120.9 is overly broad, capturing certain forms of assistance or services that do not warrant ITAR control.   The proposed change in subpart (a) of the definition of &ldquo;defense services&rdquo; narrows the focus of services to furnishing of assistance (including training) using &ldquo;other than public domain data&rdquo;, integrating of items into defense articles, or training of foreign forces in the employment of defense articles.   The proposed definition also includes a new provision that would control the &ldquo;integration&rdquo; of items, whether controlled by the U.S.   Munitions List (USML) or the Commerce Control List (CCL), into USML controlled defense articles even if ITAR-controlled &ldquo;technical data&rdquo; is not provided to a foreign person during the provision of such services. 


Under the new rule, training for foreign &ldquo;units or forces&rdquo; of &sect;120.9(a)(3) will be considered a defense service only if the training involves the employment of a defense article, regardless of whether technical data is involved.   In &sect;120.9(b), the proposed rule specifies examples of activities that do not constitute defense services. 


A new &sect;120.38 proposes to provide definitions for &ldquo;Organizational-Level Maintenance&rdquo; (or basic level maintenance), &ldquo;Intermediate-Level Maintenance,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Depot-Level Maintenance,&rdquo; terms used in the proposed revision of &sect;120.9.


...The proposed rule modifies &sect;124.1(a) which describes the approval requirements of manufacturing license agreements and technical assistance agreements.   The proposed change removes the requirement in &sect;124.1(a) to seek the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls' (DDTC) approval if the defense service that is being rendered uses public domain data or data otherwise exempt from ITAR licensing requirements. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ITA Seeks Comments on Proposal to Collect Information for U.S. - EU Safe Harbor Privacy Framework</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITA </category><category>Cargo security</category><dc:date>2011-04-11T12:48:04-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/32fea3d968e5e5ada9e4bdfc59d9992e-469.php#unique-entry-id-469</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/32fea3d968e5e5ada9e4bdfc59d9992e-469.php#unique-entry-id-469</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 11, 2011, the International Trade Administration (ITA) posted a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on proposal to collect information for the U.S.&ndash;EU Safe Harbor Privacy Framework. 


In response to the European Union Directive on Data Protection that restricts transfers of personal information from Europe to countries whose privacy practices are not deemed &ldquo;adequate,&rdquo; the U.S.   Department of Commerce has developed a &ldquo;Safe Harbor&rdquo; framework that will allow U.S. organizations to satisfy the EU Directive&rsquo;s requirements and ensure that personal data flows to the U.S. occur without interruption.   The framework bridges the differences between the EU and U.S. approaches to privacy protection. 


As of December 10, 2010, 2,415 U.S. organizations have been placed on the Safe Harbor List.   Organizations that have signed up to this list are deemed ``adequate'' under the Directive and do not have to provide further documentation to European officials. 


The Safe Harbor List is necessary to make the Safe Harbor agreement operational, and will be used by EU organizations to determine whether further information and contracts will be needed for a U.S. organization to receive personally identifiable information.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Census Seeks Comments on Proposed New Data Elements in AES Reports </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Census</category><category>AES</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-04-11T12:43:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6268d158d425d03144988fb69ffdc042-468.php#unique-entry-id-468</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6268d158d425d03144988fb69ffdc042-468.php#unique-entry-id-468</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Census Bureau posted a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on proposal to collect additional data elements in the Automated Export System (AES) as well as modifications to current data elements. 


The fields that will be added or modified are conditional data elements required only if that element applies to the specific shipment being exported.   In addition, AES filings will be mandatory for shipments of all used self-propelled vehicles and household goods regardless of value or country of destination. 

...The addition of these new fields is expected to help detect and prevent export of items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.   Entering information for the end user and consignee type will be based on the knowledge the exporter has at the time of export. 

...Additional data elements will also include license applicant address, license value, and country of origin. ...  For shipments where a license is required (currently, only 6% of records filed require a license), the address of the license applicant will be required to be reported.   The license value per commodity classification will be required to be reported in addition to the value that is currently captured in the AES. 

For shipments where the origin of the commodity is foreign (currently, 17% of records filed contain goods of foreign origin), the country of origin will be required to be reported.   For shipments where the method of transportation (MOT) is containerized vessel cargo (currently, 19% of records filed are reported as containerized), the container number will be required to be reported in the equipment number field. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Johnson &#x26; Johnson to Pay &#x24;70 Million to Settle FCPA Allegations &#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-04-09T12:38:35-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/855210e1cf44e5bd98f42cabb8548c03-467.php#unique-entry-id-467</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/855210e1cf44e5bd98f42cabb8548c03-467.php#unique-entry-id-467</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 8, 2011, U.S.   Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has agreed to pay a $21.4 million criminal penalty as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ to resolve improper payments by J&J subsidiaries to government officials in Greece, Poland and Romania in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). 


According to the deferred prosecution agreement, J&J has acknowledged responsibility for the actions of its subsidiaries, employees and agents who made various improper payments to public health care providers in Greece, Poland and Romania in order to induce the purchase of medical devices and pharmaceuticals manufactured by J&J subsidiaries.   J&J also acknowledged that kickbacks were paid on behalf of J&J subsidiary companies to the former government of Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food Program in order to secure contracts to provide humanitarian supplies.   A criminal information filed in connection with the deferred prosecution agreement charges J&J subsidiary DePuy Inc. with conspiracy and violations of the FCPA in connection with the payments to public physicians in Greece. 


The agreement recognizes J&J&rsquo;s timely voluntary disclosure, and thorough self-investigation of the underlying conduct; the extraordinary cooperation provided by the company to the department, the SEC and multiple foreign enforcement authorities, including significant assistance in the industry-wide investigation; and the extensive remedial efforts and compliance improvements undertaken by the company.&nbsp;  Due to J&J&rsquo;s pre-existing compliance and ethics programs, extensive remediation, and improvement of its compliance systems and internal controls, J&J was not required to retain a corporate monitor, but it must report to the Department of Commerce on implementation of its remediation and enhanced compliance efforts every six months for the duration of the agreement.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In a related matter, J&J reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under which it agreed to pay more than $48.6 million in disgorgement of profits, including pre-judgment interest.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Recent OFAC Enforcement Actions&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-04-08T12:31:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39c58f5229fb2f5d874096a2f4fb42b2-466.php#unique-entry-id-466</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39c58f5229fb2f5d874096a2f4fb42b2-466.php#unique-entry-id-466</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[OFAC alleged that Aegis, a U.S. distributor of industrial imaging products, including cameras, monitors, and related control units, violated the ITR by its unlicensed sale and export of camera control units to Austria with knowledge that the items were intended for re-export to Iran. 


Specifically, OFAC alleged that, during the period August 2008 - January 2009, Aegis violated the ITR when it exported two camera control units from the United States to Austria for re-export to Iran. ...  The base penalty amount for Aegis&rsquo; apparent violation was $10,000, but the settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of multiple factors including: the criminal charges set forth in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reflect knowing and willful conduct by an employee that is attributable to the company; there is no indication that Aegis&rsquo; senior management participated in the apparent violations; and Aegis lacked a sanctions compliance program at the time of the apparent violations, but it has since implemented a compliance program that requires sanctions and export compliance training of all employees.


- McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, Inc., Houston, TX (McGriff), has paid $122,408 to settle allegations of violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR).   OFAC alleged that McGriff, a U.S. insurance brokerage firm specializing in insurance coverage for the energy sector, violated the ITR by its unlicensed design, revision, and placement, with foreign insurers, of six commercial multiple peril (CMP) insurance policies that insured the risks of a submersible oil rig in Iranian waters. 

...McGriff voluntarily disclosed this matter to OFAC and the alleged violations constituted a non-egregious case.   The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following: the insurance services provided by McGriff, which were highly specialized and involved the Iranian petroleum industry, were particularly harmful to the objectives of the sanctions program; the apparent violations resulted from the actions of a senior employee outside the knowledge of McGriff&rsquo;s senior management; McGriff strengthened its OFAC compliance program in response to the apparent violations; McGriff has not been the subject of prior OFAC penalties or other OFAC administrative actions; and McGriff cooperated with OFAC in the investigation, including entering into two tolling agreements. 

- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) has remitted $22,500 to settle allegations of a violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.   OFAC alleged that, in June 2006, MetLife mailed a check representing a $30,162 lump sum death benefit payment directly to the beneficiary in Cuba. 

...The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following: MetLife provides specialized insurance services; MetLife has not been the subject of prior OFAC penalties; MetLife cooperated with OFAC by making an authorized transfer of the blocked payment to a blocked account opened in the name of the beneficiary for the purpose of making authorized distributions to the beneficiary; and MetLife has taken several steps to strengthen its OFAC compliance program, including requiring sanctions compliance training of all employees.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Guide</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>IP</category><dc:date>2011-04-02T12:26:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9ff3a13d61927e28a023f515402256f8-465.php#unique-entry-id-465</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9ff3a13d61927e28a023f515402256f8-465.php#unique-entry-id-465</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 31, 2011, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Guide.   In it, CBP identifies three ways intellectual property (IP) owners can maximize protection of their IP rights:


 

	&bull;	E-Recordation &ndash; establishing an e-Recordation record provides CBP with information necessary to determine when imported goods infringe on legitimate IP owner&rsquo;s rights; 

	&bull;	E-Allegations &ndash; business and rights owners are encouraged to submit allegations of infringing shipments or conduct to CBP.   CBP uses this information to target these acts and may refer cases for criminal prosecution; 

	&bull;	Information Sharing &ndash; to proactively help CBP in making infringement determinations, rights owners should consider submitting product identification guides to CBP to be placed on CBP internal websites and linked to the E-Recordation system, and also providing product identification training to CBP personnel at ports of entry.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Initiates Reform for More Effective Government </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2011-03-15T12:09:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f62fa8720b3f37ff1ffd77a83409292c-464.php#unique-entry-id-464</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f62fa8720b3f37ff1ffd77a83409292c-464.php#unique-entry-id-464</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[President Obama  issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding government reform (the Memorandum) on March 11, 2011.


In the Memorandum, President Obama stated that the Federal Government has not kept pace with the development of the information age, with government agencies growing without overall strategic planning and duplicative programs springing up.   &ldquo;My current budget proposes more than 200 terminations, reductions, and savings in agency programs totaling approximately $30 billion in fiscal year 2012. ...  Winning the future will take a government that judiciously allocates scarce government resources to maximize its efficiency and effectiveness so that it can best support American competitiveness and innovation.   Now is the time to act to consolidate and reorganize the executive branch of the Federal Government in a way that best serves this goal.&rdquo;


...Chief Performance Officer (CPO) who also serves as the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget to lead the effort to create a plan for the restructuring and streamlining of the executive branch of the Federal Government.   The first focus of this effort will be increasing trade, exports, and overall competitiveness of the U.S.


The President directed that the CPO establish a Government Reform for Competitiveness and Innovation Initiative led by an Executive Director to conduct a comprehensive review of the Federal agencies and programs involved in trade and competitiveness, including analyzing their scope and effectiveness, areas of overlap and duplication, unmet needs, and possible cost savings.   As part of the review, the CPO and Executive Director will confer with the heads and staff of executive departments and agencies, including the offices and agencies within the Office of the President.


Recommendations on how to restructure and streamline Federal Government programs focused on trade and competitiveness are due to the President within 90 days from March 11, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President&#x2019;s Export Council Urges Establishment of Automated Single Shipment Information Window</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-03-11T00:46:19-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/11ae7ff821a6b8dd25d30d4afd848a8c-461.php#unique-entry-id-461</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/11ae7ff821a6b8dd25d30d4afd848a8c-461.php#unique-entry-id-461</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 11, 2011, the President&rsquo;s Export Council (PEC) posted a letter to President Obama in which it urges &ldquo;to fully establish an automated single shipment information window, that works with equal efficiency for both imports into and exports from the United States and is aligned with international data standards.&rdquo;   The goal of this process automation is to &ldquo;comply with essential National Security controls, but expedite the clearance of all other goods so the U.S. can compete in the competitive, global environment.&rdquo; 

The PEC predicts that a single system that allows traders to lodge information with a single body to fulfill all import or export related regulatory requirements would reduce a major barrier to U.S. exports and deliver immediate benefits.   Based on the World Bank estimate that it takes an average of six days to move goods to or from the U.S., the PEC predicts that a one day improvement in time, by means of a single system, could increase U.S. trade by almost $29 billion and would help create thousands of new U.S. jobs.  

...In 2001, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began a process to modernize their customs information systems, and created the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as the single online access point that connects CBP, the trade community, and other government agencies. 

...ITDS will allow traders to provide electronic international trade and transportation data to all Federal agencies that have import/export responsibilities.   Ultimately, the goal is &ldquo;a single window into the Federal government that will facilitate commerce and increase compliance with trade laws.&rdquo; 

...However, in 2010, ITDS Report to Congress recommends that export functionality be given priority: export agencies should work the ITDS Board of Directors to quickly identify ways to provide an export single window.   According to the PEC, the absence of a single, automated system for export clearance increases costs for U.S. exporters, unnecessarily adding expense and time-in-transit to business transactions. 

Accordingly, the PEC recommends that Obama&rsquo;s Administration work with the various stakeholders, including the DHS/CBP, USTR, Treasury, ISDA/FAS, and DoC/ITA to enable the creation of a single window to streamline the export process. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Proposed ITAR Rule Amends Licensing Requirements for Replacement Parts and Incorporated Articles</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2011-03-15T00:44:42-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9b6beaba9d8d3dc303ab61374fcf4c2e-460.php#unique-entry-id-460</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9b6beaba9d8d3dc303ab61374fcf4c2e-460.php#unique-entry-id-460</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 15, 2011, the Department of State proposed to amend Parts 123 and 126 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to reflect new policies regarding coverage of replacement parts/components and incorporated articles. 

The current rule regarding parts and components requires additional licenses for licensed end-users and end-uses for systems and components already vetted in earlier licenses.   The proposed rule adds a new section (&sect;123.28) that eliminates the requirement for a license for parts and components for systems approved in a previous license.   This proposed exemption applies only to exporters specifically identified in a previously approved authorization to export the end-item in question.   It would not be applicable to upgrades of capabilities of the original end-item. 

With respect to ITAR treatment of incorporated articles, the proposed new section of the ITAR (&sect;126.19) lists three conditions under which a DDTC license is not required for the export or re-export of defense articles incorporated into an end-item that is subject to the EAR: (1) where the end-item would be &ldquo;rendered inoperable&rdquo; by the removal of the defense articles; (2) where no technical data for development or production are transferred with the defense article; and (3) where the incorporation of the defense article does not provide (or is not related to) a military application. 

In addition, under the proposed rule, no license is required for the export or re-export of a defense article when that article would be rendered inoperable by removal form the end-item.   A license would be required for the export of defense articles that are spare or replacement parts when they are embedded into a larger assembly such that they can be removed without destroying the defense articles. 

Comments to the DDTC are due before April 14, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Defense Contractor Charged with ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-03-04T00:43:02-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5d517d2a55d1c522940ff41ba38bddd8-459.php#unique-entry-id-459</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5d517d2a55d1c522940ff41ba38bddd8-459.php#unique-entry-id-459</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 4, 2011, Sixing &ldquo;Steve&rdquo; Liu was indicted with illegally exporting technical data in violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) without the required Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) license. 

...At the time Liu was detained, he worked as a senior staff engineer for a New Jersey-based division of a technology company (Company) that develops precision navigation devices and other innovative components for the U.S. ...  Due to highly sensitive nature of the technology projects developed at the Company where Liu worked, most employees, including Liu, were forbidden from removing work product from the Company&rsquo;s corporate facility. 

On November 29, 2010, Liu arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport on a commercial airline flight from Shanghai and was selected for secondary inspection by Customs officers. ...  An inspection of Liu&rsquo;s baggage revealed an access card that had &ldquo;ICMAN 2010, The 4th Annual International Workshop on Innovative and Commercialization of Micro & Nano Technologies, November 22-24, 2010&rdquo; inscribed on it. 

...Its stated goal is to &ldquo;gather people related with micro and nanotechnologies from all over the world, including the renowned researchers in the field, chief administrators and senior engineers from industries, research agencies and inventors, as well as venture capital and government representatives.&rdquo; 

...Upon inspection of Liu&rsquo;s belongings on November 29, 2010, Customs officers found a folder containing multiple pages of technical language, pictures of military weapons systems, and documents written in Chinese.   Liu also had a non-Company issued laptop computer and other electronic storage devices and media, which contained hundreds of documents belonging to the Company he worked for, including internal communications, analyses, data, test results, schematics, images, and security protocols. 

Numerous documents on Liu&rsquo;s computer included prominent markings indicating that the contents contain export-controlled technical data under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and ITAR.   One such documents is titled &ldquo;Summary of Simulation Analysis for [Technology Program No. 1]&rdquo; and pertains to a precision navigation/positioning system that the company where Liu worked, developed for the DoD. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>PA Company Fined for Export Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-03-15T00:42:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f6af65a156ea80ea255f08e4531d0580-458.php#unique-entry-id-458</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f6af65a156ea80ea255f08e4531d0580-458.php#unique-entry-id-458</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 15, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) reported that TW Metals, Inc. of Exton, PA, has agreed to pay a $575,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that it violated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting on numerous occasions titanium alloy and aluminum bar to China and Israel without the required export licenses. 

Specifically, BIS alleged that from April 2004 to August 2007, TW Metals made 48 exports of titanium alloy to China through Canada without the required Department of Commerce licenses.   Titanium alloy is controlled for reasons of nonproliferation.   In addition, TW Metals violated the EAR in 2007 by exporting aluminum bar, also controlled for reasons of nuclear nonproliferation, from the U.S. to Israel via Canada without the required Department of Commerce license. 

TW Metals voluntarily disclosed the violations and cooperated fully with the investigation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Man Charged with Illegal Exports of Goods and Technologies to Pakistan</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-03-09T00:40:30-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c95097fae572aca6b9f679fa83288ad-457.php#unique-entry-id-457</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c95097fae572aca6b9f679fa83288ad-457.php#unique-entry-id-457</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 9, 2011, U.S.   Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that a federal grand jury has indicted Nadeem Akhtar of Silver Spring, Maryland, on charges that he illegally exported items used in activities related to nuclear reactors and the processing and production of nuclear-related materials. 

Akhtar, a Pakistani national and a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., owns Computer Communication USA (CCUSA).   According to the indictment, from October 2005 through March 11, 2010, Akhtar conspired wit others to illegally export radiation detection devices, resins for coolant water purification, calibration and switching equipment, and surface refinishing abrasives to Pakistan without the necessary licenses.   In addition, the indictment alleges that Akhtar attempted to conceal the ultimate end-use and/or end &ndash;users of the commodities that he sought to export, as well as their true value by providing false, misleading and incomplete information on sales documents such as invoices, purchase orders, air bills, and end-user statements. 

Akhtar faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for conspiracy to commit export violations and to defraud the United States; a maximum prison sentence of twenty years for the unlawful export of the restricted goods; and a maximum of twenty years for conspiracy to commit money laundering. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Clarifies Its Authority to Revise&#x2c; Suspend and Revoke Licenses</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-03-07T00:38:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a2515d467be6a368da6a1725c67410fb-456.php#unique-entry-id-456</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a2515d467be6a368da6a1725c67410fb-456.php#unique-entry-id-456</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 7, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to clarify the Application Processing, Issuance, and Denial provisions regarding BIS&rsquo;s authority to revise, suspend or revoke licenses.  

Part 750 of the EAR provides for the revision, suspension or revocation of licenses whenever it is known that the violation of the EAR has or is about to occur.   The final rule revises revocation or suspension of licenses at &sect;750.8 by removing the phrase &ldquo;whenever it is known that the EAR have been violated or that a violation is about to occur.&rdquo; 

This change will clarify BIS's authority to revise, suspend, or revoke licenses and will harmonize &sect;750.8(a) of the EAR, concerning licenses, with an analogous provision in &sect;740.2(b) regarding the revision, suspension or revocation of license exceptions under the EAR.  

The change in Part 750 is expected to make it clear that the United States&rsquo; ability to revoke or suspend a license is not limited to those cases where the EAR have been violated or where a violation is about to occur.   The authority to revoke or suspend a license also extends to cases where BIS seeks to prevent licensed export transactions in which the U.S. may subsequently have an interest, including a foreign policy interest.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Comments Received in Response to Proposed Regulations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2011-03-21T00:10:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fef5a5f150ea80d31d74f54993d7f41f-455.php#unique-entry-id-455</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fef5a5f150ea80d31d74f54993d7f41f-455.php#unique-entry-id-455</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted public comments in response to:  (1) the proposed rule regarding Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) license exception, and (2) the proposed rule regarding revising descriptions of items and foreign availability. 

BIS issued the proposed rule on the Strategic Trade Authorization license exception on December 9, 2010.   It adds a new license exception to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   The exception allows exports, reexports and transfer (in-country) of specified items to destinations that pose little risk of unauthorized use of those items.   To prevent diversion to unauthorized destinations, transactions under this license exception would be subject to notification, destination control statement and consignee statement requirements. 

With regard to amending the EAR, BIS sought public comments on how descriptions of items controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) of the EAR could be more clear and positive and &ldquo;tiered&rdquo; in a manner consistent with the control criteria the Administration has developed as part of the export control reform effort. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Reports on Offsets Related to Foreign Sales of Defense Articles and Services Due June 15</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-02-23T13:02:31-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b77bded88c7557b9840dfa9f2ddc94cb-454.php#unique-entry-id-454</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b77bded88c7557b9840dfa9f2ddc94cb-454.php#unique-entry-id-454</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 23, 2011, U.S.   Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted a notice in the Federal Register reminding that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce on contracts for the sale of defense articles and defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5 million in value. 

U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Department of Commerce on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed form the foreign representative.   This year, such report must include relevant information from calendar year 2010 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Export Control Forum Remarks of BIS Under Secretary Hirschhorn Posted</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-02-28T12:53:27-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dfb22a21f216a98d933c8fa0bc09e9bf-453.php#unique-entry-id-453</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dfb22a21f216a98d933c8fa0bc09e9bf-453.php#unique-entry-id-453</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 28, 2011, BIS posted to its website the opening remarks of Commerce Under Secretary for Industry and Security Eric L.   Hirschhorn at BIS&rsquo; Export Control Forum in Irvine, CA. 


In his remarks, Under Secretary Hirschhorn detailed the export control initiative and addressed:


	&bull;	The U.S.   Munitions List


	&bull;	The Commerce Control List


	&bull;	The Parallel-Tiered Control Lists


...	&bull;	Related Export Control Issues


	&bull;	Compliance and Enforcement


	&bull;	Information Technology System
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Declares National Emergency with respect to Libya</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-02-28T18:32:01-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2be60287a23756f8a80e1450bc2c36f2-452.php#unique-entry-id-452</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2be60287a23756f8a80e1450bc2c36f2-452.php#unique-entry-id-452</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 25, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order declaring a National Emergency with respect to Libya.    The Executive Order provides for wide-reaching prohibitions on transactions with the government of Libya and others associated with Colonel Muammar Qadhafi.   While all trade with Libya is not restricted, due to the pervasiveness of the Libyan government in its commerce, OFAC officials cautioned the audience at the recent BIS Export Control Forum in Irvine, CA to scrutinize any transaction with Libya very carefully before proceeding.


In addition, President Obama sent a letter to Congress on the matter and issued the following statement:


The Libyan government&rsquo;s continued violation of human rights, brutalization of its people, and outrageous threats have rightly drawn the strong and broad condemnation of the international community.   By any measure, Muammar el-Qaddafi&rsquo;s government has violated international norms and common decency and must be held accountable.    These sanctions therefore target the Qaddafi government, while protecting the assets that belong to the people of Libya.


Going forward, the United States will continue to closely coordinate our actions with the international community, including our friends and allies, and the United Nations.   We will stand steadfastly with the Libyan people in their demand for universal rights, and a government that is responsive to their aspirations.   Their human dignity cannot be denied.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Commerce Announces Appointees to President&#x2019;s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2011-02-23T18:32:01-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2218247d6a5748261604c6c715029c0b-451.php#unique-entry-id-451</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2218247d6a5748261604c6c715029c0b-451.php#unique-entry-id-451</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 23, 2011, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced the appointment of members to the President&rsquo;s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA), which will advise the Commerce Department on the administration&rsquo;s export control reform initiative.  


&ldquo;The PECSEA will provide invaluable advice as we continue to enhance our national security through the President&rsquo;s reform efforts,&rdquo; Locke said.   &ldquo;Export Control Reform requires a public-private partnership, and the business community&rsquo;s insight on how that effort impacts the industrial base is vital.&rdquo; 


President&rsquo;s Export Council (PEC) member Raul Pedraza, Founder and President of  Magno International L.P., will chair the PECSEA, which has scheduled its first meeting for March 10.    Marion Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace Industries Association, will serve as the Vice Chair.


...Curtis Dombek, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP


...Jefferson Hofgard, The Boeing Company


...Kathleen Lockard Palma, General Electric Company


...Kimberly Pritula, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.


...Osval &ldquo;Chip&rdquo; Storie, MAG Industrial Automation Systems
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts Notice of Suspension of ITAR Licenses for Libya</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2011-02-28T22:05:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8277521300bcd4dd77e34f3f6b5dfac1-450.php#unique-entry-id-450</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8277521300bcd4dd77e34f3f6b5dfac1-450.php#unique-entry-id-450</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted a notice on its website announcing the suspension of all export licenses issued pursuant to the authorities of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130) until further notice.   Additionally, no exemptions may be utilized for exports to Libya.   Further guidance related to exports to Libya will be promulgated via a Federal Register Notice.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Proposes Electronic Payment of Registration Fees</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2011-02-24T17:26:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec3f88ee5f2b1b20ac873e6392b30d88-449.php#unique-entry-id-449</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec3f88ee5f2b1b20ac873e6392b30d88-449.php#unique-entry-id-449</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 24, 2011, the State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted in the Federal Register a proposed amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to change the method of payment of registration fees to electronic submission.


Comments on the proposed amendment are due by April 25, 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts the &#x201c;Blue Lantern&#x201d; Report on End-Use of Defense Articles and Services</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2011-02-23T17:21:39-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/92629044d10587025d2cf6b884ff2ec2-448.php#unique-entry-id-448</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/92629044d10587025d2cf6b884ff2ec2-448.php#unique-entry-id-448</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 23, 2011, the State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has posted the End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY2009 Report. 

The report describes actions taken by the DDTC during fiscal 2009 to implement the &ldquo;Blue Lantern&rdquo; end-use monitoring program. 

The &ldquo;Blue Lantern&rdquo; program monitors the end-use of defense articles and services exported through commercial channels and subject to Department of State licenses or certain other approvals under the AECA.   The end-use monitoring includes pre-license, post-license, or post-shipment inquiries undertaken to verify the bona fides of proposed foreign consignees and end-users, to confirm the legitimacy of proposed transaction, and to verify that the recipient is complying with the requirements imposed by the U.S.   Government with respect defense articles and services and that those items are being used for the purposes for which they are provided. 

For FY2009, the Blue Lantern program initiated 774 inquiries in 104 countries.   Of 649 cases closed in FY2009, 87 or 13% were determined to be &ldquo;unfavorable,&rdquo; meaning that the fact findings were not consistent with the information contained in the application or license.   Problems identified during a pre and post-license check may result in denial or revocation of the license, removal of a party, or the license being returned without action.    FY2009 Blue Lantern checks resulted in 10 directed disclosures and three referrals for possible criminal investigation. 

The reasons for unfavourable check in FY2009 were refusal to cooperate (36%); derogatory information/foreign party deemed unreliable recipient of USM (30%); indications of diversion or unauthorized retransfer or re-export (13%); inability to confirm order or receipt of goods by end use (10%); party violating terms of license agreement (9%); warehousing or stockpiling (8%); foreign party (and-user and/or consignee) involved in transaction but not listed on license/application (6%); unauthorized brokering (6%); and inability to confirm existence of foreign party listed on license (1%). ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Reviews Progress of U.S. Export Controls Reform in the C5 European Forum</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>EU</category><dc:date>2011-02-07T17:17:56-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d3b8bc2ba9c1095df5d6e44d0eb293c5-447.php#unique-entry-id-447</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d3b8bc2ba9c1095df5d6e44d0eb293c5-447.php#unique-entry-id-447</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Hill, Deputy Under Secretary for Industry and Security, spoke at the C5 European Forum on Export Controls in Brussels, Belgium, commenting on the U.S. export controls system reform. 

...And the Commerce Department administers the Commerce Control List, or CCL, which is a far more specific list of mostly &ldquo;dual use items&rdquo; &ndash; that is commercial items that could have military applications &ndash; items like truck parts, electronic components and even computers. 


...For exporters and companies with production lines spread across the globe, time they could be spending creating innovative, game-changing products to sell in different countries is instead spent navigating a confusing and time-consuming export control bureaucracy. 


...We have heard of examples of sales contracts including provisions that explicitly bar the use of U.S.-manufactured articles because companies don&rsquo;t want to have to deal with our export control system.

America puts our exporters in an untenable position when we forbid or delay them from selling a widely available item to an overseas market even when comparable foreign items face no similar restrictions from their home country.&rdquo; 


...Hill also spoke of improving the export controls regime by reforming the United States Munitions List (USML), changing the export controls structure, and establishing a licensing policy that ensures an appropriate agency review. 


As for the USML, the &ldquo;goal is to create one list that will include every item or technology that requires control; have one agency that will administer these controls; have one enforcement coordination agency that handles every investigation of criminal violations; and run everything using one IT platform.&rdquo; ...  Hill also stated that a three-tiered licensing system is being created that will apply in the same manner to items on both the USML and the CCL. 


...This will be achieved by dividing each of the two lists into a three-tiered structure, which will distinguish between the most sensitive items available only in the U.S., items in the middle tier that provide a substantial military or intelligence advantage, and items in the lowest tier reserved for items that provide a significant military or intelligence advantage and which are more broadly availably. 


...Top tier items will generally require a license for all destinations, many of the items in the middle tier will be eligible to be exported to allies and most multilateral partners under a license exception or general authorization, and licenses for the lowest tier items not considered proliferation concerns will typically not be required. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Information on Recent Civil Penalties </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-02-01T17:16:02-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/297d99dca20ad8f35d73bb45c91f6796-446.php#unique-entry-id-446</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/297d99dca20ad8f35d73bb45c91f6796-446.php#unique-entry-id-446</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[&bull;	Trans Pacific National Bank of San Francisco, CA (Trans Pacific) paid $12,500 to settle allegations of violating the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR) from September 18, 2007 to March 19, 2008.    OFAC alleged that Trans Pacific engaged in transactions related to goods of Iranian origin and services for exportation to Iran, and facilitated transactions by a foreign person by initiating two separate wire transfers on behalf of an account holder for an underlying commercial transaction prohibited by the ITR, which is prohibited by the ITR if performed by a U.S. person.    In one instance, the wire transfer instructions referenced &ldquo;Iranian material&rdquo; and in the other instance the instructions referenced &ldquo;Iran material.&rdquo;  ...  Trans Pacific did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.    The settlement amount reflected the fact that at the time of the transactions, Trans Pacific&rsquo;s filtering system was not designed to detect references to sanctions targets in the &ldquo;Originator to Beneficiary Information&rdquo; field leading to both of these apparent violations; and Trans Pacific has enhanced its compliance program in response to the violations by requiring that the memorandum information of each wire transfer also be reviewed for OFAC sanctions references. 

&bull;	Aon International Energy, Inc. of Houston, TX (Aon Energy), a subsidiary of Aon Corporation, paid $36,000 to settle allegations of violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR) that occurred in October 2005.    OFAC alleged that Aon Energy had facilitated the placement of coverage and the payment of premiums for facultative retrocession reinsurance that reinsured construction risks associated with a petroleum project on Kharg Island in Iran.    Specifically, Aon Energy brokered and placed facultative retrocession reinsurance on behalf of a European reinsurer with two European retrocessionaires.  ...  Aon Energy did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.   The settlement amount reflected OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the fact that AON Energy provides specialized insurance services resulting in transactions that were particularly harmful to the sanctions program; OFAC viewed the apparent violations as part of a pattern of reckless, but not egregious, conduct by Aon Energy in connection with these policies; Aon Energy, under the direction of its parent, Aon, took several steps to strengthen its OFAC compliance program and its existing OFAC procedures after the apparent violations; Aon Energy has not been the subject of prior OFAC penalties or other OFAC administrative actions; and Aon Energy cooperated with OFAC and also entered into a tolling agreement with OFAC which was undertaken by Aon on behalf of Aon Energy. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements Mandatory Electronic Registration for SNAP-R</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2011-02-09T14:12:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7f959b1b704940ea9ebaf463860bab64-445.php#unique-entry-id-445</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7f959b1b704940ea9ebaf463860bab64-445.php#unique-entry-id-445</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 9, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted a final rule in the Federal Register that amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) implementing mandatory on-line registration process for obtaining an account to submit license applications and similar documents electronically through Simplified Network Application Processing (SNAP-R) system. 

The final rule sets forth the information that parties registering online are required to provide to BIS and other duties that registered parties have with respect to keeping information in their accounts current.   In the past, BIS required filing entities to register for a SNAP-R account through a paper and facsimile process. 

The rule is effective March 11, 2011.   Beginning on April 11, 2011, all new SNAP-R registrations must be made in accordance with this rule. 

The rule also provides that, beginning on June 10, 2011, SNAP-R accounts of filing entities that do not have account administrators will not be accessible until an existing individual user for that entity logs-on to SNAP-R and registers as account administrator.   Beginning September 8, 2011, any accounts that do not have an account administrator will be inactivated.   Filing entities will be able to register again but will have to go through entire registration process that applies to new entities. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian Man Charged with Illegally Exporting Specialized Metals</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2011-02-01T14:04:08-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4306219baefd930e650c27bcc449b890-444.php#unique-entry-id-444</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4306219baefd930e650c27bcc449b890-444.php#unique-entry-id-444</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release reporting that Milad Jafari, (Jafari), a 36-year old citizen and resident of Iran, has been indicted for conspiracy, smuggling and illegally exporting specialized metals and other materials from the U.S. through companies in Turkey to several entities in Iran, including some that have been sanctioned for involvement in ballistic missile activities. 


Specifically, the indictment alleges that from about February 2004 through about August 2007 Jafari engaged in conspiracy and exported goods to Iran in violation of the U.S. embargo and without the required U.S. government licenses.   Jafari and his conspirators allegedly solicited orders from customers in Iran and purchased goods from U.S. companies on behalf of these Iranian customers.   Jafari and others allegedly wired money to the U.S. companies as payment, concealed from the U.S. companies the end-use and end-users of the goods, and caused the goods to be shipped to Turkey and later to Iran.

Jafari and his associates are thought to operate a procurement network that provides direct support to Iran's missile program by securing metal products, including steel and aluminum alloys, for subordinates of Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO). ...  Department of the Treasury designated Jafari, his associates and several corporate entities in Iran and Turkey under Executive Order 13382, which targets for sanctions proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters.   This is expected to block Jafari and his associates from the U.S. financial and commercial systems.  

The indictment seeks forfeiture of $177,868 in connection with these offenses.   Jafari remains at large and is believed to be in Iran.   He faces a maximum potential sentence of five years in prison for the conspiracy count, 20 years in prison for each count of illegal exports to Iran, and 10 years in prison for each smuggling count. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Revised Form I-129 Form Requires Petitioners to Certify Compliance with Export Controls </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Immigration</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-02-20T13:13:18-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c70ca4f895a7dadc89b04252d548b8d-443.php#unique-entry-id-443</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c70ca4f895a7dadc89b04252d548b8d-443.php#unique-entry-id-443</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Effective February 20, 2011, the revised Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requires a petitioner seeking H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or O-1A visas to certify that it has reviewed U.S. export control regulations and determined that: 


(a) a license is not required to release technology to the foreign worker; or 

(b) if an export license is required, it will not release controlled technology to the foreign worker until it has received a license or other authorization to do so.  

For additional information about the revised form and petitions for nonimmigrant worker visas, see http://www.uscis.gov.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Chinese National Sentenced to 97 Months Imprisonment for ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-01-26T12:03:31-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f79f135fe3ff814e7a7b66cab9eda7f1-441.php#unique-entry-id-441</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f79f135fe3ff814e7a7b66cab9eda7f1-441.php#unique-entry-id-441</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice announced that Zhen Zhou Wu, 46, a Chinese national who traveled to the United States on an annual basis using business visas, was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment for conspiring to illegally export U.S.   Munitions List (USML) parts and export restricted sensitive technology to the PRC over a period of ten years, illegally exporting electronics to the PRC on 14 occasions between 2004 and 2007, and conspiring to file, and filing, false shipping documents with the U.S. 

...On May 17, 2010, Wu was convicted of conspiring from 1997 to 2007 to unlawfully export to the PRC military electronics and export restricted electronics components and illegally exporting such parts to the PRC on numerous occasions between 2004 and 2007. ...  The exported equipment is used in electronic warfare, military radar, fire control, military guidance and control equipment, missile systems, and satellite communications.


...Using Chitron, Wu targeted Chinese military factories and military research institutes as customers of Chitron, including numerous institutes of the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (&ldquo;CETC&rdquo;), which is responsible for the procurement, development, and manufacture of electronics for the Chinese military, including the People&rsquo;s Liberation Army. 

...The Department of Defense&rsquo;s Defense Technology Security Administration has concluded in a report filed with the Court that the defendants&rsquo; activities seriously threatened &ldquo;U.S. national and regional security interests.&rdquo;   According to the Department of Defense, the parts the defendants were convicted of illegally exporting are &ldquo;vital for Chinese military electronic warfare, military radar, fire control, military guidance and control equipment, and satellite communications.&rdquo; 

...He conspired to procure U.S. military products and other controlled electronic components for use in mainland China &ndash; for military radar, satellite communications, and guidance systems. 

...&ldquo;This case demonstrates the importance of safeguarding America&rsquo;s sensitive technology against illicit foreign procurement efforts and should serve as a warning to others who seek to covertly obtain or provide such materials to advance foreign military systems. 

...&ldquo;This sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime and sends a strong message that we will pursue, arrest and prosecute others who flout our laws by diverting sensitive U.S.-origin items through third countries,&rdquo; said John McKenna, Special Agent in Charge of the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Office of Export Enforcement Boston Field Office.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Man Charged with Illegally Exporting Military Technology to South Korea</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-01-10T11:09:43-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4cc4e3629459f9c1df6405341ccc5b93-439.php#unique-entry-id-439</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4cc4e3629459f9c1df6405341ccc5b93-439.php#unique-entry-id-439</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 10, 2011, U.S.   Department of Justice announced that Kue San Chun, 66, of Avon Lake, Ohio, was charged with illegally exporting defense articles on the U.S.   Munitions List (USML), and with knowingly making and subscribing a false U.S. individual income tax return. 

Chun, 66, was a longtime employee at the NASA Glenn Research Center although he is not accused of taking technology or related materials from his work. 

Count one of the criminal information specifies that Chun, from March 2000 and November 2005, knowingly exported from the U.S. to the Republic of Korea Infra Red Focal Place Array detectors and Infra Red camera engines which were designated as defense articles on the USML without first obtaining the required export license or authorization from the U.S.   Department of State. 

Chun is also accused of knowingly making and subscribing a false U.S. individual income tax return for the year 2005, which failed to report over $80,000 of taxable income he earned in 1995.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements US-India Bilateral Understanding Regarding Export Controls</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>India</category><dc:date>2011-01-25T11:07:09-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fedc973e3c8767b27ced9cf3f53917ca-438.php#unique-entry-id-438</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fedc973e3c8767b27ced9cf3f53917ca-438.php#unique-entry-id-438</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 25, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   The rule implements parts of understanding between the U.S. and India regarding nonproliferation and export controls reform program. 

Specifically, BIS began implementation of the U.S.-India agreement by revising certain export and reexport controls for India, including removal of nine Indian entities from the Entity List.   In addition, BIS amended the EAR to remove India from Country Groups D:2, D:3, and D:4 and instead add India to Country Group A:2. 

These changes in the EAR are also a part of the initial steps to implement the export control reform program outlined in the November 8, 2010 U.S.-India bilateral understanding.  

The rule is effective January 25, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Census Seeks Comments on Proposal for Additional Data in the AES</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Census</category><category>AES</category><dc:date>2011-01-24T10:58:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7df47e964a6f7299ea36d6247b2e315b-437.php#unique-entry-id-437</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7df47e964a6f7299ea36d6247b2e315b-437.php#unique-entry-id-437</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The elements that will be added or modified are conditional, meaning they will be required only if applicable to the specific shipment being exported.   According to Census, this data will support the export control initiative of enforcement agencies by helping to detect and prevent unauthorized exports and to collect complete and accurate export statistics.   In addition, Census proposes that AES filing be mandatory for shipments of all used self-propelled vehicles and household goods regardless of value or country of destination. 

...It is expected that these conditional data elements will have limited impact on burden response time since entering information for the end user and consignee type is based on the knowledge the exporter has at the time of export. 

...Census proposes that license applicant address, license value, and country of origin be other additional required elements. ...  For shipments that require an export license (currently, 6% or records filed require a license), the address of the license applicant will be required.   In addition to the value that is currently captured in the AES, the license value per commodity classification will be required to be reported. 

For shipments with a foreign country of origin (currently, 17% of records), the country of origin will be required to be reported.   For shipments where method of transportation is containerized vessel cargo (currently, 19% of records), the container number will be required to be reported in the equipment number field. 

...Each additional field affects only a percentage of the shipments that are required to be reported in the AES.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Census Seeks Comments on Proposed Changes to Federal Trade Regulations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Census</category><category>FTR</category><dc:date>2011-01-21T10:56:34-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ddbedaff43fd4ec974557a20a992dbeb-436.php#unique-entry-id-436</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ddbedaff43fd4ec974557a20a992dbeb-436.php#unique-entry-id-436</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 21, 20111, the U.S.   Census Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing to amend Federal Trade Regulations (FTR) at 15 C.F.R. part 30.   Proposed changes reflect new export requirements. 

Specifically, Census is proposing to require mandatory filing of export information through the Automated Export System (AES) or through AESDirect for all shipments of used self-propelled vehicles, temporary exports and household goods.   Census is also proposing to modify the post-departure filing program by changing the filing time from 10 to 5 calendar days and only allowing post-departure reporting for certain approved commodities. 

The proposed rule also makes changes to the FTR to improve clarity and to correct errors. 

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the Associate Director for Economic Programs with U.S.   Census Bureau on or before March 22, 2011.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Former Probation Officer Sentenced to Prison for Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-01-03T10:30:25-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e2c4d5f40697d3c0b2b6ea733a32d306-435.php#unique-entry-id-435</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e2c4d5f40697d3c0b2b6ea733a32d306-435.php#unique-entry-id-435</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, sentenced Emenike Charles Nwankwoala, of Laurel, Maryland, to 37 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release for exporting arms and controlled goods without a license and delivery of a package containing a gun to a carrier without notifying the carrier of the gun as part of a scheme to export guns and ammunition to Nigeria. 

...In February 2009, Nwankwoala applied for an export license to export shotguns to Nigeria, stating that these weapons were to be used in the operation of a newly-opened shooting range in Nigeria. ...  Department of Commerce denied the license because Nwankwoala did not provide evidence of that the shooting range existed. 

From December 2008 to May  2009, Nwankwoala purchased at least 37 shotguns from a gun shop in Washington, D.C. metro area and ordered 25 more shotguns over the internet from a licensed company in Ogden, Utah, falsely advising the company that he had an export license. 

On May 13, 2009, Nwankwoala told an undercover ICE agent that he had made a large profit over 10 years from purchasing shotguns and shipping them to Nigeria in shipping containers with vehicles and hospital beds.   Nwankwoala said he knew he needed a license to ship the guns, but had not obtained one because he could not identify the end user as required by federal law. 

...In July or August 2009, Nwankwoala prepared a shipping container with 24 shotguns, six pistols and ammunition, all concealed in suitcases and a car. 

...The ship left Porit Elizabeth and arrived in Nigeria on September 15, 2009, but the container was not unloaded based upon a request from law enforcement to have the container returned for inspection.   On October 6, 2009, U.S. and Spanish law enforcement inspected the container in Algeciras, Spain, and seized the firearms, ammunition and automobile. 

...Nwankwoala did not have the licenses or authorizations from the Department of State or the DOC to export the firearms and ammunition to Nigeria, nor did he possess a federal license to engage in the business of dealing in firearms. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes 3 New Government Reports</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2011-01-14T14:37:50-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dde6e26635c22d6d13b6f08f24d1f568-434.php#unique-entry-id-434</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dde6e26635c22d6d13b6f08f24d1f568-434.php#unique-entry-id-434</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 14, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the following reports:


	&bull;	Offsets in Defense Trade Fifteenth Study


	&bull;	2011 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls


	&bull;	BIS Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Final Rule on Mass Market Encryption</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2011-01-07T14:32:29-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45c1f8e30804d50eeb01223f6b1e57be-433.php#unique-entry-id-433</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45c1f8e30804d50eeb01223f6b1e57be-433.php#unique-entry-id-433</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 7, 2011, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule on publicly available mass market encryption software and other specified publicly available encryption software in object code. 


Through this Final Rule, BIS is removing from the scope of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) &lsquo;&lsquo;publicly available&rsquo;&rsquo; mass market encryption object code software with a symmetric key length greater than 64- bits, and &lsquo;&lsquo;publicly available&rsquo;&rsquo; encryption object code classified under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5D002 on the Commerce Control List when the corresponding source code meets the criteria specified under License Exception TSU.   This change is being made pursuant to a determination by BIS that, because there are no regulatory restrictions on making such software &lsquo;&lsquo;publicly available,&rsquo;&rsquo; and because, once it is &lsquo;&lsquo;publicly available,&rsquo;&rsquo; by definition it is available for download by any end user without restriction, removing it from the jurisdiction of the EAR will have no effect on export control policy.   This action will not result in the decontrol of source code classified under ECCN 5D002, but it will result in a simplification of the regulatory provisions for publicly available mass market software and specified encryption software in object code.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U. S. Senate Fails to Extend GSP</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2011-01-03T15:22:05-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a7984f2c08b66b8c54b8c5825e976b81-432.php#unique-entry-id-432</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a7984f2c08b66b8c54b8c5825e976b81-432.php#unique-entry-id-432</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The 111th meeting of the U.S.   Congress adjourned on December 23, 2010 without extending the Generalized Systems of Preferences (GSP) program which subsequently expired on December 31, 2010.   Although the House of Representatives passed the Omnibus Trade Act of 2010, including GSP trade preference program, on December 15, 2010, the Senate failed to reach agreement on longer term extensions of the GSP as well as the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs.  

U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notification via Automated Broker Interface (ABI) that importers may continue to apply the GSP special program indicators &ldquo;A&rdquo; and &ldquo;A+&rdquo; on eligible goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse after December 31, 2010, however, they must pay the applicable Column 1 rate of duty. 

It is expected that the GSP program will be reauthorized in the 112th Congress including provision for retroactive recovery of any duties that importers must pay as of January 1, 2011, for goods that would be duty-free if GSP program was in force. 

CBP noted that GSP program indicators will enable CBP to liquidate all GSP preference claims with a refund if the program is reauthorized with retroactivity. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Retired University Professor Loses Appeal of Criminal Export Conviction</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2011-01-10T15:19:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c5feed3fb276a3b947e30847a1e1913a-431.php#unique-entry-id-431</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c5feed3fb276a3b947e30847a1e1913a-431.php#unique-entry-id-431</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 3, 2008, the Eastern District court of Tennessee at Knoxville, Roth was found to have violated the AECA when he exported data from a defense research project on a trip to China and allowed two foreign nationals in Knoxville to access certain data and equipment in violation of the AECA.  

...Roth was told at the beginning of the project, on which he was to work as a consultant, that it was to be paid with &ldquo;6.2&rdquo; funds, which Roth knew meant that the research would be subject to export control laws that prohibited access to the research outside the U.S. or to foreign persons unless a license had been obtained. 

...After meeting with opposition from Daniel Sherman, the principal of Atmospheric, regarding foreign nationals working on the project, Roth sought advice from an the UT and was directed to Robin Witherspoon, UT&rsquo;s officer in charge of export controls, who notified Roth that the project data was export controlled. 

...When on May 16, 2006, Roth traveled to China to lecture at universities regarding his work, he took with him a paper copy of a Phase II Weekly Report, a flash drive with electronic copies of Phase II reports, and a laptop computer that stored a copy of the Department of Defense Advance Research Projects Agency&rsquo;s project proposal (Agency Proposal).  

...On appeal, Roth argued that: (1) the Phase II data and the data included in the Agency Proposal were not defense articles or services as a matter of law because they were not developed to put plasma actuators on items identified on the Munitions List; (2) the district court incorrectly instructed the jury as to willfulness and improperly failed to deliver his proposed instruction regarding ignorance of the law; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury&rsquo;s conclusion that he willfully exported the Agency Proposal because he never opened the electronic file and could not have known its contents until after he returned to China.

With regard to Roth&rsquo;s first contention, the Court of Appeals held that &ldquo;the federal regulations extend export controls to all stages of defense projects that are covered by the [AECA], not just the final stages when military devices are directly involved.&rdquo; ...  As Phase II involved incorporating plasma actuators on military drone aircraft, all of the project work was correctly held by the district court to be defense articles and services. 

...The Court noted that no circuit court cases have decided whether ignorance of the law was a separate defense to charges under the Act, and in the two Fifth Circuit cases that addressed the issue, neither held that juries must be instructed about ignorance as a separate, affirmative defense. 

...On Roth&rsquo;s final contention, the Court held that the purpose of the Agency Proposal was to build military munitions, and it was premised upon the Phase II technology that UT had told Roth was export controlled and instructed him to not take anything relating to Phase II on his trip to China.   In addition, both Roth and the Atmospheric&rsquo;s principal Sherman had discussed the project information and Roth knew that it was export controlled as the discussions were conducted with Phase II or the Proposal background. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements Additional Changes from Annual Review of Entity List for Entities in China and Russia</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-17T14:44:06-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f0a56e0f1849885046bc00ec322f218-430.php#unique-entry-id-430</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f0a56e0f1849885046bc00ec322f218-430.php#unique-entry-id-430</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 17, 2010, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule implementing additional changes to the Entity List based on the annual review of the list conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC).


The changes to the Entity List from the annual review is being implemented in three rules.   The first rule published on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 29884) implemented the results of the annual review for listed entities located in Canada, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.


The second rule, published on 12/17/10, implements the results of the annual review for entities located in China and Russia.   This rule removes five entities from the Entity List under Russia and makes twenty-one modifications to the Entity List (consisting of modifications to eighteen Chinese entries and three Russian entries currently on the Entity List) by adding additional addresses, aliases and/or clarifying the names for these twenty-one entities.


The third rule, which will likely be published in early 2011, will implement the remaining results of the annual review.


The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security and that availability of license exceptions in such transactions is]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Issues a Proposed Rule Revising Category VII of the USML</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-10T14:25:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f809e6bb11752accb3037350202d54c-429.php#unique-entry-id-429</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f809e6bb11752accb3037350202d54c-429.php#unique-entry-id-429</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[As part of the President&rsquo;s Export Control Reform effort, the Department of State issued a proposed rule on December 10, 2010 to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise Category VII of the U.S. 

...The descriptions in many USML categories are general and include design intent as an element of causing an item to be controlled.   The descriptions in most CCL categories are specific and generally include technical parameters as an element for causing an item to be controlled. 


...A key part of the Administration&rsquo;s Export Control Reform effort is to review and revise these two lists of controlled items to enhance national security so that they: (1) Are &ldquo;tiered&rdquo; consistent with the criteria the U.S.   Government is establishing to distinguish the types of items that should be controlled at different levels for different types of destinations, end-uses, and end-users (&ldquo;Criteria&rdquo;); (2) create a &ldquo;bright line&rdquo; between the two lists to clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce government and industry uncertainty about whether particular items are subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR or the EAR; and (3) are structurally &ldquo;aligned&rdquo; so that they later can be combined into a single list of controlled items.


In the process of revising the USML, articles will be screened to determine which items that are currently USML-controlled defense articles should remain on the USML, which items that are currently USML controlled defense articles could be controlled under the CCL, and which items should be subject to the EAR without a specific Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) on the CCL.   This proposed rule addresses both the need for &ldquo;tiering&rdquo; Category VII and the need for establishing a &ldquo;bright line&rdquo; between the USML and the CCL so that, after application of this process to the remaining categories of the USML and meeting the statutory and other requirements of Export Control Reform, the two lists can be combined into a single list of controlled items. ...  Government control list, DDTC plans to publish in the existing ITAR a final rule amending Category VII after it has reviewed and considered all comments received on this proposed rule, received interagency input and approval, and satisfied its obligations under section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act.


The DDTC has revised Category VII to assign all controlled defense articles under this category one of the three control Criteria, that is Tier 1 (T1), Tier 2 (T2), or Tier 3 (T3).   These tier designations were made upon a government-wide assessment of the appropriate level of export control for each item based upon different types of destinations, end-uses, and end-users. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Seeks Public Comments on Revising the USML to a &#x22;Positive&#x22; List </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-10T13:55:46-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5533f17b5ede4465acaa15c4595002b8-428.php#unique-entry-id-428</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5533f17b5ede4465acaa15c4595002b8-428.php#unique-entry-id-428</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 10, 2010, the State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and is seeking public comment on revisions to the to the United States Munitions List (USML) that would make it a &lsquo;&lsquo;positive list&rsquo;&rsquo; of controlled defense articles, requests that the public &lsquo;&lsquo;tier&rsquo;&rsquo; defense articles based on the Administration&rsquo;s three-tier control criteria, and identify those current defense articles that the public believes do not fall within the scope of any of the criteria&rsquo;s tiers. 

...DDTC is not seeking with this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) input on whether particular defense articles should or should not be controlled on the USML or whether any defense articles should be controlled differently.   Rather, it is only seeking with this ANPRM input on how the USML can be revised so that it clearly describes what is subject to the jurisdiction of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), how defense articles are identified by tier, and what current defense articles do not fall within the scope of any of the tiers.


...A key part of the Administration&rsquo;s Export Control Reform effort is to review and revise both the ITAR and the CCL to enhance national security so that they: (1) Are &lsquo;&lsquo;tiered&rsquo;&rsquo; consistent with the criteria the U.S.   Government has established to distinguish the types of items that should be controlled at different levels for different types of destinations, end-uses, and end-users; (2) create a &lsquo;&lsquo;bright line&rsquo;&rsquo; between the two lists to clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce government and industry uncertainty about whether a particular item is subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR or the EAR; and (3) are structurally &lsquo;&lsquo;aligned&rsquo;&rsquo; so that they can eventually be combined into a single control list.


The Administration has determined that these changes are necessary to better focus its resources on protecting those items that need to be protected, to end jurisdictional confusion between the ITAR and EAR, and to provide clarity to make it easier for exporters to comply with the regulations and for the U.S. 

...U.S. companies, trade associations, and individuals that produce, market, or export USML- controlled defense articles are generally well positioned to describe their articles positively and to provide comments on what are and are not clear descriptions of controls over the articles. 

...Descriptions should not contain any (a) controls that use generic labels for &lsquo;&lsquo;parts,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;components,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;accessories,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;attachments,&rsquo;&rsquo; or &lsquo;&lsquo;end-items&rsquo;&rsquo; or (b) other types of controls for specific types of defense articles because, for example, they were &lsquo;&lsquo;specifically designed or modified&rsquo;&rsquo; for a defense article, but should contain identification of those &lsquo;&lsquo;parts,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;components,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;accessories,&rsquo;&rsquo; &lsquo;&lsquo;attachments,&rsquo;&rsquo; or &lsquo;&lsquo;end-items&rsquo;&rsquo; that do warrant enumerated control on the USML. 

...Items are not to be listed on both the CCL and the USML unless there are specific technical or other objective criteria&mdash;regardless of the reason why any particular item was designed or modified&mdash;that distinguish between when an item is USML-controlled or when it is CCL-controlled.


...The public is also requested to identify any current defense articles that do not fall within the scope of any of the criteria&rsquo;s tiers, and provide an explanation why they believe that such items are not within the scope of the criteria.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Proposes New License Exception STA</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Regulations</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-12-09T13:46:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f0e2f351159f1acb8aa0530e06a73fa5-427.php#unique-entry-id-427</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f0e2f351159f1acb8aa0530e06a73fa5-427.php#unique-entry-id-427</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a proposed rule adding a new license exception to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   The new Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) license exception would allow exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of specified items to destinations that pose little risk of unauthorized use of those items.   To provide assurance against diversion to unauthorized destinations, transactions under this license exception would be subject to notification, destination control statement and consignee statement requirements.   This proposed rule is part of the Administration&rsquo;s Export Control Reform Initiative undertaken as a result of the fundamental review of the U.S. export control system announced by the President in August 2009.


This license exception would encompass three different authorizations, based on the reason(s) for control underlying the license requirements that would apply to the item in the particular transaction at issue, the destination, the sensitivity of the item and the end-use.   One authorization would allow items subject to any (or all) of seven reasons for control to go to 37 destinations.   Another authorization would allow less sensitive items subject to only national security reasons for control to go to two additional destinations.   The third authorization would allow less sensitive items subject to only national security reasons for control to go to 125 additional destinations for civil end- uses.   National security-controlled items that are ineligible for the last two authorizations would be identified by the new &lsquo;&lsquo;STA exclusion paragraphs&rsquo;&rsquo; in the &lsquo;&lsquo;License Exceptions&rsquo;&rsquo; sections of 50 ECCN entries on the Commerce Control List.   Thus, the STA exclusion serves the opposite function of a typical list-based license exception paragraph, such as those setting forth license exceptions LVS (&sect; 740.3) and GBS (&sect; 740.4), which identifies items that are eligible for a license exception.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re: Revising the Descriptions of Items on the CCL and Foreign Availability</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-09T17:48:54-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8b40f473bd43fabd7cc4281b94f9b165-426.php#unique-entry-id-426</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8b40f473bd43fabd7cc4281b94f9b165-426.php#unique-entry-id-426</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 9, 2010, the U.S.   Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued  an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register.   As part of the President's export control reform initiative, BIS is seeking public comment on how the descriptions of items controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) could be more clear and positive and "tiered" in a manner consistent with the control criteria the Administration has developed as part of the reform effort.   The request for comments on how items on the CCL could be tiered includes a request for comments on the degree to which a controlled item provides the United States with a critical, substantial, or significant military or intelligence advantage; and the availability of the item outside certain groups of countries.


BIS states that:


A core task of the Administration&rsquo;s Export Control Reform Initiative is to enhance national security by reviewing and revising, as necessary and to the extent permitted by law and regime obligations, the lists of items (i.e., commodities, software, and technology) controlled for export and reexport so that they (1) are clearer and more "positive" in nature and (2) can more easily be screened into three tiers based upon a set of criteria.   The Administration has developed a three- tiered set of criteria to help determine whether a license should be required or a license exception should be available to allow license-free export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of a given item, with appropriate conditions, to various destinations.   The three-tiered set of criteria has two primary elements-(a) the degree to which an item provides the United States with a military or intelligence advantage and (b) the availability of the item outside the United States, its close allies and multilateral export control regime partners.


Accordingly, BIS seeks public comments on how certain export control classification numbers (ECCNs) that do not contain "positive" descriptions or that are unclear can be made more clear and more specific.   In addition, BIS also seeks public comments on whether items with the capabilities and characteristics described on the CCL, and controlled for other than solely anti- terrorism (AT) reasons or Crime Control (CC) reasons, are indigenously developed, produced, or enhanced (a) almost exclusively in the United States or (b) in destinations other than Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, or the United Kingdom.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Weekly Wednesday Teleconferences to Discuss Export Control Reform Efforts</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-20T17:26:09-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39beee570f60d062d3863e488d2ac69b-425.php#unique-entry-id-425</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39beee570f60d062d3863e488d2ac69b-425.php#unique-entry-id-425</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 20, 2010, the U.S.   Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced  the availability of Kevin Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, via a weekly Wednesday teleconference from 2pm - 4pm EST to answer the public's questions related to Export Control reform, particularly the two Commerce notices published on December 9th (see news articles below).


Questions to be discussed in the conference call must be submitted in advance to oesdseminar@bis.doc.gov with the subject line "Teleconference Questions".


To participate in the free conference calls, which are limited to the first 100 people per session, you may dial in at 866-917-2731, participant code 4136642.   Callers should dial in 10 minutes early.   No reservations are required.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Foreign Trade Zones Board Proposes Changes to FTZ Regulations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FTZ</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-12-30T14:15:12-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b96282ef89cb6a14a906832ffd9cd767-424.php#unique-entry-id-424</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b96282ef89cb6a14a906832ffd9cd767-424.php#unique-entry-id-424</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The revisions encompass changes related to manufacturing and value-added activities, as well as new rules designed to address compliance with the Foreign Trade Zones Act&rsquo;s (FTZ Act) requirement for a grantee to provide uniform treatment for the users of a zone. 

...As proposed, advanced approval for production activity would only be required under specific circumstances (e.g., if a lower U.S. duty rate will be applied to the component through its incorporation into a downstream product in the FTZ) (see 15 C.F.R. 

...In circumstances where advance approval is required for specific production activity, the proposed rule would delegate authority to the Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to approve the activity on an interim basis pending completion of the full 

...The current regulations allow grantees or zone operators to notify the FTZ Board of new components but require advance approval for any new finished products. ...  However, in order to preserve the public process long associated with FTZ Board evaluation of new &ldquo;manufacturing'' activity, the proposed regulations would also require that a production operation obtain advance FTZ Board approval &ndash; after a public comment period on the proposal &ndash; for the list of broad categories of components or finished products within which specific new components or finished products would be identified.   In addition, the proposed regulations would provide for a public comment period on all notifications submitted to the FTZ Board, as well as procedures to review any such notifications and to impose restrictions on notified changes when warranted.

Two other areas of change in the proposed regulations pertain to the statutory requirements that each zone be operated as a public utility and provide uniform treatment to all that apply to use the zone. 

...Additionally, the proposed regulations would implement the statutory authority to issue fines for violations of the FTZ Act or the Board's regulations through specific provisions targeting certain types of violations (see Sec.  ...  The fining provisions are supplemented by provisions through which the Board or the Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Import Administration may order the suspension of the activated status of a zone operation in response to a violation.   The proposed regulations' fining and suspension-of-activation provisions would help to ensure compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements that zones submit annual reports to the FTZ Board, obtain advance approval (or submit notification) for certain production activity, and avoid certain conflicts of interest inconsistent with the statutory uniform treatment requirement.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Fined &#x24;92M to Settle FCPA Allegations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-12-27T14:10:15-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/65ac1410ddcad36c95e5198f359f546d-423.php#unique-entry-id-423</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/65ac1410ddcad36c95e5198f359f546d-423.php#unique-entry-id-423</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 27, 2010, Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that Alcatel-Lucent S.A. and three of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay a $92 million penalty to resolve a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation into the sales practices of Alcatel S.A. prior to its merger with Lucent Technologies Inc. in 2006. 

Alcatel-Lucent and DOJ agreed to resolve the FCPA charges by entering into a deferred prosecution agreement for a term of three years.   According to court documents, Alcatel-Lucent was formed in 2006 after Lucent Technologies merged with Alcatel, a French telecommunications equipment and services company.   Beginning in the 1990s and through 2006, Alcatel pursued many of its business opportunities around the globe through subsidiaries using third-party agents and consultants who were retained by Alcatel Standard.   This business model was shown to be prone to corruption, as consultants were repeatedly used as conduits to bribe foreign officials and business executives of private customers to obtain or retain business in many countries. 

Court documents allege that Alcatel-Lucent&rsquo;s three subsidiaries paid millions of dollars to bribe foreign officials in order to obtain and retain business.   Alcatel-Lucent also admitted that it violated the internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA related to the hiring of third-party agents.   Overall, the company admitted that it earned approximately $48.1 million in profits as a result of these payments. 

In a related case, two former Alcatel executives were charged in March 2007 with conspiracy to violate the FCPA, making corrupt payments in violation of the FCPA, and laundering bribe payments through a third-party. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>PPG Subsidiary Settles Export Charges with Forfeiture &#x26; &#x24;3.75 Million Fine</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-12-21T14:05:27-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/99900d75865ab1ddcdda6d83ecd09d25-422.php#unique-entry-id-422</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/99900d75865ab1ddcdda6d83ecd09d25-422.php#unique-entry-id-422</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the charges, PPG Paints Trading actions illegally exported, reexported and/or transshipped high-performance coatings from the U.S. to the Chashma 2 Nuclear Power Plant in Pakistan via a third party distribution in the People&rsquo;s Republic of China. 

...The PAEC is the science and technology organization in Pakistan responsible for Pakistan&rsquo;s nuclear program including the development and operation of nuclear power plants in Pakistan.   In November 1998, following Pakistan&rsquo;s first successful detonation of a nuclear device, BIS added the PAEC, as well as its subordinate nuclear reactors and power plants, to the list of prohibited end users under the EAR.   As such, exports, reexports, or transshipment of any items subject to the EAR to the PAEC require a Department of Commerce license. 


According to count one of the information, in January 2006, PPG Industries sought such an export license for the shipments of coatings to Chashma 2, which was denied by the Commerce Department in June 2006.   Following that denial, PPG Paints Trading agreed upon an arrangement whereby it sold the high-performance coatings to a third-party distributor in China which, in turn, delivered the coatings for application at Chashma 2.   In its purchase orders for the shipments in question, PPG Paints Trading falsely stated that the coatings were to be used at a nuclear power plant in China, the export of goods to which would not require a license from the Department of Commerce.


As part of its plea agreement, PPG Paints Trading agreed to pay the maximum criminal fine of $2 million, and serve five years of corporate probation.   The gross proceeds received by PPG Paints Trading for these three illegal exports was $32,319, which it forfeited as part of the plea agreement.   In addition to the forfeiture and the fine, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) also required an audit of 2011 and 2012 export transactions of PPG and its relevant business units in the U.S. and China, including transactions related to restricted end users on the agency&rsquo;s Entity List and nuclear end uses and end users.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Recent Civil Enforcement Information</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-12-16T13:56:56-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eb701cefc67e7173f09ad8455aedae6b-421.php#unique-entry-id-421</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eb701cefc67e7173f09ad8455aedae6b-421.php#unique-entry-id-421</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[	&bull;	Discover Financial Services of Riverwoods, IL (Discover) has remitted $8,720 to settle allegations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations (FNKSR) violations occurring from December 2005 to November 2007.   OFAC alleged that Discover dealt in property in the United States in which a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker had an interest by maintaining a personal credit card account on his behalf.  ...  The base penalty amount was adjustment to account for several General Factors:  Discover voluntarily disclosed this matter to OFAC, took steps to strengthen its OFAC compliance program and its existing OFAC procedures, assigned a new employee to review the credit card portfolio against SDN list updates, and provided extra training to its employees.    In addition, Discover had no other known violations on record with OFAC prior to these allegations.

...(Wells Fargo) has remitted $67,500 to settle allegations of violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR) from March 2005 to July 2006.   OFAC alleged that Wells Fargo exported financial services to Iran by performing financial services in the United States on behalf of an account holder while the account holder was located in Iran.  ...  The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following General Factors:  OFAC expressed to Wells Fargo an interest in this account holder as early as April 2002 but Wells Fargo failed to conduct an investigation until September 2006.  ...  In addition, Wells Fargo created and implemented a risk-based OFAC compliance program, which includes the use of Internet Protocol addresses to identify registered users located in Iran. 

...Specifically, the individual engaged in prohibited transactions in 2006 when he sent and/or attempted to send funds to Iran for investment in a catering business located in Iran.  ...  The assessment amount reflected OFAC&rsquo;s consideration pursuant to its Enforcement Guidelines this being the first individual&rsquo;s violation of an OFAC sanctions program.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CA Man Charged with Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-12-16T13:52:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/47f8b9ec97c4563cff6f900c280310bd-420.php#unique-entry-id-420</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/47f8b9ec97c4563cff6f900c280310bd-420.php#unique-entry-id-420</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 16, 2010, Newswire reported  that Marc Knapp (Knapp) of Simi Valley, CA, has been charged with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).   Knapp illegally exported to Hungary and attempted to export to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia a number of items, which triggered IEEPA and AECA jurisdiction.


Specifically, Knapp is charged with illegally exporting and attempting to export an F-5B Tiger II fighter jet;  CSU-13 anti-gravity flight suits, which are worn by pilots to counteract the forces of gravity and acceleration; an F-14 NATOPS emergency procedures manual, which is designed for use by pilots during in-flight emergencies in fighter jets; electronic versions of the NATOPS emergency procedures manual;  AN/PRC-149 survival radios, which are hand-held search and rescue radios used primarily by U.S.   Navy pilots as an emergency locator beacon; and F-14 ejection seats.


According to court documents, a cooperating defendant introduced Knapp to an undercover U.S.   Immigration and Customs Enforcement&rsquo;s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agent who met with Knapp on several occasions.   During the meetings, Knapp informed the ICE agent that he had various defense items for sale.   He also admitted procuring an F-14 ejection seat, which was sold to the agent by another source.   Over the course of their interaction, Knapp provided the agent with various lists containing items for sale, including photographs and descriptions.


Knapp faces a maximum statutory sentence of 40 years imprisonment, a $2 million fine and a forfeiture of profits. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>California Company Settles Criminal and Civil FCPA Allegations for &#x24;1.7 MillionOn December 10&#x2c; 2010&#x2c; Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that RAE Systems&#x2c; Inc. (RAE)&#x2c; a San Jose&#x2c; CA&#x2c; corporation&#x2c; has agreed to pay &#x24;1.7 million to resolve charges of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). &#xd;&#xd;The information included in the non-prosecution agreement which resulted after RAE voluntarily disclosed the violations&#x2c; RAE is an equipment manufacturer who is engaged in the development and manufacture of rapidly deployable&#x2c; multi-sensor chemical and radiation detection monitors and networks.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;From 2005 to 2008&#x2c; the company had significant operations in the People&#x2019;s Republic of China (China)&#x2c; and sold its products and services primarily through two subsidiaries organized as joint ventures with local Chinese entities: RAE-KLH (Beijing) Co. Limited (RAE-KLH) and RAE Coal Mine Safety Instruments (Fushun) Co. Ltd. (RAE Fushun).&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;The information further provides that a significant number of RAE-KLH&#x2019;s and RAE Fushun&#x2019;s customers were Chinese government departments and bureaus&#x2c; and large state-owned agencies and instrumentalities&#x2c; including regional fire departments&#x2c; emergency response departments and entities under the supervision of the provincial environmental agency.&#xd;&#xa0;&#xd;The agreement describes that RAE used RAE-KLH and RAE Fushun employees to pay bribes to foreign officials in China. As a result of due diligence conducted by RAE before acquiring the majority of the joint venture that became known as RAE-KLH&#x2c; RAE became aware of improper commissions&#x2c; kickbacks and &#x201c;under table greasing to get deals&#x201d; by employees.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;The information contained in the agreement provides&#x2c; however&#x2c; that RAE elected to implement internal controls only &#x201c;halfway&#x201d; so as not to &#x201c;choke the sales engine and cause a distraction for the sales guys.&#x201d;&#xa0;&#xa0;As a result&#x2c; improper payments continued at RAE-KLH.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;When acquiring the majority of RAE Fushun&#x2c; RAE did not conduct any pre-acquisition corruption due diligence in spite of a number of red flags.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;It was later confirmed that RAE Fushun also gave bribes to Chinese officials.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xd;&#xa0;&#xd;According to the settlement agreement&#x2c; RAE Systems voluntarily disclosed this conduct to the department&#x2c; conducted a thorough and credible internal investigation&#x2c; and undertook extensive remediation.&#xa0;RAE agreed to fully cooperate with investigations by law enforcement authorities&#x2c; to&#xa0;adhere to a set of enhanced corporate compliance and reporting obligations&#x2c; and to submit periodic reports to the department regarding RAE&#x2019;s compliance with its obligations under the agreement.&#xd;&#xa0;&#xd;In a related matter&#x2c; RAE reached a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which RAE consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and agreed to pay &#x24;1&#x2c;147&#x2c;800 in disgorgement and &#x24;109&#x2c;212 in prejudgment interest.&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;RAE also agreed to comply with certain undertakings regarding its FCPA compliance program.&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2010-12-10T13:43:09-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/561c847a0df20999d25d4098603fc6dc-419.php#unique-entry-id-419</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/561c847a0df20999d25d4098603fc6dc-419.php#unique-entry-id-419</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The information included in the non-prosecution agreement which resulted after RAE voluntarily disclosed the violations, RAE is an equipment manufacturer who is engaged in the development and manufacture of rapidly deployable, multi-sensor chemical and radiation detection monitors and networks.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  From 2005 to 2008, the company had significant operations in the People&rsquo;s Republic of China (China), and sold its products and services primarily through two subsidiaries organized as joint ventures with local Chinese entities: RAE-KLH (Beijing) Co. ...  The information further provides that a significant number of RAE-KLH&rsquo;s and RAE Fushun&rsquo;s customers were Chinese government departments and bureaus, and large state-owned agencies and instrumentalities, including regional fire departments, emergency response departments and entities under the supervision of the provincial environmental agency.

...The agreement describes that RAE used RAE-KLH and RAE Fushun employees to pay bribes to foreign officials in China.   As a result of due diligence conducted by RAE before acquiring the majority of the joint venture that became known as RAE-KLH, RAE became aware of improper commissions, kickbacks and &ldquo;under table greasing to get deals&rdquo; by employees.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  The information contained in the agreement provides, however, that RAE elected to implement internal controls only &ldquo;halfway&rdquo; so as not to &ldquo;choke the sales engine and cause a distraction for the sales guys.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;...  When acquiring the majority of RAE Fushun, RAE did not conduct any pre-acquisition corruption due diligence in spite of a number of red flags.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

...According to the settlement agreement, RAE Systems voluntarily disclosed this conduct to the department, conducted a thorough and credible internal investigation, and undertook extensive remediation.&nbsp;  RAE agreed to fully cooperate with investigations by law enforcement authorities, to&nbsp;adhere to a set of enhanced corporate compliance and reporting obligations, and to submit periodic reports to the department regarding RAE&rsquo;s compliance with its obligations under the agreement.

...Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which RAE consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against FCPA violations and agreed to pay $1,147,800 in disgorgement and $109,212 in prejudgment interest.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Reports on Progress of the New U.S. Export Control System Implementation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2010-12-09T13:29:25-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3a03c9b3de555bbeda40ede4a9542bd-418.php#unique-entry-id-418</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3a03c9b3de555bbeda40ede4a9542bd-418.php#unique-entry-id-418</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 9, 2010, President&rsquo;s Export Council held a meeting at the White House where President Obama discussed progress made on the goal to double exports over the next five years.

The President announced at the meeting that the Administration released a series of regulations and requests for comment as part of the implementation of the new U.S. export system.   The Administration also deployed its Export Control Reform Initiative webpage at www.export.gov, which includes a new tool to facilitate compliance with U.S. export control requirements by bringing together, for the first time, the various screening lists maintained by multiple Departments.&nbsp; 

...&ldquo;First, the Department of State published a proposed regulation to rewrite Category VII (Tanks and Military Vehicles) of the U.S. ...  The proposed Category is a &ldquo;positive list&rdquo; of those defense articles that an interagency technical working group has determined provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States.&nbsp;   The Department of State is soliciting public comment to ensure that the new Category clearly and concisely identifies the items that are controlled in this Category.

...The notice also solicits public input for virtually all the remaining categories on the USML (excluding the categories for classified defense articles and for miscellaneous articles), requesting input on:

...Third, the Department of Commerce published a similar notice requesting public input on entries on the Commerce Control List as well as requesting foreign availability information on a wide range of controlled items outside a proposed set of countries who are allies and multilateral regime partners.

...The proposed regulation would create a new license exception that would allow exports of controlled items (consistent with statutory and treaty requirements) to countries that are members of all four multilateral export control regimes or other regime members that also are members of NATO.&nbsp;   It would also allow exports of items controlled on the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s Basic List to countries that are members of or adherents to all four multilateral export control regimes, members of NATO, or for civil end-uses in destinations that have not historically represented a significant diversion or proliferation risk for U.S.-origin items.&nbsp; ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Washington Man Charged with AECA Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-12-06T12:18:50-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/80970f01144463a834b458eb84c8321e-417.php#unique-entry-id-417</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/80970f01144463a834b458eb84c8321e-417.php#unique-entry-id-417</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 6, 2010, the Associated Press reported that Lian Yang, a resident of Wodinville, WA, was arrested accused of conspiring to smuggle restricted satellite parts to the People&rsquo;s Republic of China. 

The U.S.   Attorney&rsquo;s office states that Yang tried to recruit people to help him export 300 radiation-hardened semiconductor devices.   The U.S.   Attorney claims that Yang knew that these parts required a State Department authorization as they are covered by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).   The complaint against Yang provides that in a series of meetings with undercover agents this year, Yang agreed to pay $620,000 for the parts and also planned to create a U.S. shell company that would appear to be purchasing the parts concealing the fact that the were destined for China.   Yang planned to falsify purchase orders indicating that parts purchased were not restricted.

Yang faces up to five years imprisonment for the AECA violations. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Proposes Amendments to Regulations re: Permissible Sharing of Client Records by Customs Brokers</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Broker</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-11-01T16:52:06-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/15ec0634b43b87a03e6ded48069cd22b-416.php#unique-entry-id-416</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/15ec0634b43b87a03e6ded48069cd22b-416.php#unique-entry-id-416</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 27, 2010, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register with regard to the permissible sharing of client records by customs brokers.   In the notice, CBP states:


The proposed amendment would allow brokers, upon the client&rsquo;s consent in a written authorization, to share client information with affiliated entities related to the broker so that these entities may offer non-customs business services to the broker&rsquo;s clients.   The proposed amendment would also allow customs brokers to use a third-party to perform photocopying, scanning, and delivery of client records for the broker.   These proposed changes are intended to update the regulation to reflect modern business practices, while protecting the confidentiality of client (importer) information.   In addition, the proposed changes would align the regulations with CBP&rsquo;s previously published rulings concerning brokers&rsquo; confidentiality of client information.


Comments must be received by December 27, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on SNAP-R System</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>SNAP-R</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-11-23T16:47:52-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0eecab62ece12f5a9e976a96d87a1992-415.php#unique-entry-id-415</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0eecab62ece12f5a9e976a96d87a1992-415.php#unique-entry-id-415</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 23, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register seeking comments on Simplified Network Application Processing (SNAP-R) System, On-Line Registration and Account Maintenance

BIS is proposing to implement an on-line registration process for obtaining an account to submit license applications and similar documents electronically.   The current registration process requires paper and facsimile submissions. 

This proposed rule sets forth the information that parties registering on-line would be required to provide to BIS and sets forth the duties that registered parties would have with respect to keeping information in their accounts current.

Comments are due January 24, 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Information on Recent Civil Penalties</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-11-16T16:46:16-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39fdae458368ecc9b77ec6c9148d750a-414.php#unique-entry-id-414</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/39fdae458368ecc9b77ec6c9148d750a-414.php#unique-entry-id-414</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 16, 2010, Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) published recent civil penalty information: 

Pinnacle Aircraft Parts, Inc.   (Pinnacle) of Miami, FL, has paid $225,000 to settle allegations of violating OFAC&rsquo;s Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations (the &ldquo;RPPR&rdquo;), occurring in November 2007.   OFAC alleged that Pinnacle failed to provide documents in response to an administrative subpoena issued by OFAC as part of its investigation of Pinnacle&rsquo;s 2004 sale and delivery of a jet engine, valued in excess of $1 million, that was destined to Iran. 

The subpoena directed Pinnacle to provide a written report regarding the jet engine transaction and &ldquo;copies of all transactional documents such as invoices, shipping documents, airway bills, correspondence, and all other documents pertaining to the payment or transportation of this shipment.&rdquo; 

According to OFAC, in its November 9, 2007, response to the subpoena, Pinnacle, through its outside counsel, submitted more than 260 pages of responsive documents but failed to submit a copy of a post-sale e-mail &ndash; which Pinnacle had provided to its counsel &ndash; indicating that the aircraft engine was likely destined for Iran as well as other responsive documents concerning the terms of sale.

Pinnacle did not voluntary disclose the violation to OFAC.   OFAC determined that Pinnacle&rsquo;s failure to produce responsive documents constituted an egregious case, resulting in a base penalty amount of $250,000.   One of the deciding factors in determining the final penalty amount was that Pinnacle apparently relied in good faith on the advice on legal counsel in deciding not to produce the e-mail with Iran reference and other documents in response to the subpoena.   However, OFAC noted that even though Pinnacle relied on the advice of its counsel in deciding not to produce the e-mail and other documents, Pinnacle was the party legally responsible for compliance with OFAC&rsquo;s subpoena and the actions of its counsel were attributable to Pinnacle for purposes of calculating a base penalty and settlement amount. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Signs Executive Order Establishing Export Enforcement Coordination Center&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-11-09T16:44:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7faffa137e4fd63b106cb733a5f8abb9-413.php#unique-entry-id-413</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7faffa137e4fd63b106cb733a5f8abb9-413.php#unique-entry-id-413</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 9, 2010, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the Export Enforcement Coordination Center (EECC).   EECC is one of the key elements in the Export Control Initiative.   The primary function of the EECC will be to coordinate control enforcement matters among the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Office of Director of National Intelligence, and other departments, agencies, and offices handling the violations of U.S. export control laws. 

In addition to serving as the primary forum within the Federal Government executive departments and agencies to cooperate their export control enforcement efforts, EECC&rsquo;s responsibilities will also include:  

	&bull;	Serving as a conduit between Federal law enforcement agencies and the U.S.   Intelligence Community for the exchange of information related to potential U.S. export control violations;

	&bull;	Serving as a primary point of contact between enforcement authorities and agencies engaged in export licensing;

	&bull;	Coordinating law enforcement public outreach activities related to U.S. export controls; and

	&bull;	Establishing Government wide statistical tracking capabilities for U.S. criminal and administrative export control enforcement activities, to be conducted by the Department of Homeland Security with information provided by and shared with all relevant departments and agencies participating in the Center.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S. Partners with India Regarding Export Controls and Non-Proliferation </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-11-08T16:42:43-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bece565b2c0fc2d01e14e58e587641ae-412.php#unique-entry-id-412</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bece565b2c0fc2d01e14e58e587641ae-412.php#unique-entry-id-412</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 8, 2010, the White House issued the U.S.-India Partnership factsheet that contains details of the United States&rsquo; and India&rsquo;s commitment to work together on many issues and programs, including export controls, trade and economic cooperation, counterterrorism and defense cooperation, and the National Export Initiative. 

The Factsheets provide that India&rsquo;s Prime Minister (PM) Singh and President Obama are committed to work together to strengthen the global non-proliferation and export control framework and continue to transform bilateral export control cooperation.&nbsp;   PM Singh and President  Obama agreed to take mutual steps to implement a four-part export control reform program, including: support for India&rsquo;s membership in the multilateral export control regimes, removing India&rsquo;s Defense and Space-Related Entities from the U.S.   &ldquo;Entity List;&rdquo; export licensing policy realignment, and export control cooperation.

With respect to defense cooperation, factsheet notes that the U.S.-India defense relationship has evolved from solely military-to-military links into a mature partnership that encompasses dialogues, exercises, defense sales, professional military education exchanges, and practical cooperation.&nbsp;   The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law. 

As part of the National Export Initiative, the factsheet notes that President Obama recognizes that India, with its high economic growth and its large and growing middle class, is a key market for U.S. exports.&nbsp;   During the President&rsquo;s trip to India when the partnership agreement was established, trade transactions were announced or showcased, exceeding $14.9 billion in total value with $9.5 billion in U.S. export content, supporting an estimated 53,670 U.S. jobs.&nbsp; 

Regarding the nuclear safety aspect, the factsheet states that U.S. and India signed a memorandum of understanding that provides a general framework for cooperative activities in working with India&rsquo;s Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership, which India announced at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.&nbsp;  &ldquo;In working with India&rsquo;s Centre, the U.S. will give priority to discussion of best practices on the security of nuclear material and facilities, development of international nuclear security training curricula and programs, joint outreach on security issues to their respective nuclear industries, and cooperation on other nuclear security activities as mutually determined.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Panalpina and Oil Service Companies Settle Allegations of FCPA Violations &#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2010-11-04T16:41:19-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2ca3d6c7464d18acaac4e361a81e01bc-411.php#unique-entry-id-411</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2ca3d6c7464d18acaac4e361a81e01bc-411.php#unique-entry-id-411</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Panalpina, a global freight forwarder, and five oil and gas service companies, have all agreed to resolve investigation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations.  

...The allegations stem from an investigation that primarily focused on allegations of foreign bribery in the oil field services industry. 

...District court in Texas, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., a global freight forwarding and logistics services firm based in Basel, Switzerland, and its U.S.-based subsidiary, Panalpina Inc., admitted that the companies, through subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively "Panalpina"), engaged in a scheme to pay bribes to numerous foreign officials on behalf of many of its customers in the oil and gas industry. 

Panalpina admitted that between 2002 and 2007, it paid thousands of bribes totaling at least $27 million to foreign officials in at least seven countries, including Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia and Turkmenistan.    During the proceedings, several of Panalpina&rsquo;s customers admitted that the companies approved of or condoned the payment of bribes on their behalf in Nigeria and falsely recorded the bribe payments made on their behalf as legitimate business expenses in their corporate books, records and accounts. 

As part of the agreed resolution, DOJ filed a criminal information charging Panalpina World Transport with conspiring to violate and violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.   DOJ and Panalpina World Transport agreed to resolve the charges by entering into a deferred prosecution agreement.   The department also filed a criminal information charging Panalpina Inc. with conspiring to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA and with aiding and abetting certain customers in violating the books and records provisions of the FCPA. 

...In addition, DOJ charged several oil services providers, including SNEPCO, a subsidiary of Roayal Dutch Shell plc (Shell), Transocean, Inc., Tidewater Marine International Inc, and Pride International Inc., with various charges relating to FCPA, such as conspiring to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA, violating the anti-bribery provision of the FCPA, and aiding and abetting the violation of the books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Under the terms of the respective three-year deferred prosecution agreements, Panalpina World Transport, Shell, Pride International, Transocean and Tidewater are required to fully cooperate with U.S. and foreign authorities in any ongoing investigations of the companies&rsquo; corrupt payments. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nippon Airways Co.  Pleads Guilty to Price Fixing on Air Cargo and Air Passenger Services </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Cargo  </category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-11-01T16:39:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/07a113947d3349c4d35b41062a21af84-410.php#unique-entry-id-410</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/07a113947d3349c4d35b41062a21af84-410.php#unique-entry-id-410</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Ltd (Nippon), a Japan-based company, has agreed to pay a $73 million criminal fine for two separate conspiracies to fix prices in the air transportation industry.


According to a two-count felony charge, Nippon engaged in a conspiracy to fix one or more components of cargo rates charged for international air cargo shipments from April 2000 until February 2006.   In addition, Nippon is charged with engaging in a conspiracy to fix unpublished passenger fares on tickets purchased in the U.S. from April 2000 until April 2004. 


DOJ alleges that Nippon carried out the conspiracies by agreeing during meetings and other communications on certain components of the cargo rates to be charged for shipments on routes between the U.S. and Japan, and on unpublished passenger fares to be charged on tickets purchased in the U.S. 


As part of the conspiracies, Nippon levied cargo rates and unpublished passenger fares in accordance with the agreements reached, and monitored and enforced adherence to the agreed-upon cargo rates and unpublished passenger fares.


Nippon is charged with two counts of price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum fine for corporations of $100 million for each violation committed after June 22, 2004, and $10 million for violations committed before that date.   The maximum fine for each count may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.


As a result of DOJ&rsquo;s investigation, a total of 19 airlines and 14 executives have been charged in the ongoing investigation into price fixing in the air transportation industry.   To date, more than $1.6 billion in criminal fines have been obtained and four executives have been sentenced to serve prison time. 


...Under the plea agreement, which is still subject to court approval, Nippon has also agreed to cooperate with the DOJ&rsquo;s ongoing antitrust investigation.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Fined &#x24;1 Million for Export Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-11-01T16:36:46-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2727c6188eaf381924fda198082e09bf-409.php#unique-entry-id-409</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2727c6188eaf381924fda198082e09bf-409.php#unique-entry-id-409</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 29, 2010, U.S.   Politics Today reported that Rocky Mountain Instrument Co.   (Rocky Mountain) has agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle civil charges related to illegal exports of sensitive military information. 

This case represents the first time that the False Claims Act (FCA) has been used in relation to violations of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).   Rocky Mountain pleaded guilty to a related criminal charge in June of 2010 and was sentenced to forfeit $1 million and five years probation.  The criminal plea agreement detailed that from 2005 to 2007 Rocky Mountain exported prisms and technical data related to various optics used in the military applications in Turkey, China, Russia, and South Korea without a required U.S.   Department of State license. 

The civil settlement covered a related allegation that Rocky Mountain caused defense contractors to submit false claims for payment to the Pentagon in violation of the FCA by illegally exporting technical data overseas that was later used to manufacture parts used in certain military equipment the contractors sold to the Pentagon.


The FCA prohibits companies from submitting claims for payment to the government that are false or fraudulent and is the government's primary law enforcement tool for combating fraud against the government. &nbsp;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>EU To Start Advance Shipment Information Requirement on January 1&#x2c; 2011</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>EU</category><category>Customs</category><category>Cargo security</category><dc:date>2010-10-30T15:29:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bffb17d796735b91f4706f849214fad7-408.php#unique-entry-id-408</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bffb17d796735b91f4706f849214fad7-408.php#unique-entry-id-408</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Beginning January 1, 2011, the European Union will start enforcing the requirement to electronically provide advance information for goods being imported from non-EU countries into the EU.   Carriers will be required to file an Entry Summary Declaration (ESD) using the EU&rsquo;s Import Control System (ICS) no later than 24 hours before vessel loading at the foreign port; however, importers will be responsible for providing accurate information in a timely manner to their carriers or face indefinite cargo delays by customs authorities.   All non-EU shipments that are destined for or transshipped via the EU are subject to this requirement. 

...The goal of ICS is to enable customs authorities to assess any risks shipments may pose by evaluating shipment information in advance. 

...While the EU Commission is working closely to correct the situation, exporters with shipments into Denmark, Greece or Luxembourg may wish to verify with their carriers that procedures are in place to ensure smooth imports into those countries. 

EU Customs Information Portal provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) as well as time limits for filing of ENS, which vary depending on the mode of shipping: 


...At least 4 hours before arrival at the first port in the Community


...At least 2 hours before arrival at the first port in the Community


...At least 2 hours before arrival at the customs office of entry in the Community


...At least 1 hour before arrival at the customs office of entry in the Community
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Recent Civil Penalties Cases </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-10-29T15:23:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad771794a0edc6bda1117b7065efc2fd-407.php#unique-entry-id-407</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad771794a0edc6bda1117b7065efc2fd-407.php#unique-entry-id-407</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[	&bull;	Garlock Sealing Tech, LLC (Garlock), a subsidiary of Enpro Industries (Enpro) of Charlotte, NC, has remitted $16,875 to settle allegations of violations of Executive Order 13405, &ldquo;Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus&rdquo; occurring on June 23, 2008.   OFAC alleged that Garlock attempted to send, without authorization from OFAC, a funds transfer in the amount of $14,308 to the account of an entity blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13405. ...  The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following General Factors: Garlock was a sophisticated entity with global operations; Garlock has not been subject to an OFAC enforcement action in the five years preceding the date of the apparent violation; and Garlock has taken remedial steps to prevent the recurrence of such a payment. 

...(Yokozuna) of Monrovia, CA, has been assessed a penalty of $25,000 for its violation of the Burmese Sanctions Regulations (BSR) that occurred in March 2006.   Yokozuna initiated a $220,465 funds transfer to Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank, an entity blocked pursuant to the BSR, in furtherance of a contract to purchase and import pearls from Myanmar Pearl Enterprise, Yangoon, Burma. ...  The final penalty amount reflects OFAC's consideration of the following General Factors: this was Yokozuna's first OFAC violation; Yokozuna received inaccurate legal guidance before engaging in the prohibited transaction; Yokozuna cooperated with OFAC and terminated its business transactions with Burma; and the documented financial condition of Yokozuna's owner. 

...(Hydra-Tech), Nesquehoning, PA, has been assessed a penalty of $1,961 for its violation of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations that occurred in September 2007. 

...	&bull;	Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), a Japanese corporation, has agreed to pay $229,380 to settle allegations that SMBC&rsquo;s New York Branch Office (SMBCNY) violated the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (the SSR).   OFAC alleged that, from December 9, 2005, until about December 1, 2006, SMBCNY appears to have violated the SSR when it exported services to Sudan through its processing of the payments for SMBC&rsquo;s purchase of six export bills, in an aggregate amount of $1,037,988, relating to letters of credit (LC) issued by Sudanese banks and by its receipt of two USD payments, in the aggregate amount of $15,357,720, related to approximately forty LCs issued by a Sudanese bank. 


...The settlement amount reflects OFAC&rsquo;s consideration of the following General Factors: SMBCNY was part of a commercially sophisticated international bank and had reason to know its conduct may have violated the SSR; SMBC had no violations of this nature on record with OFAC; SMBC substantially cooperated with OFAC&rsquo;s investigation of the alleged violations; and SMBC promptly responded to all requests for additional information and agreed to a statute of limitations tolling agreement when requested by OFAC. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Corrections to Wassenaar Arrangement 2009 Plenary Agreements Implementation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-10-13T15:19:58-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b6b804f06f9910087c6ae7b275f2753c-406.php#unique-entry-id-406</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b6b804f06f9910087c6ae7b275f2753c-406.php#unique-entry-id-406</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 13, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published correcting amendments to the final rule issued in the Federal Register on September 7, 2010 that revised the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by amending entries for certain items that are controlled for national security reasons in Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Part I (telecommunications), 6, 7, and 9; adding new entries to the Commerce Control List (CCL); revising reporting requirements; and adding and amending EAR Definitions. 

According to the correcting amendments, the final rule of September 7, 2010 contained errors that affect Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 6A005, 6A006, and 9A001, as well as the definition of &ldquo;energetic materials.&rdquo;   In addition, the final rule&rsquo;s preamble erroneously identified ECCN 6E993 as one of the ECCNs that was revised in the rule&rsquo;s text. 

The rule, as corrected, removes the note after 6A008.f.   Also, the rule of September 8 listed an incorrect citation of &ldquo;6.  A.5.d.1.d&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;6A005.d.1.d&rdquo; in 6A005.d.1.e, which is corrected by the amendment of October 13.   The current rule also replaced two incomplete citations in the introductory text of ECCN 9A001.a; this rule replaces the citations &ldquo;.a or .h&rdquo; with &ldquo;9E003.a or 9E003.h&rdquo;. 

Amendments are effective October 13, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments Regarding Small and Medium Enterprises&#x2019; Understanding of the EAR</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2010-10-06T15:16:20-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26c218adeaf54fec0dd3691e9798e3e6-405.php#unique-entry-id-405</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26c218adeaf54fec0dd3691e9798e3e6-405.php#unique-entry-id-405</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 6, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments regarding small and medium enterprises&rsquo; understanding of and compliance with export controls under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   Specifically, BIS is seeking comments that identify issues and make recommendations regarding small and medium enterprises&rsquo; awareness and understanding of the EAR, as well as their experiences complying with the EAR. 

In addition, BIS invites the public to submit comments on the following:


(1) The principal challenges small and medium enterprises face in trying to comply with the EAR, including any challenges that small and medium enterprises uniquely face and approaches to overcoming these challenges;

(2) The value of current BIS outreach, education and counseling to small and medium enterprises in understanding and complying with the EAR;

(3) Ways to improve or expand small and medium enterprises' awareness, knowledge and understanding of the EAR and increase their capacity to comply with them; and

(4) Data, including comparative international data, that support comments and recommendations related to items (1) through (3) above; and that provide examples of effective methods of administering and enforcing export controls with special attention to small and medium enterprises.

Comments are due by December 6, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Court Finds CBP May Not Deactivate Customs Broker&#x2019;s Filer Code without Due Process</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Litigation</category><dc:date>2010-10-04T15:13:12-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/591ced0b195f223c198d61d5e427ff3e-404.php#unique-entry-id-404</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/591ced0b195f223c198d61d5e427ff3e-404.php#unique-entry-id-404</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 21, 2008, the Director of Field Operations at the Otay Mesa Port Entry in San Diego wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of the Office of International Trade and requested that Guillermo Lizarraga&rsquo;s entry filer code be deactivated for misuse.   On November 3, 2008, the Assistant Commissioner made a final determination to indefinitely and immediately suspend Lizarraga&rsquo;s entry filer code for misuse. 

Customs did not provide Lizarraga with notice of its internal administrative review or an opportunity for a hearing, or solicit a written submission from him prior to its final determination, but on November 10, 2008, Customs notified Lizzaraga that, effective November 14, 2008, it would &ldquo;immediately and indefinitely&rdquo; suspend his entry filer code. ...  Lizarraga from using his individual filer code to &ldquo;facilitate smuggling narcotics&rdquo; and to ensure that plaintiff&rsquo;s &ldquo;license, permit, name, and filer code are not used by persons who are not employed by Lizarraga and authorized to act for Lizarraga.&rdquo;

Lizarraga argued that &ldquo;suspending a broker&rsquo;s entry filer code effectively puts that broker out of business because it is impossible to compete with other licensed brokers with active filer codes.&rdquo; 

Following CIT&rsquo;s grant of Lizarraga&rsquo;s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Customs from suspending or deactivating plaintiff&rsquo;s broker entry file code in the port of San Diego, CA, CBP filed the Confession of Judgment in plaintiff&rsquo;s favor on April 23, 2010.   The confession of judgment stated that CBP agreed not to suspend or deactivate Lizarraga&rsquo;s entry filer code for any past fact or event.   Customs stated in its oral argument that it would not seek to summarily suspend a broker&rsquo;s entry filer code saying that &ldquo;brokers are entitled to the [Administrative Procedure Act] (APA) if their entry filer code is deactivated, the procedural protections of the APA. 

...&ldquo;Except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires otherwise, the withdrawal, suspension, revocation, or annulment of a license is lawful only if, before the institution of agency proceedings therefor, the licensee has been given notice by the agency in writing of the facts or conduct which may warrant the action; and opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all lawful requirements.&rdquo;

CIT stressed, however, that it was not finding that the due process afforded by 5 U.S.C. &sect;588 would be legally sufficient in similar future cases. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Issues Report on CBP Progress in Implementing the 10+2 Importer Security Filing Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2010-10-01T14:23:40-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c46ffe951f97198724b534974db7f2d-403.php#unique-entry-id-403</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c46ffe951f97198724b534974db7f2d-403.php#unique-entry-id-403</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the progress Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has made in implementing Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements, collectively known as the &ldquo;10+2 rule.&rdquo; 

Specifically, GAO assessed: (1) the extent to which CBP conducted the 10+2 regulatory assessment in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, (2) how CBP used information it collected and assessed to inform its efforts to implement the 10+2 rule since January 2009, and (3) the extent to which CBP has used the additional 10+2 data to identify high-risk cargo.

GAO found that CBP&rsquo;s 10+2 regulatory assessment generally adheres to OMB guidance however, CBP&rsquo;s assessment could be improved by greater transparency regarding the selection of alternatives analyzed and a more complete analysis.   GAO found that the assessment lacked transparency in that it did not explain how the four alternatives considered for the rule&mdash;variations in what and how many data elements are to be collected&mdash;were selected or how the preferred alternative was chosen.   Accordingly, if, as CBP officials stated, an update to the regulatory assessment might be published in the future, greater transparency could help justify the scope of alternatives analyzed in the regulatory assessment and provide insight into CBP&rsquo;s decision making. 

...CBP publishes answers to frequently asked questions on its Web site and has conducted outreach sessions with the trade industry to discuss errors in ISF submissions and help improve compliance. 

GAO noted that, while 10+2 rule data elements are available for identifying high-risk cargo, CBP has not yet finalized its national security targeting criteria to include these additional data elements to support high-risk targeting. 

CBP has assessed the submitted 10+2 data elements for risk factors, and according to CBP officials, access to information on stow plans has enabled CBP to identify more than 1,000 unmanifested containers&mdash;containers that are inherently high risk because their contents are not listed on a ship&rsquo;s manifest.   In addition, while GAO found that CBP has conducted a preliminary analysis indicating that the collection of the additional 10+2 data elements could help determine risk earlier in the supply chain, CBP has not yet finalized its national security targeting criteria for identifying high-risk cargo containers or established project time frames and milestones&mdash;best practices in project management&mdash;for doing so.   According to the report, such efforts could help provide CBP with goals for finishing this project, thus better positioning it to improve its targeting of high-risk cargo.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Comments of Export Enforcement Assistant Secretary</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2010-09-01T17:00:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/403777ec3a4e1eeae0fc5e981f761f61-402.php#unique-entry-id-402</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/403777ec3a4e1eeae0fc5e981f761f61-402.php#unique-entry-id-402</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 1, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the remarks of David Mills, Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement made at BIS&rsquo; Annual Update Conference. 


...	&bull;	BIS has agents based around the United States as well as in critical hubs such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. 


	&bull;	The Office of Enforcement Analysis (OEA) evaluates export transactions, visas, press reporting, and intelligence information to help Special Agents identify and investigate bad actors. 

...	&bull;	The Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) negotiated settlements in 11 cases last year, resulting in fines of more than $350,000.


...Government&rsquo;s change in focus on export licensing will necessitate BIS&rsquo; export enforcement efforts as well.   While BIS will continue to encourage Voluntary Self-Disclosures and provide mitigation of possible penalties for companies that had good internal compliance programs prior to a violation. ...  Mills stated that although BIS typically sought penalties more against companies than individuals, BIS will now consider seeking penalties against an individual when a violation is a deliberate action of an individual, including seeking the denial of export privileges, fines, and imprisonment.   This will also hold true for a supervisor who is complicit in these deliberate violations by a subordinate.


	&bull;	BIS will focus on disrupting major illicit procurement networks as in the past decade, countries like Iran and North Korea have turned to foreign middlemen and front companies to acquire U.S.-origin goods. 

...In addition, a federal judge imposed a $2 million criminal fine and a five year probation against a Balli subsidiary.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Releases Import Trade Trends for 1st Half of Fiscal Year 2010</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Import</category><dc:date>2010-09-27T16:33:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c82797e24b02f33f61bd1b45f881239c-401.php#unique-entry-id-401</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c82797e24b02f33f61bd1b45f881239c-401.php#unique-entry-id-401</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it has completed its analysis of import trade trends through the Mid-Year Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 including projections of trade activity through the end of FY 2010. 

...It allows CBP to analyze trade activity during the last six months and to readily establish trend lines derived from comparisons with performance in previous years.   Based on the data that&rsquo;s been collected by CBP, CBP has confirmed that ordinary seasonal patterns are recurring in a manner that reflects our recovering economy.


...Customs and Border Protection was slightly more than $1.7 trillion in fiscal year 2009, a 25 percent decrease from the previous year.   By year end 2010, it is projected that the value of imports will increase 6 percent, totaling $1.8 trillion.

...	&bull;	During the first six months of fiscal year 2010, CBP collected $15 billion in revenue for the U.S. government. 

...	&bull;	A total of $130 million in antidumping/countervailing duties were collected during the first half of fiscal year 2010, down slightly from the same period last year.

	&bull;	After the Revenue Gap declined for five, consecutive years, preliminary measurements indicate that the level of uncollected duties rose to 1.4 percent, which is roughly equivalent to levels reported in fiscal year 2007.

	&bull;	Based on a random sampling, 98.6 percent of the fiscal year 2010 imports were materially compliant with all U.S. trade laws and regulations. 

...	&bull;	China surpassed Canada as the United States&rsquo; top source of imports in fiscal year 2009, and is projected to maintain its lead through fiscal year 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Withdraws Proposed Changes to the First Sale Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>First Sale</category><dc:date>2010-09-29T16:25:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/172df6937bac8abc8cca752ec6fd9f55-400.php#unique-entry-id-400</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/172df6937bac8abc8cca752ec6fd9f55-400.php#unique-entry-id-400</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 29, 2010, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing proposed changes to the so-called &ldquo;First Sale&rdquo; rule under which in a transaction involving a series of sales, the price actually paid or payable for customs valuation purposes would be the price paid or payable under the first sale or the sale between the manufacturer and the middleman, rather than the price paid by the U.S. importer or buyer in the U.S. 

CBP had proposed for the first time in January 2008 a new interpretation of the expression &ldquo;sold for exportation to the United States&rdquo; for purposes of determining transaction value.   CBP suggested that, in a transaction involving a series of sales, the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods when sold for export to the U.S. would be the price paid in the last sale occurring prior to the entry of goods into the U.S., rather than the first sale.   The effect of the proposed interpretation would have been that the transaction value would be determined on the basis of the price paid by the buyer in the United States. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>White House Releases Report on the National Export Initiative</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2010-09-16T16:21:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/12f09bed0f58bced18aa3b4067b720b5-399.php#unique-entry-id-399</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/12f09bed0f58bced18aa3b4067b720b5-399.php#unique-entry-id-399</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The report, developed by the Export Promotion Cabinet which includes the Secretaries of Commerce, State, Treasury, Agriculture and Labor and the heads of all trade-related government agencies, details the progress of NEI, presents a plan for achieving President&rsquo;s goals to double U.S. exports in five years, and provides recommendations addressing the priorities established in the NEI Executive Order. 

&ldquo;As American consumers spend a little less and save a little more, it has never been more important to connect U.S. businesses to the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live outside our borders,&rdquo; U.S. 

...The administration&rsquo;s efforts, through the NEI, are focused on five areas that include access to credit, especially for small and midsize firms; increased trade advocacy and export promotion efforts; removal of barriers to the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad; enforcement of trade rules; and pursuing policies that will increase global economic growth so that there&rsquo;s a strong worldwide market for U.S. goods and services.

The report outlines ways the U.S. government can expand efforts to help U.S. businesses win more foreign government contracts, find buyers worldwide, participate in more trade missions and trade shows, receive more export financing, and learn new ways to sell products and services overseas. &nbsp;

...According to the report, nine months into a five-year plan, progress is already evident: &ldquo;Exports in the first six months of this year were 18 percent higher than exports in the first six months of 2009.   Furthermore, exports have contributed more than one percentage point to GDP growth (at an annual rate) in each of the four quarters of recovery and have contributed over 1.5 percentage points to growth in the last year. 

...Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs):&nbsp;a National Outreach Campaign to raise awareness of export opportunities and government export assistance for U.S. small and midsize companies; a re-launch of export.gov, the Government&rsquo;s export internet portal, with new export training opportunities to educate companies on how they can begin selling their products overseas or break into new markets if they are already exporting. 

...Commercial Advocacy:&nbsp;level the playing field for companies bidding on projects abroad through improved coordination among government export promotion programs; formalize a path to escalate, for the first time ever, critical advocacy projects for direct White House and National Economic Council involvement where necessary. 

Increasing Export Credit:&nbsp;extend more export credit through existing trade finance agencies, increase awareness of credit products, focus on SMEs and companies from underserved sectors of the U.S. economy, expand the eligibility criteria for SME export finance lending, and streamline the application and review process for SME exporters. 

...According to the report, since the President announced the NEI, the Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Advocacy Center has assisted American companies competing for export opportunities, supporting $11.8 billion in U.S. exports and an estimated 70,000 jobs. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Incoterms Revisions Released</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>International Trade</category><category>Incoterms</category><dc:date>2010-09-16T16:19:14-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/25cea82a429dc1e6847096690687df81-398.php#unique-entry-id-398</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/25cea82a429dc1e6847096690687df81-398.php#unique-entry-id-398</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 16, 2010, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) officially released revisions to its international commercial terms, also known as Incoterms. 

Incoterms are generally revised every decade to reflect changes in trade practices.   In the 2010 revision, the number of terms was reduced from 13 to 11.   Terms Delivered at Frontier (DAF), Delivered Ex Ship (DES), Delivered Ex Quay (DEQ), and Delivered Duty Unpaid (DDU) have been eliminated.   Two new terms have been added: Delivered at Terminal (DAT) and Delivered at Place (DAP).   According to ICC, these terms attempt to better account for the role of cargo security and electronic data interchange now prevalent in international trade practices.

The new terms go into effect on January 1, 2011.   A copy of the revised terms is available for purchase on ICC website. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Discontinues 10&#x25; Duty on Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Duty</category><dc:date>2010-09-01T16:16:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d694d1e82be2c3d26996297cb7fc07b-397.php#unique-entry-id-397</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d694d1e82be2c3d26996297cb7fc07b-397.php#unique-entry-id-397</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice in the Federal Register advising that U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will no longer collect 10 percent duty on softwood lumber imports from Canada associated with the Section 301 action, effective for those entries that bear Canadian export permits and were shipped on September 1, 2010 or later. 

The duty was imposed pursuant to investigation under Section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974, where USTR determined in April 2009 that Canada had breached certain obligations to the U.S. under the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA).   The investigation was initiated after an arbitral tribunal determined under the SLA that Canada had breached certain obligations.   The tribunal issued a remedy award instructing Canada to collect an additional 10 percent ad valorem export charge on softwood lumber shipments from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan until an award amount of CDN $68 million had been collected.   When Canada failed to collect the additional export charges, USTR imposed a 10 percent duty on imports under the April 2009 action until the U.S. collected the $54.8 million (U.S. dollar equivalent of CDN $68 million) remedy award. 

Government of Canada has now adopted its own measures to address Canada&rsquo;s breach of the SLA.   Specifically, Canada will begin collection of an additional 10 percent charge on exports of softwood lumber products from the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan with respect to softwood lumber products shipped on September 1, 2010 or later.   An understanding between the Governments of the U.S. and Canada has been reached that Canada will collect the additional charge on softwood lumber exports until the total of the remedy award is collected.  

CBP will be monitoring all ports to ensure that the 10 percent duty has been paid on the softwood lumber imports from Canada with shipment dates of September 1 or later. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC No Longer Accepts Paper Submissions of Agreements and Commodity Jurisdiction Requests</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>Licensing</category><dc:date>2010-09-01T16:13:31-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/543215c680dcb6d5af15e1100e864c43-396.php#unique-entry-id-396</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/543215c680dcb6d5af15e1100e864c43-396.php#unique-entry-id-396</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls posted a reminder on its website that: 

Effective September 1, 2010, DDTC-Licensing no longer accepts unclassified paper submissions of Technical Assistance Agreements, Manufacturing License Agreements, and Warehouse Distribution Agreements (to include major amendments).   All submissions must now be made electronically via D-Trade 2 utilizing the DSP-5 form.    Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements can be accessed here. 

Effective September 3, 2010, DDTC-Policy no longer accepts paper submissions of Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) requests.   All CJ requests must now be made electronically via EFS utilizing the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form.    Instructions for CJ requests  can be found here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS RPTAC Meeting Minutes Published </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2010-09-15T16:10:42-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bcbd34a4b75690d04dd0d989e64fbced-395.php#unique-entry-id-395</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bcbd34a4b75690d04dd0d989e64fbced-395.php#unique-entry-id-395</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) September 14, 2010 meeting minutes. 

...	&bull;	In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, BIS closed 109 cases with an average processing time of 17 months;

...	&bull;	In 2010, 21 cases have been closed as of May 2010 with an average 6 week processing time.   A notable change for this time period is that BIS officers located at headquarters replaced field officers as point of contact; 

	&bull;	In FY 2009 - 163 cases or 71% of VSDs resulted in a warning letter; 9 cases resulted in sanctions;

...	&bull;	On September 7, 2010, BIS published new rules regarding the revised Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s list that affects most CCL categories except for Category 3.   The new rules do not include some items on Category 6 as they are covered under the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) jurisdiction. 

...	&bull;	BIS amended its Foreign Product Rule to require a license on all foreign products using U.S. components destined for D1 list and Terrorist Supporting countries beyond Cuba; 

...Items covered by the revision will generally be denied; infrasound sensors will be moved from the munitions list to the CCL; and 

...Finally, Dale Kelly of Foreign Trade Division Bureau of the Census (Census) stated that the Foreign Trade Division (FTD) continues to work on revising the Automated Export System (AES) regulations and is waiting on concurrence from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs Border Protection (CBP). ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>C-TPAT Membership Exceeds 10&#x2c;000 Participants</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>C-TPAT</category><dc:date>2010-09-23T16:06:44-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3accf3a5c39bac774e6331356e9302c-394.php#unique-entry-id-394</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3accf3a5c39bac774e6331356e9302c-394.php#unique-entry-id-394</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 23, 2010, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) membership has exceeded 10,000 members. 

 

C-TPAT Director, Bradd Skinner, stated, &ldquo;This is a great accomplishment for our trade partnership program considering the program began with seven original members in 2001.   Achieving 10,000 members indicates that the program is meeting the needs of the trade community, while the member survey results will assist us in taking C-TPAT to the next level.&rdquo;


According to the CBP press release, approximately half of C-TPAT members companies are small or mid-sized, having less than fifty employees.   C-TPAT importer partners are responsible for approximately 50 percent by value of all imported merchandise into the U.S.   C-TPAT is the first and the largest anti-terrorism partnership program throughout the world. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Recruiting Private-Sector Members for PECSEA</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2010-09-09T15:06:19-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b79e5361fed18f886eb227061a1324c0-393.php#unique-entry-id-393</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b79e5361fed18f886eb227061a1324c0-393.php#unique-entry-id-393</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 9, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security posted a notice in the Federal Register announcing the recruitment of private-sector members to the President&rsquo;s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA). ...  Government on matters and issues pertinent to implementation of the provisions of the Export Administration Act and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 


BIS states that, &ldquo;The PECSEA draws on the expertise of its members to provide advice and make recommendations on ways to minimize the possible adverse impact export controls may have on U.S. industry.   The PECSEA provides the Government with direct input from representatives of the broad range of industries that are directly affected by export controls.&rdquo;


&ldquo;PECSEA members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve at the Secretary's discretion.   The membership reflects the Department's commitment to attaining balance and diversity.   PECSEA members must obtain secret-level clearances prior to appointment. . .   The PECSEA meets 4 to 6 times per year.   Members of the Subcommittee will not be compensated for their services.&rdquo;


&ldquo;The PECSEA is seeking private-sector members with senior export control expertise and direct experience in one or more of the following industrics: Machine tools, semiconductors, commercial communication satcllitcs, high performance computers, telecommunications, aircraft, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on the Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Agricultural Commodities Exported to Cuba</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-09-08T14:58:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6174f7c271cc1f697af5d9d6aa7d5163-392.php#unique-entry-id-392</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6174f7c271cc1f697af5d9d6aa7d5163-392.php#unique-entry-id-392</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the effectiveness of its licensing procedures as defined in the Export Administration Regulations for the export of agricultural commodities to Cuba.   BIS will include a description of these comments in its biennial report to the Congress, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), as amended.


Comments must be received by October 8, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-09-08T14:51:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/50f8829eab4e99f32e87ec0c2200ea90-391.php#unique-entry-id-391</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/50f8829eab4e99f32e87ec0c2200ea90-391.php#unique-entry-id-391</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a request for comments on the effects of foreign policy-based export controls.   In the notice, BIS stated that it &ldquo;is reviewing the foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded or extended.   To help make these determinations, BIS is seeking public comments on how existing foreign policy-based export controls have affected exporters and the general public.&rdquo;


...The likelihood that such controls will achieve their intended foreign policy purposes, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;


...Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy interests;


...The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and


...Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy- based export controls.


...For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?


...Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy- based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, and requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).


...BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Best Practices for Transit&#x2c; Transshipment and Reexport of EAR Items</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-09-01T12:23:49-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4301db5c891bb1a2e8290a2a30a84b42-390.php#unique-entry-id-390</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4301db5c891bb1a2e8290a2a30a84b42-390.php#unique-entry-id-390</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 1, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register on an updated set of proposed &ldquo;Best Practices for Transit, Transshipment, and Reexport of Items Subject to the Export Administration Regulations.&rdquo; 

...BIS seeks information to refine and revise this proposed list of best practices to help ensure that industry and the government continue to prevent diversion of controlled items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) through transshipment points.&rdquo;


...Pay heightened attention to the Red Flag Indicators on the BIS Web site (see http://www.bis. doc.gov/Enforcement/redflags.htm) with respect to transactions to, from, or through transshipment hubs.   When a company encounters a suspicious transaction, such as those outlined in the &lsquo;&lsquo;Know Your Customer&rsquo;&rsquo; Guidance and Red Flags (Supplement No. 3 to Part 732 of the EAR), it should inquire further and attempt to resolve any questions raised by the transaction.


...An Exporter/ Reexporter should seek to utilize only those Trade Facilitators/Freight Forwarders that also observe these best practices and possess their own export management and compliance program.


...In particular, a company should know if the customer is a trading company or distributor, and inquire whether the customer resells to or has guidelines to resell to third parties.


...With respect to transactions to, from, or through transshipment hubs, Exporters/ Reexporters should take appropriate steps to inquire about the end-user and to determine whether the item will be reexported or incorporated in an item to be reexported.


...Freight Forwarders should inquire about the details of a routed transaction when asked by a foreign principal party in interest to ship to a country or countries of destination or ultimate consignees that are different from those provided by the U.S. principal party in interest.


...An Exporter/ Reexporter should communicate the appropriate Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) or other classification information (EAR99) for each export/reexport to the end-user and, where relevant, to the ultimate consignee.


...An Exporter/ Reexporter should report such ECCN or the EAR99 classifications for all export transactions, including &lsquo;&lsquo;No License Required&rsquo;&rsquo; designations to the Trade Facilitator/Freight Forwarder or enter them in the Automated Export System (AES).
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements 2009 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting Changes</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-09-07T10:00:33-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c3ad06ee543de5a2ef664b3bb55719bd-389.php#unique-entry-id-389</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c3ad06ee543de5a2ef664b3bb55719bd-389.php#unique-entry-id-389</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 7, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security BIS) issued a final rule in Federal Register that revises Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies pursuant to the December 2009 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting. 

The following Export Control Classifications Numbers (ECCNs) are affected: 1A001, 1A002, 1B001, 1C002, 1C006, 1C007, 1C008, 1C010, 1C011, 1E002, 2B006, 3A001, 3A002, 3B001, 4A001, 4A003, 4D001, 4D993, 4E001, 5A001, 5B001, 5D001, 5E001, 6A001, 6A005, 6A006, 6A008, 6C004, 6D003, 6E993, 7A005, 7B001, 7D003, 7E004, 9A001, 9A003, 9B002, 9D003, and 9E003.   4D003 is removed by the final rule.

Changes pertaining to ECCNs 5A002, 5D002, 6A002, 6A003, 8A002 and all related ECCNs will be implemented in a separate rule because of the sensitivity of the items and controls for these items. 

For more information, refer to the final rule, which can be accessed here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Recent OFAC Enforcement Actions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-08-13T13:13:24-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51754eba9d89e2dfc68724ece6ac3bdd-388.php#unique-entry-id-388</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51754eba9d89e2dfc68724ece6ac3bdd-388.php#unique-entry-id-388</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 13, 2010, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) posted on its web site information on recent OFAC enforcement actions:


	&bull;	Compass Bank of Birmingham, AL, has remitted $607,500 to settle allegations of violating the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations in September 2006.   OFAC alleged that Compass Bank acted without an OFAC license or outside the scope of its license by initiating three funds transfers on behalf of one of its clients related to the petroleum or petrochemical industries in Sudan.   Compass Bank did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC and the alleged violation constituted a non-egregious case.


	&bull;	Custom Polymers, Inc., a Charlotte, NC company, has agreed to remit $57,800 to settle an allegation of violating the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations on or about August 17, 2007.   OFAC alleged that Custom Polymers attempted to make a payment involving Sudan, on behalf of its affiliate, without the required OFAC license.   The $116,250 payment was allegedly for the purchase and export of bottle regrind from Sudan.   OFAC determined that Customs Polymers did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC and the alleged violation constituted a non-egregious case.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Barclays Bank Settles Allegations of Multiple Sanctions Programs for &#x24;176 Million</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-08-18T13:07:13-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40a8af03a0035398e24711ea6e3d8043-387.php#unique-entry-id-387</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40a8af03a0035398e24711ea6e3d8043-387.php#unique-entry-id-387</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 18, 2010, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays) has agreed to settle allegations of violating the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Transactions Regulations, the Burmese Sanctions Regulations, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, promulgated under either the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA).   The settlement with OFAC is part of a global settlement among Barclays, OFAC, the U.S.   Department of Justice, and the New York Country District Attorney&rsquo;s Office.

Barclays agreed to settle with OFAC the alleged violations for $176 million.   The obligation was deemed satisfied by Barclay&rsquo;s payment of $298 million to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the New York County District Attorney&rsquo;s Office.  

OFAC stated that, &ldquo;Barclay&rsquo;s violations arose out of practices designed to circumvent filters at U.S. banks installed to detect transactions in violation of OFAC regulations.   This was done using cover payments to avoid referencing parties targeted by U.S. sanctions and omitting or removing information in payment messages in order to conceal the identities of U.S. sanctions targets &ndash; most notably Sudan &ndash; in electronic funds transfer instructions executed through the United States.   In addition, Barclays sometimes processed payments involving sanctioned persons through a Barclays sundry account, making it appear as though Barclays was the remitting bank.&rdquo; 

Based on OFAC&rsquo;s analysis of information provided by Barclays, from August 2002 through September 2006 Barclays routed at least 1,285 electronic funds transfers, with an aggregate value of approximately $112.7 million, through Barclays New York and third-party banks located in the United States.  

Barclays has terminated the practices leading to violations of OFAC regulations and has put in place policies and procedures that are designed to minimize the risk of the recurrence of similar conduct in the future. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Report on Impact of U.S. Export Controls on Green Technology Items</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-08-16T12:48:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26db1d4a961775d762eaec5dbc994340-386.php#unique-entry-id-386</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26db1d4a961775d762eaec5dbc994340-386.php#unique-entry-id-386</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Of the $1,300.5 billion in total U.S. exports in 2008, BIS identified 5.8% ($75.0 billion) as green technology-related exports, and only 0.9% ($697.4 million) of these required an export license.


	&bull;	Some of the high-technology parts, materials, and equipment used to produce green technology items in the following areas would likely require an export license: wind power, solar power, alternative fuel vehicles, water purification, and energy efficiency.


	&bull;	Exporters have expressed concern with the lengthy processing times and difficulty in obtaining export licenses for carbon fiber and machine tools, the material and equipment needed for the production of wind turbines and lighter weight (i.e., energy efficient) commercial composite aircraft structures and engine components.   Two companies with production facilities in the United States that are industry leaders for tape laying and tow/fiber placement machines used to manufacture windmill turbine blades are considering moving production of these machines overseas, especially because of the increased demand for wind turbines.


	&bull;	The export of Metal-Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD) equipment requires an export license in most cases, and is used to produce the solar cells used in solar panels and LED lighting products. 

...	&bull;	There are several green technology items in the areas of water purification (e.g., chemicals, pumps, valves) and energy efficiency (i.e., industrial gas turbine components and thermal imaging cameras) that are subject to an export license requirement, but the licensing and export statistics do not show that this license requirement is having an adverse affect on the competitiveness of these industries.


	&bull;	In most cases, BIS has determined that export licenses are not required for items in the following green technology areas: alternative fuel vehicles, commercial airlines noise reduction, biodegradable/bio-resins for composite materials, and green coating processes. 

...	&bull;	Monitor the volume of export license applications received for chemicals, chemical equipment, industrial gas turbines and components, and thermal imaging cameras and adjust export licensing policy and regulations where possible to ensure that export controls do not hinder trade in these items, especially when intended for civilian (i.e., non-military) green- related end-uses, consistent with national security interests.


	&bull;	Develop a green technology working group comprised of existing TAC members to identify emerging technologies that can support green technology initiatives that may be subject to an export license requirement in the future.


...Government (USG) agencies to develop a license exception, fast-track license review, and/or a one-time product/end-user review procedure for the export of items for civilian (i.e., non-military) green-related end-uses only.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Remarks of Under Secretary Eric Hirschhorn at BIS Update Conference Published</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-08-30T11:24:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/03352dc18f6112e9a73653a1bfe21770-385.php#unique-entry-id-385</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/03352dc18f6112e9a73653a1bfe21770-385.php#unique-entry-id-385</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In his remarks, Under Secretary Hirschhorn states that President&rsquo;s Obama&rsquo;s export control reform initiative has been overseen by the White House on a daily basis and its champions include the three key cabinet secretaries principally responsible for reviewing export license applications -- Secretary Locke, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Gates. 


Once the government has implemented &ldquo;a reformed export control mechanism,&rdquo; Under Secretary Hirschhorn states that he expects to see a system based on 3 overarching principles -- three &ldquo;E&rdquo;s, i.e., efficiency, education, and enforcement. 


With regard to Efficiency, Hirschhorn stated that the government&rsquo;s approach rests on two fundamental principles: (1) the rules should be transparent and predictable, and (2) we must have streamlined processes and higher fences to control sensitive items appropriately while facilitating exports of less sensitive items to destinations and end users that don&rsquo;t pose substantial national security, proliferation, or similar concerns.


...Hirschhorn stated that other initiatives that will lead to a more streamlined system will be implemented, including: (1) harmonizing definitions across all the export control regulations; (2) rationalization (e.g., the new encryption regulations); and (3) merging export control IT systems.   With regard to merging export control IT systems, Hirschhorn stated that EAR license applications are reviewed by the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, and Commerce. 

...When the control lists are merged in Phase III of the export control reform initiative, Hirschhorn stated that he expects to have a single application form that is linked to the common IT system.


...Hirschhorn stated that, &ldquo;As the new control lists are created, we will tailor our licensing policies to focus on the most sensitive items and on destinations and end-users of concern. ...  Hirschhorn continued to state, &ldquo;Finally, the Administration is preparing legislation that would combine the administrative enforcement and licensing activities of BIS, the State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control into an independent licensing agency. 

...With regard to Education, Hirschhorn stated that, &ldquo;In addition to outreach publications, seminars, and one-on-one counseling, the Bureau in recent years has expanded its effort to include such cutting edge strategies as on-line training and webinars. 

...Hirschhorn stated, &ldquo;I ask that you carry a message back to your senior management and those who market your products: We are working to create a more efficient export control system and to ensure that those subject to it are aware of that fact. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Commerce Secretary Locke&#x27;s Remarks at BIS&#x27; Update Conference Published</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2010-08-30T23:52:05-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7912d2bcfca8ad00a39b44da0168e955-384.php#unique-entry-id-384</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7912d2bcfca8ad00a39b44da0168e955-384.php#unique-entry-id-384</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 30, 2010, the Commerce Department published the prepared remarks of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke for the Bureau of Industry and Security&rsquo;s (BIS) 23rd Annual BIS Update Conference to be delivered on August 31, 2010.


In his remarks, Secretary Locke stated that, &ldquo;We are taking important steps towards streamlining and simplifying our export control system to make it more transparent, and to enable exporters to quickly know exactly what can and cannot be exported, and where products can and cannot go.   The first step to make this happen is to ensure that the Commerce and State Department control lists clearly lay out which products are controlled, and by which agency.&rdquo;


...What this means is that we&rsquo;ll have two lists that classify and control items based upon specific characteristics, such as by size or by wavelength, or by the ability to operate under extreme atmospheric conditions.&rdquo;


&ldquo;And, when this process is done &ndash; creating a &lsquo;bright line&rsquo; between the two lists &ndash; exporters will be able to know which agency has jurisdiction over their products.&rdquo;


...	&bull;	The top tier &ndash; or the highest shelf &ndash; will be reserved for our most sensitive items, ones made in the U.S. which have high value military or intelligence capabilities;


	&bull;	The middle tier &ndash; or a more accessible shelf &ndash; will hold somewhat less sensitive items, and will be products that are available almost exclusively from our multilateral partners and allies;


	&bull;	The lowest tier will be reserved for items that are less sensitive, and which are more broadly available.&rdquo;


...	&bull;	Many of the items in the middle tier will be eligible to be exported to allies and most multilateral partners under a license exception or general authorization;


...&ldquo;In the final stage of export reform, we plan to merge the two lists into one &ndash; and we will continue to work with our colleagues on Capitol Hill to try to make this happen.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Video Remarks by President at BIS&#x27; Export Controls Update Conference Published</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2010-08-30T23:53:31-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6730797e1f036704d3f3e0e683c65f12-383.php#unique-entry-id-383</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6730797e1f036704d3f3e0e683c65f12-383.php#unique-entry-id-383</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 30, 2010, the White House published the video remarks by President Obama that will be presented at the U.S. 

...I&rsquo;m sorry I&rsquo;m not able to be with you in person today, but I&rsquo;m pleased to have the chance to join you by video to talk about our export control reform initiative. 


About a year ago, we launched a comprehensive review of our export controls and determined that we need fundamental reform in all four areas of our current system &ndash; in what we control, how we control it, how we enforce those controls, and how we manage our controls.  

...Going forward, we will have a single, tiered, positive list &ndash; one which will allow us to build higher walls around the export of our most sensitive items while allowing the export of less critical ones under less restrictive conditions. 


...Now, we will have a single set of licensing policies that will apply to each tier of control, bringing clarity and consistency across our system.


In addition, I plan to sign an Executive Order that creates an Export Enforcement Coordination Center to coordinate and strengthen our enforcement efforts &ndash; and eliminate gaps and duplication &ndash; across all relevant departments and agencies. 


...Going forward, all agencies will transition to a single IT system, making it easier for exporters to seek licenses and ensuring that the government has the full information needed to make informed decisions. 


While there is still more work to be done, taken together, these reforms will focus our resources on the threats that matter most, and help us work more effectively with our allies in the field.  ...  And by enhancing the competitiveness of our manufacturing and technology sectors, they&rsquo;ll help us not just increase exports and create jobs, but strengthen our national security as well. 


...And as we implement these reforms and take further steps &ndash; including working to create a single licensing agency &ndash; I look forward to working with both Congress and the export control community to ensure their success.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP to Discontinue Use of Unknown Manufacturer IDs</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2010-08-02T23:28:27-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bccf6152750485fc7b10e0361ee885c5-382.php#unique-entry-id-382</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bccf6152750485fc7b10e0361ee885c5-382.php#unique-entry-id-382</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 2, 2010, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice stating that CBP will discontinue the use of the unknown Manufacturer Identification Numbers (MIDs) as data to report the manufacturer (or supplier).   After this date, entries reporting unknown MIDs will be rejected by the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) effective September 15, 2010.


Any questions regarding this notice should be directed to remote.filing@dhs.gov.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>APHIS Proposes Definitions for Exempt and Regulations Articles</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Aphis</category><category>Lacey Act</category><dc:date>2010-08-05T23:23:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26bd5ce0471900e9ddf98289af01607e-381.php#unique-entry-id-381</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/26bd5ce0471900e9ddf98289af01607e-381.php#unique-entry-id-381</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 4, 2010, the Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS), in response to amendments to the Lacey Act, issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register establishing definitions for the terms &ldquo;common cultivar&rdquo; and &ldquo;common food crop.&rdquo;   As amended, the Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to: (1) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with limited exceptions, obtained in violation of any Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law that protects plants;  (2) make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant covered by the Act; and (3) to import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration. 

...	(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);

	(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or

	(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.

...	(1)	In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);

	(2)	As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or

	(3)	Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.

The rule also provides definition for &ldquo;plant&rdquo; as &ldquo;any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts or products thereof, and including trees from either natural or planted forest stands.&rdquo; 

In addition to the definitions, APHIS intends to provide guidance in the form of a list of examples of plant taxa or commodities that qualify for exemption from the provisions of the Act as common cultivars and common food crops. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Agreements to DDTC Must Be Submitted Via D-Trade 2 System</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-08-15T23:20:36-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28b26edc445d26f9c7438dae4bb62f4a-380.php#unique-entry-id-380</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28b26edc445d26f9c7438dae4bb62f4a-380.php#unique-entry-id-380</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Effective September 1, 2010, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) will no longer accept unclassified paper submissions of Technical Assistance Agreements, Manufacturing License Agreements, and Warehouse Distribution Agreements (including major amendments). 

After September 1, 2010, all submissions must be made electronically via D-Trade 2 utilizing the DSP-5 form.   Paper submissions received after August 31 will be returned to the applicant will a letter from DDTC instructing the applicant to resubmit the agreement via the D-Trade 2 System.   Minor amendments against active paper agreements may continue to be submitted on paper.

For information on submitting agreements electronically please reference the Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Department Clarifies Exemption for Technical Data under ITAR</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-08-27T23:16:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cd8b93e246198d84aa2d6782b487f310-379.php#unique-entry-id-379</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cd8b93e246198d84aa2d6782b487f310-379.php#unique-entry-id-379</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 27, 2010, the U.S.   State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued a final rule in the Federal Register that clarifies an exemption for technical data under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R.   &sect;125.4(b)(9).  

The exemption as amended covers technical data, regardless of media or format, sent or taken by a U.S. person who is an employee of a U.S. corporation or a U.S.   Government agency to a U.S. person employed by that U.S. corporation or to a U.S.   Government agency outside the U.S. 

The change is effective August 27, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Blackwater to Pay &#x24;42 Million to Settle Allegations of Violating U.S. Export Controls Regulations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>ITAR</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2010-08-23T22:53:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3a5f6a47e7df8302aed2db7f3182a258-378.php#unique-entry-id-378</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3a5f6a47e7df8302aed2db7f3182a258-378.php#unique-entry-id-378</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 23, 2010, the U.S.   State Department&rsquo;s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that Blackwater Worldwide, a private security company now called Xe Services (Blackwater), has entered into a consent agreement to settle 288 violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) in connection with unauthorized export of defense articles, including technical data, unauthorized provision of defense services, violating the terms of license authorizations, unauthorized sales activity involving a proscribed country, failure to maintain records involving ITAR-controlled transactions and false statements, misrepresentations, and omissions of material facts. 

According to the State Department, Blackwater sought training contracts from foreign governments and other foreign organizations without adhering closely to U.S. export regulations.   Blackwater also shipped automatic weapons and other military equipment for use by its personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of export controls and in some cases sought to hide its actions.   In one incident, Blackwater shipped weapons to Iraq hidden inside containers of dog food. 

To settle the alleged violations, Blackwater must pay a civil penalty of $42 million, a portion of which will be suspended on the condition that Blackwater spends the funds on self-initiated or consent agreement-authorized remedial compliance measures. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Clarifies Reach of Commodity Classification Determinations and Advisory Opinions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-08-03T22:12:52-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c92e08809d83c2db6a19f316948cc50-377.php#unique-entry-id-377</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c92e08809d83c2db6a19f316948cc50-377.php#unique-entry-id-377</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 2, 2010, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to clarify that commodity classification determinations and advisory opinions BIS issues or has issued under the EAR are not and may not be relied upon as U.S.   Government determinations that the items described therein are subject to the EAR, as opposed to the jurisdiction of another U.S. 

...Section 748.3(a) the EAR, as amended, requires that exporters, before requesting commodity classifications and advisory opinions, determine that the items at issue are not subject to the exclusive export control jurisdiction of one of the other U.S.   Government agencies listed in &sect;734.3(b) of the EAR, such as Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC), or the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Only DDTC has authority to issue commodity jurisdiction determinations since they are the agency responsible for administering the U.S. ...  Unlike the ITAR, the EAR does not provide authority to make commodity jurisdiction determinations.   Thus, because BIS does not have the authority to issue commodity jurisdiction determinations, a BIS commodity classification only reflects whether an item identified in the commodity classification request is described in the Commerce Control List (CCL). 

With respect to advisory opinions, the rule states that they are limited in scope to BIS&rsquo;s interpretation of EAR provisions, and may not be relied upon or cited as evidence of U.S.   Government&rsquo;s determination that the items described in the advisory opinion are not subject to the export control jurisdiction of another agency of the U.S. 

...Comments on the interim final rule are due October 2, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Final Rule on Direct Products of U.S. Technology</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-07-30T22:17:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/96c4040660e618a2df3c8bf296500e57-376.php#unique-entry-id-376</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/96c4040660e618a2df3c8bf296500e57-376.php#unique-entry-id-376</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 30, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule on foreign direct products of U.S. technology. 


BIS clarifies the scope of the &lsquo;&lsquo;direct product rule&rsquo;&rsquo; set forth in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   Under the EAR&rsquo;s &lsquo;&lsquo;direct product rule,&rsquo;&rsquo; foreign-made items that are located outside of the United States; subject to national security controls under the EAR; the direct product of U.S.-origin software or technology that requires a written assurance as a supporting document for a license or as a pre-condition for use of License Exception Technology and Software, Restricted (TSR); and are being reexported to a destination in a country of national security concern or a terrorist supporting country, are subject to the EAR and require an export license or license exception.   This rule also makes parallel revisions or clarifications to written assurances required under License Exception TSR (Technology and Software Restricted), information required on the license application for national security controlled technology, and the instructional steps in the EAR that provide guidance on how to apply the direct product rule.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Clarification of Grace Period for New Encryption Registration Requirement</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Encryption</category><dc:date>2010-07-27T15:08:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd7e15e9dd08e6940655f29d0055803e-375.php#unique-entry-id-375</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd7e15e9dd08e6940655f29d0055803e-375.php#unique-entry-id-375</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 27, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register to clarify the intent of the encryption registration requirement that appeared in the new encryption rules published on June 25, 2010. 


The June 25, 2010 final rule established, inter alia, an encryption registration requirement for authorization under provisions of License Exception ENC, as codified in &sect; 740.17(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the EAR, and for transactions in connection with mass market encryption transaction, as codified in &sect;&sect; 742.15(b)(1) and (b)(3) of the EAR.   In &sect; 740.17(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(i)(B), the rule specified that an encryption registration was required to be filed the first time that a party submits an encryption classification request under &sect; 740.17(b)(2) and (b)(3) or performs an encryption self-classification under &sect; 740.17(b)(1) on or after August 24, 2010.   The rule also stated that an encryption registration was required to be submitted in support of an encryption classification or in circumstances where a party is making a mass market encryption item eligible for export and reexport (including the definition at &sect; 734.2(b)(9) for encryption software) under &sect; 742.15(b)(1) for the first time on or after August 24, 2010.   Although the rule was issued in final form on June 25, the rule intended to establish a grace period permitting parties to wait until August 24 to submit their registration requirements.


...The intent of this grace period was to allow industry time to gather information necessary to accurately submit the information required in the encryption registration (Supplement No. 5 to part 742), to change internal procedures, and to train personnel before submitting the encryption registration.   However, the rule inadvertently omitted language that clarifies that parties may self-classify or seek classifications between June 25, 2010 and August 24, 2010 without first submitting a registration.   It also inadvertently omitted language that clarifies the post-classification registration requirement for parties that self-classified or sought classifications between June 25, 2010 and August 24, 2010, but did not self-classify or seek a classification again on or after August 24, 2010.   This rule corrects the regulations to include language that clarifies the intent of the grace period.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Revises the CCL to Update and Clarify Crime Control License Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-07-15T14:59:53-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2f2455c593b836704633621fff14c20a-374.php#unique-entry-id-374</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2f2455c593b836704633621fff14c20a-374.php#unique-entry-id-374</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security published a final rule in the Federal Register to revise the Commerce Control List (CCL) to update and clarify crime control license requirements under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   The rule updates and clarifies export and reexport license requirements on striking weapons, restraint devices, shotguns and parts, optical sighting devices, and electric shock devices.   It also adds equipment designed for the execution of humans to the Commerce Control List.   This rule makes no changes to the longstanding policy of denial of applications to export or reexport specially designed implements of torture.   The rule provides additional illustrative examples of such items and adopts a definition of torture used in a U.S. statute that implements the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 


BIS published the rule as part of an ongoing review of crime control license requirements and policy.   As part of the ongoing review, BIS received public comments on whether the scope of the items and destinations that are subject to crime control license requirements should be changed.   After reviewing the comments and conducting its own internal deliberations, BIS decided to proceed in stages.   This final rule is the culmination of the first stage that addresses relatively simple extensions, modifications or removals of items currently on the CCL or additions to the CCL of items that have an easily identified crime control or law enforcement nexus. 


BIS plans to publish a subsequent proposed rule that will identify potential expansion of certain Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) as suggested in the comments to the proposed rule; whether, and if so, the extent to which biometric measuring devices, integrated data systems, simulators, and communications equipment should be added to the Commerce Control List; the degree to which software and technology related to commodities on the Commerce Control List should be listed and how such software and technology should be described; and general policy issues such as whether the range of destinations to which crime control license requirements apply should be modified.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Recent Enforcement Actions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>OFAC</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-07-26T14:48:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f809008cfaa80a45e8cfe172ce40a02-373.php#unique-entry-id-373</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3f809008cfaa80a45e8cfe172ce40a02-373.php#unique-entry-id-373</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Maersk Line, Ltd., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries, Farrell Lines Incorporated, and E-Ships, Inc. (collectively, MLL), have remitted $3,088,400 to settle allegations of violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR) and of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR). 


OFAC alleged that MLL violated the SSR and the ITR by providing unlicensed shipping services for 4,714 shipments of cargo originating in or bound for Sudan and Iran, including the transportation of such cargo on vessels owned, operated and/or chartered by MLL, but also chartered by MLL's parent, A.P. 

...OFAC stated that the settlement amount reflected OFAC's consideration of the General Factors, such as that MLL is part of a commercially sophisticated world-wide shipping conglomerate with significant experience operating under licenses issued by OFAC and other U.S.   Government agencies; the activities conducted by MLL resulted in actual harm to sanctions program objectives by conferring an economic benefit on Sudan and Iran; MLL has not been found to have violated OFAC sanctions in the past five years; MLL substantially and fully cooperated with OFAC's investigation of the alleged violations; and MLL and its parent have undertaken substantial remediation to ensure that such alleged violations do not recur.  


3M Imtec Corporation of Ardmore, OK (3M Imtec), successor in interest to Imtec Corporation (Imtec), has remitted $125,000 to settle allegations of violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR), and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 

...In connection with the acquisition, a due diligence review was conducted which disclosed that, prior to its acquisition, Imtec engaged in unlicensed transactions with Iran. 

...During the period of June 2004 to April 2007, Imtec appears to have violated the ITR by selling and shipping implants and related dental equipment to purchasers in a third country for delivery to Iran.   ITR authorizes OFAC to issue licenses for the sale of agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices for use in Iran, provided that those agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices are not listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL). 

...Although Imtec had previously requested and obtained separate licenses from OFAC authorizing the sale of dental equipment to Iran, the sales that are the subject of the settlement agreement were made outside of the effective dates of those licenses. ...  Although Imtec management was aware of the need to obtain OFAC licenses authorizing sales to Iran as evidenced by its prior OFAC licenses, Imtec&rsquo;s apparent lack of a comprehensive trade compliance program resulted in the lapse of those licenses. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Special Comprehensive License Forms BIS-752P and BIS-752P-A</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-07-25T14:47:40-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dd22fdc7a35ea4af1604299554d40b30-372.php#unique-entry-id-372</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dd22fdc7a35ea4af1604299554d40b30-372.php#unique-entry-id-372</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 25, 2010, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in Federal Register requesting comments on Special Comprehensive License forms BIS-752P and BIS-752P-A. 

The Special Comprehensive License (SCL) procedure authorizes multiple shipments of items from the U.S. or from approved consignees abroad who are approved in advance by the BIS to conduct servicing, support services, stocking spare parts, maintenance, capital expansion, manufacturing, support scientific data acquisition, reselling and reexporting in the form received, and other activities as approved on a case-by-case basis. 

An application for an SCL requires submission of additional supporting documentation, such as the company&rsquo;s internal control program. 

Comments are due on September 24, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Congo Conflict Minerals Provisions Signed into Law</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Legislation</category><dc:date>2010-07-21T14:45:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fe96dbf880d4e3379bd681a27c27bdfc-371.php#unique-entry-id-371</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fe96dbf880d4e3379bd681a27c27bdfc-371.php#unique-entry-id-371</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law The Wall Street Reform Bill which, at &sect;1502, contains provisions requiring publicly-traded and electronic companies such as Apple, Intel, and HP to annually report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on whether the columbite-tantalite, casserite, gold, or wolframite minerals used in companies&rsquo; manufacture operations originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country.   Companies using potential conflict minerals in their production will be required to certify whether their products contain minerals form conflict mines. 

In cases where such conflict minerals do originate in DRC or adjoining country, companies will have to report on the measures taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of such minerals.   The bill requires that industry use outside auditors to determine where refiners are conflict-free. 

The legislation mandates the Secretary of State to annually compile a map of mineral-rich zones, trade routes, and areas under the control of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries based on data from local and national governments and local and international non-governmental organizations. 

...These provisions were originally introduced on November 19, 2009, by Rep.   Jim McDermott as The Conflict Minerals Trade Act of 2009.   Commenting the passage the bill, Rep.   McDermott&rsquo;s office stated that the goal of this bill was to &ldquo;hold accountable American companies that use minerals in their products from mines that help fund the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).&rdquo;   The bill provides for one-year period prior to implementation of these provisions to enable industries to adequately prepare for these requirements. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>2010 Annual GSP Product Review and Deadlines for Filing Petitions Announced </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2010-07-15T14:40:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/56e648eececb819c3aa50e2008dffcee-370.php#unique-entry-id-370</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/56e648eececb819c3aa50e2008dffcee-370.php#unique-entry-id-370</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 15, 2010, Office of the U.S.   Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the initiation of the 2010 annual Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) product review and deadlines for filing petitions. 

Interested parties, including foreign governments, may submit petitions to: 


	1	Designate additional articles as eligible for GSP treatment;


	2	Withdraw, suspend or limit the application of duty-free treatment accorded under the GSP with respect to any article, either for all beneficiary developing countries, least-developed beneficiary developing countries or beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, or for any of these countries individually; 


	3	Waive the &ldquo;competitive need limitations&rdquo; for individual beneficiary developing countries with respect to specific GSP-eligible articles (these limits do not apply to either least-developed beneficiary developing countries or AGOA beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries); and 


	4	Otherwise modify GSP coverage.

All petitions to modify the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP must be received by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee no later than 5 PM on August 3, 2010. 

Petitions requesting competitive need limitation (CNL) waivers for GSP-eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries that exceed the CNLs in 2010 must be filed in the 2010 Annual Review.   To be considered in the 2010 Annual Review, petitions requesting CNL waivers must be received by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee by 5 PM on November 16, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Commerce Department and USPS Launch New Initiative to Increase U.S. Exports</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-07-12T14:38:23-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6ef680a7fbc176a60f11e02460fd4623-369.php#unique-entry-id-369</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6ef680a7fbc176a60f11e02460fd4623-369.php#unique-entry-id-369</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In response to President Obama&rsquo;s plan to double U.S. exports in the next five years, U.S.   Commerce Department and the United States Postal Service (USPS) announced launch of a new initiative on July 12, 2010.   The New Market Exporter Initiative (NMEI) will help increase U.S. exports by identifying small and medium-sized businesses that export their goods and services via USPS and notifying those customers of government sources that can help them in finding new overseas markets. 

Commerce and USPS intend to work with such businesses to identify key markets, build market entry strategies and provide guidance to the U.S. exporters searching to expand their markets.   Free resources and tools will be made available through a nationwide network of international trade experts and global shipping specialists. ...  Commerce Department has trade specialists posted in 109 U.S. cities and U.S. embassies and consulates in 77 countries, and will make those resources available to the companies, connecting them with potential international buyers. 

President Obama announced the National Export Initiative (NEI) earlier this year, during his State of the Union address.   The goal of the NEI is to double U.S. exports in the next five years, which would support several million jobs in the U.S.   The NEI will provide more funding and more centralized, cabinet-level coordination to increase U.S. exports.   The initiative represents a first government-wide export promotion strategy with focused attention from the President and his cabinet.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New Charges Filed Against Irish Firm for Exporting Military Aircraft Parts to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-07-07T12:06:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fa15a3c9d2711e9251872a639ea27a14-368.php#unique-entry-id-368</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fa15a3c9d2711e9251872a639ea27a14-368.php#unique-entry-id-368</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 7, 2010, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has charged Mac Aviation Group, an Irish trading company, and its officers Thomas and Sean McGuinn of Ireland, in a superseding indictment with purchasing F-5 fighter aircraft parts, helicopter engines and other aircraft components from U.S. firms and illegally exporting them to Iran. 

Originally, defendants were changed in July 2008 with 2 counts of conspiracy, 19 counts of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Iranian Transactions Regulations, four counts of false statements, and forfeiture allegations. 

The superseding indictment added two additional counts that pertain to Mac Aviation and Tom McGuinn&rsquo;s procurement of military items, specifically F-5 fighter aircraft parts, from a U.S. company and export of those parts to Iran, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). 

The indictment alleges that from August 2005 to July 2008, the defendants solicited purchase orders from customers in Iran for U.S.-origin aircraft engines and parts and then sent requests for aircraft components to U.S. companies.   Among those parts were helicopter engines, aircraft bolts and vanes, and canopy panels for the F-5 fighter aircraft.   The defendants wired money to banks in the U.S. as payment for these parts and concealed from U.S. sellers the ultimate end-use and end-users of the purchased parts.   The defendants then exported these parts from the U.S. to Iran by transshipping them through third countries like Malaysia. 

In addition, the superseding indictment alleges that from 2005 to 2006, the defendants exported canopy panels designed for the F-5 fighter aircraft from the U.S. to Iran.   The defendants falsely claimed that the end user for the F-5 parts was the Republic of Nigeria. 

...If convicted, the defendants face a maximum sentence of 10-20 years in prison for each of the IEEPA counts, 10 years for the AECA charge, 5-20 years in prison for each of the conspiracy counts, and 5 years in prison for each of the false statement counts. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>100&#x25; Air Cargo Screening Goes into Effect August 1&#x2c; 2010</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Security</category><dc:date>2010-07-05T15:34:11-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b8255cee94aa1b83ec29641d3400f76e-367.php#unique-entry-id-367</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b8255cee94aa1b83ec29641d3400f76e-367.php#unique-entry-id-367</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Transportation Security Administration&rsquo;s (TSA) mandate requiring 100 percent of cargo transported on a passenger aircraft be screened went into effect on August 2, 2010.   The law requires that &ldquo;all air cargo must be screened at the piece level prior to transport on a passenger aircraft for flights originating in the United States.&rdquo; 

While, initially, passenger airlines and their handling agents were the only facilities approved to screen passenger cargo, TSA created the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) to help industry deal with the screening requirements.   CCSP enables Indirect Air Carriers (IAC&rsquo;s), shippers and Independent Cargo Screening Facilities (ICFs) to screen cargo for flights originating in the U.S.   Participating facilities are fully regulated and inspected for compliance.   There are about 740 locations that have been certified to screen cargo and are currently handling over 40 percent of the screen cargo volume by weight. 

The August 1 deadline applies to U.S. originating cargo only and not to cargo inbound to the U.S.   TSA recognizes that 100 percent screening of U.S.-inbound cargo by the August deadline was not attainable, however, TSA stated it seeks to achieve such level of cargo security as soon as possible. 

As of August 1, 2010, cargo that is not screened will not be permitted to be transported on a passenger aircraft for flights originating in the U.S.   Some airlines have noted that cargo that is not screened in the CCSP program may be subject to delays and face earlier acceptance cut-off times. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Appeals Court Denies Request to Review HTSUS Modifications By Presidential Proclamations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Litigation</category><dc:date>2010-07-01T15:24:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2b4e0cba07fa914b246c75ddd6efa6a6-366.php#unique-entry-id-366</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2b4e0cba07fa914b246c75ddd6efa6a6-366.php#unique-entry-id-366</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[International Trade Commission (&ldquo;ITC&rdquo;) proposed the creation of two subheadings to maintain substantial rate neutrality  for two categories of festive articles: (1) &ldquo;utilitarian articles of a kind used in the home in the performance of specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations for religious or cultural holidays&rdquo; and (2) &ldquo;utilitarian articles in the form of a three-dimensional representation of a symbol or motif clearly associated with a specific holiday in the United States.&rdquo; 

...The CIT consolidated the cases and then dismissed the consolidated action explaining that when a party invokes the general-review provisions of the APA, and no other statute provides for a cause of action, the contested agency action must be &ldquo;final&rdquo; in order to be subject to judicial review. ...  Finally, the CIT noted that because the President has &ldquo;complete discretion&rdquo; in deciding whether to adopt the ITC&rsquo;s recommended modifications under 19 U.S.C. &sect;3006, and because the ITC&rsquo;s recommendations &ldquo;carry no direct consequences,&rdquo; the court lacked authority to review the lawfulness of the agency&rsquo;s recommendations to the President. 

...On appeal, the CAFC stated that the APA, which the appellants invoked as the basis for their claim, authorizes suit by a party who is &ldquo;adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of the relevant statute.&rdquo; 

...The CAFC held that because the acts that the appellants complained of were either non-final or not agency actions, and because judicial review was precluded even outside the APA framework due to the discretionary nature of the President&rsquo;s authority under &sect;3006(a), the CIT&rsquo;s decision to dismiss the actions was affirmed. 

...Because the President&rsquo;s discretionary action was required to effect modifications to the HTSUS under &sect;3006, the ITC&rsquo;s report could not directly impact legal rights or alter any legal regime in such a way that it would have a legal effect on President&rsquo; s exercise of discretion. 

...In addition, CAFC stated that &sect;3006 did not in any way limit the President&rsquo;s discretion in a way that would render the President&rsquo;s actions in this case judicially reviewable for exceeding his authority. ...  The statement in section 3006 that the President &ldquo;may proclaim modifications, based on the recommendation by the Commission under section 3005 of this title, to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule&rdquo; therefore does not restrict the President&rsquo;s discretion or render the President&rsquo;s actions judicially reviewable.&rdquo; 

The CAFC said that the only language in &sect; 3006 that limited the President&rsquo;s discretion to proclaim HTSUS modifications was the requirement that the President &ldquo;determine that the modifications (1) are in conformity with the U.S. obligations under the Convention; and (2) do not run counter to the national economic interest of the United States.&rdquo; ...  Because those determinations were committed to the President&rsquo;s discretion and because the President&rsquo;s compliance with pars. 1 and 2 of section 3006(a) was not at issue in this case, the President&rsquo;s exercise of his discretion was not subject to judicial review. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Update 2010 Dates &#x26; Instructions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-06-15T22:45:25-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8999afe6e79c4d28523070489f12ecbd-365.php#unique-entry-id-365</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8999afe6e79c4d28523070489f12ecbd-365.php#unique-entry-id-365</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security&rsquo;s (BIS) announced that its annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy will be held on August 31- September 2, 2010 in Washington, DC.


To attend this year&rsquo;s conference, you must follow a two-step process: (1) you must submit the online &ldquo;Interest Form&rdquo; between June 15 and June 28.   If there are more potential participants than there is space available, BIS will grant registration through a random selection from the entire list of respondents, regardless of when received during the period.   Those selected will be notified and given registration instructions in early July.   They must register and submit payment by a designated date indicated in the instructions or their spot will be forfeited and given to someone on the wait list.   Those not selected will be notified that they have been placed on a wait list.


...Registration transfers within companies or organizations may be permitted with prior approval from BIS.   Registration transfers will not be permitted between different organizations or companies. 

...Due to the limited capacity of the Update Conference, BIS reserves the right to limit, restrict or decline registrations to this event.   Registrations are not confirmed until accepted and verified by BIS and the registration fee has been paid.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Rule Based Upon a Systematic Review of the Commerce Control List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-06-28T22:22:27-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ffa49191029297ff9268e69cd24bb593-364.php#unique-entry-id-364</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ffa49191029297ff9268e69cd24bb593-364.php#unique-entry-id-364</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 28, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule revising the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) based upon a systematic review of the Commerce Control List (CCL).


The rule is the third phase of the regulatory implementation of the results of a review of the CCL that was conducted by BIS starting in 2007.   The BIS review was aided by input received from BIS&rsquo;s Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) and comments received from the interested public.


The revisions in this rule include clarifications to existing controls; eliminating redundant or outdated controls; and establishing more focused and rationalized controls.   This rule also makes CCL related changes to other parts of the EAR, including CCL related definitions and license exceptions.


The rule is effective upon publication and while no formal comment period, BIS welcomes comments from the public on this rule on a continuing basis. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Freight Forwarder Settles Allegation Of Antiboycott Violation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Antiboycott</category><dc:date>2010-06-25T16:26:14-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b817fc1efc1a1a86b29d506c0aac9ed8-363.php#unique-entry-id-363</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b817fc1efc1a1a86b29d506c0aac9ed8-363.php#unique-entry-id-363</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 25, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that Plane Cargo Inc.   (PCI), a freight forwarder located in Houston, TX, has agreed to pay a $5,200 civil penalty to settle allegations that it violated the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 


The announcement provided that:


BIS, through its Office of Antiboycott Compliance, alleged that on one occasion in 2003, PCI, in connection with a transaction involving the sale and transfer of goods from the United States to Syria, furnished an invoice to a company in Syria that certified that the goods were not of Israeli origin in violation of the antiboycott provisions of the EAR.   PCI cooperated fully with the investigation.&nbsp;
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Texas Company Settles Allegations Of Antiboycott Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Encryption</category><category>Antiboycott</category><dc:date>2010-06-14T16:21:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/679c7e44323075c0a1a91295d85b17f2-362.php#unique-entry-id-362</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/679c7e44323075c0a1a91295d85b17f2-362.php#unique-entry-id-362</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 14, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that Messina, Inc.   (Messina) of Dallas, TX, has agreed to pay a $10,800 civil penalty to settle allegations that it violated the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) on two occasions. 


The announcement provided that:


BIS, through its Office of Antiboycott Compliance, alleged that in 2004, in connection with two letter of credit transactions involving the sale and transfer of goods destined for Iraq that were shipped through the UAE, Messina furnished to a U.S. bank two certificates signed by the agent for a vessel that attested to the vessel&rsquo;s eligibility to call at the port of a boycotting country.&nbsp;   In doing so, Messina furnished information concerning other persons known or believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in a boycotting country, in violation of the antiboycott provisions of the EAR.&nbsp; 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>French Company Settles FCPA Charges for &#x24;240 Million</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-06-30T12:31:16-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/600c4516a176be3d8338277468aedbbd-361.php#unique-entry-id-361</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/600c4516a176be3d8338277468aedbbd-361.php#unique-entry-id-361</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 28, 2010, Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Technip S.A., a global engineering, construction, and services company based in Paris, France, has agreed to a $240 million criminal penalty to resolve charges related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for its participation in a decade-long scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts.   The EPC contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, were valued at more than $6 billion. 

DOJ filed a deferred prosecution agreement and a criminal information against Technip in the U.S. 

...Technip, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc (KBR) and two other companies were part of a joint venture that was awarded four EPC contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd. 

...According to court documents, Technip authorized the joint venture to hire two agents to pay bribed to a range of Nigerian government officials, including top-level executive branch officials, to assist Technip and the joint venture in obtaining the EPC contracts.   The joint venture paid approximately $182 million to its agents to be forwarded to Nigerian government officials as bribes. 

...Meanwhile, Technip is obligated to obtain an independent compliance monitor for a two-year period to review the design and implementation for Technip&rsquo;s compliance program and to cooperate with the department in ongoing investigations.   If Technip abides by the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, DOJ will dismiss the criminal information when the term of the agreement expires. 

Technip also reached a settlement of a related civil complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging Technip with violating the FCPA&rsquo;s anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions. 

...Including today&rsquo;s resolutions, a total of $917 million in criminal and civil penalties have been obtained to date as a result of the ongoing DOJ and SEC investigations of the scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials in order to win the Bonny Island EPC contract. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Revising Encryption Export Controls </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Regulations</category><category>Encryption</category><dc:date>2010-06-25T12:27:16-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4a1dc45bfeeac15443e680cb1f820723-360.php#unique-entry-id-360</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4a1dc45bfeeac15443e680cb1f820723-360.php#unique-entry-id-360</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 25, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an interim final rule that amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to modify the requirements of License Exception ENC, &ldquo;Encryption Commodities, Software and Technology,&rdquo; and the requirements for qualifying an encryption item as mass market. 

...BIS believes that the rule will streamline procedures for (1) less sensitive encryption items eligible for export under License Exception ENC and (2) most mass market encryption products. 

...The rule includes several significant changes to encryption export controls by modifying the way information about encryption products is collected an analyzed. 

...	&bull;	Establishes a company registration requirement for encryption items under License Exception ENC or as mass market encryption items.   Under the new rule, authorization for License Exception ENC and mass market treatment is based on company authorizations that operate like a bulk license for the company&rsquo;s products rather than product-by-product authorizations; 


...Under the new rule, the self-classification report would be required to be submitted annually to BIS and the ENC Encryption Request Coordinator in February for items exported and reexported the previous calendar year; 


	&bull;	Makes encryption technology eligible for export and reexport under License Exception ENC, except to countries of highest concern;


...When sales reporting is not required under License Exception ENC, companies need only maintain records as required by the EAR that can be reviewed by appropriate agencies of the U.S. 

...	&bull;	Removes the 30-day delay to export and reexport less sensitive encryption items under License Exception ENC; and


	&bull;	Removes the 30-day delay to make most mass market encryption items eligible for mass market treatment.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>VA Resident Sentenced for FCPA Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-06-25T12:24:25-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/08aba4b0079eb8080aaece9cecfbdc00-359.php#unique-entry-id-359</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/08aba4b0079eb8080aaece9cecfbdc00-359.php#unique-entry-id-359</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 25, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Justice announced that John Webster Warwick, a 64-year old Virginia Beach, VA, resident, was sentenced in U.S.   District Court in Richmond, VA, to 37 months in prison for conspiring to pay bribes to former Panamanian government officials to secure maritime contracts. 

On February 10, 2010, Warwick pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make corrupt payments to foreign government officials for the purpose of securing business for Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation (PECC) in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

According to court documents, Warwick and others conspired to pay money secretly to Panamanian government officials for awarding contracts to PECC.   In December 1997, the Panamanian government awarded PECC a no-bid 20-year concession.   In December 1997, Warwick and others authorized payments to be made to the Panamanian government officials, which totaled more than $200,000. 

In addition to the prison term, Warwick forfeited $331,000 in proceeds of the conspiracy and will be subject to a two-year supervised release following his prison term.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Census Foreign Trade Division Updates HTS Codes and Schedule B Database</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Census</category><dc:date>2010-06-23T12:08:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/46f14cea9d147ced4139d8cb81e72771-358.php#unique-entry-id-358</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/46f14cea9d147ced4139d8cb81e72771-358.php#unique-entry-id-358</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Census Bureau&rsquo;s Foreign Trade Division (FTD) has posted a warning to the trade community that some freight forwarders and Customs brokers may need to update their current commodity number classifications as updated/new Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers go into effect on July 1, 2010.

HTS commodity classification codes are generally revised twice annually, in January and July by the U.S.   International Trade Commission.   The codes are usually revised because members in the trade community are looking for more detailed statistical data.   Recommendations for revisions to existing classifications or for the establishment of new classifications should be submitted to the Chairman of the Committee for Statistical Annotation of Tariff Schedules. 

In addition, the FTD posted a link to an improved Schedule B database of export commodity codes.   According to FTD, &ldquo;the new improved search tool will interpret common commercial product information and interact intelligently and intuitively with users to help alleviate the complex nature of finding the correct code in the Schedule B book.&rdquo; ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian National Convicted of Export Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-06-17T11:49:49-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d305499c761298ac024452614e479f8-357.php#unique-entry-id-357</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d305499c761298ac024452614e479f8-357.php#unique-entry-id-357</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice announced that Omid Khalili, an Iranian national, pleaded guilty in U.S.   District Court for the Southern District of Alabama to attempting to illegally export fighter jet or military aircraft parts from the U.S. to Iran. 

Khalili and other defendant were charged in a nine-count indictment returned on January 28, 2010, with conspiracy, money laundering, smuggling, and violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). 

According to court documents, Khalili and his co-conspirator have been working with the Iranian government to procure military items for the Iranian government.   In November 2009, Khalili contacted an undercover agent seeking parts for the military aircraft for export to Iran. 

...In addition, these items may not be exported to Iran without a license from the U.S. 

...On November 20, 2009, Khalili send an e-mail to the undercover agent containing a list of aircraft parts for the military aircraft and inquiring about their prices.   In December 2009, Khalili and his co-conspirator talked with the agent and informed him that the parts were to be sent to Iran and that, because of the U.S. embargo, they would need to be re-routed through an intermediate country.   When the undercover agent agreed to send the requested parts to the defendants, Khalili and his other co-conspirators sent four separate cash deposits totaling in excess of $70,000 from a bank in U.A.E. to a bank in Alabama as down-payment for the aircraft parts. 

Khalili faces a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and a $1 million fine. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP to Revise Policy on the Use of CF 28s as Start of Formal Investigation </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2010-06-10T11:48:28-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/260ee8a1a500d425530d826771936da2-356.php#unique-entry-id-356</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/260ee8a1a500d425530d826771936da2-356.php#unique-entry-id-356</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 10, 2010, during the Customs Lawyers Association Annual meeting in Washington, DC, Charles Ressin, Chief of the Penalties Branch, Regulations & Rulings at the CBP&rsquo;s Office of International Trade, stated that CBP intends to revise and publish policy concerning Request for Information (CBP Form 28) as beginning of formal investigation for purposes of customs enforcement.   Mr.   Ressin stated that CBP&rsquo;s issuance of a CBP Form 28 alone does not preclude the importer from filing a prior disclosure unless express notice of investigation is included in the form. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Clarifies De Minimis Content Requirements in the EAR</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-06-04T10:33:47-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b9f188da13743b3085acd97e27d8f922-355.php#unique-entry-id-355</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b9f188da13743b3085acd97e27d8f922-355.php#unique-entry-id-355</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 4, 2010, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule in Federal Register that clarifies language concerning the de minimis provisions in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 

The EAR generally do not apply to items that were made and are located outside the U.S. and that contain only a &ldquo;de minimis&rdquo; level of U.S-origin content.   The procedures for calculating whether an item exceeds the de minimis threshold note that the calculation is appropriate only for items that are made outside the U.S. and are not currently in the U.S. 

Effective June 4, 2010, the rule removes EAR provision in &sect;734.3(b)(4), which outlines a category of items not subject to the EAR (&ldquo;foreign made items that have less than the de minimis percentage of controlled U.S. content&rdquo;), because the provision could be erroneously read as applying the de minimis exclusion to foreign made items that are located in the U.S. 


In addition, the final rule provides technical corrections to the EAR involving certain performance criteria of turning machines and the rule also removes obsolete cross references, removes and reserves two regulatory provisions, 


corrects a typographical error, and removes an unnecessary reporting 


requirement.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Chinese Nationals Convicted of Illegally Exporting ITAR-Controlled Items to China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>China</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2010-05-17T12:28:29-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/04e8599f2d6c3a19db85a039c5091abb-354.php#unique-entry-id-354</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/04e8599f2d6c3a19db85a039c5091abb-354.php#unique-entry-id-354</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 17, 2010, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that a federal jury in Massachusetts convicted Chinese nationals Zhen Zhou Wu (Wu) and Yufeng Wei (Wei) of conspiracy to violate U.S. export laws and illegally exporting electronic equipment from the U.S. to China on numerous occasions from 2004 to 2007. 

Evidence presented at trial showed that between April 2004 and June 2006 Wu and Wei illegally exported military electronic components, designated on the U.S. ...  The defense articles that defendants exported are primarily used in military phased array radar, electronic warfare, military guidance systems, and military satellite communications. 

...Using Chitron, Wu targeted Chinese military factories and research institutes as customers of Chitron, including numerous institutes of the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, which is responsible for the procurement, development, and manufacture of electronics for the Chinese military. 

Based on the correspondence, Wu, Wei and other Chitron employees knew that exports of restricted parts were being shipped to Chinese customers without required export licenses.   Wu instructed Wei and Chitron employees to never tell U.S. companies that parts were being exported overseas. ...  Upon receiving the products, Chitron employees forwarded them to Chitron&rsquo;s Shenzhen office using freight forwarders in Hong Kong. 

...Wu and Wei both face up to 20 years imprisonment to be followed by three years supervised release and a $1 million fine. 

...Chitron faces up to a $1 million fine for each count in the indictment charging them with illegal export of U.S.   Munitions List items and $500,000 for each count in the indictment charging them with illegal export of Commerce controlled electronics. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>UK Firm Fined &#x24;2M for Exporting Boeing 747 Aircraft to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2010-05-11T12:10:41-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad7f4397e25e090e6ab6109c3dd543f4-353.php#unique-entry-id-353</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad7f4397e25e090e6ab6109c3dd543f4-353.php#unique-entry-id-353</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 11, 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Balli Aviation Ltd., a subsidiary of the United Kingdom-based Balli Group PLC, was sentenced that day in the U.S.   District Court for the District of Columbia to pay a $2 million fine and to serve a five-year corporate period of probation after pleading guilty on Feb. 5, 2010, to a two-count criminal information in connection with its illegal export of commercial Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran.


...According to count one of the criminal information filed with the court, beginning in at least October 2007, through July 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd. conspired to export three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran without first having obtained the required export license from BIS or authorization from OFAC, in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations. &nbsp;  Specifically, the information states that Balli Aviation Ltd., through its subsidiaries, the Blue Sky Companies, purchased U.S.-origin aircraft with financing obtained from an Iranian airline and caused these aircraft to be exported to Iran without obtaining the required U.S. government licenses.&nbsp;   Further, Balli Aviation Ltd. entered into lease arrangements that permitted the Iranian airline to use the U.S.-origin aircraft for flights in and out of Iran.


Count two of the criminal information states that Balli Aviation Ltd. violated a Temporary Denial Order (TDO) issued by BIS on March 17, 2008, that prohibited the company from conducting any transaction involving any item subject to the EAR.   Starting in or about March 2008 and continuing through about August 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd. willfully violated the TDO by carrying on negotiations with others concerning buying, receiving, using, selling and delivering U.S.-origin aircraft which went to the Export Administration Regulations.


The court imposed the maximum $2 million fine and a corporate probation of five years.   The $2 million fine combined with a related $15 million civil settlement among Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation Ltd., the U.S. ...  Department of the Treasury&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), is one of the largest fines for an export violation in BIS history.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Adds AMD China&#x2c; Inc. as an Authorized Validated End-User</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-05-14T12:01:58-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a5302e0cd055f6844ae2a02207db81cb-352.php#unique-entry-id-352</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a5302e0cd055f6844ae2a02207db81cb-352.php#unique-entry-id-352</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 10, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to add Advanced Micro Devices China, Inc., as an end-user to the list of validated end-users in the People's Republic of China.   Exports, reexports and transfers of certain items to this end-user are now authorized under Authorization Validated End-User (VEU).


BIS further revised the EAR with additional AMD China information on May 14, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>French Court Refuses U.S. Request to Extradite Iranian Engineer </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2010-05-05T09:44:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6220299506756cc68817dc079e285f95-351.php#unique-entry-id-351</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6220299506756cc68817dc079e285f95-351.php#unique-entry-id-351</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The New York Times reported that on May 5, 2010, French court rejected a U.S. request to extradite Majid Kakavand (Kakavand), an Iranian engineer and businessman accused of buying equipment for a front company in Malaysia and then rerouting it to Iranian military firms, in violation an American embargo on exports to Iran. 

Specifically, the indictment against Kakavand alleged that from January 2006 to December 2008 he purchased online dual-use equipment intended for military purposes and had it shipped to Iran via Malaysia.   The equipment included capacitors, resistors, connectors, reflectometers and pressure sensors that have a military application. 

Iran Electronics Industry, one of the Iranian companies Kakavand bought the equipment for, was put on the European Union blacklist in June 2008.   The last transaction between him and the company took place in April 2008.   The other company, Iran Communications Industry, manufactures military and civilian communication equipment and now too is on the European blacklist. 

The French government prosecutor opposed the request to extradite Kakavand on the grounds that he had not violated French law and that equipment at issue was not necessarily military in nature.   In addition, he emphasized that, in contrast to the U.S., neither France nor the European Union has a general trade embargo on Iran. 

The court ordered Kakavand set free, and his passport and bail returned. ...  Justice Department spokesman said efforts to apprehend Kakavand would continue, and that he would stand trial for his alleged crimes if he came into U.S. custody. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP To Close Drawback Center at Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Drawback</category><dc:date>2010-05-05T09:40:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a837cfbf52d041e905592c9974fa5017-350.php#unique-entry-id-350</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a837cfbf52d041e905592c9974fa5017-350.php#unique-entry-id-350</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 5, 2010, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a final rule in Federal Register announcing closure of the Los Angeles (L.A.)   Drawback Center effective June 4, 2010.   This decision is due to a small and continuously decreasing number of drawback claims filed and processed at the L.A.   Drawback Center since 2003.  

Any future drawback claims must be submitted to one of the four remaining drawback centers location in San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, or New York.   All remaining claims that were filed at the L.A.   Drawback Center prior to closure that have not yet liquidated and still require CBP review will be forwarded to the San Francisco Drawback Center for final processing. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Providing Free Webinars in Trade Outreach Efforts</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2010-05-25T09:21:16-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9d3730f382e8f7321cb23c659e1d1759-349.php#unique-entry-id-349</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9d3730f382e8f7321cb23c659e1d1759-349.php#unique-entry-id-349</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 25, 2010, CBP announced that it is hosting trade outreach events via free webinars to provide more timely and up-to-date information to the international trade community on CBP trade policy, as established by the agency.


CBP will begin a series of live webinars that will be recorded and available for subsequent on-demand viewing over the Internet.   The programs will consist of a high-level overview of the initiative, policy, or other topic; and will conclude with an opportunity for the trade to ask pertinent questions.   To maximize the trade community&rsquo;s ability to ask questions during the webinars, the presentation portion will be limited to approximately 30 minutes.


Space is limited per webinar, so please pre-register using the CBP on-line registration process listed.   CBP states that although the trade outreach webinars are provided free of charge, CBP incurs a penalty fee for unused telephone lines per event.   Thus, if for any reason you must cancel your registration, please submit your notice of cancellation via the on-line cancellation form 48 hours prior to the event.


...(CPSC Notices Cancellation Request Form)


...2:00 &ndash; 3:00 p.m. 

...(Cancellation Request Form &ndash; CBP Outbound)
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Updates Guidelines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2010-05-26T09:20:55-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/533dce5a346d830ed19bbff1c42ca6b1-348.php#unique-entry-id-348</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/533dce5a346d830ed19bbff1c42ca6b1-348.php#unique-entry-id-348</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[DDTC has updated its website to state that:


Effective September 1, 2010 DDTC-Licensing will no longer accept unclassified paper submissions of Technical Assistance Agreements, Manufacturing License Agreements, and Warehouse Distribution Agreements (to include major amendments).   After this date all submissions must be made electronically via D-Trade 2 utilizing the DSP-5 form.   For information on submitting agreements electronically please reference the "Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements" located on this website.


In addition, DDTC updated its Guidelines Regarding Company Names on License Documentation on May 3, 2010 and its Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements, addition concerning electronic agreements submitted as Re-Baselined agreements on May 26, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Signs Agreement with China on Supply Chain Security</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>C-TPAT</category><dc:date>2010-05-26T23:30:35-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6df6b07fe158e114615eaeede9fca186-347.php#unique-entry-id-347</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6df6b07fe158e114615eaeede9fca186-347.php#unique-entry-id-347</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 26, 2010, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the General Administration of Customs of the People&rsquo;s Republic of China on Supply Chain Security and Facilitation.   CBP considers the CBP-China Customs Memorandum of Understanding to be a key component of a cooperative security and trade relationship between the two nation&rsquo;s customs agencies.


&ldquo;This memorandum will create a cooperative mechanism for CBP and the General Administration of Customs to collaborate on supply chain security standards and enhance CBP&rsquo;s implementation of a layered enforcement strategy,&rdquo; said Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar, who signed the MOU on behalf of CBP.


The MOU was signed during the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which took place in Beijing May 24 &ndash; 25.   The Strategic and Economic Dialogue is an ongoing mechanism for addressing the challenges and opportunities that the U.S. and China share on a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global areas of immediate and long-term strategic and economic interest.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Posts Recent Enforcement Actions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-04-23T00:50:51-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/65ffd0cd3b2e2082f0429d4a66dcd887-346.php#unique-entry-id-346</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/65ffd0cd3b2e2082f0429d4a66dcd887-346.php#unique-entry-id-346</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 23, 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) issued information on recent enforcement cases:  


LD Telecommunications, Inc. of Coral Gables, FL, has agreed to remit $21,671 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) occurring between December 2005 and March 2006.   OFAC alleged that LD Telecommunications, Inc. initiated unlicensed funds transfers for the provision of telecommunications services to Cuba.   LD Telecommunications, Inc. did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.


Hilton International Co. of McLean, VA (HI), a subsidiary of Hilton Worldwide, has remitted $735,407 to settle allegations of violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR).   OFAC alleged that between June 2002 and February 2006 HI engaged in 142 violations of the SSR in connection with its unlicensed operation of two Hilton brand hotels in Sudan.   HI voluntarily disclosed this matter to OFAC.   The alleged violations were discovered and self-reported as a result of pre-acquisition due diligence directed by Hilton Hotels Corporation, which acquired HI from the UK-based Hilton Group plc. in February 2006.


Pursuant to OFAC&rsquo;s Civil Penalties - Interim Policy (Nov. 27, 2007), because HI signed a statute of limitation tolling agreement covering alleged violations for which the statute of limitations would have otherwise expired prior to October 16, 2007 (the effective date of the IEEPA Enhancement Act), the settlement agreement is based on the maximum statutory penalties in place at the time the tolling agreement was signed, which in this case equaled $11,000 per alleged violation.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Virginia Resident Sentenced to 87 Months for FCPA Violations&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2010-04-26T00:40:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3c788794d5cea46640799aab556a4a9f-345.php#unique-entry-id-345</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3c788794d5cea46640799aab556a4a9f-345.php#unique-entry-id-345</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 19, 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Charles Paul Edward Jumet of Fluvanna County, CA, was sentenced to 87 months in prison for bribing former Panamanian government officials to secure maritime contracts in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and for making false statements to federal agents. 

According to the court documents, from 1997 through 2003, Jumet and others conspired to bribe Panamanian government officials in exchange for awarding contracts to Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation (PECC) to maintain lighthouses and buoys along Panama&rsquo;s waterway.   In December 1997, the Panamanian government awarded PECC a no-bid 20-year concession.   Upon receipt of the concession, Jumet admitted that he and others authorized corrupt payments to be made to the Panamanian government officials totaling more that $200,000. 

In addition, Jumet also made a false statement to federal agents about a dividend check payable to the bearer in the amount of $18,000 that was endorsed and deposited into an account belonging to the high-ranking elected Panamanian government official.   Jumet falsely claimed that this check was a donation for the official&rsquo;s re-election campaign, when, in fact, Jumet admitted it was given to the Panamanian government official as a corrupt payment for allowing PECC to receive the contract. 

In a related case, in February 2010, John Warwick pleaded guilty for his role in the same conspiracy to violate the FCPA.   His sentencing is scheduled for May 14, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Former Probation Officer Convicted For Illegally Exporting Guns and Ammunition To Nigeria</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-04-28T00:24:05-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0015f1a3a9458880414369c4c4c666b-344.php#unique-entry-id-344</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0015f1a3a9458880414369c4c4c666b-344.php#unique-entry-id-344</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 28, 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Emenike Charles Nwankwoala, age 49, of Laurel, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to exporting arms without a license, exporting controlled goods without a license and willful delivery of a firearm to a common carrier without written notice, in connection with a scheme to export firearms and ammunition to Nigeria.


...According to Nwankwoala&rsquo;s plea agreement, he was employed by the State of Maryland as a Probation Officer.   Investigation showed that during a six-month period beginning in December 2008, Nwankwoala purchased at least 37 Maverick Model 88 shotguns from a Federal Firearms Licensee located in Kensington, Maryland.   On April 21, 2009, Nwankwoala ordered an additional 25 shotguns over the internet from Impact Guns in Ogden, Utah, a Federal Firearms Licensee.   Nwankwoala stated that he was purchasing these shotguns for hunting in Nigeria.   The licensee asked Nwankwoala if he had an export license, and Nwankwoala falsely indicated that he did.   Nwankwoala never obtained guns through this gun store.


Nwankwoala faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for exporting arms without a license; 20 years in prison for exporting controlled goods without a license; and five years in prison for willful delivery of a firearm to a common carrier without written notice. ...  District Judge Peter J.   Messitte has scheduled sentencing for July 21, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Revises Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2010-04-26T00:15:26-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5bd307014d3779e7e93380db94337cb7-343.php#unique-entry-id-343</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5bd307014d3779e7e93380db94337cb7-343.php#unique-entry-id-343</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 26, 2010, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted revised Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S. Nominates Sandra Bell for WCO Director</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>WCO</category><dc:date>2010-04-22T23:59:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/474ea7c632ecb1d19602a9908e74e1db-342.php#unique-entry-id-342</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/474ea7c632ecb1d19602a9908e74e1db-342.php#unique-entry-id-342</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 22, 2010, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the nomination of Ms.   Sandra L.   Bell for the post of Director, Compliance and Facilitation for the World Customs Organization. 


Ms.   Bell, a member of the Senior Executive Service within the U.S.   Government, is currently Executive Director for Regulations and Rulings within CBP&rsquo;s Office of International Trade.   She has 31 years of experience in her field.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>White House Issues Fact Sheet on the Export Control Reform Initiative</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2010-04-20T23:32:05-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1565431240b3ffd039aacd57efb7d984-341.php#unique-entry-id-341</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1565431240b3ffd039aacd57efb7d984-341.php#unique-entry-id-341</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The initiative started in August 2009 with a comprehensive assessment of the U.S. export control system to identify possible reforms. 

The assessment, created at the direction of the President, was conducted by an interagency task force that included all departments and agencies with roles in export controls.   The assessment found that the current U.S. export control system does not sufficiently reduce national security risk based on the fact that its structure is &ldquo;overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much.&rdquo; 

Based on the review, the Administration has determined that fundamental reform of the U.S. export control system is needed in each of its four component areas, with transformation to a: 

...For the implementation of the proposed reforms, the Administration has prepared a comprehensive, three-phase approach and is currently moving forward to make specific reforms which can be initiated immediately and implemented without legislation: 

...	&bull;	Control List &ndash; refine, understand, and harmonize definitions to end jurisdiction confusion between the two lists; establish new independent control criteria to be used to screen items for control into new tiered control list structure.

...Phase II results in a fundamentally new U.S. export control system based on the current structure later this year. ...  Congressional notification will be required to remove munitions list controls or transfer items from the munitions list to the dual-use list, and additional funding will be required both for enhanced enforcement and the IT infrastructure.

	&bull;	Control List &ndash; restructure the two lists into identical tiered structures, apply criteria, remove unilateral controls as appropriate, and submit proposals multilaterally to add or remove controls. 

	&bull;	Licensing &ndash; complete transition to mirrored control list system and fully implement licensing harmonization to allow export authorizations within each control tier to achieve a significant license requirement reduction which is compatible with national security equities.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Secretary of Defense Discusses Reform of the U.S. Export Controls &#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2010-04-19T23:10:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d9ef3002772fbe3dee81b5c212e1853e-340.php#unique-entry-id-340</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d9ef3002772fbe3dee81b5c212e1853e-340.php#unique-entry-id-340</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Gates stated that the consensus among the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security is that the current export control system poses a potential threat to national security.   Gates identified as part of the problem export control processes that were designed 50 years ago that he claims are unfit for solving modern issues.  

The fundamental reform of the export control system, according to Gates, needs to take place in four dimensions, also referred as the &ldquo;four singles&rdquo;: 

...The United States Munitions List (USML) and Commerce Control List (CCL) would be replaced by a single list, which would prevent forum shopping where exporters may try classification under one list versus another, duplication, where an item is covered by both USML and CCL, and also aid companies in understanding applicable restrictions.  

...Currently, two different authorities &ndash; the State Department&rsquo;s Director of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) and the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) &ndash; often make independent, unilateral decisions, which sometimes cause for confusion and delay in decision making. 

	3	A single agency to coordinate enforcement, which would strengthen the ability to identify, investigate and prosecute violations.   Currently, multiple enforcement agencies exist, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), State enforcement, Commerce Export Enforcement Office, FBI, and many others.   It is expected that in the future there will still be multiple enforcement institutions, but their efforts will be coordinated to avoid overlapping jurisdiction and, in some cases, confused authorities. 

...Gates stressed that a single IT system instead of the current three would review license application process across the U.S. government and also make this process more efficient.  

Gates also mentioned that among the changes to the export controls system are treaties between the U.S. and each of the key allies that contain special arrangements under which an export license would not be required for export of goods that are not on a list of very sensitive items, to pre-determined communities of companies that have been vetted by the foreign government. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Eliminates Paper Versions of Most Export Submissions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-04-05T00:33:17-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7cc57152df696001074f63a90c2055ed-339.php#unique-entry-id-339</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7cc57152df696001074f63a90c2055ed-339.php#unique-entry-id-339</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 5, 2010, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule in Federal Register that eliminates the paper version of most of export submissions to BIS.  

...Specifically, the rule revises the EAR to state that BIS may issue export and reexport licenses either electronically or on paper and that each license will bear a license number. ...  Unless some exceptional circumstances exist, only licenses for which the applicant was authorized to file the application on paper and licenses that BIS cannot issue electronically (currently, only reopened licenses) will be issued on paper. 

...The EAR require that export license applications, reexport license application, License Exception AGR notification, encryption review requests, and classification requests be submitted to BIS electronically using SNAP-R, except in individual instances where BIS authorizes a paper submission.   The license related documents associated with a SNAP-R submissions are issued on line in SNAP-R where the submitter may view, save, or print a copy. 

...In two situations, BIS issues only a paper version of a license related document: when BIS authorizes a paper submission, and when BIS must reissue the license related document because it reopened a matter previously considered to be completed. 

...BIS intends to discontinue issuing paper documents in the situations where it currently issues both paper and electronic versions of license related documents. 

...	&bull;	The rule exempts parties who submit documents to BIS via SNAP-R from requirements to retain copies of documents so submitted even thought those documents are &ldquo;export control documents&rdquo; under the EAR. 

	&bull;	The new rule requires that the following documents are kept: (1) notification from BIS that an application is being returned without action; (2) notification from BIS that an application is being denied; and (3) notification from BIS of the results of a commodity classification or encryption review request conducted by BIS. 

The new rule also provides that parties who receive documents issued by BIS in SNAP-R may store the documents in two ways, either of which meet the requirements that original documents be retained: electronically in a format readable by software possessed by the recipient party, or storage of a complete printed paper copy of the document. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Assessed &#x24;100&#x2c;000 Penalty for Unauthorized Exports to Iran&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2010-04-02T23:18:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/483c1ba18e882bfbfba1b1daf3793eaf-338.php#unique-entry-id-338</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/483c1ba18e882bfbfba1b1daf3793eaf-338.php#unique-entry-id-338</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 2, 2010, Aqua-Loop Cooling Towers Co.   (Aqua-Loop) of Folsom, CA, settled with Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) charges of violating the Export Administrations Regulations (EAR). 

According to the settlement agreement, from June 2004 to April 2005, Aqua-Loop exported items subject to the EAR from the U.S. to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates, without the required authorization from the U.S.   Department of the Treasury&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 

Specifically, Aqua-Loop searched for and obtained items from U.S. distributors and then exported them to an Iranian customer and co-conspirator, Parto Abgardan Cooling Towers Co.   (Parto).   On one occasion, Parto asked Aqua-Loop to purchase a filament winding machine in the U.S. on its behalf and forward it on to Dubai and then to Iran. 

According to the settlement agreement, Aqua-Loop was assessed a civil penalty of $100, 000 that was suspended for 10 years.   The company is also prohibited from dealing in any transaction that is subject to the EAR for ten years]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Daimler Settles FCPA Charges for &#x24;185 Million&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-04-01T23:06:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/beaa3f86553be0173bfe98b5b5f46488-337.php#unique-entry-id-337</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/beaa3f86553be0173bfe98b5b5f46488-337.php#unique-entry-id-337</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 1, 2010, German auto manufacturer Daimler AG (Daimler) and three of its subsidiaries settled Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) charges in Washington&rsquo;s U.S.   District Court. 

The complaint filed against Daimler alleged that from 1998 to 2008 the company bribed foreign officials in 22 countries, including Russia, Iraq and China, to secure business.   According to the settlement agreement, acknowledged its FCPA violations and entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department.    In addition, Daimler must disgorge $91.4 million in profits to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and pay a $93.6 million fine to the Justice Department, for a total of $185 million in combined criminal and civil penalties. 

Federal sentencing guidelines call for a larger fine, but the Justice Department decided to reduce the penalty following Daimler&rsquo;s cooperation with the government.   As part of its deferred prosecution agreement, Daimler agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years to oversee its implementation of a compliance program. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Proposed Rule re: Customs Broker Recordkeeping Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2010-03-23T23:52:04-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/585c901ebdffab9b0aa94397662bae06-336.php#unique-entry-id-336</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/585c901ebdffab9b0aa94397662bae06-336.php#unique-entry-id-336</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 23, 2010, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed amendments to title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding customs broker recordkeeping requirements as they pertain to the location and method of record retention. 


Specifically, CBP proposes to amend the regulations to permit a licensed customs broker to store records relating to his customs transactions at any location within the customs territory of the United States, so long as the broker&rsquo;s designated recordkeeping contact, identified in the broker&rsquo;s permit application, makes all records available to CBP within a reasonable period of time from request at the broker district that covers the CBP port to which the records relate. 


This proposed rule also intends to remove the requirement, as it currently applies to brokers who maintain separate electronic records, that certain entry records must be retained in their original format for the 120-day period after the release or conditional release of imported merchandise.   The changes proposed in the notice are intended to conform CBP&rsquo;s recordkeeping requirements to reflect modern business practices whereby documents are often generated, stored and transmitted in an electronic format.   The proposed changes serve to remove duplicative recordkeeping requirements and streamline recordkeeping procedures for brokers who maintain electronic recordkeeping systems without compromising the agency&rsquo;s ability to monitor and enforce recordkeeping compliance.


Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Amends the EAR to Enhance U.S. Homeland Security</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-03-25T23:14:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1494896152b6cc4b127937fa3490f91c-335.php#unique-entry-id-335</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1494896152b6cc4b127937fa3490f91c-335.php#unique-entry-id-335</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 25, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by revising controls to advance U.S. homeland security and foreign policy interests.   The revisions include language that should facilitate public understanding of how concealed object detection equipment is treated for purposes of U.S.   Government export controls, in particular by detailing the technical parameters of concealed object detection equipment that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations. 


These amendments reflect issues identified by an interagency working group that is reviewing export control issues related to homeland security.   The interagency working group is made up of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security and State.   The purpose of the interagency working group is to ensure that appropriate export controls are in place to protect U.S. export control interests for homeland security related items, while at the same time facilitating the development, production and use of items that will enhance U.S. homeland security and the homeland security of key U.S. allies. 


To help accomplish these objectives, this rule adds three new entries to the Commerce Control List (CCL) to control certain concealed object detection equipment operating in the frequency range from 30 GHz to 3000 GHz and related software and technology.   In addition, to facilitate the export and reexport of these items to certain trusted destinations and end-users, this rule adds new license review criteria to the EAR to create a presumption of approval for certain cooperating countries provided the items are being made to a government end-user or to a person designated by the government end-user pursuant to contract.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Virginia Man Convicted of Theft of DuPont Trade Secrets</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Prosecution</category><dc:date>2010-03-18T22:33:32-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4531decf5970a545286070b7891dff61-334.php#unique-entry-id-334</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4531decf5970a545286070b7891dff61-334.php#unique-entry-id-334</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 18, 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release regarding the sentencing of Michael David Mitchell, a Virginia man, to 18 months imprisonment for theft of trade secrets and obstruction of justice.   Mitchell was employed as an engineer and salesperson for DuPont for over 25 years.   During his last two years of employment, Mitchell worked in the sales and marketing of Kevlar,&reg; DuPont's registered trademark for a very light, very strong synthetic fiber that is spun into ropes or fabric sheets that can be used as such, or as an ingredient in composite material components.


After DuPont terminated his employment, Mitchell began work as a consultant for Kolon Industries, Inc. ...  In 2007, DuPont officials became aware that Mitchell had been contacting current and former employees of DuPont seeking technical information on behalf of Kolon.   DuPont officials raised their concerns with FBI and Department of Commerce (DoC) investigators, who launched a joint investigation.   On March 12, 2008, FBI and DoC special agents executed a federal search warrant on Mitchell's house, seizing documents and multiple computers.   Forensic analysis of the defendant's computers revealed hundreds of pages of DuPont proprietary documents, along with the evidence of the above-referenced Denier Economics email.


Following the execution of the search warrant, Mitchell agreed to become a cooperator for the government during its ongoing investigation relating to possible attempted theft of trade secrets and violations of export control laws.   Under the direction and supervision of federal investigators, Mitchell made numerous recorded telephone conversations and exchanged emails with Kolon employees. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Proposes to Cease Paper Courtesy Notices of Liquidation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2010-03-16T17:50:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/070dbbc55e6b2bac148598bd7670376d-333.php#unique-entry-id-333</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/070dbbc55e6b2bac148598bd7670376d-333.php#unique-entry-id-333</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 16, 2010, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice in the Federal Register proposing to amend Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to the distribution of courtesy notices of liquidation.   Specifically, CBP proposes to amend 19 CFR 159 by removing any reference to Customs Form 4333-A when used in connection with courtesy notices. 

Currently, CBP&rsquo;s Technology Center transmits electronic courtesy notices to all Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filers and mails paper courtesy notices, on CBP Form 4333-A, to all importers of record whose entry summaries are set to liquidate by each port of entry.   As a result, importers of record who are also ABI filers receive two notices: a paper notice and an electronic notice that the ABI filer receives on behalf of the importer of record. 

CBP is proposing to discontinue mailing paper courtesy notices to importers of record whose entry summaries are filed in ABI because the ABI filer, who is either the importer of record or a customs broker, already receives an electronic courtesy notice of liquidation.   CBP estimates that this amendment will save the agency $3.8 million annually by eliminating 90% of the paper courtesy notices currently sent to importers. 

The proposed changes will not affect CBP&rsquo;s obligation to post the official bulletin notice of liquidation in the customhouse at all ports of entry pursuant to 19 CFR 159.9(b).   In addition, CBP Form 4333-A will continue to be used as a notice of extension and suspension.

Comments on the proposed rule are due May 17, 2010.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Signs Executive Order on National Export Initiative</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>President</category><dc:date>2010-03-11T17:38:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4870682f0ab48352bd5546e296d2fe77-332.php#unique-entry-id-332</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4870682f0ab48352bd5546e296d2fe77-332.php#unique-entry-id-332</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In the executive order, Obama states that the NEI will help meet his Administration&rsquo;s goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years by working to remove trade barriers abroad, by helping firms to overcome obstacles to enter new export markets, by increasing trade financing, and by pursuing a general, Government-wide approach to promote U.S. exports abroad. 

...EPC members will develop programs designed to enhance export assistance to SMEs, including developing programs to improve technical assistance to first-time exporters and assisting current exporters in identifying new export opportunities in international markets;

...In his speech, the President noted that in 2009, Ex-Im authorized $21 billion in loans in support of U.S. exports, almost a 50% increase from the previous year. 

...Trade Representative together with members of EPC will take steps to improve market access overseas for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service providers.   To ensure that that U.S. companies have free and fair access to the overseas markets, in his speech at Ex-Im President Obama called for enforcement of trade agreements that U.S. already has on books; and

...President Obama also stated that one of the major goals of NEI is aggressive protection of intellectual property in the U.S., achieved by negotiating proper protections with foreign countries and enforcing existing U.S. agreements overseas. 

...What we want to do is concentrate our efforts on enforcing controls on the export of our most critical technologies, making America safer while enhancing the competitiveness of key American industries.  

...Right now, they endure a technical review that can take between 30 and 60 days, and that puts that company at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competitors who don&rsquo;t face those same delays.    So a new one-time online process will shorten that review time from 30 days to 30 minutes, and that makes it quicker and easier for our businesses to compete while meeting our national security requirements.


...So we&rsquo;re moving towards harmonizing those standards and making it easier for American and foreign companies to comply with our requirements without diminishing our security.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.K. Co. Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud U.S. Government Agencies</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-03-02T17:32:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51b02d1d1381562f86d13f32978c87fd-331.php#unique-entry-id-331</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51b02d1d1381562f86d13f32978c87fd-331.php#unique-entry-id-331</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[District Court in the District of Columbia to conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by impairing and impeding its lawful functions, to make false statements about its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program, and to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

...According to court documents, from approximately 2000 to 2002, despite its promises to create mechanisms to ensure compliance with the legal prohibitions on foreign bribery stemming from FCPA, as well as foreign laws implementing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention, BAES knowingly and willfully failed to do so.  

Instead, BAES made a series of substantial payments to shell companies and third party intermediaries that were not subject to the degree of scrutiny and review to which BAES told the U.S. government the payments would be subjected. 

...BAES also encouraged the advisors to establish their own offshore shell companies to receive payments from BAES while disguising the origins and recipients of these payments.   BAES set up a company in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) to conceal its marketing advisor relationships and to circumvent laws in countries that did not allow such relationships, to create obstacles for investigators to penetrate the arrangements, and to assist advisors in avoiding tax liability for payment from BAES. 

BAES used this BVI entity to make payments totaling more than &pound;135 million in addition to $14 million, although being aware, in some cases, that there was a high probability that part of the payment would be used to ensure that BAES was favored in foreign government contracts regarding purchase of defense articles. 

BAES also served as the prime contractor to the U.K. government in the mid-1980s, after the U.K. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) entered into a formal understanding.   There, BAES provided &ldquo;support services&rdquo; resulting in substantial benefits to a foreign public official of KSA, who was in position to influence sales of fighter jets, and other defense materials and related support services.   BAES did not review or verify benefits provided to the KSA official, including it did not perform adequate review of more than $5 million in invoices submitted by a BAES employees from May 2001 to early 2002 to establish whether the listed expenses were in compliance with previous statements made by BAES to the U.S. government regarding its anti-corruption compliance measures. 

As part of its guilty plea, BAES has agreed to maintain a compliance program designed to detect and deter violations of the FCPA, other foreign laws implementing the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, and any other applicable anti-corruption laws, and that is designed to detect and deter violations of the AECA and ITAR, as well as similar export control laws. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Inches Closer to Accepting APA-Approved Transfer Prices</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Valuation</category><dc:date>2010-03-01T16:05:05-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/20e8734ed82d205445ffb7321b3e2f09-330.php#unique-entry-id-330</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/20e8734ed82d205445ffb7321b3e2f09-330.php#unique-entry-id-330</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In 2003, the importer applied for and received a bilateral APA that was approved by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the foreign tax authorities that covered all of its imported items for 5 years. 


...Pursuant to the CPM, an arms&rsquo; length price range was selected by comparing the profitability of the importer (or &ldquo;tested party&rdquo;) to that of a set of unrelated companies that performed similar functions and assumed similar risks as the importer. 

...In considering whether or not the import values declared to CBP based on the APA-approved transfer prices were acceptable transaction values under the Customs Regulations, CBP first considered whether the prices were based on bona fide sales.   After determining that the underlying transactions were based on bona fide sales, CBP considered whether or not the price actually paid or payable by the buyer to the seller was influenced by the relationship between the parties. 

...	2	Whether the sales prices were adequate to ensure the recovery of all costs plus a profit equivalent to the company&rsquo;s overall profit realized over a representative period of time; and


...CBP stated that the importer had submitted evidence that the sales prices were set in a manner consistent with the automotive industry, but CBP would not address the validity of the CPM selected and approved by the IRS and the foreign tax authority. 


CBP next examined whether the sales prices were adequate to ensure the recovery of all costs plus a profit equivalent to the company&rsquo;s overall profit realized over a representative period of time.   To prove that the sales prices were adequate in this regard, the importer relied on the approved bilateral APA and claimed that the IRS&rsquo; approval of its profitability range would ensure that the company recovered all costs plus a profit as required by the Customs regulations. 


While CBP acknowledged that the APA&rsquo;s comparison between the importer&rsquo;s profitability and that of other companies &ldquo;may provide some evidence that the price is adequate to ensure recovery of all costs plus a profit,&rdquo; CBP found this kind of information to be &ldquo;less valuable since the companies are not engaged in the sale of the same class or kind of merchandise.&rdquo; 

...Thus, although CBP did not allow the importer to rely solely on the bilateral APA transfer pricing agreement, CBP held that the importer had showed that the sales price was not influenced by the relationship for the purposes of circumstances of sale test, and, as a result, transaction value was the proper method of appraisement for the related-party import transaction.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Proposed Form I-129 Revision Requires Employers to Obtain BIS Deemed Export License before Filing for H-1B </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Immigration</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-02-08T23:33:22-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/53f204be57cff21484a6d7aaceeb7335-329.php#unique-entry-id-329</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/53f204be57cff21484a6d7aaceeb7335-329.php#unique-entry-id-329</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 8, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.   Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a notice requesting comments on the proposed changes of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.   If revised, Form I-129, used to apply for H-1B visas for skilled technical workers, will require employers to obtaine a deemed export license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) before applying for the H-1B visa itself.   Before, an employer could file for H-1B visa and the deemed export licensed simultaneously. 

As provided by the instructions to Form I-129 on p. 4, if a deemed export license is required, &ldquo;the petitioner must submit evidence that a review of the deemed export license requirements has been completed, as set forth by Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Part 734.2 the Deemed Export Rule as regulated by the U.S.   Department of Commerce.&rdquo; 

Comments on the proposed changes are due by April 9, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Ex-Boeing Engineer Sentenced for Stealing Aerospace Secrets for China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-02-08T23:22:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bc5fd3efeca5a38d6fd95bb8e5f94c52-328.php#unique-entry-id-328</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bc5fd3efeca5a38d6fd95bb8e5f94c52-328.php#unique-entry-id-328</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal reported that on February 8, 2010, Dongfan &ldquo;Greg&rdquo; Chung, a Chinese-born former Boeing engineer was sentenced to 15 years and 8 months in prison for acquiring sensitive U.S. space shuttle information and other documents for China. 

...The government charged that Chung began spying for the Chinese in the late 1970s, after he became a naturalized U.S. citizen and was hired by Rockwell International, where he worked until it was acquired by Boeing in 1996.   Chung stayed with Boeing until he was laid off in 2002, but a year later he was brought back as a consultant. 

...The government accused Chung, a stress analyst with high-level clearance, of stealing documents related to aerospace technology development while working for Rockwell and Boeing.   When FBI agents searched Chung&rsquo;s house in 2006, they found more than 300,000 pages of documents on Boeing-developed aerospace and defense technologies.   Specifically, the technologies involved an antenna developed for radar and communications on the U.S. shuttle and a fueling mechanism for a booster rocket used to launch manned space vehicles. 

During trial, Chung claimed that he had brought the documents home to write a book.   Chung&rsquo;s lawyers argued that he may have violated Boeing policy by bringing the papers home, but he did not break any laws by doing so, and U.S. government could not prove that he had given away any sensitive information to China. 

...Attorney noted in sentencing papers that Chung acquired a personal wealth of more than $3 million during his cooperation with China. 

...In 2007, Mak was convicted of conspiracy to export U.S. defense technology to China and sentenced to 24 years in prison. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S. Court of Appeals Dismisses Totes-Isotoner Equal Protection Claim </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Litigation</category><dc:date>2010-02-05T23:13:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/71c42b9df8f7c4f3aae5d61fe0fabeb4-327.php#unique-entry-id-327</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/71c42b9df8f7c4f3aae5d61fe0fabeb4-327.php#unique-entry-id-327</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Court of International Trade (CIT) decision to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Totes-Isotoner (Totes) appealed from a judgment of the CIT dismissing its complaint against the U.S. for failure to state a claim.   Totes alleged that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), by imposing different rates of duty on leather gloves &ldquo;for men&rdquo; and leather gloves &ldquo;for other persons,&rdquo; unconstitutionally denies the equal protection of the laws. 

CAFC upheld the CIT&rsquo;s judgment that (1) it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. &sect;1581(i); (2) Totes had standing to bring its claims; and (3) Totes&rsquo; equal protection claims were justiciable.   On the merits, CAFC affirmed CIT&rsquo;s decisions that Totes has failed to establish an equal protection claim due to its failure to plead facts sufficient to allege a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. 

...CAFC noted that because tariff rates applicable to different product classifications under the HTS are &ldquo;the result of multilateral international trade negotiations and reflect reciprocal trade concessions and particularized trade preferences,&rdquo; and that reasons behind different tariff rates depend on several factors, including country of origin, the type of product, the circumstances under which the products are imported, and the state of the domestic manufacturing industry.   As a result, the Court reasoned that it was quite possible that the different tariff rates for men&rsquo;s and other gloves reflected the fact that the gloves are different products the rates of which may be the result of trade concessions made by the U.S. in return for unrelated trade concessions.   Accordingly, to prove an equal protection claim, Totes would have to establish that, &ldquo;Congress intended to discriminate against men in the tariff schedules.&rdquo; 

...In a concurring opinion, Judge Prost held that the proper reason to dismiss Totes&rsquo; claim was that the tariff classification was not facially discriminatory, pointing out that tariff rates at issue only imposed a burden on importers, and not on gender- or age-based categories of people.   Absent a showing of disparate impact on consumers based on their sex, Justice Prost concluded that Totes&rsquo; failed to establish their equal protection claim.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>White House Launches National Export Initiative </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-02-04T22:44:04-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51054e84e205c304c77d5cc3fe7f0fd0-326.php#unique-entry-id-326</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/51054e84e205c304c77d5cc3fe7f0fd0-326.php#unique-entry-id-326</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 4, 2010, U.S.   Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (Locke) announced the details of President Obama&rsquo;s National Export Initiative (NEI) that seeks to double U.S. exports to $3 trillion within then next 5 years.   The new export levels are expected to support 2 million U.S. jobs.

According to Locke&rsquo;s entry on the White House blog, NEI seeks primarily to expand U.S. government&rsquo;s export promotion efforts, increase government&rsquo;s focus on eliminating obstacles that prevent U.S. exporters from getting open and fair access to foreign access, and improve access to credit, especially for small- and medium-sized businesses that would like to become exporters.

To increase exports, the Commerce Department and several other federal agencies will collaborate in combining trade advocacy with export control reform.   According to Locke, the White House is asking Congress to increase trade promotion funding by apportioning an additional $70 million for the International Trade Administration (ITA) and $50 million for the Department of Agriculture in the 2011 budget. 

ITA plans to hire an additional 300 trade exports to promote U.S. companies overseas and assist a client base of more that 23,000 to begin or increase their exports in 2011. 

As part of the initiative, the Export-Import Bank will increase financing available to small businesses by $2 billion to $6 billion over the next year.   Over the past three months, the bank authorized $1 billion in small business loans to increase exports. 

NEI will also focus on existing trade laws, including enforcement of intellectual property rights. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Customs Broker Sentenced in a Fraud Scheme</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Broker</category><dc:date>2010-02-18T22:42:11-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/435325a06acecb44b4bde0ecfeff2aac-325.php#unique-entry-id-325</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/435325a06acecb44b4bde0ecfeff2aac-325.php#unique-entry-id-325</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 18, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the sentencing of a Long Island customs broker who defrauded a Massachusetts medical equipment distributor out of $1.2 million. 

Gregory Manuelian (Manuelian) of Manhasset, N.Y, was sentenced to 24 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release and ordered to pay almost $1.2 million in restitution based on charges that he defrauded his client, B-K Medical Systems, by repeatedly submitting falsified customs documents indicating that B-K owed customs duties on goods that were actually duty-free. 

Manuelian operated Marquis Clearance, Ltd., a customs brokerage in Jamaica, N.Y. and served as B-K&rsquo;s customs broker since 1980.   On B-K&rsquo;s goods entering the U.S., Manuelian ordinarily paid the duties and then faxed the invoices to the client.   B-K reimbursed Manuelian for the duties and paid him a brokerage fee. ...  Department of Commerce began to phase out the duties on the types of goods imported by B-K; by 1999, the imports of the goods imported by B-K were duty free. 

Throughout the duty phase-out program and when the imports became duty-free, Manuelian continued to bill its client for supposedly pre-paid duties on the equipment.   To support the claims, Manuelian mailed its client falsified customs forms which showed a duty owed on the imported equipment, usually set at 5.3% of the equipment&rsquo;s value.   By the time B-K discovered its loss in 2006, Manuelian had defrauded it out of approximately $1.2 million.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S. Seeks Extradition of Iranian Engineer Who Purchased Sensitive Items Online</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Iran</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2010-02-17T22:12:59-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b66464757de7eabfa614d844ff8e4cf3-324.php#unique-entry-id-324</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b66464757de7eabfa614d844ff8e4cf3-324.php#unique-entry-id-324</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Associated Press reported that on February 17, 2010, a French court postponed a decision on whether to extradite an Iranian Engineer to the U.S., where he is accused of exporting goods to an embargoed country, money laundering, smuggling goods, and other charges.   Majid Kakavand (Kakavand) was arrested in Paris on March 20, 2009 and held in prison until August 26, 2009, until his release on condition that he stays in Paris. 

U.S. government claims that Kakavand went online to purchase U.S. electronics, including capacitors, inductors, resistors, sensors and connectors, and had them shipped to Malaysia, from where they were forwarded to two Iranian military entities. 

The French court must decide whether Kakavand is to be extradited based on whether his actions were illegal in France as well as the United States.   U.S. government claims that Kakavand needed export licenses to send the items to Iran.   Kakavand&rsquo;s attorneys argue that he did not violate French or European Union laws which have no general trade embargo on Iran like the U.S, and that documents in all sales transactions were stamped NLR, for &ldquo;No License Required.&rdquo;

The main argument in this case is whether items that Kakavand purchased have sensitive defense uses.   The accused firefengineer contends that the electronics that he bought online are ordinary and commonplace; however, the U.S. in its extradition request argue that many items at issue meet military standards. 

In February&rsquo;s hearing, the judge handling the case asked for additional information on the matter, including France&rsquo;s military armament body studies, before making the extradition decision.   The new hearing has been set for March 31, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Makes Announcement re: Commodity Jurisdiction Requests</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-02-17T15:22:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dd8845a2033c4d163c21095657dabd70-323.php#unique-entry-id-323</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dd8845a2033c4d163c21095657dabd70-323.php#unique-entry-id-323</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 17, 2010, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that until further notice and effective immediately: &ldquo;All CJ requests must be mailed (FedEx, DRL, UPS, USPS, etc.) to DDTC.   Requests must include eight complete copies of a fully executed DS-4076 CJ Form and all supporting documentation.   This statement is to temporarily update the CJ Guidelines included below.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Updated EMCP Compliance Guidelines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Compliance</category><dc:date>2010-02-22T15:13:19-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5158d7dc827194deefb429db3256236a-322.php#unique-entry-id-322</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5158d7dc827194deefb429db3256236a-322.php#unique-entry-id-322</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 22, 2010, the U.S.   Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted online updated &ldquo;Compliance Guidelines: How to Develop an Effective Export Management and Compliance Program and Manual.&rdquo;]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>UK Firm Pleads Guilty to Exporting Boeing 747 Aircraft to Iran; Pays &#x24;15 Million in Fines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2010-02-06T14:58:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8a961dbc470872935e5f680ba364b8ea-321.php#unique-entry-id-321</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8a961dbc470872935e5f680ba364b8ea-321.php#unique-entry-id-321</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[District Court for the District of Columbia to a two-count criminal information in connection with its illegal export of commercial Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran. 

...Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), that was also announced today, represents one of the largest fines for an export violation in BIS history.  


Under the terms of the related civil settlement, Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation Ltd. have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $15 million of which $2 million will be suspended if there are no further export control violations.    In addition, Balli Aviation Ltd. and Balli Group PLC are denied export privileges for five years, although this penalty will be suspended provided that neither Balli Aviation nor Balli Group commits any export violations and pays the civil penalty.    Under the terms of the settlement, Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation, Ltd. will also have to submit the results of an independent audit of its export compliance program to BIS and OFAC for each of the next five years.


According to count one of the information filed with the court, beginning in at least October 2005, through October 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd. conspired to export three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran without first having obtained the required export license from BIS or authorization from OFAC, in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations.   More particularly, the information states that Balli Aviation Ltd., through its subsidiaries, the Blue Sky Companies, purchased U.S.-origin aircraft with financing obtained from an Iranian airline and caused these aircraft to be exported to Iran without obtaining the required U.S. government licenses.  

...Count two of the information states that Balli Aviation Ltd. violated a Temporary Denial Order (TDO) issued by BIS  on March 17, 2008, that prohibited the company from conducting any transaction involving any item subject to the EAR.    Starting in or about March 2008 and continuing through about August 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd.  willfully violated the TDO by carrying on negotiations with others concerning buying, receiving, using, selling and delivering U.S.-origin aircraft which went  to the Export Administration Regulations.


...Together with our colleagues from the Justice and Commerce departments, OFAC will continue to aggressively pursue both domestic and foreign entities that seek to violate U.S. sanctions programs by exporting goods to Iran from the United States."  said Adam J. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Updates Firearm Guidance</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Firearms</category><dc:date>2010-01-19T01:16:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40c84dac65fcaa3c49b5b5208cfb967c-320.php#unique-entry-id-320</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40c84dac65fcaa3c49b5b5208cfb967c-320.php#unique-entry-id-320</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 19, 2010, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) updated its firearm guidance.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Updates Freight Forwarder Guidance</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Freight</category><dc:date>2010-01-08T01:14:01-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9092a220e76f076ffd75edaf419ffdf3-319.php#unique-entry-id-319</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9092a220e76f076ffd75edaf419ffdf3-319.php#unique-entry-id-319</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 7, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) updated its online guidance for freight forwarders. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Final Rule Adding a Validated End-User for the PRC</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>VEU</category><dc:date>2010-01-15T01:09:34-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d2d3fb0d754389fc4ca7b9ac85b83d03-318.php#unique-entry-id-318</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d2d3fb0d754389fc4ca7b9ac85b83d03-318.php#unique-entry-id-318</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 15, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule to add an entity to the list of validated end-users for the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) approved to receive exports, reexports, and transfers of certain items under Authorization Validated End-User (VEU).   Specifically, this rule amends the EAR to add one additional validated end-user and identifies eligible items for export and reexport and transfer (in-country) to one facility in the PRC. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Chemical Engineer Sentenced To 4 Years Imprisonment for Violating Iran Sanctions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Iran</category><category>OFAC</category><dc:date>2010-01-13T23:09:53-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fb340b990946dc894fa1dadf0cf5c864-317.php#unique-entry-id-317</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fb340b990946dc894fa1dadf0cf5c864-317.php#unique-entry-id-317</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 12, 2010, Philadelphia Daily News reported that Ali Amirnazmi (Amirnazmi), a chemical engineer that had a dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship, was sentenced to four years in federal prison for violating Iran sanctions. 

According to the prosecution, Amirnazmi, who owned TranTech Consultants, an Exton, PA company that specialized in databases for chemical companies, conspired and from 1996 to July 2008 transferred a chemical-procurement software system he developed, ChemPlan, to Iran to train Iranians to close technological gaps between Iran and its adversaries. 

Amirnazmi also &ldquo;worked with and at the express direction of&rdquo; Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to support Iran&rsquo;s petrochemical industry.   Amirnazmi entered into contracts with Iranian officials creating partnerships that would obtain large quantities of chemicals to be used in large chemical manufacturing plants in Iran.   Some of the chemicals had serious dual-use potential, including use in the manufacture of solid-phase rocket propellants. 

At his sentencing hearing, Amirnazmi was defiant and maintained that he never intended to break any U.S. laws and stated he had no reason to lie. 

In addition to four-year sentence, the U.S.   District Judge ordered Amirnazmi to serve five years of supervised release once he leaves prison, make restitution of $17,227 to a bank he defrauded and forfeit $81,277. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Advances Reform of the U.S. Export Controls </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2010-01-01T16:27:15-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6403a51e5d629ef1662ae47163aa6282-316.php#unique-entry-id-316</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6403a51e5d629ef1662ae47163aa6282-316.php#unique-entry-id-316</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Space News reported that in a presidential directive signed on December 21, 2009, President Barack Obama has directed his administration to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations to create a new U.S. export control regime. 

The recommendations, which are due on January 29, 2010, must be based on the findings of interagency review of U.S. regulations that govern exports of unclassified military and dual use technologies and that was announced by the White House on August 13, 2009. 

...The review is being conducted by a joint task force established by National Security Adviser and National Economic Council Director, and includes staff members of the National Security Council. 

...The U.S. space industry&rsquo;s market share declined since increased restrictions on U.S. commercial communications satellite exports in 1999, when Congress made all commercial satellites subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) following allegations that China&rsquo;s military was benefiting from launches of U.S. spacecraft. 

...Defense News reported that 19 industry lobbying groups, representing hundreds of U.S. companies from warplane manufacturers to software encoders, have relaunched a campaign for export controls reform. 

Specifically, the groups seek to de-emphasize current reliance on munitions and dual use technology lists, and instead want to base export decisions on factors such as whether an item can be bought from a foreign country, whether it is widely used outside of defense industry and whether the buyer is a trusted partner. 

...According to the lobbyists, if weapons technology can be bought from other countries, there may be little gain in terms of security by restricting U.S. export of those items or technology. 

Furthermore, the groups seek that export rules be more specific: e.g., unarmed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and blimps should not be controlled in the same way that missiles are. 

...Munitions List should be edited to remove items no longer controlled, and a more concrete process should be established for qualifying goods as defense items.   One of the lobbying groups seeks that the Commerce Department&rsquo;s dual-use technology list would be completely erased, after which the Commerce Department would provide reasons for why any one item should be placed on the list. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP To Begin Full Enforcement of ISF on January 26&#x2c; 2010</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2010-01-26T23:11:58-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/08b7df01e6701dcc9d0cb3e5d26d4b5c-315.php#unique-entry-id-315</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/08b7df01e6701dcc9d0cb3e5d26d4b5c-315.php#unique-entry-id-315</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[During the first quarter of 2010, CBP will monitor the flow of ISF filings, including completeness and accuracy of the ISF filings, as well as noting which importers are not filing the 10+2.   Importers that are not filing can expect their imports to be subject to deeper scrutiny, with CBP requesting document review, non-intrusive inspections or intensive examinations of the cargo.   CBP will notify importers who are not filing and those that have errors in their filing and work with them to bring the imports into compliance. 

...However, with the exception of fraud, smuggling, or terrorism in connection with the ocean imports or egregious violations of ISF requirements, CBP does not intend to penalize or assess liquidated damages for ISF violations during the first three quarters of 2010 or for imports that occurred prior to January 26, 2010.  

...CBP plans to use this method of instituting penalties for at least a year, after which it will either be extended or the ports of entry will be authorized to issue final penalty decisions. 

Importers must also note that, beginning 26, 2010, they are required to have a bond as security for the ISF filing. 

...Those ISF importers that do not have a continuous bond on file with CBP are required to secure a single entry bond (SEB) in the amount of $10,000, which is the maximum penalty that can be imposed for a late, incomplete, or inaccurate ISF. 

...When the ISF transaction number is received, it must be entered on the SEB and e-mailed in a pdf file to CBP at ISF_Bond@cbp.dhs.gov. 

With the exception of surety companies that have stricter rules for late filings or not filing at all, SEBs for timely submission of ISF are readily available.   Surety companies require a cash deposit for the full amount of the bond for transactions deemed to be at risk because of late filing of the ISF transmission. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Western Companies Face Obstacles to Doing Business in China&#xd;Chinese Communist Party has a long history of monitoring dissidents and limiting freedom of expression. The sales of foreign movies&#x2c; books&#x2c; and music has long been restricted&#x2c; even though a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling in August 2009 held that these policies violate China&#x2019;s legally binding commitments to the international trade system. China appealed the ruling&#x2c; but in the meantime sought to strengthen its domestic encryption industry: the government has all the decryption codes but is withholding the government certifications that foreign-owned companies need to sell their products on Chinese market. &#xd;&#xd;Google&#x2019;s reaction to operation obstacles in China reflects general foreign business sentiment&#x2c; which is said to be pessimistic and full of unpredictability. The long-standing general consensus that no one can afford not to be in China&#x2c; is being questioned as a result of the government&#x2019;s attitude toward multinationals. &#xd;&#xd;Chinese business environment has always been difficult for foreign companies. For a long time&#x2c; they have been complaining of being cheated by joint venture partners who go on to set up parallel businesses or disappear with venture&#x2019;s assets. &#xd;&#xd;In addition&#x2c; government policies have always protected Chinese companies from international competition by allowing them to grow in a large market to prepare for exporting to less-protected foreign markets. &#xd;&#xd;While many other countries have policies that favor domestic companies&#x2c; they operate under relatively strict WTO controls. When China joined WTO in 2001&#x2c; it promised to quickly negotiate joining WTO&#x2019;s agreement on free trade in government procurement&#x2c; but it has never actually done so. As a result&#x2c; China follows its own buy-Chinese government procurement policy and uses its enormous buying power to direct the contracts to Chinese companies. On June 4&#x2c; 2009&#x2c; China&#x2019;s National Development and Reform Commission&#x2c; the top economic planning agency in the country&#x2c; issued an order that mandates national&#x2c; provincial and local government agencies to buy only Chinese-made products as part of the country&#x2019;s &#x24;600 billion economic stimulus plan. Foreign substitutes may be purchased only when no suitable Chinese products are available. &#xd;&#xd;On the exports side&#x2c; China has imposed restrictions on mineral exports&#x2c; for which it mines a large part of the world&#x2019;s supply. Due to these export restrictions which include high export tariffs&#x2c; tonnage quotas and even export bans&#x2c; many manufacturers choose to locate their factories in China to ensure they have a supply of raw materials free from export taxes. The U.S. and the EU have filed a WTO case in June 2009 challenging China&#x2019;s export restrictions on zinc and bauxite&#x2c; but China has denied any wrongdoing. &#xd;&#xd;With respect to intellectual property&#x2c; Western companies have suffered great damages from China&#x2019;s weak protection of patents and trademarks&#x2c; as a result of which large industries make goods in direct competition with Western competitors but are spared any significant marketing or research expenditures. To fight the counterfeiting&#x2c; many Western companies are trying to respond by limiting the intellectual property transferred to China. &#xd;&#xd;Despite all these concerns&#x2c; companies are unwilling to leave a market as big as China. For Google and other companies whose primary assets lay in intellectual property&#x2c; the concept of staying in China is more complex since they risk losing those assets. But then again&#x2c; China&#x2019;s market is so large and competitive that many Western companies offer their latest technology in fear of losing market share.  &#xd;&#xd;In auto sector&#x2c; China has developed the world&#x2019;s largest market&#x2c; but foreign auto manufacturers are limited to a 50&#x25; stake in auto assembly plants&#x2c; and are assessed high tariffs on imported cars. Chinese joint venture partners in auto industry are now starting to produce their own models&#x2c; developed and built almost exclusively for China. &#xd;&#xd;Similar policies have been introduced forcing international companies to transfer their best technology in industries such as railroad locomotive manufacturing and aircraft assembly. China has also tried to give market preference to domestic companies that invest in developing their own technology&#x2c; even if that technology is initially inferior to foreign technology. &#xd;&#xd;In November of last year&#x2c; Chinese government notified both domestic and foreign companies that the government will give preference to products that use technology developed in China and carry trademarks that were first registered in China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>China</category><dc:date>2010-01-14T22:42:17-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cac268bc994325cea1981238c4d38d8d-314.php#unique-entry-id-314</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cac268bc994325cea1981238c4d38d8d-314.php#unique-entry-id-314</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Companies have complained that they are subjected to a long list of obstacles to doing business in China, including &ldquo;buy Chinese&rdquo; government procurement policies, increasing restrictions on foreign investments, and widespread violations of intellectual property rights.  

...The sales of foreign movies, books, and music has long been restricted, even though a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling in August 2009 held that these policies violate China&rsquo;s legally binding commitments to the international trade system.   China appealed the ruling, but in the meantime sought to strengthen its domestic encryption industry: the government has all the decryption codes but is withholding the government certifications that foreign-owned companies need to sell their products on Chinese market. 

...For a long time, they have been complaining of being cheated by joint venture partners who go on to set up parallel businesses or disappear with venture&rsquo;s assets. 

In addition, government policies have always protected Chinese companies from international competition by allowing them to grow in a large market to prepare for exporting to less-protected foreign markets. 

...On June 4, 2009, China&rsquo;s National Development and Reform Commission, the top economic planning agency in the country, issued an order that mandates national, provincial and local government agencies to buy only Chinese-made products as part of the country&rsquo;s $600 billion economic stimulus plan. 

...Due to these export restrictions which include high export tariffs, tonnage quotas and even export bans, many manufacturers choose to locate their factories in China to ensure they have a supply of raw materials free from export taxes. 

...With respect to intellectual property, Western companies have suffered great damages from China&rsquo;s weak protection of patents and trademarks, as a result of which large industries make goods in direct competition with Western competitors but are spared any significant marketing or research expenditures. 

...In auto sector, China has developed the world&rsquo;s largest market, but foreign auto manufacturers are limited to a 50% stake in auto assembly plants, and are assessed high tariffs on imported cars. 

...In November of last year, Chinese government notified both domestic and foreign companies that the government will give preference to products that use technology developed in China and carry trademarks that were first registered in China. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Executives of Military and Security Product Companies Indicted in Foreign Bribery Scheme </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2010-01-19T22:37:02-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/011692b539ab62add9e2d42ff4c20a89-313.php#unique-entry-id-313</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/011692b539ab62add9e2d42ff4c20a89-313.php#unique-entry-id-313</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 19, 2010, the U.S.   Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that twenty-two executives working in the military and security industries were arrested and charged with conspiracy to bribe an African defense minister in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).  

The indictments are a result of the largest single investigation and prosecution against individual defendants in the history of DOJ&rsquo;s enforcement of FCPA.   The indictments allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to bribe an African defense minister and agreed to pay a 20% &ldquo;sales commission&rdquo; to someone they believed was the minister&rsquo;s representative in order to win a portion of a $15 million contract to outfit the country&rsquo;s presidential guard.   The defense minister&rsquo;s representative, who in fact was an undercover FBI agent, told the defendants that the &ldquo;sales commission&rdquo; would be paid directly to the minister of defense. 

The defendants allegedly agreed to engage in a small test deal to show the minister of defense that he would personally receive the bribe, and to create two price quotations in connection with the deal: one representing the true cost of the goods, and another representing the cost of the goods plus the 20% commission. 

Each of the indictments alleges that the defendants conspired and violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and conspired to engage in money laundering. 

The defendants face five years imprisonment for the conspiracy count and for each FCPA count.   The indictments in this case also seek criminal forfeiture of the defendants&rsquo; gains. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Launches Online Export Tracking System</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2010-01-12T21:40:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7e65b9d84b1e2e530544aaeca143872f-312.php#unique-entry-id-312</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7e65b9d84b1e2e530544aaeca143872f-312.php#unique-entry-id-312</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 11, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) launched an online version of its System for Tracking Export License Applications (STELA).   STELA allows users to check the status of their export and re-export license applications, classification requests and agricultural license exception (AGR) notifications.   To access export data, STELA users must input their application control number (ACN) assigned by BIS. 

With the launch of an online system, BIS plans to eventually phase out the phone-based STELA. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>USITC Publishes 2010 Version of HTSUS; Census Posts Tariff Numbers Invalid on AES </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>HTSUS</category><dc:date>2010-01-01T21:38:29-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad602ff1c17efe6b849a16a0ae3b56ba-311.php#unique-entry-id-311</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad602ff1c17efe6b849a16a0ae3b56ba-311.php#unique-entry-id-311</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The 2010 version of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that took effect on January 1, 2010, has been published on the U.S.   International Trade Commission (ITC) website.   Tariff information from previous years can be accessed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA), which provides applicable tariff rates and statistical categories for all merchandise imported into the U.S. 

In addition, the U.S.   Census Bureau (Census) has posted a list of tariff numbers that are invalid for use in the Automated Export System (AES) as of January 1, 2010.   The list is exclusive of HTSUS Chapter 98 codes, none of which may be used in AES. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>2009 CBP Trade Symposium Recap</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-12-30T22:51:52-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/25ce61b7059344c9ea790afd03bc3d90-310.php#unique-entry-id-310</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/25ce61b7059344c9ea790afd03bc3d90-310.php#unique-entry-id-310</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) held its 2009 Trade Symposium was from December 8 -10, 2009 in Washington D.C. 

...Some of the most important topics included Importer Security Filing (ISF), shared border issues between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, Customs&rsquo; intellectual property rights (IPR) policy, and Customs&rsquo; rulings process. 

Regarding the ISF process, CBP reported that from January 2009 through December 2009 it received 3.65 million filings from more than 100,000 ISF importers. 

...Customs is most interested in receiving the necessary ISF data rather than holding back the cargo or issuing monetary penalties, which range from $5,000 for ISF transmission violations and are capped at $10,000 per filing.   The importers must also consider that the cost of Customs withholding cargo is likely to exceed the penalty of $5,000 or $10,000. 

...On the border issues, a panel of Customs officials from the U.S., Mexico and Canada stressed the importance of harmonizing countries&rsquo; customs processes, including requirements for advance data submission otherwise known as 10+2. 

...Overall, the discussions stressed the importance of developing businesses&rsquo; risk management programs including integration of internal controls related to trade and those involving key business and financial operations. 

Regarding Customs&rsquo; IPR policy, CBP issued over 1,000 fine notices totaling $94 million against importers attempting to import counterfeit merchandise. ...  Attorney Office is hesitant to bring cases against  violators since adding a fine in addition to the seizure and forfeiture of goods may be considered an excessive fine under U.S. law. 

With respect to the Customs Rulings process, Customs reminded importers to submit Ruling Requests via CBP&rsquo;s new e-Rulings system (except the Ruling Requests must be submitted by paper if a physical sample is submitted to CBP). ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Signs GSP and ATPA Bill into Law &#xd;President Signs GSP and ATPA Bill into Law &#xd;President Obama Signs GSP and ATPA Bill into Law</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>GSP</category><category>ATPA</category><dc:date>2009-12-28T22:49:55-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2bced0303864a432424b07b69a80138c-309.php#unique-entry-id-309</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2bced0303864a432424b07b69a80138c-309.php#unique-entry-id-309</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 4284, which extends the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) for one year, through December 31, 2010.   Under the GSP treatment, beneficiary developing countries receive certain trade benefits.  

According to the Presidential Proclamation, effective January 1, 2011, Croatia and Equatorial Guinea will no longer receive the GSP treatment as they have achieved &ldquo;high income&rdquo; classification.   Cape Verde will be removed from the list of least-developed beneficiary countries under GSP effective January 1, 2010. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Banks Settle Charges of Violating OFAC Regulations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-12-11T22:42:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9855f0c49e63d615734cb566f6305e4d-308.php#unique-entry-id-308</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9855f0c49e63d615734cb566f6305e4d-308.php#unique-entry-id-308</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice and Credit Suisse AG (Credit Suisse) entered into a global settlement agreement to settle alleged violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), the Executive Orders, and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations. 

Credit Suisse, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC (Lloyds) and several other banks have been investigated for deleting and manipulating wire transfer information to conceal illegal money transfers involving Iran, Burma, Cuba, and Libya from the mid-1990s through 2006.   Credit Suisse also instructed Iranian customers on how to format dollar-denominated transactions to avoid detection by the U.S. authorities. 

Credit Suisse was fined $536 million after disclosing various apparent violations in a voluntary self-disclosure.   According to the Assistant Attorney General, the fine would have been much higher had Credit Suisse not cooperated fully. 


Lloyds used a similar technique to manipulate information that disguised clients in Iran and Sudan who were barred from doing business in the U.S.   Based on OFAC&rsquo;s analysis of Lloyds&rsquo; transactions, the bank routed over 4,200 wire transfers in apparent violation of IEEPA and the OFAC regulations related to Iran, Sudan, and Libya from June 2003 through August 2006. 

Lloyds indicated that it terminated these illegal activities, including ceasing U.S. dollar clearing activities for Iranian bank customers in 2003, and has cooperated fully with OFAC investigation.   Lloyds has settled with OFAC for $217 million, a sum which has been deemed satisfied by its prior payment of a larger amount in satisfaction of penalties assessed by the U.S. 

...While Lloyds did not voluntarily self-disclose the apparent violations, OFAC mitigated the total potential penalty based on Lloyds&rsquo; substantial cooperation and its prompt and thorough remedial response.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Amends EAR per Wassenaur Revisions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2009-12-11T22:38:02-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6a43db06d78e0df2d55e109aef4b7ba1-307.php#unique-entry-id-307</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6a43db06d78e0df2d55e109aef4b7ba1-307.php#unique-entry-id-307</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule in the Federal Register stating that, effective December 11, 2009, revises the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement changes to the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.   The changes were agreed upon by participating countries during Wassenaur Arrangement&rsquo;s plenary session in December 2010.   The U.S., as a participating member of the Wassenaur Arrangement, must modify the Commerce Control List (CCL) in order to incorporate these changes. 

The final rule amends CCL categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Parts 1 and 2), 6, 7, 8 and 9, as well as Definitions and Reports sections. 

Detailed changes to CCL can be accessed here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Establishes New Guidance Regarding Temporary Import Violations&#xd;DDTC Establishes New Guidance Regarding Temporary Import Violations&#xd;DDTC Establishes New Guidance Regarding Temporary Import Violations&#xd;DDTC Establishes New Guidance Regarding Temporary Import Violations&#xd;DDTC Issues New Guidance on Temporary Import Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2009-12-15T17:22:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e506ad7f040b2f35cb51eedaba89371c-306.php#unique-entry-id-306</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e506ad7f040b2f35cb51eedaba89371c-306.php#unique-entry-id-306</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has published a notice on its website regarding temporary imports of defense articles.   The notice provides that such imports require the recipient to obtain a DSP-61 (a Temporary Import License), or to claim the exemption under 22 CFR &sect;123.4. 

According to DDTC, the number of instances where a foreign person temporarily returns a defense article for repair or replacement without authorization to a U.S. person without their prior knowledge has increased.   In this type of situation, the U.S. person is unable to coordinate the return and obtain the requisite DSP-61 license or claim the regulatory exemptions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

DDTC has established new guidance regarding unauthorized temporary imports and the subsequent exports to return the items to the foreign person.   In such case, the U.S. person should investigate the nature and cause of violation and determine if the U.S. person had any responsibility for the violation. 

If the U.S. person determines he was not responsible for a licensing violation, then in lieu of submitting a separate Voluntary Disclosure in accordance with ITAR &sect;127.12, the U.S. person can submit a DSP-5 license application to return the defense article to the foreign person.   The DSP-5 application must be accompanied by a transmittal letter which explains why the applicant believes they do not share any responsibility for the violation and the steps taken to make this determination; the identities and addresses of all persons known or suspected to be involved in the activities giving rise to the unauthorized temporary import; and any measures taken to prevent such reoccurrence. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Amends Policy on Review Time for ITAR License Applications</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-12-03T16:39:19-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d44ab4e8be95f654ffc446429c834993-305.php#unique-entry-id-305</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d44ab4e8be95f654ffc446429c834993-305.php#unique-entry-id-305</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 3, 2009, the Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued a notice in the Federal Register adding a sixth national security exception to the general 60 day license adjudication deadline. 


National Security Presidential Directive-56 signed on January 22, 2008, instructs the Department of State to complete the review and adjudication of license applications within 60 days of receipt, except in cases where national security exceptions apply.   In addition to the five national security exceptions published in April 2008, Department of State&rsquo;s experience has shown that an additional exception to the license review time is required. 

Specifically, it has been noted that certain circumstances may require the Department of State to initiate a review of an established export policy relevant to license applications, which might result in cases that have been approvable before the review being returned without action to the applicant while the review is ongoing.   In such situations, enforcing the 60-day deadline without ability to account for these types of situations might result in another applicant&rsquo;s license, submitted after the first license but that had not reached the 60-day headline, being approved once the review is complete, thus creating an unlevel playing field.   Therefore, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) issued a notice in the Federal Register adding the sixth exception to account for this issue, and now the following national security exceptions are applicable:

(1)	When a Congressional Notification is required (notification thresholds differ based on the dollar value, countries involved in the transaction and defense articles and services);

...(3)	When end-use checks have not been completed; 

(4)	When the Department of Defense has not yet completed its review;

...(6)	When a related export policy is under active review and pending final determination by the State Department. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S. to Implement a VAT Taxing Scheme?</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>VAT</category><category>Politics</category><dc:date>2009-12-11T16:06:59-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd05cca99ea976fdf8100e241afbae7a-304.php#unique-entry-id-304</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd05cca99ea976fdf8100e241afbae7a-304.php#unique-entry-id-304</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[As reported by The New York Times, the topic of establishing a national consumption tax has been discussed by Congress often this year, especially in lieu of a trillion-dollar health coverage reform and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.   To solve these long-term budget problems, the U.S. needs a new source of revenue, and the value-added tax (&ldquo;VAT&rdquo;) is increasingly considered as a viable alternative. 

A national consumption tax or VAT is a tax on goods and services that is collected at every step of the production process, from importing and processing of raw materials, to the end consumer.   In use in more than 130 countries worldwide, VAT is one of the world&rsquo;s most popular taxes and, among industrialized nations, ranges from 5% in Japan to 25% in Hungary. 

...VAT&rsquo;s broad reach is the reason why the International Monetary Fund (IMF) frequently recommends it to countries that need to raise money quickly. 

Furthermore, VAT is hard to escape: if at some point within the production chain a business evades paying the tax, the government will collect it from business at other stages of production.   In a VAT system, since businesses usually get credit for taxes already paid by their suppliers, companies will pressure the non-paying business to pay their portion of VAT. 

...Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that the federal budget deficit is projected to reach $1.3 trillion in 2010, which is the highest so far with the exception of this year&rsquo;s $1.8 trillion.   On every dollar it spends, the Treasury Department borrows 46 cents of every dollar, primarily from China and other foreign creditors who are starting to get worried about the security of their investments. 

...Establishing VAT in the U.S. may be unlikely in the immediate future because of the still-tentative economic recovery and unwillingness of politicians to impose a new tax that would directly affect the revenues of their constituents; however, economists estimate that federal tax revenues need to rise by 20 to 30% in the next few years to cover its expenditures, and VAT may be selected as the least painful alternative.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mexican Criminal Organizations Try to Infiltrate Border Patrol Ranks </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2009-12-18T16:03:32-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a910f774776267a8f11e9040677ee6e3-303.php#unique-entry-id-303</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a910f774776267a8f11e9040677ee6e3-303.php#unique-entry-id-303</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to a New York Times report, anticorruption investigators are worried that Mexican drug organizations are making a concerted effort to infiltrate Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ranks.    Facing increased security on the border that now includes miles of new fencing, floodlights, motions sensors and cameras, Mexican traffickers target customs agents with cross-border ties or even solicit some of their own operatives to apply for customs agents&rsquo; positions. 

The report states that while the majority of CBP border patrol agents stay away from crime, cases have been reported where border patrol agents have helped traffickers smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S. by tipping smugglers on where the border guards are or by admitting the smugglers&rsquo; vehicles into the U.S. without checking them. 

To tighten the border security between the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. has spent $11 billion in 2009 building physical barriers and developing the country&rsquo;s largest law enforcement agency to patrol the area.   Federal officials believe that drug traffickers are taking advantage of CBP&rsquo;s hiring rush for customs agents.   Criminal organizations direct people to apply to CBP positions only to help traffickers smuggle drugs and people into the country. 

According to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General&rsquo;s Office, arrests of CBP agents and officers have increased 40 percent in the last few years as compared to the 24 percent growth in the agency itself.   Currently, the office has 400 open investigations which sometimes take years to close. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Public Meeting on Rotterdam Rules on International Transport Laws Announced</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Transporation</category><dc:date>2009-11-27T15:59:32-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d95d857bd92200122abe59c37152aacc-302.php#unique-entry-id-302</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d95d857bd92200122abe59c37152aacc-302.php#unique-entry-id-302</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 27, 2009, the Department of State issued a public notice in the Federal Register announcing a public meeting of the Study Group on International Transport Law regarding domestic implementation of the U.N.   Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea ("the Rotterdam Rules"). 

The Rotterdam Rules, which are currently signed by 21 countries, define the rights of obligation of parties engaged in maritime transportation of goods.   Considering that 80% of world trade is conducted by sea, the Rotterdam Rules are intended to facilitate international trade by making the underlying contracts and documentation more efficient. 

The U.S. signed the Rotterdam Rules on September 23, 2009.   The meeting will be held on December 9, 2009 in Washington, DC.   Further details can be found in the Federal Register notice. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Gibson Guitar May Be First Prosecuted under Revised Lacey Act</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Lacey Act</category><dc:date>2009-11-19T15:55:40-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f7c1c940a0d18cec92e973ab2352c5e1-301.php#unique-entry-id-301</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f7c1c940a0d18cec92e973ab2352c5e1-301.php#unique-entry-id-301</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Nashville Business Journal has reported that on November 10, 2009, U.S.   Fish & Wildlife Service agents executed a search warrant at the Gibson Guitar Corporation&rsquo;s (Gibson Guitar) Nashville manufacturing plant.   The search is said to be part of an investigation into the use of endangered rosewood from Madagascar in violation of the revised Lace Act.

Gibson Guitar, heralded in the past for its pioneering efforts to use sustainable wood products, is the first U.S. company to face prosecution under the revised Lacey Act &ndash; a new federal law banning trade in articles made of or containing specifically designated wood.   The company issued a statement in which it proclaims full cooperation with the U.S.   Fish & Wildlife Service investigation into the wood procurement. 

The Lacey Act was expanded by the 2008 Farm Bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) to include timber and wood products, making the U.S. the first in the world to regulate trade in plants.   Among other things, the Lacey Act requires an import declaration for certain plants and plant products, including the plant&rsquo;s geographical origin and biological genus. 

Penalties for violations of the Lacey Act range from a forfeiture of goods to fines up to $500,000 and even imprisonment if the company is found to have knowingly engaged in trade of illegally sourced wood. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Publishes Proposed Rules for Comment</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-11-25T15:11:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/849c3f25575fb77f20dbe9134672b1cc-300.php#unique-entry-id-300</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/849c3f25575fb77f20dbe9134672b1cc-300.php#unique-entry-id-300</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 25, 2009, the Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published a proposed rule to amend Section 126.6 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) pertaining to  U.S.   Government transfer programs and foreign-owned military aircraft and naval vessels.   Section 126.6 is being amended to clarify the particular circumstances when a license is not required by DDTC.   DDTC will accept comments on this proposed rule until January 25, 2010.


On November 25, 2009, the DDTC also published a proposed rule to amend Section 125.9 of the ITAR regarding an exemption for technical data, to clarify that the exemption covers technical data, including classified information, regardless of media or format, sent or taken by a U.S. person who is an employee of a U.S. corporation or a U.S.   Government agency to a U.S. person employed by that U.S. corporation or to a U.S.   Government agency outside the United States.   DDTC will accept comments on this proposed rule until January 25, 2010.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Trade Symposium 2009 Available via Webcast</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-11-10T15:01:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e6b77ca7b8636ac20b58319b7130b92-299.php#unique-entry-id-299</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e6b77ca7b8636ac20b58319b7130b92-299.php#unique-entry-id-299</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced the availability of its Trade Symposium 2009 via webcast.   Participation via live Webcast on December 8-10, 2009 is available with registration and payment of a $35 fee.   Participants will also be provided with 30-day on-demand access of the Webcast free of charge.   CBP will select three breakout sessions that will be shown during the live webcast.   The general sessions and eight breakout sessions will be available during the 30-day on-demand access.


The agenda for the Symposium is available here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Releases Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-11-09T16:18:22-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8afddf3aa63eebf4b331268800960e78-298.php#unique-entry-id-298</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8afddf3aa63eebf4b331268800960e78-298.php#unique-entry-id-298</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued &ldquo;Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines&rdquo; as final rule in the Federal Register, setting forth the enforcement guidelines that OFAC will follow in determining a response to violations of the OFAC-enforced U.S. economic sanctions programs. 

...	&bull;	The definition of &ldquo;voluntary self-disclosure&rdquo; was amended to clarify that when a third party required to report an apparent violation fails to do so, but a person that has committed an apparent violation and is subject to any of the OFAC sanctions ("Subject Person") reports the violation to OFAC, the notification will still be considered a voluntary self-disclosure.   However, in those cases where the third party does notify OFAC before a final enforcement response to the violation, a Subject Person&rsquo;s notification will not be considered a voluntary self-disclosure even if it precedes the third party&rsquo;s notification. 

	&bull;	The definition of &ldquo;voluntary self-disclosure&rdquo; was also amended to clarify that a self-initiated notification to OFAC made at the same time as another government agency learns of the apparent violation (either through disclosure or otherwise) does qualify as voluntary self-disclosure if the other aspects of the definitions are met. 

...	&bull;	Similarly, if a Subject Person notifies another government agency of an apparent violation as required by that agency, the notification may be considered a voluntary self-disclosure by OFAC, based on a case-by-case determination. 

	&bull;	On the requested clarification on Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing, OFAC responded that the filing of a SAR does not itself preclude a determination of voluntary self-disclosure for a subsequent self-disclosure to OFAC of the same transaction, unless OFAC learns of the apparent violation prior to the self-disclosure filing. 

...Furthermore, with respect to whether a Subject Person&rsquo;s refusal to enter into a tolling agreement should be considered an aggravating factor in assessing the person&rsquo;s cooperation, the final rules states that a Subject Person&rsquo;s unwillingness to enter into a tolling agreement will not be considered against the Subject Person. 

...	&bull;	For the purposes of calculating a penalty in cases involving a set of &ldquo;substantially similar violations,&rdquo; OFAC clarified that the penalty reduction of up to 25% for a Subject Person&rsquo;s first violation will generally apply to the entire set of &ldquo;substantially similar violations&rdquo; and not solely to the first of those violations. 

...	&bull;	On the issue of attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, the final rule was amended by eliminating the reference to &ldquo;failure to furnish the requested information&rdquo; and instead referring to a &ldquo;failure to comply&rdquo; with a request for information. 

...In non-egregious cases involving apparent violations of TWEA, when the apparent violation is disclosed through a voluntary self-disclosure, the civil penalty is capped at the $32,500. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Director of Singapore Company Sentenced for Iran Embargo Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-11-06T16:15:26-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/069c010425e42e161ab09941053054fa-297.php#unique-entry-id-297</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/069c010425e42e161ab09941053054fa-297.php#unique-entry-id-297</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 5, 2009, a federal court in Brooklyn, NY sentenced Laura Wang-Woodford, a U.S. citizen and a director of Singapore-based Monarch Aviation Pte, Ltd.   (Monarch), to 46 months&rsquo; incarceration for conspiracy to violate the U.S. trade embargo by exporting controlled aircraft components to Iran. 

Monarch has been engaged in imports and exports of military and commercial aircraft components for over 20 years. 

...Wang-Woodford was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in December 2007 after arriving on a flight from Hong Kong and has remained incarcerated ever since. 

...The 2008 indictment alleged that between January 1998 and December 2007, the defendants exported controlled U.S. aircraft parts from the U.S. to Monarch and Jungda in Singapore and Malaysia and then re-exported those items to buyers in Iran without the required U.S. government licenses. ...  On the export documents filed with the U.S. government, the defendants falsely listed Monarch and Jungda as the ultimate recipients of the parts. 

At the time of her arrest, Wang-Woodford had in her possession catalogues from China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) containing advertisements for military technology and weaponry, including surface-to-air missile systems and rocket launchers. ...  Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) based on the company&rsquo;s history of selling military hardware to Iran.   Under those sanctions, all U.S. persons and entities are prohibited from engaging in business with CPMIEC. 

The Bureau of Industry and Security publish on its website Lists to Check that include sanctions by various government agencies and that should be consulted by persons involved in export or re-export transactions. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Allows Electronic Submission of Agreements for All U.S. Applicants</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Export</category><category>Agreements</category><dc:date>2009-10-07T14:39:47-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45e2c8aaa9278ff8eb3d62d5b20dc314-296.php#unique-entry-id-296</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45e2c8aaa9278ff8eb3d62d5b20dc314-296.php#unique-entry-id-296</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 7, 2009, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that beginning October 19, 2009, DDTC will alllow all U.S. applicants to submit agreements electronically via the D-Trade 2 application.   DDTC states that this electronic system will employ the D-Trade 2 Production application as the means for submitting, reviewing, and approving agreement proposals.   It will incorporate the DSP-5 tool as the primary instrument for transitioning agreements and their respective amendments from one phase of the adjudication process to the next and will negate the need for DDTC to issue a separate authorization letter upon approval of a case.


DDTC states that only new agreements and re-baselined agreements may be submitted initially using the D-Trade 2 production systems.   Applicants are not authorized to submit an electronic amendment proposal to an approved paper agreement.   Once an electronic agreement is approved, electronic amendments to that approval may be submitted. 


DDTC encourages all applicants to thoroughly review the Guidelines for Preparing Electronic Agreements (as of October 7, 2009).   Additionally, DDTC is requesting that any U.S. applicant not previously approved to submit electronic agreements as part of the Test Phase submit only one initial electronic agreement proposal.   Once that application has cleared DDTC and has been forwarded for staffing to additional agencies, the applicant can openly submit applications as required.   DDTC states that this initial submission "pause" will aloow DDTC analysts to confirm submissions are complete and accurate and minimize the number of potential applications being returned without action.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Finalizes Encryption Simplification Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Encryption</category><dc:date>2009-10-15T13:47:24-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d28dbb3644ade1b0d1e155d15089f08d-295.php#unique-entry-id-295</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d28dbb3644ade1b0d1e155d15089f08d-295.php#unique-entry-id-295</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 15, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Final Encryption Simplification Rule in the Federal Register.   BIS had published the interim final rule entitled "Encryption Simplification" on October 3, 2008 (73 Fed.   Reg.   57,495).   This rule finalizes that rule, corrects errors published in the October 3, 2008 interim final rule, and resolves inconsistencies in that rule identified by the public. 


Among other things, the October 3, 2008 interim final rule removed section 744.9 of the EAR, which set forth requirements for authorization from BIS for U.S. persons to provide technical assistance to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign perosn in the development or manufacture outside the U.S. of encryption commodities or software that, if of U.S.-origin, would be "EI" controlled under ECCNs 5A002 or 5D002.   Although the interim final rule removed section 744.9, other parts of the EAR that referred to that section were inadvertently not removed.   The final rule removes those sections and makes other corrections to harmonize with revisions made in the October 3, 2008 interim final rule.   Finally, some revisions in the final rule are the results of requests for clarification from the public on the October 3, 2008 encryption simplification rule.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Importer Security Filing (ISF) Progress Reports Available</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2009-10-26T13:22:12-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ac9920a81fcafacc79b689c64c665870-294.php#unique-entry-id-294</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ac9920a81fcafacc79b689c64c665870-294.php#unique-entry-id-294</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 26, 2009, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reminded importers that it is still accepting registation for Importer Security Filing (ISF) Progress Reports. 


CBP will begin full enforcement of the Importer Security Filing (ISF), popularly known as the &ldquo;10+2&rdquo; rule, on January 26, 2010.   The 10+2 rule requires that importers and carriers transmit certain cargo information to CBP for imports destined to enter the U.S. or a free trade zone in the U.S., via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) or Automated Manifest System (AMS).    In preparation for the new requirements, CBP is providing all ISF filers with a progress report.   CBP urges companies to review these reports with their ISF filers to address filing inaccuracies or delayed data transmissions during the flexible enforcement period currently in effect.  


ISF Filers and C-TPAT Tier 2 and Tier 3 are eligible for the progress report, and may request their copy by contacting: Progress_Report@cbp.dhs.gov.


The filers&rsquo; request should include:  Company Name, Filer Code, Point of Contact, Point of Contact Telephone, and E-mail address to which the report should be sent.  

C-TPAT Tier 2 and 3 importers should provide the same information except they should provide their tier level and, instead of a filer code, the importer of record numbers they wish included in the report. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Joint-EU Brochure and Web Toolkit for Trademark&#x2c; Copyright Owners</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>EU</category><category>IPR</category><dc:date>2009-10-02T13:10:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d4777feac5ac3ae530585d4c4fede292-293.php#unique-entry-id-293</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d4777feac5ac3ae530585d4c4fede292-293.php#unique-entry-id-293</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 1, 2009, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced on its website the joint development with the European Union of a brochure and web toolkit to assist trademark and copyright onwers in preparing information to help U.S. and EU customs agencies determine whether goods are counterfeit or pirated.


The U.S.-EU brochure titled &ldquo;Protecting Intellectual Property Rights at Our Borders&rdquo; is a brochure of basic information for trademark and copyright owners on working with customs officials in the U.S. and the EU.   It provides information on how trademark/copyright owners can protect themselves from the global problem of counterfeiting and piracy.   Suggested protection includes the registration and recording of IPR, product identification training guides, and sharing of intelligence on suspect shipments.


The joint customs web toolkit provides a single set of guidelines for trademark and copyright owners to design web-based product to determine whether goods are counterfeit or pirated.   These toolkits provide information to customs officials to assist them in determining whether suspect shipments are counterfeit or pirated.


Other joint projects include Operation Infrastructure, the first joint IPR border enforcement operation undertaken by U.S. and EU customs authorities.   CBP states that the operation fulfilled a key deliverable of the U.S.-EU IPR Action Strategy.   Targeting semiconductors and network hardware, the operation ran from November 26, 2007 through December 14, 2007, and resulted in the seizures of more than 360,000 counterfeit integrated circuits and computer network components bearing more than 40 different companies&rsquo; trademarks.   Officials are continuing discussions on future joint operations.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Guidance on Lacey Act Declaration</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Lacey Act</category><dc:date>2009-10-16T12:30:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/91c65241f8f145e7e61799fcc1525f58-292.php#unique-entry-id-292</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/91c65241f8f145e7e61799fcc1525f58-292.php#unique-entry-id-292</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq., the Act, as amended) makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited exceptions, taken or traded in violation of the laws of the United States, a U.S. 

...Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a revised enforcement phase in plan for the Act&rsquo;s requirement for a plant product import declaration (see 74 Fed. ...  The revised plan identifies a list of products and the associated Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Chapter or Heading as to which the requirement for a Plant Product Declaration Form (PPQ 505) is anticipated to be enforced.


...Additional information on how to electronically file the PPQ 505 data can be found in the Participating Government Agencies chapter in the Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) page. ...  (Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form) If a paper form of the PPQ 505 is used, the importer must mail the form to USDA at the address on the form.


...If an entry package is presented to CBP to obtain release, the CBP 3461 form will be annotated in Box 29 to indicate &ldquo;PPQ 505-Paper&rdquo; if the declaration is presented in paper or &ldquo;PPQ 505-ABI&rdquo; if the declaration information was submitted electronically.   If a paper form is submitted to CBP as part of the entry package, the paper form will be returned to the importer (or importer&rsquo;s representative) for mailing to USDA. ...  As a reminder, providing false or misleading information to the U.S. government can result in civil or criminal actions against any involved party and may result in the seizure and forfeiture of the merchandise.


APHIS has been designated the lead regulatory agency for these new requirements and CBP is assisting APHIS with the electronic collection of data to fulfill the import declaration requirement.   CBP will continue to work as part of the interagency working group, consulting with trading partners, importers, exporters, and other interested groups as the provisions of the Act are fully implemented. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Issues Quarterly Report of TSRA Licensing Activities</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>TSRA</category><category>Licensing</category><dc:date>2009-10-15T12:14:33-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8555f82b8a267be0eb0c86cb88a22a9f-291.php#unique-entry-id-291</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8555f82b8a267be0eb0c86cb88a22a9f-291.php#unique-entry-id-291</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 15, 2009, the U.S.   Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued its quarterly report of licensing activities pursuant to Section 906(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) covering licensing activities undertaken by OFAC from April to June 2009. 


The report sets forth the number of license applications, licenses issued, license amendments issues, and applications denied by agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices categories, as well as by country (i.e., Iran or Sudan).   The average processing time was as follows:


	&bull;	Denial Letters - 116 days


	&bull;	Licenses - 60 days


	&bull;	Return Without Action (RWA) Letters - 16 days


	&bull;	Overall - 49 days
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Proposes Regulation Changes re: the Use of Statistical Sampling in Audits and Prior Dislcosures and Offsetting Overpayments and Over-Declarations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2009-10-22T09:46:30-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40ff13ebe61c5eedb802f135112ea6e0-290.php#unique-entry-id-290</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/40ff13ebe61c5eedb802f135112ea6e0-290.php#unique-entry-id-290</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 21, 2009, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it had published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to the Customs regulations on the use of statistical sampling in CBP audits and prior disclosure cases and the use of offsetting overpayments and over-declarations in audits. 

...The proposed amendments to the regulations provide further guidance with regard to the use of statistical sampling in audits conducted by CBP under section 1509 of the Regulations and in independent reviews and lost revenue calculations for private parties for purposes of prior disclosure.   Specifically, the amended regulations provide that: (1) CBP has the sole discretion concerning whether to employ statistical sampling in any given case, authorize a person being audited to perform self-testing and use statistical sampling, or accept the statistical sampling used by a private party conducting an independent review and calculation of lost revenue in a prior disclosure case.   Once CBP approves the specfics of a statistical sampling plan, and the person being audited or submitting the prior disclosure agrees to waive its ability to challenge the validty of the sampling plan at a later date (any future challenges will be limited to computation and clerical errors), the audit (or self-testing) may proceed in accordance with the sampling plan. 

...Furthermore, the amendments provide that CBP auditors and private parties seeking to use statistical sampling with regard to a prior disclosure case may do so only when: (1) review of 100 percent of the transactions is impossible or impractical; (2) the sampling plan is prepared in accordance with generally recognized sampling procedures; and (3) the sampling procedure is executed in accordance with that plan. 

...With regard to offsetting overpayments and over-declarations, CBP is proposing updating the regulations to reflect an amendment to section 1509(b) made by Section 382 of the Trade Act of 2002.   Prior to the Act, once liquidation had become final with respect to an entry that was overpaid, CBP was bound by the liquidation and could not offset an overpayment against the underpayments that formed the basis of a penalty action.   CBP is now authorized under the statute to account for overpayments of duties and fees and over-declarations of quantities or values when calculating loss of duties, taxes, or fees and monetary penalties levied under section 1592, if:


(1) The overpayments or over-declarations are identified by CBP during an audit (review or examination) conducted by CBP under section 1509(b); 


...(5) The overpayments or over-declarations are determined by CBP not to have been made for the purpose of violating any provision of law, including the customs laws and laws enforced by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>TSA Rule Requires 100&#x25; Screening of All Cargo on Passenger Aircraft by August 2010 </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>TSA</category><dc:date>2009-09-16T21:41:40-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec99907efbe173c9064d6517ce30ef3d-289.php#unique-entry-id-289</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ec99907efbe173c9064d6517ce30ef3d-289.php#unique-entry-id-289</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 16, 2009, the Transportation Security Commission (TSA) issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register codifying a statutory requirement of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act to establish a system to screen 100% of cargo transported on passenger aircraft by August 3, 2010. 

The rule applies to U.S. aircraft operators with full programs as defined under 49 C.F.R.   &sect;1544.101(a) and foreign air carriers with security programs defined under 49 C.F.R. ...  The same standards are applied to U.S. and foreign aircraft operators however, only cargo loaded in the U.S. is affected.   This rule does not apply to U.S. or foreign all-cargo operators or to general aviation operations. 

TSA concluded that aircraft operators do not have the capacity to screen all of air cargo which amounts to approximately 12 million pounds of cargo daily.   Accordingly, TSA will establish the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) to allow entities other that aircraft operators to conduct the screenings off-site.   Under the CCSP, shippers, manufacturers, warehousing entities, distributors, third party logistics companies, and Indirect Air Carriers (IACs) that are located in the U.S. may apply to become certified cargo screening facilities (CCSFs). 

...The facilities will be required to use TSA-approved methods and to implement a chain of custody for the off-site cargo, including the use of tamper evident technology. 

...Comments on this rule must be submitted to TSA by the end of November 15, 2009.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Enforcement of Lacey Act Declaration Postponed for Certain Products </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Lacey Act</category><dc:date>2009-09-02T21:22:17-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/383ee3a3aa0c090c9aaf7e12b046a9a2-287.php#unique-entry-id-287</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/383ee3a3aa0c090c9aaf7e12b046a9a2-287.php#unique-entry-id-287</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 2, 2009, the Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) issued a notice in the Federal Register that modifies the schedule of enforcement of the declaration requirement for goods of, or containing, plants or plant products.   The notice affects the enforcement schedule from December 15, 2008 to August 31, 2010. 

Phase III of the enforcement, scheduled to begin on October 1, 2009, was modified by removing certain items from this phase.   Thus, beginning October 1, 2009, the declaration requirement will be enforced only for the items in the following HTS Chapter 44 headings: 

...Phase IV of the enforcement, scheduled to begin April 1, 2009, has been substantially revised.   There will be no further additions to phases III or IV. 

USDA is seeking comments on the revised enforcement schedule as well as HTS chapters/subchapters currently under consideration to be enforced beginning September 1, 2010.   Specifically, USDA seeks comments on the products in the following HTS chapters: 44, 47, 48, 66, 82, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96.   More detailed explanation of the enforcement schedule and included products can be found in the notice. 

USDA noted that, while enforcement of the import declaration requirement is being phased in, some of the Lacey Amendments are already effective, and actions to enforce provisions of the Act other than the declaration requirement may be taken at any time. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Publishes Web Updates</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2009-09-30T17:54:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/81ff3f6efd660a5e07dedb8842cd9e6d-286.php#unique-entry-id-286</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/81ff3f6efd660a5e07dedb8842cd9e6d-286.php#unique-entry-id-286</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published several updates to its website in September:


	&bull;	Updated Guidance for Licensing of Foreign Persons Employed by a U.S.   Person (9.30.09)


	&bull;	DDTC announcement that it will no longer process DSP Amendments for Value or Quantity Changes (9.30.09)


	&bull;	Announcement of a New Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) Form, DS-4076, is available for use, which will be processed as a paper document, but in the future, will be required to be submitted electronically (9.30.09)


	&bull;	DSP119 forms may now only be used to amend DSP85 licenses.   To amend a DSP-5, DSP-61 or DSP-73 license, the applicant must submit the companion amendment form via DTRADE-2 (9.25.09)


	&bull;	DSP-83 Requirements for Licensing of Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) Paint - Category XIV(f)(5) (9.14.09)


	&bull;	The List of Statutorily Debarred Parties has been updated (9.14.09) 


	&bull;	Use of USML Category XXI now requires a copy of a DDTC Commodity Jurisdiction identifying USML Cat XXI or an official letter from the Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy granting permission to use Cat XXI (9.08.09) 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Amends Regulations to Ease Restrictions on Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations to Cuba </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-09-03T17:40:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9c15bd7895e24f83c25510f205057ef7-285.php#unique-entry-id-285</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9c15bd7895e24f83c25510f205057ef7-285.php#unique-entry-id-285</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced amendments to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) making it easier for Americans to visit and send gifts to their family members in Cuba. ...  &sect;740.12, which authorizes, among other things, certain exports of gift parcels to Cuba pursuant to a License Exception GFT (Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations). 

...Instead, an individual in the U.S. may now send a gift parcel to an individual or an independent religious, educational, or charitable organization in Cuba.   The same donor can send only one gift parcel to the same donee in any calendar month; however, there is no frequency limit on gift parcels of food to Cuba. ...  With some exceptions, any items normally exchanged between individuals as gifts may be included in such gift parcels, with the combined total domestic retail value not exceeding $800 (this limit does not apply to food items). 

In circumstances outside the scope of the license exception, such as when parties seek to ship gift parcels to Cuba more frequently, or want to consolidate several parcels into one shipment, individuals should file for a license application with BIS. 

In addition to the GFT Exception, the licensing policy was also revised to facilitate exports needed to establish telecommunications links between the U.S. and Cuba, including relations established through third countries and provision of satellite radio and television services to Cuba.   A new License Exception CCD (Consumer Communications Devices) found in &sect;740.19 of the EAR authorizes exports and re-exports to Cuba of donated personal communication devices such as mobile phones, computers and software, satellite receivers and digital cameras. 

With respect to the License Exception BAG (Baggage) found in &sect;740.14, the EAR was amended to remove the 44-pound limit that used to apply to personal baggage of travelers to Cuba. 


...The AES filers who report &ldquo;C58&rdquo; are required to report CCD, regardless of value, in the license number field and the Export Control Classification Numbers 4A994, 4D994, 5A991, 5D991, 5A992, 5D992, or EAR99 corresponding to the License Exception. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Obama Increases Duties on Tires Imported from China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-09-11T17:27:35-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7752a0259f551756890f94f9003ff4d9-284.php#unique-entry-id-284</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7752a0259f551756890f94f9003ff4d9-284.php#unique-entry-id-284</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 11, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States will impose a 35 percent tariff on passenger vehicle and light truck tires imported from China for a period of three years in order to remedy a market disruption caused by a surge in time imports.   The White House stated that:


As part of its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), China agreed to a special safeguard mechanism that would allow its trading partners to implement remedies in response to import surges and under other circumstances.    The President decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case.   The additional duty to passenger vehicle and light truck tires &ndash; complementing the existing 4 percent duty&ndash; will be set at 35 percent ad valorem for the first year, 30 percent ad valorem the second year, and 25 percent ad valorem the third year. 	


The New York Times reported that the decision is the first time the United States has invoked the special safeguard provision of China's WTO entry and is a break from the previous administration's practices.   Under the safeguard provision, American companies or workers harmed by imports from China can ask the International Trade Commission (ITC) for protection by demonstrating that American producers have suffered a "market disruption" or a "surge" in imports from China.   Unlike traditional antidumping cases, the ITC does not have to determine that the country is selling its products at less than fair market value or that the country is competing unfairly.


The ITC determined that Chinese tire imports were disrupting the $1.7 billion market and recommended that the President impose the new tariffs on June 29, 2009.   President Obama had until September 17, 2009 to make his decision.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Customs Classification Ruling Featured in New York Times Article</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-09-30T17:01:26-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a9729adf941b01e22a08ab4906fe656-283.php#unique-entry-id-283</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a9729adf941b01e22a08ab4906fe656-283.php#unique-entry-id-283</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 30, 2009, the New York Times published an article highlighting the importance of a tariff classification ruling issued by Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Regulations and Rulings, National Commodity Specialist Division in New York, concerning the tariff classification of a solar module consisting of 72 interconnected monocrystalline silcon cells.   In the ruling, issued on January 9, 2009, CBP held that the solar module was dutiable at 2.5% ad valorem, and not duty-free as argued. 


The New York Times article states that although the ruling is legally binding on most solar panels imported into the United States, the ruling only came to the attention of the solar energy industry in recent weeks. 

...The United States exported almost as much solar panel equipment as it imported in the first seven months of this year &mdash; $605 million in imports and $555 million in exports, according to Commerce Department data.   The Solar Energy Industries Association, a coalition of domestic and foreign companies, argues that American tariffs on solar panels could lead other countries to impose tariffs on American exports. ...  Some Chinese solar panel manufacturers are already planning to move final assembly of solar modules to plants in the United States, a step that could allow them to avoid the duty someday, said Rhone Resch, the chief executive and president of the industry association.


...In the ruling, CBP stated that although the importer argued that the solar module was classifiable under subheading 541.40.6020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for "Diodes, transistors and similar semiconductor devices; photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells whether or not assembled in modules&hellip;: Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells whether or not assembled in modules or made up into panels&hellip;: Other diodes: Other: Solar cells: Assembled into modules or made up into panels," the Explanatory Note (EN) 85.41(B)(i) persuaded CBP that classification under that subheading was inapplicable.


CBP stated that, "EN 85.41(B)(i) states that heading 8541 does not cover panels or modules equipped with elements, however simple, i.e. diodes to control the direction of the current."   Because the solar module at issue does contain diodes, CBP stated that the applicable subheading for the product will be HTSUS subheading 8501.31.8000, which provides for "Electric motors and generators: Other DC motors; DC generators: Of an output not exceeding 750 W: Generators," dutiable at 2.5% ad valorem.


Rhone Resch, the chief executive and president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (a coalition of domestic and foreign companies) estimates that the duty would cost the industry $70 million this year, assuming importers will be found negilgent for not properly classifying and paying the duties since January when the ruling was issued and will be assessed the penalty of doubled duties. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Free Downloads of Mass Market Software by Anonymous Persons Do Not Violate EAR</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2009-09-12T16:12:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/347fdef0725e16f790bb4af45b26d717-282.php#unique-entry-id-282</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/347fdef0725e16f790bb4af45b26d717-282.php#unique-entry-id-282</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released an advisory opinion, dated September 11, 2009, on whether a company would be in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) if it allowed encrypted software, classified by BIS as &ldquo;mass market,&rdquo; to be downloaded free of charge from the company&rsquo;s website without restriction. 


In the advisory opinion, BIS stated:

Publishing &ldquo;mass market&rdquo; encryption software to the Internet where it may be downloaded by anyone neither establishes &ldquo;knowledge&rdquo; of a prohibited export or reexport nor triggers any &ldquo;red flags&rdquo; necessitating the affirmative duty to inquire under the &ldquo;Know Your Customer&rdquo; guidance provided in the EAR.   Therefore a person or company would not be in violation of the EAR if it posts &ldquo;mass market&rdquo; encryption software on the Internet for free and anonymous download and then at a later time the software is downloaded by an anonymous person in Iran, Cuba, Syria, Sudan or North Korea.

On the issue of whether the same would apply if the user was required by the company to provide a name and email address before download occurs, BIS stated that in such a case the download of the software would not be considered anonymous; thus, allowing the download by a person in a country embargoed under the EAR (15 C.F.R.   Part 746) without the necessary licenses would constitute a violation of the EAR. 

However, in circumstances where the IP address of the user downloading the software is collected by the software provider at the time of the download and is stored as a &ldquo;footprint&rdquo; in the machine code of the software provider&rsquo;s data base but is not tracked or used for any purpose by the software provider, then a violation would not occur. 

The advisory opinion was limited to the interpretation of the EAR; the sanctions regulations implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S.   Department of Treasury (OFAC) were not addressed. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporters Settle Allegations of Unlawful Exports </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-09-15T16:09:36-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f70407794c06234d0f80d6b83e92f67b-281.php#unique-entry-id-281</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f70407794c06234d0f80d6b83e92f67b-281.php#unique-entry-id-281</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 15, 2009, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued press releases announcing companies settling allegations of unlawful exports:

&bull;	Five foreign subsidiaries of Thermon Manufacturing Company (Thermon US), a Texas-based firm, have agreed to pay a $176,000 in combined civil penalties to settle allegations that they exported and reexported EAR99 heat tracing equipment to Iran, Syrian, Libya, and listed entities in India without the required BIS or the Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) licenses.   The foreign subsidiaries were told by the parent company that products manufactured by Thermon US may not be sold to countries on the U.S. trade sanctions list; however, the subsidiaries exported the equipment to prohibited end users without informing the parent company of the ultimate destination for the items.   Thermon US voluntarily disclosed the violations to BIS. 

...(FITI) of Taiwan has agreed to pay $250,000 to settle allegations that between August 2005 and May 2006, the company made unlicensed exports of pressure transducers to China, in violation of the EAR.   The transducers are used as spare components of manufacturing systems controlled for nuclear non-proliferation reasons.   BIS alleged that FITI knew that licenses were required for the parts but made no attempt to apply for the shipment authorization.   FITI was also alleged to have made false statements on export documentation stating that no license was required for the exports.   In addition to FITI, FITI&rsquo;s wholly-owned affiliate, Foxsemicon LLC of San Jose, CA, settled allegations that it aided and abetted FITI&rsquo;s violations.   Foxsemicon&rsquo;s $160,000 civil penalty was suspended provided no additional violations occur in the next year. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>In-Country Transfers of Items Subject to EAR Require Licenses </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-09-08T16:00:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/657292fc6dba0bbaef5f40906a944440-280.php#unique-entry-id-280</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/657292fc6dba0bbaef5f40906a944440-280.php#unique-entry-id-280</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register amending three sections of 15 C.F.R.   Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) used by the U.S.   Government as the regulatory basis for placing persons on the Entity List. 

Effective immediately, the new rule specifies that licenses are required for in-country transfers of any items subject to the EAR as they pertain to Certain Entities in Russia (&sect;744.10), Entities Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy Interests of the U.S.   (&sect;744.11), and Certain Sanctioned Entities (&sect;744.20). 

Prior to this amendment, the three sections specified that licenses are required for exports and re-exports to persons listed on the Entity List however, they were silent regarding licenses pertaining to in-country transfers of items subject to the EAR. 

As a result of this amendment, all end-use and end-user controls that are used as a regulatory basis for placing persons on the Entity List (15 C.F.R.   &sect;&sect; 744.2-744.4, 744.10-744.11, and 744.20) now include in-country transfers in addition to exports and re-exports.  ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>China Won&#x2019;t Require Green Dam Censorship Software on Home and Business Computers</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>China</category><dc:date>2009-08-14T20:52:28-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4fc0552d13253263339d4115a22dacf0-279.php#unique-entry-id-279</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4fc0552d13253263339d4115a22dacf0-279.php#unique-entry-id-279</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 13, 2009, the Minister of the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), Li Yizhong, announced at a press conference that the government's Green Dam computer software mandate was "not thoughtful enough" and that the use of the software developed to filter out online pornography would "depend on consumers." 

The minister admitted that "[t]he choice of words in the directive was not clear enough, which led to people's misunderstanding of why the Green Dam software was ordered to be available on all computers" and that the government&rsquo;s intent had always been for the software to be &ldquo;included&rdquo; with PCs sold in China and not &ldquo;pre-installed&rdquo; into the computers.    However, the minister added that the software will be installed on computers in schools, Internet cafes and in other public places. 


The China Daily reported that the China &ldquo;softens its stance&rdquo; on Green Dam Filter due to consumer voices and that there were protests from foreign computer manufacturers, twenty-two international chambers of commerce and the US government over the mandate before Green Dam was postponed.     Previous information on the Green Dam censoring software in China including U.S. government&rsquo;s reaction can be accessed here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Physicist Sentenced to 28 Months Imprisonment for ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-08-12T20:45:10-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3c05b6fb7bec17764f923a1552407874-278.php#unique-entry-id-278</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3c05b6fb7bec17764f923a1552407874-278.php#unique-entry-id-278</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 11, 2009, Knoxnews.com reported that Daniel Max Sherman, a 38-year old physicist, was sentenced to 28 months in federal prison for his involvement with a Knoxville company and former University of Tennessee professor, John Reece Roth, who violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) by allowing foreign nationals to have access to military-related technical information.  


Sherman faced a potential sentence of five years in prison and $250,000 fine, but received a lesser sentence because of his cooperation in the federal investigation.   He already served fourteen months of his sentence.   Roth, 73-year old former professor, was sentenced to four years in prison.


Roth, an expert in plasma research, was a subcontractor on a U.S.   Air Force project awarded to Atmospheric Glow Technologies Inc.   (AGT), a plasma technology company based in Knoxville and Sherman's employer.   The project developed advanced plasma actuators for Air Force drones, which are covered by U.S. governing munitions.   Both Roth and Sherman were involved in the project for which they allowed foreign and Chinese graduate students to work.    Additionally, Roth was convicted of taking protected information with him on a lecture trip to China, a felony regardless of the intent.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Settles Allegations of EAR Violations &#x26; Agrees to &#x24;190&#x2c;000 Penalty</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-08-15T20:40:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dc3d6c178f0687068d001a0d811de938-277.php#unique-entry-id-277</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/dc3d6c178f0687068d001a0d811de938-277.php#unique-entry-id-277</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 14, 2009, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that RF Micro Devices, Inc.   (RFMD) of Greensboro, N.C. has agreed to pay a $190,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that it exported spread-spectrum modems in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to China.    In addition, Carol Wilkins, RFMD manager whose responsibilities, at the time of the violations, included export control compliance, has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000 for making false and misleading statements to BIS Special Agents during the investigation.

The allegations involved fourteen unlicensed exports of spread-spectrum modems, classified under Export Control Classification Number 5A001 and controlled for national security reasons, to China with knowledge that a violation of the Regulations was occurring, was about to occur or was intended to occur in connection with the spread-spectrum modems.    Additionally, BIS alleged that on thirteen occasions RFMD made false or misleading statements about the submission of Shipper&rsquo;s Export Declarations (SEDs).  

RFMD voluntarily disclosed the violations that occurred in 2002 and 2003. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Foreign Trade Regulations Eliminate Social Security Number as ID Number in AES</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>AES</category><category>Census</category><dc:date>2009-08-06T20:36:42-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e71cf55ea8ac169b7856343f25d0663a-276.php#unique-entry-id-276</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e71cf55ea8ac169b7856343f25d0663a-276.php#unique-entry-id-276</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 5, 2009, the United States Census Bureau issued an interim final rule with request for comment in the Federal Register amending the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) to eliminate the requirement to report a Social Security Number (SSN) as an identification number when registering to file and filing electronic export information in the Automated Export System (AES) or AES Direct.    This new rule will ensure that a USPPI&rsquo;s or U.S. authorized agent&rsquo;s SSN is protected in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a. 

...Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) or U.S. authorized agent residing or having an office located in the United States is required to enter (1) SSN, (2) Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS) or (3) an Employer Identification Number (EIN), when reporting export transactions in the AES or AESDirect.  

  (1) An SSN is used as an identification number principally by individual filers 

  (2) DUNS are available only to business entities, and 

...Under the Interim Final Rule, if the USPPI or the U.S. authorized agent who resides or has an office located in the United States does not have an EIN, that USPPI, or U.S. authorized agent must obtain an EIN through the Internal Revenue Service&rsquo;s website, or by calling (800) 829-4933.   Former SSN filers who are business entities and want to use a DUNS rather than an EIN for identification purposes, must first obtain an EIN from the IRS and apply to Dun & Bradstreet for a DUNS. 

The new rule is effective on September 4, 2009 and the Census Bureau will implement its provisions on December 3, 2009.    Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 5, 2009 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

...Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6K032, Washington, DC 20233&ndash;6700; by telephone at (301) 763&ndash;2255; by fax at (301) 763&ndash;6638; or by e-mail: william.g.bostic.jr@census.gov.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>SEC Imposes Control Person Liability on Corporate Officers of Public Companies for Foreign Corrupt Practices </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Customs</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-08-01T20:31:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8d1bd6a876b8661cc06ee0865ec3a812-275.php#unique-entry-id-275</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8d1bd6a876b8661cc06ee0865ec3a812-275.php#unique-entry-id-275</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On Jul 31, 2009 the U.S.   Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a settled enforcement of $600,000 against Nature's Sunshine Products Inc.   (NSP) and $25,000 against NSP Chief Executive Officer Douglas Faggioli and former Chief Financial Officer Craig D.   Huff.    NSP&rsquo;s Brazilian subsidiary allegedly paid the Brazilian custom officials to import unregistered products into Brazil and subsequently falsified its books and records to conceal the payments.  

The SEC based its charge on NSP&rsquo;s violations of the anti-bribery provision of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).    But, according to Philip Urofsky, a former federal prosecutor of FCPA claims, the SEC also invoked, for the first time, Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to hold NSP&rsquo;s officers liable.  

In an interview with the National Law Journal on Control Person Liability theory, Mr.   Urofsky, who now is a partner in the Washington office of New York's Shearman & Sterling, described this theory as an easy way to hold corporate individuals:  the executives, directors, and accountants liable for the corporation&rsquo;s books, records and internal controls violations &ldquo;without pleading any knowledge or culpable involvement in the underlying bribes or accounting issues.&rdquo; ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Implements Changes to 10+2 Processing Effective August 15&#x2c; 2009 </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2009-08-13T08:29:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a47b95cac512295c2c52de69c5bb2c5-274.php#unique-entry-id-274</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a47b95cac512295c2c52de69c5bb2c5-274.php#unique-entry-id-274</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a number of changes to the processing of the Importer Security Filing (ISF), also known as 10+2.    Accordingly, the transaction sets on the Security Filing page were updated to reflect these changes. 

CBP issued a reminder that beginning August 15, 2009, the following data edits in ISF were switched from &ldquo;ISF ACCEPTED WITH WARNINGS&rdquo; to &ldquo;ISF REJECTED:&rdquo; 

...CATAIR / CAMIR - Error Code 302, Error Message 'Importer Required&rdquo;

...X.12 &ndash; Error Message &ldquo;485 NM1 Missing Importer&rdquo;

...CATAIR / CAMIR &ndash; Error Code 132, Error Message &ldquo;Invalid Action Reason Code&rdquo;

...X.12 &ndash; Error Message &ldquo;470 M1016 Invalid Value&rdquo;

On August 12, 2009 CBP added an additional data element to the list of fatal errors.   Effective August 15, 2009, reporting a party using an identification number (IRS number or Social Security Number) that is not currently on file with CBP will be rejected. 

Questions should be directed to your assigned Client Representative or by calling (703) 650-3500. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Court Rules CBP Must Follow Regulations in Determining Broker&#x27;s Exercise of Supervision</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Litigation</category><dc:date>2009-08-12T08:29:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad74a741ebf0064efd5fc371ecb0e79d-273.php#unique-entry-id-273</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ad74a741ebf0064efd5fc371ecb0e79d-273.php#unique-entry-id-273</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The case involved the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection&rsquo;s (Customs) action against UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc. 

...In 2000, Customs initiated eight penalty actions against UPS for misclassifying the goods on customs entry documents on behalf of its clients.   The pre-penalty notices in all eight cases alleged that UPS failed to exercise responsible supervision and control required by 19 USC &sect;1641 by repeatedly misclassifying parts under subheading HTSUS 8473.30.9000. 


In 2004, Customs brought suit against UPS in the CIT seeking the unpaid portion of the penalties totaling $75,000. 

...On appeal, CAFC affirmed CIT&rsquo;s holding that UPS misclassified certain parts under subheading HTSUS 8473.30.9000. 


On the issue of whether the broker exercised responsible supervision and control under 19 CFR &sect;111.1, CAFC agreed with Customs that an agency has discretion in interpreting its own regulations, but pointed out that in this case, the Customs&rsquo; interpretation of 19 CFR &sect;111.1 was inconsistent with the regulation itself. 

...Customs, of course, has discretion in how it weighs each of the factors listed in &sect;111.1.   Additionally, the regulation makes clear that Customs is free to consider other factors in addition to those listed.   However, this discretion does not absolve Customs of its obligation under the regulation to consider at the least the ten listed factors.

...As a result of Customs&rsquo; failure to consider all ten factors listed in 19 CFR &sect;111.1 in evaluating the exercise of reasonable supervision and control, the Court vacated that portion of the CIT&rsquo;s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Australian Bank Pays &#x24;5.75M to Settle OFAC Alleged Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Penalties</category><dc:date>2009-08-25T08:23:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ace9f11a5255f177f39a652d8d9210fb-272.php#unique-entry-id-272</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ace9f11a5255f177f39a652d8d9210fb-272.php#unique-entry-id-272</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 24, 2009, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S.   Department of the Treasury (OFAC) announced that Australia and New Zealand Bank Group, Ltd., of Melbourne, Australia (ANZ), remitted $5.75 million to settle allegations of violating both Sudanese Sanctions Regulations and Cuban Assets Control Regulations.  


OFAC alleged that from 2004 to 2006, ANZ processed international trade financing and foreign currency exchange transactions through U.S. correspondent accounts.   In the process, ANZ concealed the identities of persons targeted by the U.S. sanctions by removing their
