<?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>2010-06-15T22:45:25-07:00</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>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:46:40 -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>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 names as well as references to Sudan, thus impeding the U.S. banks&rsquo; ability to detect these violations. 


The settlement agreement covers 16 transactions totaling $28 million that allegedly violated the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, and 15 sanctions totaling $78 million that allegedly violated the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. 


ANZ voluntarily disclosed violating the Cuban Assets Control Regulations but not the apparent Sudanese Sanctions Regulations violations.   However, while conducting a review of the transactions, the company discovered additional violations of the Sudanese Sanctions of which OFAC was not aware. 


OFAC stated that ANZ&rsquo;s prompt and substantial cooperation involving extensive review of transactions, as well as the fact the company had not been subject to an OFAC enforcement action in the five years preceding the transactions served as mitigating factors in determining the penalty amount.   As part of the settlement agreement, ANZ also agreed to re-design its current operations and policies to implement procedures that establish more effective controls on potential OFAC violations. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Previous Versions of CBP Form 7501 to be Discontinued After November  3&#x2c; 2009</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-08-15T08:15:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5b41d610c77f282c9d44ddcf22a31159-271.php#unique-entry-id-271</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5b41d610c77f282c9d44ddcf22a31159-271.php#unique-entry-id-271</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Beginning November 3, 2009, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will no longer accept versions of CBP Form 7501 dated before June 2009.   While the June 2009 CBP Form 7501 does not contain any substantial changes from the previous versions, CBP seeks to ensure in particular that forms dated before April 2005 are no longer used. 

CBP forms and their instructions can be accessed here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Agrees to &#x24;610&#x2c;000 Penalty for EAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>EAR</category><category>Export</category><category>Penalties</category><dc:date>2009-08-13T08:12:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0899887e3c3912cd8ec37de7d95ac32-270.php#unique-entry-id-270</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d0899887e3c3912cd8ec37de7d95ac32-270.php#unique-entry-id-270</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 13, 2009, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that FMC Technologies, Inc. has agreed to pay a $610,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that between 2003 and 2007 it exported oil and gas industry service parts in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 


The allegations against the Houston, Texas provider of specialty oil and gas products and services involved 78 unlicensed exports of butterfly and check valves classified under the ECCN 2B350 and controlled for reasons of chemical and biological weapons proliferation. 


The company voluntarily disclosed the violations and cooperated with the investigation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ITAR License Exemption for Temporary Export of Body Armor for Personal Use Added</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><category> Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-08-06T08:06:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28eebe74b1f258566354a85975aef1e2-269.php#unique-entry-id-269</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/28eebe74b1f258566354a85975aef1e2-269.php#unique-entry-id-269</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 6, 2009, the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC)  issued a final rule in the Federal Register amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).   The new rule, effective immediately, adds an exemption for the temporary export of body armor covered by 22 CFR 121.1, Category X(a)(1).   The new rule exempts U.S. individuals who wear body armor for personal safety when traveling to hazardous areas from obtaining a license. 


To qualify for the exemption, the body armor must be used exclusively by the individual  and must be returned to the U.S.   The individual may not re-export the protective equipment to a foreign person or otherwise transfer the ownership.   Upon departure, such exports must be declared by filing CBP Form 4457 and require inspection by a U.S. 

...Such body armor may be exported to countries not subject to restrictions under ITAR &sect;126.1 and also specifically to Iraq and Afghanistan.   For temporary exports to Afghanistan, the rule requires that the general conditions of the rule be met.   For temporary exports to Iraq, the U.S. person utilizing the license exemption must either be affiliated with the U.S. ...  Government but traveling to Iraq under direct authorization by the Government of Iraq and engaging in humanitarian activities on behalf of Government of Iraq. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Announce a Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL &#xd;BIS and OFAC Annouce Multi-Million Dollar Settlement with DHL</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-08-10T15:04:03-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e4b1b3007a48a3ced8f771c11e778e72-268.php#unique-entry-id-268</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e4b1b3007a48a3ced8f771c11e778e72-268.php#unique-entry-id-268</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 6, 2009, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced they have jointly entered into a settlement agreement with DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. and DHL Express (USA), Inc. (collectively DHL) The settlement agreement has been reached following allegations that DHL unlawfully aided and abetted illegal exports of goods to Syria, Iran and Sudan and failed to comply with record keeping requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and OFAC regulations. 

Specifically, BIS charged that between June 2004 and September 2004, DHL transported articles subject to the EAR from the U.S. to Syria, and failed to retain air waybills and other export control documents, as required by the EAR.   OFAC charged that between 2002 and 2006 DHL violated various OFAC regulations when it made thousands of shipments to Iran and Sudan, mainly failing to comply with applicable recordkeeping requirements. 

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, DHL must pay a civil penalty of nearly $9.5 million and conduct external audits of exports to Iran, Syria and Sudan from March 2007 to December 2009, as well as conduct annual calendar year audits in 2010 and 2011. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Court Overturns ITAR Conviction Based on the Vagueness of the Regulations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-07-01T23:00:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/20195cd95f78137a61060f052ce8a5f0-267.php#unique-entry-id-267</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/20195cd95f78137a61060f052ce8a5f0-267.php#unique-entry-id-267</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 15, 2009, the U.S.   Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued its decision in U.S. v.   Doli Syarief Pulungan, (No. 08-3000), overturning the conviction of the defendant that was found guilty of exporting rifle scopes in violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

In support of its decision, the court stated that the government failed to properly identify which specific items were subject to export control regulations, or to justify the criteria for controlling them.   According to the court, because the regulations were so vague, the defendant could not be held responsible for violating such vague regulations. 

The court stated that the State Department&rsquo;s claim of &ldquo;authority to classify any item as a &ldquo;defense article,&rdquo; without revealing the basis of the decision and without allowing any inquiry by the jury, would create serious constitutional problems.&rdquo;   The court went on to state that in regular circumstances, a regulation is published for all to see, giving people an opportunity &ldquo;to adjust their conduct to avoid liability.&rdquo;   But, &ldquo;a designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, put in a desk of a drawer, and taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian regimes.&rdquo;   &ldquo;Government must operate through public laws and regulations&rdquo; and not through &ldquo;secret laws,&rdquo; the court declared. 

Some commentators suggest this ruling could have a great effect on the export controls, as it discusses the ambiguity of the ITAR, which provide the State Department with great latitude in determining what articles are covered under the ITAR. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Permits Selected U.S. Applicants to Submit Agreements Via DTrade2</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-07-07T22:55:27-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1234b3c8d51d1603370245c6fb7389ea-266.php#unique-entry-id-266</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1234b3c8d51d1603370245c6fb7389ea-266.php#unique-entry-id-266</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Beginning July 6, 2009, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has allowed selected U.S. applicants to submit agreements and their amendments electronically via the D-Trade2 system.   (See the press release here.)   This system uses the D-Trade2 Production application to submit, review, and approve agreement proposals, and incorporates the DSP-5 as the primary tool for transitioning agreements and their amendments from one phase of the adjudication process to the next.   Due to this process, DDTC will no longer have to issue a separate authorization letter upon approval of a case. 

DDTC will follow the success of these pilot electronic agreement submissions, and expects to make this application available to all U.S. applicants on October 1, 2009.   Electronic submission of the agreements will become mandatory in Spring 2010.   During the initial phase of electronic submission, DDTC will continue to accept paper submissions until further notice. 

In addition to the new DTrade2 component that supports the electronic submission function, DDTC has compiled a list of issues that users encounter with DTrade2 system, and published it with solutions and workarounds.   Technical support for DTrade2 can be reached at (202) 663-2838, or via dtradehelpdesk@state.gov. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Liquidated Damages Guidelines for Failure to Comply with Importer Security Filing Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2009-07-18T22:47:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4040b71fb35d5a4f114c0dafec0c0c0-265.php#unique-entry-id-265</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4040b71fb35d5a4f114c0dafec0c0c0-265.php#unique-entry-id-265</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published its Guidelines for the Assessment and Cancellation of Claims for Liquidated Damages for Failure to Comply with Importer Security Filing Requirements. 

...In addition to liquidated damages, a carrier or ISF Importer may be issued a do not load (DNL) hold, the delay or denial of a vessel carrier&rsquo;s preliminary entry- permit/special license to unlade and/or the assessment of any applicable statutory penalty.    CBP may also withhold the release or transfer of the cargo until CBP receives the required information and has had the opportunity to review the documentation. 

...Late Filing &ndash; If an ISF Importer submits a late ISF, CBP may assess a claim for liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 per late ISF.


...Updates &ndash; CBP may assess a claim for liquidated damages against the importer for the first inaccurate ISF update in the amount of $5000.


Withdrawals &ndash; CBP may assess a claim for liquidated damages in the amount of $5000 if an ISF importer fails to withdraw an ISF.


...In the case of a first time violation, the liquidated damages claim may be cancelled upon payment of an amount between $1000 and $2000 depending on the presence of mitigating and aggravating factors.   Subsequent violations may be cancelled upon payment of an amount not less than $2,500 if CBP determines that law enforcement goals were not compromised.   


Mitigating factors include evidence of progress in the implementation of the ISF requirement during the flexible enforcement period (January 26, 2009 to January 26, 2010); small number of violations compared to the number of shipments for which ISFs were required; an ISF Importer which is a certified Tier 2 or Tier 3 C-TPAT member; demonstrated remedial action; ISF information was filed late because of vessel diversion due to factors outside of the ISF Importer&rsquo;s control;  the presenting party acquired the information from another party in accordance with ordinary commercial practices and can demonstrate that it reasonably believed the information to be true and it was not reasonably able to verify the information.


Aggravating factors include lack of cooperation with CBP; evidence of smuggling or attempt to introduce merchandise contrary to law; multiple errors on the ISF; and rising error rate which is indicative of deteriorating performance in the transmission of ISF information.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Correcting Amendments to 10+2 Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2009-07-15T22:41:36-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4f2a5d2505c8f4ecce8547bf3b7b181-264.php#unique-entry-id-264</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4f2a5d2505c8f4ecce8547bf3b7b181-264.php#unique-entry-id-264</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 14, 2009, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued correcting amendments to the interim final rule entitled &ldquo;Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements&rdquo; originally published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2008. 

Pursuant to the interim final rule, commonly known as the 10+2 rule, an Importer Security Filing (ISF) must be filed for cargo arriving into a U.S. port generally no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. 

The new correcting amendment added a new paragraph (b)(5) to 19 C.F.R.   &sect;149.2 to clarify that ISFs for shipments intended to be transported in-bond as immediate exportations (I&Es) or transportation and exportations (T&Es) must be transmitted no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard a vessel that is destined to the U.S.  

With respect to the obligation to amend the ISF, CBP specified that the ISF must be updated if there is a change to any of the ISF data elements before the goods enter the boundaries of the first port of arrival in the U.S.   Amendments to the ISF are accepted at any time after the goods arrive in a U.S. port. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Retired University Professor Sentenced to 4 Years Imprisonment for Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-07-02T22:34:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/30cbe5fb7af566229a9ca228f3d7d04e-263.php#unique-entry-id-263</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/30cbe5fb7af566229a9ca228f3d7d04e-263.php#unique-entry-id-263</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 1, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the sentencing of a retired university professor convicted of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) violations.   The AECA prohibits the exports of defense-related materials, including the technical information or data, to a foreign national or foreign nation. 


In a U.S.   District Court in Knoxville, Tennessee, Dr.   John Reece Roth, a retired University of Tennessee professor, was sentenced to four years in prison. 

In a highly publicized trial that ended in September 2008, Dr.   Roth was convicted of more than a dozen AECA violations for illegally exporting to China technical information relating to a U.S.   Air Force research and development contract.   The illegal exports of military technical information for use in an unmanned aerial vehicle involved specific information about advanced plasma technology that had been designed and was being tested for use on the wings of UAVs operating as weapons or surveillance systems. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Issues Monthly Report of Alleged OFAC Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-07-02T22:23:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/aac939532b0761b4ccc6a93c08ab9b4d-262.php#unique-entry-id-262</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/aac939532b0761b4ccc6a93c08ab9b4d-262.php#unique-entry-id-262</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 1, 2009, the Treasury Department&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets and Controls (OFAC)  issued its June 2009 report of civil penalties imposed for alleged violations of OFAC sanctioned regimes. 

...	&bull;	Oxbow Carbon and Minerals LLC of West Palm Beach, FL agreed to remit $276,250 to settle allegations that the company violated the Iranian Transactions Regulations occurring from November 2006 through October 2007.   OFAC alleged that Oxbow engaged in transactions involving services originating in Iran and facilitated trade-related transactions by non-U.S. persons which involved the use of vessels owned and/or managed by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines in Tehran, Iran, without an OFAC license.   Oxbow did not voluntarily disclose the alleged violations to OFAC, but OFAC noted that the company &ldquo;demonstrated cooperation&rdquo; during OFAC&rsquo;s review of the alleged violations and has made revisions to its compliance program as a remedial measure. 


...OFAC alleged that between March 2005 and May 2007 NMCI outsourced to an Iranian entity inspection services it was contractually bound to perform for a third-party, without an OFAC license. 

...	&bull;	Philips Electronics of North America Corporation, a New York, NY company, has remitted $128,750 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations occurring between June 2004 and March 2006.   OFAC alleged that PENAC acted without an OFAC license through an employee&rsquo;s travel to Cuba in connection with the sale of medical equipment by a foreign affiliate of PENAC. 

...	&bull;	Willbros USA, Inc. of Houston, Texas, paid $6,600 to settle an allegation of violation of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations occurring between June 18, 2003 and December 29, 2004.   OFAC alleged that Willbros willfully violated the Regulations when it entered into a contract to bid on an oil development project in Sudan, despite its knowledge that such activities violated the Regulations, by facilitating the export of goods, technology or services to Sudan and evading the prohibitions set forth in the Regulations. ...  OFAC applied its 2003 Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines to this violation because Willbros and OFAC agreed to settle the allegation of violation, and memorialized the tentative agreement, prior to the issuance of OFAC&rsquo;s Civil Penalties Interim Policy of November 27, 2007.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Testifies to Congress on CBP Efforts to Address Textile Transshipment</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>GAO</category><dc:date>2009-06-19T09:43:13-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b98628af548db0f6103c37d5d614032-261.php#unique-entry-id-261</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b98628af548db0f6103c37d5d614032-261.php#unique-entry-id-261</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 18, 2009, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report of its testimony before the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Entrepreneurship, and Trade, Committee on Small Business of the U.S.   House of Representatives entitled, &ldquo;International Trade - Observations on U.S. 

...In the report, the GAO summarized its key findings from prior reports on (1) U.S. government efforts to enforce laws related to imports of textiles and other goods, including transshipment, and (2) the revenue implications of these efforts, as well as discuss the recommendations GAO has made to improve those efforts.   In its prior reports on the matter, the GAO identified three key challenges confronting CBP relating to: (1) the timeliness of finalizing reports and follow up by CBP&rsquo;s Textile Production Verification Team; (2) improvements needed to support information from overseas Customs Attache offices and enforcement personnel; and (3) improvements needed to the in-bond program that allows importers to circumvent trade rules, including those applying to textile imports.   The GAO found that CBP responded and made improvements to the first two challenges, but:


Despite prior audit recommendations, important management weaknesses persisted in CBP's tracking of in-bond cargo, with the result that CBP still does not know whether in-bond cargo shipments of greatest security or revenue interest are in fact entered into U.S. commerce or exported as required.   In particular, CBP continued to have high numbers of open in-bond transactions with uncertain disposition.   In addition to needed improvements on specific programs, we also found that CBP had to find a way to better balance security and important trade functions such as revenue collection.   Although CBP's priority mission relates to homeland security, it collected more than $34 billion in fiscal year 2008, making it the second largest revenue generator for the federal government.   Because of the high concentration of duties collected on textiles and apparel--four percent of U.S. imports generate approximately 40 percent of U.S. duties collected--any efforts to focus on revenue functions would likely generate improved oversight of textile and apparel imports.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Issues Report Critical of U.S. Export Controls</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>GAO</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2009-06-05T21:29:23-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6836aeda1be4d1581decb04283ca251d-260.php#unique-entry-id-260</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6836aeda1be4d1581decb04283ca251d-260.php#unique-entry-id-260</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 4, 2009, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued two reports following Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. 

...In a report entitled, &ldquo;Export Controls: Fundamental Reexamination of System Is Needed to Help Protect Critical Technologies,&rdquo; Anne-Marie Lasowski, the Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management, explained the work GAO has conducted on export controls in past years and stated that over the years, the GAO has identified interagency coordination challenges, inefficiencies in the export control system, and a lack of systematic assessments conducted by State and Commerce Departments.   In conclusion, the GAO calls for the executive and legislative branches to conduct a fundamental reexamination of the current export control programs and processes.


In a report entitled, &ldquo;Military and Dual-Use Technology: Covert Testing Shows Continuing Vulnerabilities of Domestic Sales for Illegal Export,&rdquo; Gregory D.   Kutz, the GAO&rsquo;s Managing Director Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, testified regarding undercover tests conducted by the GAO to attempt to (1) purchase sensitive dual-use and military items from manufacturers and distributors in the United States and illegally export such items from the U.S.   In its covert testing, the GAO purchased items such as gyro chips, night vision monoculars, accelerometers, electrical components used in IEDs, and secure military-grade radios used by U.S. ...  The covert testing was conducted between May 2008 and June 2009 and in at least two instances, the GAO was able to illegally export two items without detection. 


...A comprehensive network of controls and enforcement is necessary to ensure sensitive technology does not make it into the hands of unauthorized individuals.   However, the lack of legal restrictions over domestic sales of these items, combined with the difficulties associated with inspecting packages and individuals leaving the United States, results in a weak control environment that does not effectively prevent terrorists and agents of foreign governments from obtaining these sensitive items.   The key to preventing the illegal export of these sensitive items used in nuclear, IED, and military applications is to stop the attempts to obtain the items at the source, because once sensitive items make it into the hands of terrorists or foreign government agents, the shipment and transport out of the United States is unlikely to be detected.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>China Indefinitely Postpones A Gov&#x27;t Mandate Requiring Content-Filtering Software for All Computers Produced and Sold in China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>China</category><dc:date>2009-06-30T21:02:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0614e0999b4522360c99e9ce0a3ef9c4-259.php#unique-entry-id-259</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0614e0999b4522360c99e9ce0a3ef9c4-259.php#unique-entry-id-259</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 30, 2009, China state media announced that it would indefinitely postpone a mandate that would require all computers produced and sold in China to come pre-installed with a specific content-filtering software known as &ldquo;Green Dam-Youth Escort.&rdquo;   The Green Dam mandate was due to take effect on July 1, 2009.


On June 24, 2009, the U.S.   Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and the U.S.   Trade Representative Ron Kirk sent a joint letter to their counterparts in China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) urging China to revoke the proposed Green Dam rule (Circular 226).


More information on this issue can be found on CNN.com here or on the New York Times&rsquo; website here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Interest Form for BIS Update 2009 Conference</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2009-06-30T15:33:26-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/147388bb1ddc79d6df0b27e56dfde9d9-258.php#unique-entry-id-258</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/147388bb1ddc79d6df0b27e56dfde9d9-258.php#unique-entry-id-258</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 29, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted details on its Update 2009 Conference to be held from September 30 - October 2, 2009 in Washington, D.C. 


Interested parties must follow a two-step process to attend this year&rsquo;s conference.   First, you must submit the online &ldquo;Interest Form&rdquo; between June 25 and July 17, 2009.   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 late 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.   More detailed program information will be posted in the coming weeks.


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. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Proposes Revocation of Tariff Classification of Photosensitive Sensors</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Tariff Classification</category><dc:date>2009-06-03T15:13:42-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/18ad9bda01c83a3445c3f6c8b5c1dbff-257.php#unique-entry-id-257</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/18ad9bda01c83a3445c3f6c8b5c1dbff-257.php#unique-entry-id-257</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 2, 2009, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed revocation of two ruling letters and treatment relating to the tariff classification of photosensitive sensors.   Comments must be received by CBP on or before July 26, 2009.


In New York Ruling Letters (&ldquo;NYRL&rdquo;) K86469 (dated June 21, 2004) and I87325 (dated October 25, 2002), CBP classified certain photosensitive sensors in heading 8541, HTSUS, specifically subheading 8541.40.80, HTSUS, as: &ldquo;[p]hotosensitive semiconductor devices: Other: Optical coupled isolators,&rdquo; duty-free.   It is now CBP&rsquo;s position that the photosensitive sensors are classified in heading 8543, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 8543.70.96, HTSUS, which provides for &lsquo;&lsquo;[e]lectrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and apparatus: Other: Other: Other. . .,&ldquo; dutiable at 2.6% ad valorem. 


Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. &sect;1625(c)(1), CBP intends to revoke NY K86469, and NY I87325, and revoke or modify any other ruling not specifically identified in order to reflect the proper classification of the merchandise pursuant to the analysis set forth in proposed Headquarters Ruling (HQ) HQ H044701.   Additionally, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. &sect;1625(c)(2), CBP intends to revoke any treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions. 


Before taking this action, CBP will give consideration to any written comments timely received. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Dates Announced for CBP Trade Symposium 2009</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2009-06-30T14:47:22-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/178ef2d31ca78b54a17d5010dd3bd5b8-256.php#unique-entry-id-256</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/178ef2d31ca78b54a17d5010dd3bd5b8-256.php#unique-entry-id-256</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 29, 2009, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the dates for the CBP Trade Symposium 2009, which will be held from December 8 - 10, 2009 at the Walter E.   Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.


CBP will provide further information regarding registration procedures and symposium details in early fall.


A block of rooms for Trade Symposium attendees at the Grand Hyatt at the price of $214 per night including internet has been reserved.   Details will be posted on CBP.gov when this room block is open for reservations.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Updates Guidance on the Lacey Act Declaration</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Lacey Act</category><dc:date>2009-05-06T14:43:47-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4a42d0f3315c214df5a0756fc2be6c0c-255.php#unique-entry-id-255</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4a42d0f3315c214df5a0756fc2be6c0c-255.php#unique-entry-id-255</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The update emphasized that enforcement of the data collection requirements under the Lacey Act began on May 1, 2009, and also included information regarding a pilot program involving entities participating in CBP&rsquo;s expedited border release programs. 


On May 1, 2009, CBP began a pilot program for entities involved in Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS) expedited border release programs whose products require a Lacey Act declaration during the current phase of enforcement.   The pilot program is intended to test the feasibility of collecting the information using periodic declarations with follow-up reconciliation reports. 


...If a participant wishes to opt out from the expedited program, their C4 code is deactivated effective June 1, 2009 and no further action is required.    If a participant opts to remain in the program, they must complete a two-step process. 


...Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) an advance PPQ 505 form, initially on a monthly basis, that includes genus, species, value, and quantity elements based on estimated imports during the next calendar month.   The initial estimate had to be submitted by May 15, 2009, covering the expedited release shipments planned for June 2009. 


During stage two of the process, the participant must file a reconciliation report with APHIS within 15 days after the month&rsquo;s end. 

...This process must be repeated each month while the pilot program is in effect. 


...When an entry package is presented to CBP to obtain release, the CBP 3461 will be annotated in Box 29 to indicate &ldquo;PPQ 505-Paper&rdquo; if the declaration is presented in paper and &ldquo;PPQ 505&ndash;ABI&rdquo; if the declaration information was submitted electronically. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Illinois Company Has Export Privileges Suspended</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2009-06-19T14:41:24-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/143db97ed80e10a30eb8e00d3c3c109a-254.php#unique-entry-id-254</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/143db97ed80e10a30eb8e00d3c3c109a-254.php#unique-entry-id-254</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 18, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a notice in Federal Register detailing the sentencing of TAK Components, Inc.   (TAK), an Illinois firm that was convicted of 16 counts of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) violations in October, 2007. 


TAK  exported from the U.S. to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates, replacement and service parts and equipment for agricultural machinery without the requisite authorization from the Department of Treasury&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 


TAK was sentenced to one year probation for each count, to run concurrently, was ordered to pay a special assessment of $6,400, and forfeited $181,000 obtained from the illegal transactions.   TAK&rsquo;s export privileges will be suspended until October 11, 2012.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Mattel Agrees to Pay &#x24;2.3M Fine for Allegedly Excessive Amounts of Lead in Toys</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>CPSC</category><dc:date>2009-06-13T14:39:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3f9c9c6f73d46cccb7b6a5ede5d7603-253.php#unique-entry-id-253</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e3f9c9c6f73d46cccb7b6a5ede5d7603-253.php#unique-entry-id-253</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 12, 2009, the U.S.   Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a notice in Federal Register announcing that Mattel, Inc.   (Mattel) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Fisher-Price, Inc.   (Fisher-Price) have agreed to settle with CPSC the alleged violations of the Commission&rsquo;s Ban of Lead-Containing Paint and Certain Consumer Products Bearing Lead Containing Paint (Lead Regulations). 


CPSC alleged that Mattel and Fisher-Price imported from China to the U.S. thousands of units of various toys between July 2006 and August 2007.   The subject toys were subject to CPSC&rsquo;s Lead Regulations, and, upon testing, were found to contain lead in excess of federal standards. 


As part of the settlement agreement, Mattel and Fisher-Price have agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposes to Amend Trade in Nuclear Material Trade Regulations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Regulations</category><dc:date>2009-06-24T14:30:06-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7deff78d68e4db67d09cd93ba6c4b4f9-252.php#unique-entry-id-252</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7deff78d68e4db67d09cd93ba6c4b4f9-252.php#unique-entry-id-252</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 23, 2009, the U.S.   Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend its regulations that govern the import and export of nuclear equipment and materials.  


Among other changes, the new rule would allow Category 1 and 2 quantities of materials listed in the Commission&rsquo;s regulations to be imported under a general license, and would also revise the definition of &ldquo;radioactive waste.&rdquo; 


The comment period for this proposed rule will close on September 8, 2009. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State of National Emergency with Respect to North Korea Continued</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>North Korea</category><dc:date>2009-06-25T14:18:17-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3437b96b717d3e58f4f17b7e73512152-251.php#unique-entry-id-251</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3437b96b717d3e58f4f17b7e73512152-251.php#unique-entry-id-251</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 24, 2009, a notice in the Federal Register announced continuation of the national emergency state with respect to North Korea. 


The President declared a national emergency by Executive Order 13466 on June 26, 2008 pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to deal with the unusual threat to the national security and foreign policy of the U.S. posed by North Korea&rsquo;s maintenance of nuclear materials usable in weapons proliferation. 


On June 24, 2009, President Obama continued the national emergency declared in Executive Order 2006 for 1 year.   The restrictions with respect to North Korea that would have been lifted pursuant to Proclamation 8271 of June 26, 2008 terminating the exercise of authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act will be maintained. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CV/AD Investigation Initiated on Chinese Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CV/AD</category><dc:date>2009-06-04T14:12:11-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9e1d62eaee6057836692f80a3b2c2375-250.php#unique-entry-id-250</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9e1d62eaee6057836692f80a3b2c2375-250.php#unique-entry-id-250</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 3, 2009, the U.S.   International Trade Commission (Commission) issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing its decision to initiate a countervailing and antidumping duty (CV/AD) investigation of prestressed concrete steel wire strand under 7312.10.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 


The investigations are in response to a petition filed by American Spring Wire Corp of Bedford Heights, OH; Insteel Wire Products Co. of Mt.   Airy, NC; and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. of Dickson, TN.   The Commission must reach its decision in this CD/AD investigation by July 13, 2009. 


Also, on June 19, 2009, the Department of Commerce (DOJ) announced a CV/AD investigation of imports of certain steel grating products from China classified under HTSUS 7308.90.7000. 


The products covered by this investigation include certain steel grading, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process.   From 2006 to 2008, imports of steel grating products from China increased by 538.44% to an estimated $90.7 million in 2008. 


In this instance, the Commission is scheduled to make its preliminary injury determination on or about July 13, 2009.   The fact sheet detailing the alleged violation can be found here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Sentenced for Export of Aircraft Parts to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-06-12T14:09:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c79b7a11027ec3fa47d25d99b57c6fc3-249.php#unique-entry-id-249</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c79b7a11027ec3fa47d25d99b57c6fc3-249.php#unique-entry-id-249</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release announcing the sentencing of Traian Bujduveanu (Bujduveanu) for his participation in conspiracy to illegally export military and dual use aircraft parts to Iran. 


...Southern District of Florida Court to 35 months imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release.   Bujduveanu plead guilty in April, 2009 to conspiracy to export and export of aircraft parts from the U.S. to Iran, in violation of the Iran Embargo, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). 


Bujduveanu, a Romanian national and a naturalized U.S. citizen, admitted that he and his Orion Aviation corporation in Plantation, FL, sold aircraft parts to Hassan Keshari and Kesh Air International, who used a freight forwarder in Dubai, UAE, to forward the parts to Iran.    Some of the parts exported were designed exclusively for fighter jets and military helicopters, and all are used in the Iranian military fleet. 


All parts exported were designated by the U.S.   Department of State as defense articles on the U.S.   Munitions List, thus requiring export authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls with the Department of State. 

...Bujduveanu received from Keshari e-mails detailing specific aircraft part orders for buyers in Iran, and would ship the parts to a company in Dubai using false shipping documents.   The parts would then be forwarded to the purchasers in Iran. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>PRC Revises Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Measures &#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>China</category><category>Customs</category><category>IP</category><dc:date>2009-06-30T14:08:03-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f4555e44898a3b38e633a14fbb3ee4e8-248.php#unique-entry-id-248</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f4555e44898a3b38e633a14fbb3ee4e8-248.php#unique-entry-id-248</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Updated in March 2009, the revised measures enable intellectual property (IP) owners to settle disputes with consignors and consignees after the seizure but before the penalty decision in a case is issued.   Because the resolution of IP infringement cases by Chinese customs can take months and even years and infringers are rarely willing to disclose the source of the goods, it is expected that the new settlement provisions will provide a helpful tool to IP rights holders to obtain information on the true identity of the sellers and buyers of the goods. 


The new rules allow IP holders to withdraw an IP rights enforcement complaint only when the owners submit to customs a copy of the settlement agreement and an application for the withdrawal of the complaint.   Upon receipt of the settlement agreement, Chinese Customs will be able to terminate its investigation except in cases where a criminal offense is suspected. 


The new regulations adopt China&rsquo;s General Administration of Customs (GAC) and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) rules that require transfer of suspected criminal cases to Chinese police (PSB).   As stated by both China&rsquo;s Supreme People&rsquo;s Court and Supreme People&rsquo;s Procuratorate, counterfeiting may be deemed a criminal offense where the case value in question exceeds RMB50,000, or about $7,300. 


The updated regulations impose a 10-day deadline for the GAC to issue a decision on whether an application of customs recordal will be renewed, and permits the GAC to cancel recordals in cases whether an IP rights holder has failed to update its recordal in a timely fashion. 


Under the new notificaton provisions, Chinese Customs are no longer required to first notify the IP owner upon detecting a shipment suspected to infringe IP rights, and instead will have discretion to approach the consignor or consignee of the goods for proof that IP was used with the owner&rsquo;s permission. 


The new regulations also require Chinese Customs to obtain the IP rights holder&rsquo;s permission prior to auctioning off the infringing goods. 


Finally, the new regulations adopt the GAC&rsquo;s May 2006 provisions that permit the trademark owners experiencing high levels of infringement to provide to customs a renewable guarantee, calculated as the total costs of warehousing and handling fees paid for customs in the prior year, set at a minimum of RMB200,000, instead of paying a customs bonds in every case. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Final Rule on Certain Thermal Imaging Cameras</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-05-22T22:08:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b57e7072e4a8f117463c786f965bdd22-247.php#unique-entry-id-247</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b57e7072e4a8f117463c786f965bdd22-247.php#unique-entry-id-247</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 22, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register revising the license requirements and license exception eligibility for certain thermal imaging cameras and foreign made military commodities incorporating such cameras. 


The rule imposes a license requirement for certain exports and reexports of military commodities manufactured outside the United States that are not subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), regardless of the level of U.S.-origin content, if those military commodities incorporate certain thermal imaging cameras that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 


The rule also removes Commerce Control List (CCL) based export and reexport license requirements with respect to 36 destinations for certain thermal imaging cameras when they are not incorporated into military commodities and if they are not being exported or reexported to be embedded in a civil product.   It imposes a semi-annual reporting requirement on the transactions from which it removes the CCL based license requirements. 


The rule also imposes a license requirement for software used to increase the frame rate of certain cameras. 


BIS states that it is making these changes in recognition of the emerging availability of these cameras around the world, the export licensing practices of other governments and the potential use of these cameras in military applications. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Approves Additional VEU</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>VEU</category><category>China</category><dc:date>2009-05-01T21:31:52-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/514d654ee2940bba3d71f64c7e232296-246.php#unique-entry-id-246</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/514d654ee2940bba3d71f64c7e232296-246.php#unique-entry-id-246</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 29, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register, which adds a name to the list of end-users for the Peoples&rsquo; Republic of China (PRC) approved to receive exports, reexports, and transfers of certain items under the authorization Validated End-User (VEU).   The rule also amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to add and revise eligible items and destinations for existing VEU authorizations.


The VEU authorization is a mechanism to facilitate increased high-technology exports to companies in the PRC and India that have a record of using such items responsibly.   VEUs may obtain eligible items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) without having to wait for their suppliers to obtain export licenses from BIS.   In addition to U.S. exporters, VEU authorization may be used by foreign reexporters, and does not have an expiration date.


The final rule amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR to identify an additional company with eligible facilities in the PRC as a VEU and to identify the items that may be exported, reexported, or transferred under Authorization VEU.   The new entry is for Aviza Technology China and lists Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 2B230, 3B001.c.1.a. and 3B001.e.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Removes T 37 Jet Trainer and Aircraft Parts from CCL</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2009-05-06T16:57:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4c4352e0256ac5973921db1d98eb6a56-245.php#unique-entry-id-245</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4c4352e0256ac5973921db1d98eb6a56-245.php#unique-entry-id-245</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 6, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register, which removes the T 37 jet trainer aircraft and specially designed parts from under the Department of Commerce&rsquo;s licensing jurisdiction on the Commerce Control List (CCL). 


In the final rule, BIS states that although the T 37 jet trainer aircraft appear on the CCL, the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) reviews license applications for these aircraft and parts.   Accordingly, BIS is removing the T 37 jet trainer aircraft from the CCL to &ldquo;avoid potentially overlapping coverage and reduce the possibility of confusion by the public.&rdquo;
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Importer Sentenced For Customs Fraud </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-05-15T01:09:06-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b3bfc6f320c703f624c1303012de3d4-244.php#unique-entry-id-244</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b3bfc6f320c703f624c1303012de3d4-244.php#unique-entry-id-244</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 15, 2009, the U.S.   Department of Justice announced that Paul Kotsakos of Biloxi, Mississippi, was sentenced to nine months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $10,403 and $3,000 fines for customs fraud. 


In January, Kotsakos pleaded guilty to a 16-count indictment, charging him with conspiracy to commit customs violations and wire fraud.   Kotsakos operated an import company PK Promotions, Inc., in Biloxi.   The company provided promotional items to casinos, restaurants, sports teams, and wholesalers, and imported items, including bags, beads, cups, and shirts from China. 


According to the indictment, Kotsakos submitted fraudulent invoices to U.S.   Customs and arranged to give parts false HTS classifications.   In furtherance of the conspiracy, Kotsakos e-mailed the foreign manufacturers to request that they prepare fraudulent invoices reflecting a lower price for goods sold or different classification of the goods.   By requesting falsified invoices and wrong classifications for the imports, Kotsakos sought to avoid paying the full amount of duty on imported goods. 


After his release, Kotsakos will have to serve three years of supervised release. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>List of Countries Supporting Terrorism Updated</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><dc:date>2009-05-18T01:07:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a7f876e5ad7f87ab7925bccb66b666d4-243.php#unique-entry-id-243</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a7f876e5ad7f87ab7925bccb66b666d4-243.php#unique-entry-id-243</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 18, 2009, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S.   Department of the Treasury (OFAC) issued a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Terrorism List Government Sanctions Regulations. 


The amendment removes Iraq, Libya, and North Korea from the list of countries designed as state sponsors of terrorism.   Remaining on this list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.   Except as authorized, U.S. companies may not engage in any financial transactions with the governments of those countries. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Sentenced in Arms Export Conspiracy</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-05-18T01:06:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cbb52b1f8dfa9e3e9d56ed234a1cb2ed-242.php#unique-entry-id-242</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cbb52b1f8dfa9e3e9d56ed234a1cb2ed-242.php#unique-entry-id-242</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 18, 2009, CBS News reported that Joseph Piquet, a 55-year old Port St.   Lucie, Florida man, was sentenced to 5 years in prison followed by two years of supervised release for his participation in conspiracy to export arms. 


Piquet was charged with seven counts of arms export violations arising from conspiracy to purchase military use electronic components from Northrop Grumman Corporation, and then ship those items to China and Hong Kong without obtaining the required export licenses under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).   A federal jury in Fort Pierce convicted Piquet on all counts on March 5th. 


Among the items involved in the conspiracy were high power amplifiers designed for U.S. military use and low noise amplifiers that have a dual &ndash; commercial and military &ndash; use.   The testimony showed that on several occasions in 2004 and 2005, Piquet purchased restricted electronic parts and submitted false End Use Certificates to the manufacturer to conceal the intended final destination for those exports. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Settles Allegations of U.S. Export Regulations with a Civil Penalty</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-05-01T01:05:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/aeb004ba09ca1a3cbac6b0daf2302c2c-241.php#unique-entry-id-241</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/aeb004ba09ca1a3cbac6b0daf2302c2c-241.php#unique-entry-id-241</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 1, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that B.J.   Services Company agreed to settle allegations that it exported certain butterfly and check valves in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) with an $800,000 civil fine. 


The allegations against the company involved 63 cases of unlicensed exports to several countries during 2003 and 2007.   The exports were controlled under Export Commodity Classification No.   2B350 for reasons of chemical and biological weapons proliferation. 


The company voluntarily disclosed its EAR violations and fully cooperated in the investigation. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Directive Permits Non-Metric Units on Packaging of Goods Destined for the EU </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Commerce</category><dc:date>2009-05-15T01:04:25-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/55873147f9d108dd9bac6178c180c133-240.php#unique-entry-id-240</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/55873147f9d108dd9bac6178c180c133-240.php#unique-entry-id-240</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Commerce Department has long been in negotiations with the European Union in an effort to allow U.S. exports to the EU to use both non-metric and metric labeling provisions on product packaging. 


On May 15, 2009, following the EU&rsquo;s adoption of the new labeling directive, the Commerce Department announced that U.S. exporters may continue using non-metric units on packaging of goods destined for export to the European Union.   Thus, the current dual-labeling provisions are extended indefinitely. 


The new rule was published on May 7, 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union, and will be fully enforced by the 27 EU Member States by January 1, 2010.   The new labeling directive will permit U.S. exporters to adopt metric unit labeling according to their own schedule and without facing a major trade barrier in the EU. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Deadline Set for Importers to Request Duty-Free Treatment under GSP</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2009-05-28T01:02:31-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ee43fa925574d25a80e8d3c6f5899c85-239.php#unique-entry-id-239</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ee43fa925574d25a80e8d3c6f5899c85-239.php#unique-entry-id-239</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 28, 2009, the U.S.   Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing it has set June 24 as the deadline for its 2009 Annual Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Product and Country Practices Eligibility Review.   During the Annual Review, USTR assesses petitions to modify the list of products and countries that receive duty-free treatment under the GSP. 


By utilizing GSP, which provides duty-free treatment to a range of products from over 100 developing and lesser developed countries, U.S. importers can better control the cost of inputs. 


Interested parties must submit petitions to modify the GSP products and country status by June 24, 2009.   Petitions for products to continue receiving GSP treatment will be accepted starting June 24 and November 17, 2009. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DTrade 2 is Now Operational</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2009-05-16T01:00:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8890f0bf31b33911753c0e74ee7335f1-238.php#unique-entry-id-238</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8890f0bf31b33911753c0e74ee7335f1-238.php#unique-entry-id-238</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S.   Department of State announced that, starting May 16, 2009, exporters must use the DTrade 2 application to submit all new license submissions.   The State Department announced that licensing submissions will no longer be accepted via DTrade 1, and will be returned without action, directing the applicant to the DTrade2 application. 


Exporters can still use DTrade 1 to track status and to attach data to pre-existing cases.   Cases submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) via the DTrade 1 prior to May 16, 2009, will be processed until the review of the submission is complete. 


	


The information about the new licensing application, new forms, and guidelines are available on the DTrade Information Center website. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Announces Broker Self-Assessment Outreach Pilot</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Broker</category><dc:date>2009-04-27T20:54:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4f004b9359441c27acc17ee551e51b69-237.php#unique-entry-id-237</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4f004b9359441c27acc17ee551e51b69-237.php#unique-entry-id-237</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 27, 2009, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the commencement of the Broker Self-Assessment (BSA) Outreach Pilot (BSA Pilot) in a general notice published in the Federal Register.   Modeled after the Importer Self Assessment (ISA) Program, the BSA Pilot is a voluntary program that CBP intends to be a partnership between itself and participating customs brokers.   CBP states that the primary goal of the program is to facilitate a higher level of broker compliance with CBP laws and regulations.   CBP states that:


[T]he BSA Pilot will allow for customs brokers to ascertain voluntarily with CBP how well they comply with their broker requirements, provide recognition and support to participating brokers, and facilitate legitimate trade so that CBP can focus on higher-risk trade enforcement issues.   Under this program test, participating customs brokers will update and improve internal controls, perform periodic testing of these internal controls, and disclose to CBP deficiencies discovered through the testing.   Any licensed customs broker who is a member of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and who meets the other eligibility requirements of the pilot, may apply to participate.   After closure of the application period and review of the applications received, CBP will select a limited number of customs brokers to participate in the BSA Pilot. 


The Federal Register notice provides details on the application process and the requirements for participation in the BSA Pilot.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Increased AES Penalties</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>AES</category><category>Penalties</category><dc:date>2009-01-03T17:40:36-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6851a228e309b3b18f30eb924c6b532f-236.php#unique-entry-id-236</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6851a228e309b3b18f30eb924c6b532f-236.php#unique-entry-id-236</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 2, 2009, CBP published increased AES penalty guidelines effective February 1, 2009, for enforcing recent Census Bureau rules requiring exporters and forwarders to electronically file export declarations before cargo is loaded for transport.


The regulation requiring use of AES of the web-based AESDirect went into effect on July 2, 2008, enforcement began on September 30, 2008, but penalty assessment was postponed.   The new rules increase the maximum fine for failure to file, late or incomplete filing or submitting false information to $10,000 per violation.


CBP said that first time violators are likely to receive a warning or informational letter reminding the company of the new rules.   Penalty ranges can be lower based on mitigating factors such as, inter alia, self-disclosure.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Public Comments on Foreign Produced Items Made from U.S.-Origin Encryption Technology or Software</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-01-07T17:40:01-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c3ff818641128ffe9172b116006a8088-235.php#unique-entry-id-235</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c3ff818641128ffe9172b116006a8088-235.php#unique-entry-id-235</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 6, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the appropriate extent and scope of U.S. export controls on foreign products that are the direct products of U.S.-origin encryption technology or software.   BIS is seeking information on the potential impact of controlling such foreign made items for Encryption Items (EI) reasons under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (i.e., those items classified under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002).


Specifically, BIS is requesting comments regarding the impact this control would have on both U.S. exporters of encryption technology/software and foreign manufacturers of products that are derived in whole or in part from U.S.-origin encryption technology or software.


Comments must be received by BIS no later than March 9, 2009.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Update 2008 Web Portal containing Video Recordings Now Available</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2009-01-11T17:39:27-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b02daa323ef751c213f1fe9debf9f4ba-234.php#unique-entry-id-234</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b02daa323ef751c213f1fe9debf9f4ba-234.php#unique-entry-id-234</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) recently announced the launch of a new web portal with video recordings of the past BIS Update 2008 conference.   The web portal features the video recordings and speaker presentations from the Update 2008 conference, as well as the conference handout.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>VP of California Company Arrested for Illegal IC Exports to China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-01-12T17:38:32-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/027f1528969d9f23cb4878b95f534fb6-233.php#unique-entry-id-233</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/027f1528969d9f23cb4878b95f534fb6-233.php#unique-entry-id-233</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 10, 2009, William Chai-Wai Tsu, vice president of Cheerway, Inc., was arrested on charges of illegally exporting &ldquo;miniscule&rdquo; integrated circuits (which have potential use in sophisticated communications and military radar systems) in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).   Tsu, a resident of Beijing and a naturalized U.S. citizen, made his initial court appearance on Monday following his arrest, where his formal arraignment was scheduled for February 2, 2008.


The court documents allege that Tsu purchased the ICs from a San Jose-based distributor.   Tsu allegedly told the distributor that the ICs would not be exported from the U.S.   The Department of Justice states that Tsu&rsquo;s arrest was a result of investigation initiated by the agents of DOC and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who opened the probe after receiving a lead on Tsu&rsquo;s activities from their local counterparts in San Jose, California. 

...This case is the product of an investigation by the recently created Export and Anti-proliferation Global Law Enforcement (EAGLE) Task Force.   The counter-proliferation task force was recently created by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies to jointly investigate and combat the illegal exports of arms and sensitive technologies.   Members of the EAGLE Task Force include the U.S.   Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Export and Enforcement; ICE; the FBI; U.S.   Customs and Border Protection; the Diplomatic Security Service and the Transportation Security Administration.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS 4th Annual Export Control Forum in Newport Beach&#x2c; CA Registration Opens</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2009-01-12T17:37:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f4a3b6ccd0b991926e35835671f534bf-232.php#unique-entry-id-232</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f4a3b6ccd0b991926e35835671f534bf-232.php#unique-entry-id-232</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[BIS has opened registration for its 4th Annual Export Control Forum in Newport Beach, CA to be held on March 16, 2009 with a Special Topic on March 17, 2009. 

...The Export Control Forum is a full-day program designed to cover recent developments in export control regulations and policies.   The one-day format provides a cost-effective way for the export control professional to hear about the latest in the export control field and to interact with key BIS management, licensing, and policy people.   The Export Control Forum will conclude with a gala reception, offering you the opportunity to mingle and discuss issues of concern with the presenters and other participants. 

BIS will also conduct two, half-day, Special Topics sessions on the day following the Forum, on March 17, 2009 for those who would like in-depth coverage on issues of interest.   This year we will conduct one program on Technology Licensing and another on Encryption Controls.   These sessions are independent and are scheduled to run concurrently.


For those of you who have requested an Update-like offering on the west coast, this is it!   The streamlined, day or day-and-a-half format is intended to provide great value in a package that fits into your busy schedule.   Please act quickly as space is limited.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Full Implementation of VEU Program</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>VEU</category><dc:date>2009-01-14T17:36:55-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/526cb66dbfb32c116171148db56a827e-231.php#unique-entry-id-231</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/526cb66dbfb32c116171148db56a827e-231.php#unique-entry-id-231</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 13, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the full implementation of the Validated End-User (VEU) program for the People&rsquo;s Republic of China.   The VEU program, which allows certain exports from the U.S. to "validated end users" in China to be exported without individual export licenses.


...However, BIS has announced that it has reached agreement with the government of China to allow on-site visits by BIS officials of VEUs in China.


...WASHINGTON, D.C. &ndash; The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) today announced the full implementation of the Validated End-User (VEU) program for the People&rsquo;s Republic of China.&nbsp;   With agreement on procedures to ensure the program&rsquo;s secure and efficient operation, civilian U.S.-China high-technology trade will benefit from the continued export of certain products to VEU-approved companies without individual licenses.&nbsp;   The VEU program facilitates civilian trade by reducing administrative and logistical hurdles for certain exports to pre-screened companies in China.


&ldquo;We are pleased to have reached this milestone agreement with China, one of our nation&rsquo;s most important trading partners,&rdquo; Under Secretary of Commerce Mario Mancuso said.&nbsp;   &ldquo;This agreement will maximize the security and trade-enhancing benefits of the VEU program, and continue a promising chapter in civilian U.S.-China high technology trade.&nbsp;   U.S. exporters now have a more streamlined way to export to companies in China who have a record of using U.S. technology responsibly.&rdquo;


...The program permits civilian companies in China, who pass a rigorous national security review and agree to strict follow-on compliance obligations, to receive under a VEU-specific authorization the same U.S.-controlled items they could previously receive under individual Commerce Department licenses.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement to be Implemented on Feb. 1&#x2c; 2009</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Free Trade Agreements</category><dc:date>2009-01-17T17:36:16-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0b703998df2e34a8bbb5dfd9c51544e1-230.php#unique-entry-id-230</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0b703998df2e34a8bbb5dfd9c51544e1-230.php#unique-entry-id-230</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 16, 2009, U.S.   Trade Representative Susan Schwab issued a statement regarding the entry into force of the U.S. &ndash; Peru FTA on February 1, 2009.   Schwab noted that &ldquo;[t]his is the first free trade agreement (FTA) in force that will reflect the enhanced labor and environmental standards set out in the May 10, 2007, agreement between the Administration and the congressional leadership.&rdquo;   The FTA is expected to support existing and prospective American jobs in the manufacturing and agriculture industries.


The United States and Peru already enjoy a two-way trade relationship of nearly $9.4 billion annually.   Prior to the U.S.-Peru FTA, Peru benefited from temporary trade preferences extended under the Andean Trade Preferences Act.   The implementation of the FTA will build upon these preferences and make them permanent.


The USTR states that the agreement will open up a growing market of 28 million Peruvian consumers to U.S. business interests.   Specifically, Schwab noted that &ldquo;[o]n the first day this agreement enters into force, 80 percent of U.S. industrial and consumer products and more than two-thirds of current U.S. farm exports will enter Peru duty-free.&rdquo;


The majority of U.S. exports that will receive the duty-free treatment are technology products; mining, agricultural, and construction equipment; and agricultural products (i.e. wheat, beef, fruits and vegetables), and other processed foods.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Obama Administration Halts Implementation of New and Pending Regualtions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-01-21T17:35:45-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b336f82c0d8eae8887603effb0ea4b0a-229.php#unique-entry-id-229</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b336f82c0d8eae8887603effb0ea4b0a-229.php#unique-entry-id-229</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In a tool commonly used by new administrations to delay or avoid &ldquo;midnight regulations&rdquo; put in place by the outgoing administration between election and Inauguration Day, on January 20, 2009, the Obama administration ordered all federal agencies and departments to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by the incoming administration.   The memorandum was sent to all Executive agencies and department heads by White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.   Pursuant to the President&rsquo;s instructions, Emanuel requested that the following three steps be taken depending on the status of the new regulations.


...Subject to certain exceptions for emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, and environmental, financial or national security matters, as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, no proposed or final regulations should be sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication unless it has been reviewed or approved by a department or agency head appointed by President Obama after noon on January 20, 2009.


	2.	  All proposed or final regulations that have not been published in the Federal Register be withdrawn from the Office of the Federal Register so that they can be reviewed and approved by a Obama appointees.


	3.	  For regulations that have been published in the Federal Register, but have not yet taken effect, that the agency or department head consider extending the effective date of the regulations for 60 days for the purpose of reviewing questions of law and policy provided the regulations do not affect critical health, safety, environmental, financial or nations security matters.   Notice and comment periods should also be reopened for 30 days after the 60 day extension is implemented.


The administrations request that agency and department heads extend the effective date of regulations that have already been published, but have not yet taken affect, could potentially affect the effective date for a number of import-related regulations.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Issues FOIA Executive Order</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>FOIA</category><dc:date>2009-01-22T17:35:12-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/67d6e532b407fceee2e4af99c78ff781-228.php#unique-entry-id-228</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/67d6e532b407fceee2e4af99c78ff781-228.php#unique-entry-id-228</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 21, 2009, President Obama issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) memorandum instructing the federal government to operate under the principles of openness and transparency.


The memo instructs all agencies to act promptly and openly when responding to requests for information under FOIA.   Furthermore, the memo states that agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, meaning that agencies should take affirmative steps to make the information public in a timely manner and not wait for specific requests from the public.


In the past, FOIA requests have been perceived by companies as virtually useless because it took so long for the government to process and the information received was so redacted that it was meaningless.   Therefore, a FOIA request may now provide a useful tool for importers and exporters in the collection of information.   CBP may now be willing to provide relevant background information regarding rulings and penalties.


In a separate memo regarding government transparency, President Obama instructed the heads of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration to issue an Open Government Directive implementing the principles of government&rsquo;s transparency, public participation, and collaboration, within 120 days.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New Importer Security Filing Rule (&#x22;10+2&#x22;) Goes Into Effect</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>10+2</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-01-27T17:34:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d50d18b7c0c6c23f5200f008f51697c-227.php#unique-entry-id-227</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d50d18b7c0c6c23f5200f008f51697c-227.php#unique-entry-id-227</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 26, 2009, the new importer security filing rule (commonly known as "10+2" due to the additional 10 data elements that importers must provide to the government and 2 additional data elements that carriers must provide) went into effect.   The rule was implemented as scheduled despite the new administrations request to delay any new or pending regulations for 60 days.


The new rule is subject to a "structured review and flexible enforcement period" of one year.   As such, bonds for the importer security filing (ISF) will not be required and liquidated damages or do not load messages will not be issued for the simple failure to file the ISF until after January 26, 2010.


Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided outreach informational sessions to importers across the country and has posted a 36 page FAQ document, as well as other helpful information, on its website.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Public Comments on Effects of Export Controls on Decisions to Use or Not Use U.S.-Origin Parts or Components</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2009-01-30T17:34:06-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c8c7dc96b32d85863cc14930a0436aeb-226.php#unique-entry-id-226</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c8c7dc96b32d85863cc14930a0436aeb-226.php#unique-entry-id-226</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 5, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments on whether U.S. export controls influence manufacturers' decisions to use or not use U.S.-origin parts and components in commercial products and the effects of such decisions.   In the notice, BIS states that it "is interested in obtaining specific information about whether such a practice occurs, and if so, its economic effects in order to assess the effectiveness of export controls as well as the impact of export controls on the U.S. economy.


Comments must be received no later than February 19, 2009.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Updates Agreement Guidance</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Agreements</category><dc:date>2009-01-30T17:32:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a8e98dcd0f46d57231a1f88c1936a0b-223.php#unique-entry-id-223</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a8e98dcd0f46d57231a1f88c1936a0b-223.php#unique-entry-id-223</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 30, 2009, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published updated agreement guidance documents to its website.   A summary of the updates was also published.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Optics Company Agrees to a &#x24;25 Million Civil Penalty for ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-01-30T17:32:08-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1ae0d02681844c8aadb8b4c47878e1f1-222.php#unique-entry-id-222</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1ae0d02681844c8aadb8b4c47878e1f1-222.php#unique-entry-id-222</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 5, 2008, Qioptiq S.a.r.l., a Luxemborg optics company, agreed to a Consent Agreement with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) involving a $25 million civil penalty.   The Proposed Charging Letter outlines the facts and circumstances surrounding the 163 alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).   DDTC has also published the Order in the matter and an Annex of Compliance Measures.


Qioptiq, an optics company with operations in the U.S., Singapore, UK, Germany and Hungary, had acquired Thales High Technology Optic Group companies.   These companies were primarily involved in the manufacturing of quality optic components for use in both commercial and military applications.   A large portion of Thales Singapore's business was and continues to be the manufacturing of military optics used in night vision equipment.   U.S. night vision equipment manufacturers relied heavily on the Singaporean facility for supplying optical components, sub-assemblies, and related parts.   Thales Singapore was an important supplier to ITT Night Vision.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Oman and Peru Removed from GSP Program</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2009-02-04T17:31:27-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/add9acba785e03d6ac047595b102ee01-221.php#unique-entry-id-221</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/add9acba785e03d6ac047595b102ee01-221.php#unique-entry-id-221</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 3, 2009, Customs announced that &ldquo;goods from Oman and Peru are no longer eligible for GSP preferences due to the implementation of bilateral trade agreements with these countries.&rdquo;   The Oman FTA took effect on January 1, 2009 and the Peru TPA on February 1, 2009.   GSP claims from these countries will not be accepted on or after these dates.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>California &#x26; Taiwan Companies Lose Export Privileges for 20 Years</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-02-07T17:30:53-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a1cb735d1497d8f985640a47421e6a2-220.php#unique-entry-id-220</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2a1cb735d1497d8f985640a47421e6a2-220.php#unique-entry-id-220</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 6, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that Well Being Enterprise Co., Ltd.   ("Well Being") of Taiwan and Elecmat, Inc. of San Francisco, CA settled allegations and each agreed to 20 year denials of export privileges.   Well Being also agreed to a civil penalty of $250,000 to settle allegations that it committed 25 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) related to the unlicensed export of chemicals and metals from the United States to Taiwan that are controlled for Nuclear Proliferation reasons.   In addition, Hui-Fen Chen, a Well Being employee, has agreed to a twenty-year denial of export privileges for items on the Commerce Control List (CCL), and Theresa Chang, Elecmat&rsquo;s former manger, has agreed to a two-year denial of export privileges for items on the CCL.


The denial orders imposed against Well Being, Chen and Chang prohibit them from participating in, or benefiting from, any transaction involving the export of an item listed on the CCL.   The denial order imposed against Elecmat prohibits it from participating in, or benefiting from, any transaction involving the export of all items subject to the EAR.   BIS has agreed to suspend $220,000 of Well Being&rsquo;s fine, provided that, in the next five years, no additional violations occur.


Kevin Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement stated that, "Individuals who devise schemes and willfully circumvent U.S. export controls warrant having their export privileges suspended.   This case demonstrates that domestic sales of controlled items to persons with no technical understanding of the product should be considered a red-flag."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Posts 2007 End Use Monitoring Report</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-02-10T17:29:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d9c1fe918900a30647f9e1260be510a-219.php#unique-entry-id-219</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d9c1fe918900a30647f9e1260be510a-219.php#unique-entry-id-219</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 9, 2009, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted to its website its End Use Monitoring Report for 2007. 

...This report describes actions taken by the Department of State during the past fiscal year to implement the &ldquo;Blue Lantern&rdquo; end-use monitoring program.   The Blue Lantern program, operated in accordance with section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended (AECA), monitors the end-use of commercially exported defense articles, defense services, and related technical data subject to licensing or other authorizations under section 38 of the AECA


...The Blue Lantern program is managed within PM/DDTC by the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance&rsquo;s (DTCC) Research and Analysis Division (RAD).   Blue Lantern end-use monitoring entails pre-license, post license or post-shipment checks undertaken to verify the legitimacy of a transaction and to provide &ldquo;reasonable assurance that &ndash; i) the recipient is complying with the requirements imposed by the United States Government with respect to use, transfers, and security of defense articles and defense services; and ii) such articles and services are being used for the purposes for which they are provided.&rdquo;


...Blue Lantern checks are not conducted randomly, but are rather the result of a careful selection process to identify transactions that appear most at risk for diversion or misuse.   License applications and other requests undergo review by licensing officers and compliance specialists, who check case details against established criteria for determining potential risks: unfamiliar foreign parties, unusual routing, overseas destinations with a history of illicit activity or weak export/customs controls, commodities not known to be in the inventory of the host country&rsquo;s armed forces and other indicators of concern.   The information derived from Blue Lantern checks helps PM/DDTC licensing officers and compliance specialists assess risks associated with the export of certain defense articles and services to various countries and regions, and provides significant insight into the reliability of companies and individuals involved in defense procurement overseas.


Finally, it was interesting to note that the DDTC found various reasons for unfavorable determinations, with the two largest categories being: (1) the failure of applicants to properly identify foreign parties on the license application, and (2) a party violated terms of the license or agreement.   The DDTC noted that the failure to identify all parties to a license application creates the increased likelihood of diversion to unauthorized end-users and end-use.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Notice on Transfer of Export Licenses</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Licensing</category><dc:date>2009-02-11T17:29:05-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2cba427db2d044b57de2c03022deaab7-218.php#unique-entry-id-218</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2cba427db2d044b57de2c03022deaab7-218.php#unique-entry-id-218</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 10, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security posted a notice on its website regarding the transfer of licenses.   The notice stated the following:


Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), BIS issues individual export licenses to parties.   In some instances, ownership of the party/licensee changes due to mergers and acquisitions.   This may result in a change to the license if the party to whom the license was issued no longer exists, or is no longer engaged in exporting.   The EAR contains a procedure under Section 750.10 that provides for the transfer of export licenses in such circumstances.   Persons planning corporate mergers, transfers, or acquisitions should consider whether any existing export licenses will need to be transferred and should consult Section 750.10(b) which provides detailed instructions.   Please note that the transfer of an export license must be requested by the licensee, therefore, any request for a transfer of a license that is the result of a corporate transaction in which the licensee will cease to exist as a legal entity must be made prior to the licensee ceasing to exist.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>KBR &#x26; Halliburton Agree to &#x24;579 Million Settlement for Violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2009-02-12T17:28:18-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/48e9a822d963da3757bd54fd8c07f385-217.php#unique-entry-id-217</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/48e9a822d963da3757bd54fd8c07f385-217.php#unique-entry-id-217</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The DOJ announced on February 11, 2009, that Kellogg Brown & Root LLC (KBR), a global engineering, construction and services company based in Houston, pleaded guilty to 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 contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, were valued at more than $6 billion. ...  According to court documents, KBR was part of a four-company joint venture that was awarded four EPC contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd. ...  The government-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was the largest shareholder of NLNG, owning 49 percent of the company.   Under the terms of the plea agreement, KBR agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for a three-year period to review the design and implementation of KBR's compliance program and to make reports to KBR and the Department of Justice.   KBR also agreed to cooperate with the Department in its ongoing investigations.&nbsp;   KBR's parent company, KBR Inc., and its former parent company, Halliburton Company, also reached a settlement of a related civil complaint filed by the U.S. ...  The SEC's complaint charged KBR Inc. with violating the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions, and charged KBR and Halliburton with engaging in books and records and internal controls violations related to the bribery.&nbsp;   KBR Inc. and Halliburton jointly agreed to pay $177 million in disgorgement of profits relating to those violations.


Combined, the $579 million in fines constitutes the largest settlement of FCPA violations by any U.S. company in history.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>USDA Country of Origin Labeling Rule to Take Effect March 16</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Origin</category><dc:date>2009-02-21T17:27:32-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cd72f50a574977c05c76385b0942b057-216.php#unique-entry-id-216</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/cd72f50a574977c05c76385b0942b057-216.php#unique-entry-id-216</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced February 20, 2009 that the USDA's January 15, 2009 final rule on mandatory country of origin labeling will go into effect as scheduled March 16, 2009.   Under the COOL regulation, muscle cuts and ground beef, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and ginseng must be labeled at retail to indicate their country of origin.   The final rule outlines requirements for labeling covered commodities and the recordkeeping requirements for retailers and suppliers, prescribes specific criteria that must be met for a commodity to bear a "United States Country of Origin" declaration and contains provisions for labeling covered commodities of foreign origin.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Customs Proposes Changes to 9802 Calculations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2009-03-13T17:26:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/00c3b042b850bdd3fc67b5155f7209c0-215.php#unique-entry-id-215</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/00c3b042b850bdd3fc67b5155f7209c0-215.php#unique-entry-id-215</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 12, 2009, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposed changes to the Customs Regulations with regard to to exclude from the dutiable value of repairs, alterations, or processing performed abroad on articles exported from the United States and returned under subheading 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, or 9802.00.60, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), the value of U.S.-origin parts used in the foreign repairs, alterations, or processing.   The proposed changes would provide an incentive to use U.S.-origin parts in the foreign repairs, alterations, or processing of articles entered under the above-referenced HTSUS provisions.


Comments on the proposed change must be received on or before May 12, 2009.


Subheadings 9802.00.40 and 9802.00.50, HTSUS, provide a partial duty exemption for articles returned to the United States after having been exported to be advanced in value or improved in condition by repairs or alterations.   Subheading 9802.00.40 encompasses articles repaired or altered abroad pursuant to a warranty, while subheading 9802.00.50 encompasses articles repaired or altered abroad other than pursuant to a warranty.   Articles entitled to classification under these tariff provisions are assessed duty based upon the value of the repairs or alterations.


Subheading 9802.00.60, HTSUS, provides a partial duty exemption for articles of metal manufactured in the United States that are exported for further processing and then returned to the United States for further processing.   Articles entitled to classification under this tariff provision are assessed duty based upon the value of the processing performed outside the United States.


...Note 3(a), subheading II, Chapter 98 and section 10.9 of the Customs Regulations, include in the cost or value of the repairs performed abroad the domestic value of any articles furnished for the repairs or alterations.   The proposed changes would remove the domestic articles from such a calculation.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Director of Singapore Firm Pleads Guilty to Illegal Exporting to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><dc:date>2009-03-15T17:25:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/976c7913a704d6297b994b6d144be36f-214.php#unique-entry-id-214</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/976c7913a704d6297b994b6d144be36f-214.php#unique-entry-id-214</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release announcing that Laura Wang-Woodford (Wang-Woodford), a U.S. citizen and a director of Monarch Aviation Pte, Ltd.   (Monarch), pled guilty on March 13, 2009 to conspiring to violate the U.S. trade embargo by exporting controlled aircraft components to Iran.


Monarch is a Singapore company that traded in military and commercial aircraft parts for over 20 years.   Wang-Woodford was arrested in December 2007, at San Francisco International Airport after arriving from Hong Kong, and has been incarcerated since then. ...  Woodford, a U.K. citizen who served as chairman and managing director of Monarch, were originally charged in a 20-count indictment returned in the Eastern District of New York in January 2003. 

...The current indictment against the Woodfords alleges that between January 1998 and December 2007 defendants exported controlled U.S. aircraft parts from the U.S. to Monarch and Jungda in Singapore and Malaysia and then re-exported those parts to Tehran without obtaining the required U.S. government licenses. ...  The defendants falsely listed Monarch and Jungda as the ultimate recipients of the parts on the U.S. export documents.   The current indictment also charges that the defendants arranged for the illegal export of U.S. military aircraft equipment to Monarch, to be used in Chinook military helicopters.


When Wang-Woodford was arrested in San Francisco, she had the China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) catalogues with her, which contained advertisements for military technology and weaponry. 

...Wang-Woodford faces a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Requests Comments on the Utilization Rate of BIS Licenses</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2009-03-21T17:22:14-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5822b6848afd48e085c27a98bf3dcce9-213.php#unique-entry-id-213</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5822b6848afd48e085c27a98bf3dcce9-213.php#unique-entry-id-213</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 20, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a request for public comments on the utilization rate of BIS licenses. 

...Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) appear to be unused or used for less than the quantity or value limits authorized by the license.   BIS seeks public comment to help it ascertain the reasons for such lack of use or under use.   BIS is particularly interested in whether characteristics of the export license application review process induce applicants to apply for greater authorizations than they need and, if such is the case, any costs associated with such applications.


...	&bull;	Whether characteristics of the export licensing process (e.g., ease or difficulty of use, processing times, degree of communication between the government and the applicant, license conditions, etc.) contribute to the practice of not using or under-using export licenses.


...	&bull;	Whether exporters seek an export license prior to receipt of a purchase order or letter of intent, and examples of typical business cases for seeking a license absent such documentation;


	&bull;	Detailed information concerning instances when exporters have obtained an export license from BIS but then did not use it or used it for less than the quantity or value authorized, including information on whether the export licensing process impacted the transaction, whether sales were lost due to the licensing process and the dollar amount of any such lost sales that are directly attributable to the licensing process;


	&bull;	Specific information about whether licenses for the export of software or technology are not used or are under used;


	&bull;	Whether an extension of the validity period of export licenses issued by BIS would increase the probability of the utilization of licenses; and


	&bull;	Process improvements that BIS could make to enhance the utilization of export licenses (e.g., expedited treatment for applications under specific circumstances).]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>IEEPA Charges Filed Against an Iranian Man and Company</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><category>Iran</category><category>OFAC</category><dc:date>2009-03-17T17:21:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c7f30c5bc2c2d34b090ad868af4e6c08-212.php#unique-entry-id-212</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c7f30c5bc2c2d34b090ad868af4e6c08-212.php#unique-entry-id-212</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 16, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release stating that Ali Khoshnevisrad (Khoshnevisrad) was arrested on March 14, 2009, after he arrived in San Francisco International Airport on a flight from abroad.   On March 16, 2009, Khoshnevisrad, a citizen of Iran, and his Iranian company Ariasa, AG (Ariasa) were charged with purchasing helicopter engines and advanced aerial cameras for fighter bombers from U.S. firms and illegally exporting them to Iran using companies in Ireland, Malaysia and the Netherlands.   One of the alleged recipients of the U.S. goods was an Iranian military firm that has since been designated by the U.S. as owned or controlled by entities involved in Iran&rsquo;s nuclear and ballistic missile program.


Khoshnevisrad and his company Ariasa are each charged with two counts of unlawful export of U.S. goods to Iran and two counts of conspiracy to unlawfully export U.S. goods to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR).


According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint filed in August 2008, Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa instructed a trading company in Ireland to purchase several model 250 turbo-shaft helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce Corp in Indiana. ...  The Irish trading company purchased 17 of the engines for a total of $4.27 million, falsely stating that the helicopters would be used by the Irish company or by fake companies.   The affidavit alleges that these helicopter engines were exported from the U.S. to a company in Malaysia pretending to be a book publisher, at a freight forwarding company address. 

...The affidavit further alleges that Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa instructed in 2006 a Dutch aviation parts company to place an order for several aerial panorama cameras from the U.S. ...  In August 2006, a representative of the Dutch company notified Khoshnevisrad that the cameras were received and would soon be shipped to Tehran.


...If convicted, Khoshnevisrad faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years for each of the first three counts of the complaint, and a prison sentence of up to five years on the fourth count.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Updates Agreements Guidelines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2009-04-06T16:31:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/078a9549c1fb15dcd895431e3433a1be-211.php#unique-entry-id-211</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/078a9549c1fb15dcd895431e3433a1be-211.php#unique-entry-id-211</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 6, 2009, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) updated its Agreements Guidelines (Revision 1A - Interim Update) on its website.   The DDTC also provided a Summary of Changes.   In that document, DDTC states:


This update is being published to correct substantive and administrative errors identified in the &ldquo;Guidelines for Preparing Agreements &ndash; Revision 1.&rdquo;    This update is not the result of changes or modifications to DTC policies or procedures.   ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Updates Information and FAQs on Entity List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2009-04-17T16:09:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f6a9ef5dd81c288446554b0962c5fa22-210.php#unique-entry-id-210</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f6a9ef5dd81c288446554b0962c5fa22-210.php#unique-entry-id-210</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 17, 2009, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) updated information and its FAQs regarding the Entity List on its website.   BIS describes the Entity List as follows:


The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) contain a list of names of certain foreign persons &ndash; including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, individuals, and other types of legal persons &ndash; that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport and/or transfer (in-country) of specified items.&nbsp;   These persons comprise the Entity List, which is found in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR.&nbsp;   On an individual basis, the persons on the Entity List are subject to licensing requirements and policies supplemental to those found elsewhere in the EAR.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Freight Forwarder Documentation Requirements Amended&#xa;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Transporation</category><category>Freight</category><dc:date>2009-04-06T16:07:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/57634e61a4db0f72ed85415b172c1cee-209.php#unique-entry-id-209</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/57634e61a4db0f72ed85415b172c1cee-209.php#unique-entry-id-209</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 6, 2009, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a final rule in the Federal Register that amends its regulations to require all surface freight forwarders to issue a bill of lading or a receipt for each shipment for which they arrange cargo transportation by commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.


The current rule regarding receipts or bills of lading applies only to household goods freight forwarders, however, the new rule extends to both household and non-household goods freight forwarders.


The requirement for all freight forwarders to provide a receipt or a bill of lading for property has been in effect by statute since 1942 and by regulation until 1990, until the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) limited the requirement to household goods freight forwarders.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Imports of Food Products Subject to New Requirements </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Import</category><dc:date>2009-04-01T15:45:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd41643b52668a88d64c105e345b768f-207.php#unique-entry-id-207</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fd41643b52668a88d64c105e345b768f-207.php#unique-entry-id-207</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 31, 2009, the U.S.   Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a letter to the Trade outlining the new import permit process for USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)-exempted food products containing small amounts (less than two percent) of meat and/or poultry ingredients.


All import permit applications for FSIS-exempted food products containing small amounts of meat and poultry ingredients submitted to APHIS after June 22, 2009 will be reviewed by FSIS before APHIS can issue an import permit.   The new rules mandate that, after the permit applications are submitted to APHIS, they must be approved by FSIS to ensure that meat and poultry ingredients in such food products originate from eligible sources (i.e. prepared under FSIS supervision or in a foreign establishment certified by a foreign inspection system approved by FSIS).   Importers will now be required to provide evidence directly to FSIS to support the origin of the meat and poultry ingredients used in the food products identified on the APHIS permit application.


Failure to provide such source documentation will lead to FSIS advising APHIS that the products are ineligible for entry into U.S. commerce, and an import permit will be denied.


Furthermore, APHIS has informed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that a USDA import permit will now be required for FSIS-exempted food products containing small smounts of meat and/or poultry ingredients from countries considered by USDA to be affected with animal diseases of concern.   Products from such countries that previously entered under a health certificate indicating product being concentrated for boiling (e.g. bouillon cubes, extracts, or soup mixes), will now require a USDA import permit.   Customs will begin enforcing this APHIS policy on June 22, 2009.


A list of countries eligible to export meat, poultry or processed egg products to the U.S. can be found here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Exporter Charged With Violations of U.S. Export Regulations and False Statements to Government Agency  </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-04-06T15:31:55-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/237a1b44c1a91f6ff2b4c8f3cb520785-206.php#unique-entry-id-206</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/237a1b44c1a91f6ff2b4c8f3cb520785-206.php#unique-entry-id-206</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 6, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that federal grand jury sitting in San Jose, California, indicted Fu-Tain Lu (Lu), Funshine Technology, Inc.   (Funshine), and Everjet Science and Technology Corporation (Everjet), charging them with conspiracy to violate U.S. export regulations and with lying to federal agents investigating Lu&rsquo;s conduct. 


Funshine, based in Cupertino, California, and Everjet, based in China, were founded by Lu.   The indictment alleges that Lu and his two companies conspired to export sensitive microware amplifier technology to China without obtaining the required licenses or authorization from  the U.S.   Department of Commerce.   Items that Funshine shipped and attempted to ship to China were restricted for reasons of national security. 


The indictment details that the defendants knew about the licensing restrictions but chose not to comply.   Charges against Lu and the companies are supported, in part, by using internal company e-mails in which an Everjet employee told a Funshine employee, &ldquo;Since these products are a little bit sensitive, in case the maker asks you where the location of the end user is, please do not mention it is in China.&rdquo;   In another e-mail, Lu advised an employee to pretend that the intended end-user for the goods was in Singapore, not China. 


Lu, as an individual defendant, faces five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine (or, twice the gross financial gain from the offense) on each of the counts of conspiracy to violate export regulations and false statements to a government agency; for charges of violation of export regulations, the statutory maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine, or twice the gross gain from the offense. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>D-Trade License Application or Amendment Subject to New Requirements </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2009-04-16T15:29:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c9f4961e1cb7525d1ecad0a491f5a20f-205.php#unique-entry-id-205</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c9f4961e1cb7525d1ecad0a491f5a20f-205.php#unique-entry-id-205</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of State (DOS) Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) launched a new DTrade2 application and database.   While the old DTrade will remain active to track or upload supplemental information to applications submitted prior to April 16, 2009, the new DTrade2 system must be used for all new license applications.   DDTC will return all submissions uploaded to the old DTrade system after April 16, 2009 without action. 


...DDTC also intends to discontinue usage of ELLIENet for DSP-119 submission, however, EELIENet submissions will be available for approx. 60 days after DTRade2 launch; and  


...All D-Trade users must use their DDTC-approved registrant/applicant name which corresponds to their DDTC registration record before an application or amendment will be accepted by the new system.   D-Trade request will be checked against DDTC&rsquo;s registration records to confirm that the name submitted on the request matches DDTC&rsquo;s official records. ...  DDTC explains that this extra level of security will aid in prevention of improper third party use of a registrant&rsquo;s name, their code or licensing privileges. 


Applicants who routinely use subsidiary names or &ldquo;doing business as&rdquo; names on the D-Trade submission must now use the DDTC-approved registrant/applicant name identifications.   This name can be found on the addressee line of the registration letter sent by the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance at the time of registration or renewal. 


Users unsure of their DDTC-approved name must contact their central export control office to obtain the information. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian National Charged with Violations of IEEPA&#x2c; AECA&#x2c; and the U.S. Iran Embargo </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2009-04-06T15:17:46-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/71c86997394e75f0f4293d02d2cc4ba0-204.php#unique-entry-id-204</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/71c86997394e75f0f4293d02d2cc4ba0-204.php#unique-entry-id-204</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 6, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release announcing that Baktash Fattahi, an Iranian national and U.S. resident, was arrested on April 3, 2009, in California, on charges of conspiring to illegally export parts for fighter jets and military helicopters to Iran, a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and the U.S. 

...In an indictment, a Miami federal grand jury charged that Fattahi and ten other defendants conspired to and illegally shipped thirteen different types of aircraft parts designated as defense articles on the USML from the U.S. to Iran via Dubai, U.A.E..   The specific parts are known to be used primarily by the Iranian military.   All of the parts exported were manufactured in the U.S., designed exclusively for military use, and designated by the U.S.   Department of State as &ldquo;defense articles&rdquo; on the USML, which requires registration and licensing with the DDTC.   Neither Fattahi nor other defendants were registered or obtained licenses from DDTC to ship these goods to Iran. 


The indictment alleges that the defendants in Iran sent, via e-mail, orders to a co-conspirator in Novato, California, for specific aircraft parts.   The co-conspirator in California would, allegedly, contact a counterpart in Florida and would make arrangements for the sale and shipment of the parts to one of the several defendant counterparts in Dubai.   The parts were then shipped from Dubai to their final destination in Iran. 


If convicted, the defendants face a statutory ten to twenty years imprisonment, and a fine of up to $1 million. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Report Finds U.S. Arms Sales are Undermining Human Rights</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Defense</category><category>Arms</category><dc:date>2008-12-11T11:58:53-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d08d35a6097d5fcfe9d38e3e14e744b-203.php#unique-entry-id-203</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d08d35a6097d5fcfe9d38e3e14e744b-203.php#unique-entry-id-203</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On December 10, 2008, the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy institute, issued a report stating that of the top 25 U.S. arms purchasers in the developing countries during 2006 - 2007, more than half were either undemocratic governments or regimes that engaged in major human right abuses.   An executive summary of the report can be found here.


The thirteen countries listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.   Over 2006 - 2007, arms sales to these countries totaled more than $16.2 billion.   The report also states that of the 27 nations engaged in major arms conflicts, 20 were receiving weapons and training in the U.S.


A spokesperson for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the State Department commented that U.S. policy on sale of arms is well established, and considers a country&rsquo;s need for an item, its human rights record, and whether the arms transfer supports U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.   U.S. arms sales grew to $32 billion in 2007, or more than three times the level since President Bush took office in 2001.  
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Supreme Court Hears First Ever Antidumping Cases</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Litigation</category><category>Antidumping</category><dc:date>2008-11-06T21:38:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5b097a3bd7c653f09d4277fab94d09c5-202.php#unique-entry-id-202</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5b097a3bd7c653f09d4277fab94d09c5-202.php#unique-entry-id-202</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the first antidumping cases ever granted certiorari, the consolidated cases, United States v. ...  (Docket No. 07-1059) and USEC, Inc. v. ...  The cases involve appeals arising from an antidumping petition filed in 2000 on imports of low enriched uranium from countries (including France).


In these cases, the U.S.   Court of International Trade and the U.S.   Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a decision by the Commerce Department that contracts for the enrichment of uranium between U.S. buyers and Eurodif, an enricher in France, were contracts for the sale of goods and subject to the antidumping petition.   The courts held that the contracts were contracts for services and not subject to the antidumping duty laws. 


In hearing this case, the Supreme Court will likely consider the extent to which courts must give deference to administrative agencies, such as the Commerce Department, under the test established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.   Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 

...The Court is expected to issue its opinion in these cases in Spring of 2009.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Motions for Reconsideration Denied in Tariff Gender Discrimination Case</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CIT</category><dc:date>2008-11-05T23:04:15-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/995825d6bb9ef08369c51e302966386e-201.php#unique-entry-id-201</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/995825d6bb9ef08369c51e302966386e-201.php#unique-entry-id-201</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In its original complaint, importer Totes Isotoner Corporation ("Totes") alleged that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) illegally discriminated on the basis of gender and/or age by setting out different tariff rates for &ldquo;men&rsquo;s&rdquo; gloves and for &ldquo;other&rdquo; gloves. 

...The defendant asked that the matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction arguing that Totes failed to exhaust its administrative remedies when it failed to file a protest with U.S. ...  On the defendant&rsquo;s motion, the court held that constitutional challenges to statutory provisions from which CBP has no discretion to deviate are exempt from otherwise required exhaustion of administrative remedies.   Here, because Totes&rsquo; complaint raised only a constitutional challenge to the HTSUS, the constitutional issues of gender/age discrimination were not amenable to administrative determination. 

...The court held, however, that plaintiff&rsquo;s burden to show either discriminatory intent or that the law at issue actually caused unconstitutional discrimination could be excused only if the plaintiff could demonstrate that the provision was facially discriminatory. 

...The court denied Totes&rsquo; motion holding that Totes allegation was insufficient to show gender discrimination because the complaint provided insufficient basis for the court to make an inference of unconstitutional discrimination.   The court reasoned that the HTSUS was not facially discriminatory and that it merely distinguished between two similar products based upon HTSUS descriptions of &ldquo;men&rsquo;s&rdquo; or &ldquo;other&rdquo; gloves. ...  While the HTSUS subheading requires CBP to differentiate between gloves because they are targeted for use by specific genders, this is not sufficient to show facial discrimination.   Thus, Totes&rsquo; claim that the subheading distinguished between products labeled for consumption by different genders was not sufficient to establish gender discrimination. 


...The court denied Totes&rsquo; motion for issue certification because Totes failed to satisfy either condition for certification because it failed to show either substantial grounds for difference of opinion or that an immediate interlocutory appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Interim Final Rule on &#x201c;10+2&#x201d; Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2008-11-25T21:08:19-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/563252592c84c4f3cd9e2c1644838851-200.php#unique-entry-id-200</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/563252592c84c4f3cd9e2c1644838851-200.php#unique-entry-id-200</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register on the Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, also known as the &ldquo;10+2&rdquo; Rule.   The 10+2 Rule requires importers and carriers to report additional data to CBP for all vessel cargo headed for the U.S. 


Effective January 26, 2009, the Importer Security Filing will require carriers to provide CBP with vessel stow plans and container status messages, while importers must report to CBP the following 10 data elements: 


...	&bull;	Importer of record number / Foreign trade zone applicant identification number, 


...The 10+2 Rule requires that importers transmit an importer security filing no later than 24 hours prior to lading at the foreign port.   This information must be submitted to CBP via a CBP-approved electronic data system.   The container stuffing location and consolidator date may be filed no later than 24 hours before arrival at a U.S. port. 


Under the new rule, importers will be legally responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of the Import Security Filing, regardless of whether a broker or other agent actually filed it.   CBP has also revised the sanctions for failure to comply with the reporting requirements.   Under the new rule, liquidated damages for violations of the Importer Security Filing requirements are changed from the value of merchandise to $5,000 per violation. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Final Rule with Conforming Changes to End-User/End Use Based Controls and Clarification of Terms</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-11-18T00:40:58-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/74040970129de954cad305e8aca48a7c-199.php#unique-entry-id-199</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/74040970129de954cad305e8aca48a7c-199.php#unique-entry-id-199</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 18, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by making conforming changes in certain end-user/end-use controls in the EAR to ensure that the terminology used to describe each type of end-user/end-use control is consistent, to the fullest extent possible, with the terminology in such other controls in the EAR.   In addition, the final rule amends the EAR by revising the definition of the term "transfer" and certain related terms, to provide greater clarity regarding these provisions.


With regard to the end-user/end-use conforming changes, BIS states that the amendments clarify that a party cannot proceed with an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) that is in transit at the time the party is informed by BIS that a license is required (in accordance with certain end-user/end-use controls in the EAR), unless that party first obtains a license from BIS authorizing the completion of the transaction.   These changes are intended to enhance the ability of BIS to stop items subject to the EAR, including items not on the CCL, from being exported, reexported or transferred when there is an unacceptable risk that such items will be used in, or diverted to, any of the proliferation activities specified in certain sections of the EAR.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Requests Public Comments on Removing Category 7A Products from De Minimis Eligibility</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-11-14T23:14:00-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8cf5455fde38cd90361bc4613b590dd7-198.php#unique-entry-id-198</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8cf5455fde38cd90361bc4613b590dd7-198.php#unique-entry-id-198</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 14, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced in the Federal Register that it is seeking public comments on the prospect of removing from de minimis eligibility commodities controlled for missile technology (MT) reasons under Category 7  - Product Group A on the Commerce Control List (CCL) except when the 7A commodities are incorporated as standard equipment in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (or national equivalent) certified civilian transport aircraft. 


BIS states that it specifically is seeking public input on the impact the proposed change would have on U.S. manufacturers of Category 7A commodities, as well as the impact such a change would have on foreign manufacturers that incorporate U.S.-origin 7A commodities into their foreign-made products.


Comments must be received no later than January 20, 2009. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Department Posts New Registration Form DS-2032</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-11-25T22:28:53-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ff86845243f651e6fade2f18fd6e959e-197.php#unique-entry-id-197</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ff86845243f651e6fade2f18fd6e959e-197.php#unique-entry-id-197</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On November 25, 2008, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) announced that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new registration form DS-2032 and it is now posted on its website (here).   The new form and all attachments can be found here.   The DDTC provides guidance on Preparing a Registration Package as well. 


The new form reflects the recent changes the DDTC made to its registration fees and periods on September 25, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Study Analyzes Economic Impact of U.S. 100&#x25; Container Scanning</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>WCO</category><category>Container Security</category><dc:date>2008-10-01T15:16:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f574197082eacec0b086daa0265fd03f-196.php#unique-entry-id-196</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f574197082eacec0b086daa0265fd03f-196.php#unique-entry-id-196</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The World Customs Organization (WCO) study, Global Logistic Chain Security: Economic Impacts of the US 100% Container Scanning Law, prepared by the University of Le Havre in June 2008, analyzes the impact on global trade and shipping of the U.S. &ldquo;100% scanning&rdquo; law, or House Resolution 1 (H.R. ...  The &ldquo;100% scanning&rdquo; law is intended to protect the U.S. against terrorist risks and requires that 100% of the containers destined toward the U.S. be inspected.   If this law enters into application on July 1, 2012, it is expected to affect operations of more than 600 points throughout the world, at an estimated $500 billion. 


...Examination of the U.S.-bound container trade transactions reveals that the growth in the Americas, Africa and Oceania has been largely homogenous at around 70% over the past decade. ...  Thus, Asia today accounts for almost 75% of the U.S.-bound imports of maritime containers, and is the only continent to have gained market share over the period. 

...If these asymmetrical continental dynamics continue, the study predicts that the &ldquo;100% scanning&rdquo; law would essentially be relevant to Asia.   In other words, by 2012, the logistics process and corresponding port reorganization would almost exclusively concern the Pacific, specifically the key Asian and U.S. 

...However, a new framework of standards may develop between now and 2012 and be modified or deterred, even if the trend for seaports would be to become 100% scanning (as it is for the airports). 


...The study reminds of the U.S. aviation industry receiving a retroactive bill from the U.S. government for the expenditures required to upgrade airport terminals (six years after the upgrade), which suggests that it will be private actors who will have to pay a large part of the costs linked to the application of the &ldquo;100% scanning&rdquo; law.   The operators are likely to pass on the cost of the scanning law implementation onto the final consumer, which may slow down international trade dynamics and consequently world growth. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>2008 CBP Trade Symposium Materials Posted</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2008-10-31T00:39:11-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/daf4c373c14204dd99dc1c13075958ff-195.php#unique-entry-id-195</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/daf4c373c14204dd99dc1c13075958ff-195.php#unique-entry-id-195</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) hosted its 2008 Trade Symposium in Washington, D.C. on October 29 - 31, 2008.   CBP posted remarks by CBP Commissioner W.   Ralph Basham and event materials on its website.   The agenda for the symposium is also available.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Prosecution of Export Controls Violations Increased in the Past Year</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DOJ</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-10-28T00:35:38-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/af694ef6454a96bdada4eb1a8e57e950-194.php#unique-entry-id-194</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/af694ef6454a96bdada4eb1a8e57e950-194.php#unique-entry-id-194</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice issued a statement in which it announced that the National Export Enforcement Initiative (NEEI), a multi-agency effort to combat illegal exports of restricted military and dual-use technology, has led to criminal charges against more that 145 defendants in the past fiscal year. 


The NEEI was established in October 2007 and is designed to increase coordination among agencies involved in export controls, to enhance prosecution of these crimes, and to deter illicit exports.   The 145 defendants in export controls and embargo cases in FY 2008 are an increase from the 110 charged in FY 2007.   Charges brought in these cases include violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the export control provision of the Patriot Reauthorization Act (PRA), the Trading with the Enemy Act (TEA), and other statutes. 


About 43 percent of the defendants charged in FY 2008 were charged in export control or embargo cases that involved munitions or other restricted technology that were bound for Iran or China.   Iran ranked as the leading destination for illegal exports of restricted technology in the prosecutions brought in both FY 2007 and FY 2008. 


The illegal exports bound for Iran have involved such items as missile guidance systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) components, military aircraft parts, and night vision systems.   The illegal exports to China have involved rocket launch data, space shuttle technology, missile technology, naval warship data, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or &ldquo;drone&rdquo; technology, thermal imaging systems, military night vision systems and other materials.   A significant portion of the cases in FY 2007 and FY 2008 involved illegal exports to Mexico. 

...The most recent indictment under the NEEI was returned on October 28, 2008, against three individuals in the District Court of Minnesota, charging them with conspiring to illegally export to China controlled carbon-fiber material with applications in rockets, satellites, spacecraft, and uranium enrichment process. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP To Permit Third Party Logistics Providers to Enroll in C-TPAT Starting January 2009</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>C-TPAT</category><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2008-10-01T00:30:41-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1f1b413e8a1856ffc333644c277d291a-193.php#unique-entry-id-193</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1f1b413e8a1856ffc333644c277d291a-193.php#unique-entry-id-193</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that it will permit Third Party Logistics Providers (3PLs) to enroll in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program starting in January 2009.


A 3PL is a firm that provides outsourced or &ldquo;third party&rdquo; logistics services to some, or sometimes all of a company&rsquo;s supply chain management functions.   3PLs typically specialize in integrated warehousing and transportation services that can be customized to a customer&rsquo;s needs based on market conditions and the demands and delivery service requirement for their products and materials.   Typical outsourced logistics functions include inbound freight, customs and freight consolidation, and warehousing. 


...The automated application process will take approximately 90 days to be available on-line.   3PLs interested in applying for C-TPAT can review the minimum-security criteria here.


...Effective January 1, 2009, these new minimum-security criteria establish the baseline level of security measures.   All eligibility requirements must be met or exceeded for a 3PL to enroll in C-TPAT.   CBP will continue to use validations to determine whether 3PLs have adopted these security criteria.   Those 3PLs found to be deficient, may be suspended, or be removed from the program entirely.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Guidelines For Assessment &#x26; Mitigation of Claims for Liquidated Damages</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Penalties</category><dc:date>2008-10-17T00:10:15-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bf5139a519329bacbebf41aa6f91a668-192.php#unique-entry-id-192</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bf5139a519329bacbebf41aa6f91a668-192.php#unique-entry-id-192</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a general notice announcing guidelines for the assessment of liquidated damages claims as an alternative sanction to counter late payment of entry duties and fees. 


Under the current procedure, if a bond principal fails to pay Periodic Monthly Payment Statement estimated duties in a timely fashion, CBP requires the bond principal to file entry summary documentation with estimated duties and fees attached before its merchandise may be released from any CBP port. 


Under the new guidelines, when a Periodic Monthly Statement estimated duty payment is not paid in full on or before the 15th of the working day after the month in which the entry or release of the merchandise has occurred, CBP has the authority to jointly and severally assess liquidated damages against the bond principal and surety. 


Before issuing any claims for liquidated damages, CBP will notify the statement filer electronically or by paper notice on or before the first day of the month following the month that the payment was due that those estimated duties and fees have not been paid.   The statement filer will have two working days from the date of notification to pay the estimated duties and fees or correct the situation.   If the late fees are not paid after the two-working day period, the CBP will issue a liquidated damages claim to bond principals and sureties, jointly and severally, for non-payment of the estimated duties and fees.  


If the estimated duties and fees are paid in an untimely manner, CBP may issue a liquidated damages claim or a broker penalty claim.   Payment of the estimated duties and fees within the two-working day period does not relieve any charged party from incurring a claim for late payment of those estimated duties and fees.


Furthermore, CBP may exercise its authority to suspend any bond principal (the importer of record) from participating in the Periodic Monthly Payment Statement test and require that the bond principal pay estimated duties and fees on an entry-by-entry basis.   CBP may also exercise its authority to require the bond principal to file entry summary documentation with estimated duties and fees attached before merchandise is released from any CBP port. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Amends ITAR to Include Eritrea on Prohibited Exports List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-10-06T00:05:53-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/37d2da2e9ed9eea9dcd81797baed2829-191.php#unique-entry-id-191</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/37d2da2e9ed9eea9dcd81797baed2829-191.php#unique-entry-id-191</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 6, 2008, the U.S.   Department of State published a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) with respect to Eritrea.   The U.S.   Department of State has added Eritrea to its regulations on prohibited exports and sales to certain countries as a result of Eritrea&rsquo;s designation as country not cooperating fully with antiterrorism efforts. 


This rule is effective October 3, 2008. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Retroactive Filing of First Sale Declaration Extended </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>First Sale</category><dc:date>2008-10-15T23:50:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7b6ad51e46d6712d654faed8bd39dda5-190.php#unique-entry-id-190</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7b6ad51e46d6712d654faed8bd39dda5-190.php#unique-entry-id-190</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 15, 2008, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a notice to extend the last filing date for retroactive First Sale declarations until October 17, 2008, which was effective August 20, 2008. 


The First Sale declaration requires that importers of merchandise enter an &ldquo;F&rdquo; next to the declared value at the line level on CBP Form 7501, or the electronic filing equivalent, when the declared transaction value is based on the First Sale.   Under the First Sale method, the value of imported merchandise is determined on the basis of the earlier than the last sale prior to the introduction of the merchandise into the U.S.  


Due to the short notice of the implementation of the First Sale declaration requirement, CBP allowed the trade a 30-day grace period to comply with the first sale requirements, covering entries filed between August 20, 2008 and September 19, 2008.   Importers were allowed to submit spreadsheets listing entry summary lines that needed an &ldquo;F&rdquo; indicator added or removed to the ports of entry where the entry summaries were filed.   A sample spreadsheet can be found here. 


These corrections, originally to be submitted to CBP no later than September 26, 2008, can now be submitted to CBP until October 17, 2008.   The period covered remains August 20, 2008, through September 19, 2008. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Implements Wassenaar Arrangement Changes to Export Administration Regulations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2008-10-14T23:47:32-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9132f08545cf5467134775c1492d738a-189.php#unique-entry-id-189</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9132f08545cf5467134775c1492d738a-189.php#unique-entry-id-189</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 14, 2008, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule in the Federal Register revising the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions (Wassenaar List). 


The Wassenaar List is 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). 


This final rule revises the EAR by amending certain entries that are controlled for national security reasons.   Specifically, entries in Categories 1, 2, 3, 5 Part I (telecommunications), Category 5 Part II (information security), and Categories 6, 7, and 9 were amended, and new entries were added to the Commerce Control List (CCL). 


The final rule also increases unilateral U.S. export controls on certain items to make them consistent with the amendments made to implement the Wassenaar Arrangement&rsquo;s decisions. 


Although this rule is effective immediately, shipments that were on dock prepared for loading or those that were en route to a port of export on October 14, 2008, may proceed to that destination under the previous license requirements as long as they are exported from the United States before December 15, 2008.   Items not exported before the December 15, 2008 deadline will require a license under the new regulations. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>North Korea Removed from State Sponsors of Terrorism List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>North Korea</category><dc:date>2008-10-14T23:41:50-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/55a41d7725ebce3bd3e5b5bbe07d6329-188.php#unique-entry-id-188</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/55a41d7725ebce3bd3e5b5bbe07d6329-188.php#unique-entry-id-188</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 14, 2008, the U.S.   Department of State announced that the U.S. has removed North Korea from its list of State Sponsors of Terrorism after the North Korean government agreed to resume dismantling of its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.


On October 13, 2008, North Korea lifted its ban on United Nations (UN) inspections of the Yongbyon plutonium processing plant it used to develop nuclear test explosion.   The core discharge activities at the nuclear reactor were to resume on October 14, 2008. 


North Korea had been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list since 1987 after the bombing of a South Korean passenger jet.   However, the country remains subject to numerous other sanctions that were a result of North Korea&rsquo;s 2006 nuclear test, its proliferation activities with other nations, its human rights violations and its status as a communist state. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Reuse of Shipment Reference Numbers Prohibited in AES</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>AES</category><dc:date>2008-10-01T23:38:09-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d85a9a7e3914431539cd2d6c8d65816b-187.php#unique-entry-id-187</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d85a9a7e3914431539cd2d6c8d65816b-187.php#unique-entry-id-187</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 26, 2008, U.S.   Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration&rsquo;s U.S.   Census Bureau (Census Bureau) issued a memorandum, which clarifies the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) requirement for the shipment reference number reported in the Automated Export System (AES).   A shipment reference number is a unique identification number assigned by the filer that allows the shipment to be identified in the filer&rsquo;s system.   Under current regulations, the shipment reference number must be unique for five years. 


Some AES filers attempted to reuse the shipment reference numbers after the five-year period had expired.   An analysis of the AES revealed that the system was not designed for the shipment reference numbers to be reused.   To add the reuse of the shipment reference numbers feature, the system would require complete redesign. 


Therefore, the Census Bureau has decided to prohibit the reuse of the shipment reference numbers.   Once the number has been assigned to a shipment, the filer cannot assign the same shipment reference number to future shipments. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS to Hold Public Meeting on Proposed Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-10-21T22:01:36-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/137d9f6adb5fe4fa84299863e9be1183-186.php#unique-entry-id-186</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/137d9f6adb5fe4fa84299863e9be1183-186.php#unique-entry-id-186</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 27, 2008, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will hold a public meeting to discuss its proposed rule on the Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) license exception.   The meeting will be held at 9:00 am in Room 4830 of the Herbert C.   Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. on October 27, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>An Update from BIS Update 2008</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-10-02T22:24:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6182264c65f232e1b103e2d60cb1351f-185.php#unique-entry-id-185</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6182264c65f232e1b103e2d60cb1351f-185.php#unique-entry-id-185</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) held its annual update conference in Washington, DC from September 29 - October 1, 2008.   Global Trade Expertise were there and here is a short summary of key highlights from the event:


	&bull;	BIS videotaped all of the sessions and plans to post the videos on their website in about 4 weeks.


	&bull;	BIS announced five regulatory initiatives: (1) Expanding the Entity List; (2) Comprehensive Review of the Commerce Control List; (3) Revisions to the Encryption Regulations; (4) Revised De Minimis Regulations; and (5) a proposed rule will be published next week outlining the Intra-Company Transfer License Exception (ICT), for which a 45-day comment period will follow.


	&bull;	BIS has expanded the foreign availability criteria beyond national security controls.


	&bull;	Based on the representations by BIS, the Intra-Company Transfer License Exception (ICT) will require prior approval, which will be similar to the license application process; periodic reporting will be required; and only certain technology for deemed exports will be covered by the ICT license exception.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Five Regulatory Changes</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2008-10-02T22:14:53-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7eefc001637c8a0069062e479296ad57-184.php#unique-entry-id-184</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7eefc001637c8a0069062e479296ad57-184.php#unique-entry-id-184</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On October 1, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced five regulatory updates:


	&bull;	Proposed rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to establish a new license exception entitled "Intra-Company Transfer (ICT)."   (To be published in the Federal Register)


	&bull;	Interim final rule to amend the EAR to make the treatment of encryption items more consistent with the treatment of other items subject to the EAR.   (To be published in the Federal Register)


	&bull;	Final rule to revise the EAR to implement changes agreed upon in the December 2007 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting and the provisions regarding solar cells agreed upon in the December 2006 Plenary Meeting.   (To be published in the Federal Register)


	&bull;	Final rule to amend the EAR as a result of a systematic review of the Commerce Control List.   (To be published in the Federal Register)


	&bull;	Interim rule to amend the EAR to change the de minimis calculation for foreign produced hardware that is bundled with U.S.-origin software. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Requests Comments on Foreign-Based Policy Export Controls </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2008-09-09T21:07:26-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4bd26bd5966205e15ff03717dfd552b-183.php#unique-entry-id-183</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c4bd26bd5966205e15ff03717dfd552b-183.php#unique-entry-id-183</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on foreign-based policy export controls.   BIS is reviewing the foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded, or extended.   BIS would like to receive comments on how existing foreign policy-based export controls have affected exporters and the general public. 


In addition, BIS is particularly interested in comments regarding the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR), including comments on its usefulness and format, as well as the specific entities listed and the licensing policies and requirements for each.


Comments must be received by October 8, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces ETRAC Members</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-09-24T21:03:43-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f28beef4dacfdb1a9bb00677295e3d6a-182.php#unique-entry-id-182</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f28beef4dacfdb1a9bb00677295e3d6a-182.php#unique-entry-id-182</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 23, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the membership of the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) here.


...Maja Mataric, University of Southern California


Jeffrey Ashe, General Electric Global Research


...Robert Breault, Breault Research Organization, Inc.


...Claude Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


...Jeffrey Puschell, Raytheon Space & Airborne Systems


...Michael Reiter, University of North Carolina


...Marlin Thomas, Air Force Institute of Technology


...Tierney IV, Los Alamos National Laboratory


...Marder, Georgia Institute of Technology
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Publishes Update 2008 Plenary Remarks</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-09-30T20:55:06-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9f0286d2cbf126b6c92229923d09602b-181.php#unique-entry-id-181</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9f0286d2cbf126b6c92229923d09602b-181.php#unique-entry-id-181</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 30, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the Plenary Remarks of Assistant Secretary Christopher R.   Wall at the 2008 BIS Update Conference in Washington, D.C. here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Increases Registration Fees and Changes Registration Renewal Period</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-09-26T20:37:10-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1677eb3a1ee4b1e3b28899369cea6425-180.php#unique-entry-id-180</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1677eb3a1ee4b1e3b28899369cea6425-180.php#unique-entry-id-180</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 25, 2008, the U.S.   Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) to increase registration fees, change the registration renewal period, and make other minor administrative changes.   The DDTC states that to align the registration fees with the cost of licensing, compliance, and other related activities, the DDTC is adopting a three-tier registration fee schedule.


The first tier fee structure is set at $2,250 per year for registrants who are renewing a registration, required to register by law, and for whom the DDTC has not yet reviewed, adjudicated or issued a response to any application during the twelve-month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration. 


The second tier is for registrants for whom DDTC has reviewed, adjudicated or issued a response to between one and ten applications during the twelve-month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration.   For this tier, registrants will pay a set fee of $2,750 per year.


The third tier is for registrants for whom DDTC has reviewed, adjudicated or issued a response more than ten applications during the twelve-month period ending 90 days prior to the expiration of their current registration.   For this tier, registrants will pay a set fee of $2,750 per year plus an additional fee that is based on multiplying $250 by the number of applications for which DDTC has reviewed, adjudicated or issued a response during the twelve months ending 90 days prior to the expiration of the current registration. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Amends ITAR to Terminate Arms Sanctions Against Rwanda</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-09-26T20:24:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/00ae9f5e3b5f1da6f87c9f8a267f5059-179.php#unique-entry-id-179</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/00ae9f5e3b5f1da6f87c9f8a267f5059-179.php#unique-entry-id-179</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 25, 2008, the U.S.   Department of State published a final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) with respect to Rwanda.   Through the final rule, the State Department is removing Rwanda from its regulations on prohibited exports and sales to certain countries as a result of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1823, which terminated remaining arms sanctions against Rwanda.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Publishes Updated Guidance on Licensing of Foreign Persons</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-09-22T19:45:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/85f1f4f42c36d9489d9ab8ace1e024b0-178.php#unique-entry-id-178</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/85f1f4f42c36d9489d9ab8ace1e024b0-178.php#unique-entry-id-178</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 22, 2008, the Department of State's DDTC published an updated guidance/instructions on the licensing of foreign persons here.   DDTC also published FAQs for the licensing of foreign persons here and a checklist for foreign persons employment here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Defense Trade Advisory Group to Meet October 21&#x2c; 2008</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-09-10T19:35:05-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/718d95d089e23cd83b1f1805809e9ac5-177.php#unique-entry-id-177</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/718d95d089e23cd83b1f1805809e9ac5-177.php#unique-entry-id-177</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 9, 2008, the Department of State published a Notice of Meeting for the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG).   The DTAG will meet on October 21, 2008 from 9:30 a.m. - 1 p.m. at the U.S.   Department of State, Harry S.   Truman Building, Washington, D.C.   Entry and registration will begin at 8:45 a.m.


As access to the Department of State facilities is restricted, persons wishing to attend the meeting must notify the DTAG Executive Secretariat by COB, Thursday, October 14, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Issues Softwood Lumber Act Interim Rule&#xd;CBP Issues Softwood Lumber Act Interim Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-09-23T19:26:11-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/59b77b1d153027321d6c8853fdc9b5c9-176.php#unique-entry-id-176</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/59b77b1d153027321d6c8853fdc9b5c9-176.php#unique-entry-id-176</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued an interim rule with instructions on implementation of the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008 (SLA). 


Enacted on June 18, 2008, SLA applies to softwood lumber products that are imported into the United States from any country on or after September 18, 2008. 

...	2	Estimated Export charge &ndash; if any, calculated by applying the percentage determined and published by Department of Commerce, found here, to the export price; and 


	3	Importer declaration &ndash; each importer must provide a softwood lumber declaration on the electronic entry summary by entering the letter code &ldquo;Y&rdquo; on the relevant line of the entry summary.   By entering &ldquo;Y&rdquo; on the import declaration, the importer will represent to CBP that the importer has made an inquiry (including seeking appropriate documentation from the exporter and consulting the determinations published by the Department of Commerce).   Furthermore, the declaration serves to show that the information provided was to the best of the person&rsquo;s knowledge and belief that: (a) the export price provided is determined in accordance with the definition set forth in SLA, and is consistent with the export price provided on the export permit, if any, granted by the country of export; and (b) the exporter has paid, or committed to pay, all export charges dues in accordance with the volume, export price, and export charge rate or rates. 


...If an importer claims that a shipment of softwood lumber home packages or kits is exempt from SLA per &sect; 804(c)(7), the importer is required to retain, and produce upon request by CBP: 


...	&bull;	A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by customers not affiliated with the importer;


	&bull;	A listing of all parts in the package or kit being entered into the United States that conforms to the home design, plan, or blueprint for which such parts are being imported; and 


...A sample entry summary form (CBP 7501) with instructions of entries for purposes of SLA, can be found here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Physicist Charged with Arms Export and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>FCPA</category><dc:date>2008-09-25T19:21:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/53c114f705029088c1292e4741cf7a3a-175.php#unique-entry-id-175</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/53c114f705029088c1292e4741cf7a3a-175.php#unique-entry-id-175</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 24, 2008, Shu Quan-Sheng, a PhD physicist, was arrested in Newport News, VA on charges of illegally exporting space launch technical data and services to China and offering bribes to Chinese government officials. ...  Shu, born in China and a naturalized U.S. citizen, is the President, Secretary and Treasurer of AMAC International (AMAC), a Newport News high-tech company that also has an office in Beijing, China.  


...Shu is charged with unlawfully exporting a defense service to foreign persons without obtaining permission, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and bribing, offering a bribe, and attempting to bribe a foreign government official, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). 


...Shu provided technical assistance and foreign technology acquisition expertise to several Chinese government entities involved in the building of a space launch facility in Hainan, China.   The facility is designated to house liquid-propelled heavy payload launch vehicles designed to send space stations and satellites into orbit, as well as provide support for manned space flight and future lunar missions. 


...Shu has participated in China&rsquo;s systematic effort to upgrade their space exploitation and satellite technology capabilities by providing technical expertise and foreign technology acquisition in the fields of cryogenic pumps, valves, transfer lines and refrigeration equipment, elements necessary for the use of liquefied hydrogen in the Hainan facility. ...  Shu is also said to have been instrumental in arranging for various Chinese officials to visit various European space launch facilities and hydrogen / storage facilities. 


There were several Chinese government entities involved in building of the space launch facility, including the People&rsquo;s Liberation Army&rsquo;s General Armaments Department and the 101st Research Institute, which is overseen by the Commission of Science Technology and Industry for the National Defense as one of the research institutions that makes up the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology.   Another entity involved is the Beijing Special Engineering Design Research Institute, which is responsible for the procurement of cryogenic liquid storage tanks for the Hainan launch facility. 


...Shu is said to have offered bribes to the 101st Research Institute government officials to induce the award of the hydrogen liquefier contract to a French company Dr. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>FTZ Board Revises Proposal for Site-Designation and Management Framework </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>FTZ</category><dc:date>2008-09-13T19:12:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/db2e7b8dec5fe3da99a84f2987e686ae-173.php#unique-entry-id-173</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/db2e7b8dec5fe3da99a84f2987e686ae-173.php#unique-entry-id-173</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 11, 2008, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board published a notice in the Federal Register that modifies its proposal to make available an alternative framework for designation and management of the general purpose FTZ sites.   In response to the comments received to an earlier notice, the key proposal revisions include allowance for a special transitional phase for each grantee applying to transfer to the alternative framework, elimination of a general initial limit on the number of &ldquo;usage-driven&rdquo; sites, elimination of an &ldquo;anchor&rdquo; site concept, and the sunset limits duration flexibility for &ldquo;magnet&rdquo; sites &ndash; with five years established as a minimum rather than a fixed standard. 


...	1	The &ldquo;service area,&rdquo; housing general-purpose FTZ sites, is required to comply with the adjacency requirement of the FTA Board&rsquo;s regulations (60 miles / 90 minutes driving time from Customs Port of Entry boundaries), the enabling legislation, and the grantee organization&rsquo;s charter. 

...	3	The usefulness of the 2,000 available acres would be enhanced by emphasizing &ldquo;floating&rdquo; or, available for activation, acreage within an individual site&rsquo;s boundaries. 


...	5	Possible designation of &ldquo;usage-driven&rdquo; sites to serve companies which are not located in a magnet site but which are ready to pursue conducting activity under FTZ procedures. 


...	9	Magnet sites and usage-driven sites would be subject to &ldquo;sunset&rdquo; time limits, which would self-remove FTZ designation from a site not used for FTZ purposes before the site&rsquo;s sunset date. ...  For a usage-driven site, the sunset limit would require within five years of approval admission into the site of foreign non-duty paid material for a bona fide customs purpose. 


	10	Magnet sites and usage-driven sites would also be subject to ongoing &ldquo;recycling&rdquo; where activation at a site during the site&rsquo;s initial sunset period would serve to push back the sunset date by another five years (the sunset test would then apply again). 


	11	An optional five year transitional phase would be available for grantees of zones with existing configurations that differ from the general parameters envisioned in the proposal. 


	12	For the transitional phase for a particular zone, the grantee would have the option of requesting usage-driven designation for any site where a single entity is conducting FTZ activity. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New Customs Declaration Requirements for Imported Plants and Wood Products</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Legislation</category><dc:date>2008-09-16T08:39:30-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9c0391922884acce4c7a407b5ebf4fe6-172.php#unique-entry-id-172</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/9c0391922884acce4c7a407b5ebf4fe6-172.php#unique-entry-id-172</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[With enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Lacey Act was amended with a purpose to prevent illegal harvesting and commerce of protected plants and trees.    As amended, the Lacey Act expands the scope of covered products to include trees in the definition of a plant, and adding products made from plants or trees. 


Moreover, prior to the amendment, the Lacey Act covered only plants native to the U.S. that are protected by a U.S. ...  After the amendment, the Lacey Act extends the scope of coverage to any plants under protection of a U.S. 

...The amended Lacey Act prohibits the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of any plants that were harvested in violation of a U.S. 

...The Lacey Act, as amended, defines &ldquo;plant&rdquo; as 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;   Excluded from the definition of &ldquo;plant&rdquo; are: (1) common cultivars (except trees) and common food crops; (2) live plants that are to remain, be planted, or replanted; and (3) scientific specimens of plant genetic material to be used for research (with some exceptions). 


...Beginning December 15, 2008, the Lacey Act requires an import declaration for plants and plant products, except for plant-based packaging materials used to pack the merchandise being imported. 

...(a) the scientific name of any plant (including the genus and species of the plant contained in the  importation); 


...The penalties for knowing violations of the Act may result in civil fines of $10,000 per violation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Iranian Ring Charged with Procuring IED Components &#xd;Iranian Ring Charged with Procuring IED Components &#xd;Iranian Ring Charged with Procuring IED Components &#xd;Iranian Ring Charged with Procuring IED Components</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DOJ</category><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-09-18T08:23:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6dd3c1b0d184288867359eff99ce8c2e-171.php#unique-entry-id-171</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6dd3c1b0d184288867359eff99ce8c2e-171.php#unique-entry-id-171</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 17, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a federal grand jury in Miami, Florida, has returned a Superseding Indictment charging sixteen foreign nationals and corporations in connection with their participation in conspiracy to export U.S.-manufactured commodities to prohibited entities and to Iran. 


The Indictment includes charges of conspiracy, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the United States Iran Embargo, and making false statements to federal agencies in connection with the export of thousands of U.S. goods to Iran.   Specifically, the Indictment alleges that the defendants purchased, and then caused the export of U.S. dual-use goods to ultimate buyers in Iran through middle countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, England, Germany, and Singapore.   Dual-use commodities are those that have commercial application, but could potentially be used to further the military or nuclear programs of other nations and thus could be detrimental to the foreign policy or national security of the United States. 


The goods at issue are controlled by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for missile technology, national security and antiterrorism reasons as well as under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).   In this case, the Indictment alleges that the defendants exported 120 field-programmable gate arrays, over 5,000 integrated circuits of varying types, around 345 Global Positioning Systems (GPS), 12,000 Microchip brand micro-controllers, and a Field Communication.   These commodities have potential military applications, including as components in construction of improvised explosive devises (IEDs). 


The charges announced are the result of a criminal investigation that was initiated in July 2006.   Led by the Commerce Department, the investigation also included the efforts of the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State and Treasury. 


As a result of investigation, the Commerce Department&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a Final Rule in the Federal Register announcing 75 additions to its Entity List because of their involvement in this illegal global procurement network for the benefit of the Iranian Government, and for their relationship to the Mayrow General Trading, one of the procurement front companies. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS to Post Commodity Classificaton Information Based on Exporters&#x27; Request</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-09-26T08:17:42-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1e7adbfef3ceb0ad12b45f026344c596-170.php#unique-entry-id-170</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1e7adbfef3ceb0ad12b45f026344c596-170.php#unique-entry-id-170</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 25, 2008, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that it will provide companies the opportunity to have their Commodity Classification information made accessible via the BIS website.&nbsp;


 


If a company has, or plans to have, Commodity Classification information or an export control point of contact available on their website, and would like this information to be accessible via the BIS website, they are asked to contact CommodityClassification@bis.doc.gov.   In the e-mail, the company must provide the following information, which then will be posted on the BIS website:


1) Company name,    2) General description of the products/services,    3) Commodity classification information website address, and   4) Export control point of contact. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes COAC Quarterly Meeting Minutes &#xd;CBP Publishes COAC Quarterly Meeting Minutes &#xd;CBP Publishes COAC Quarterly Meeting Minutes</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2008-09-15T07:45:15-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/809c7d77a4461d2faf664c91a574453e-169.php#unique-entry-id-169</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/809c7d77a4461d2faf664c91a574453e-169.php#unique-entry-id-169</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has posted on its website the minutes from the August 7, 2008 quarterly meeting of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions (COAC). 

...CBP continues to work with the European Union (EU) on supply chain security and hopes to sign an MR arrangement with the EU by next year.   CBP has been working with Japan on joint validations and hopes to have an MR agreement completed by the end of this year.   CBP is working with Canadian Customs on a single set of rules that would be applicable to companies common to both the U.S. and Canadian Supply Chain Security Programs; there are about 1,000 such companies.  


...SFI of CBP&rsquo;s Office of Field Operations is facing challenges with the initiative, largely because the technology for anomaly detection is not available. 

...Currently, CBP is running two systems: one is a case-by-case analysis of past legal cases, which has been done for the past 200 years; another is based on Decision Tree, which codifies inputs and existing body of law, which has been in existence for the past 15 years. ...  Thus, decision has been made to move to the more modern system, which already applies to 40% of the Trade. 60-day comment period was opened since the Issue Date. 


...Office of Int&rsquo;l Trade is withdrawing the First Sale Proposal because they need to focus on the Farm Bill Act.   CBP is working on a yes/no question with respect to whether the valuation is based on the first sale. ...  If it is first sale, CBP form 7501 on the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) will simply need to be marked &ldquo;F&rdquo; and left blank, if the entry valuation is not on first sale basis. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Guidance on Illicit Diversion of Goods to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-09-25T06:34:54-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b41db180ea5e4de56fadda7aee560608-168.php#unique-entry-id-168</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b41db180ea5e4de56fadda7aee560608-168.php#unique-entry-id-168</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Following the disbanding of an illicit Iranian global procurement scheme, on September 24, 2008, the U.S.   Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and security (BIS) issued guidance on actions exporters can take to prevent illegal diversion of items to support Iran&rsquo;s nuclear weapons or ballistic missile programs. 


...Iran has admitted to evading international sanctions to procure sensitive items that can contribute to its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.   Specifically, Iranian entities form front companies in other countries for the sole purpose of exporting items to Iran that can be used in the nuclear and missile programs. 


BIS recommends that the U.S. exporters take the following steps to prevent illicit export to Iran (more detail on the BIS Iranian Guidance website): 


...	&bull;	Contact BIS if something does not seem right about the transaction or if you suspect a shipment may have been diverted to Iran;  


	&bull;	Subscribe to the BIS listserv and to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control&rsquo;s (OFAC) service to receive notifications about changes to the Entity List and List of Specially Designation Nationals and Blocked Persons. 


The guidance follows the administrative actions taken last week by BIS and other agencies against 75 entities involved in a global procurement network that sought to illegally acquire and deliver to ultimate buyers in Iran U.S.-origin dual-use and military components for the Iranian Government. 


All exports to Iran are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Department of the Treasury&rsquo;s Iranian Transaction Regulations (ITR).   Exports must be authorized by the Treasury&rsquo;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) prior to exporting to Iran. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>OFAC Issues New Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-09-10T23:05:44-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/165765f0a197afb2a0ad772c5b483126-167.php#unique-entry-id-167</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/165765f0a197afb2a0ad772c5b483126-167.php#unique-entry-id-167</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[First, rather than identifying &ldquo;aggravating&rdquo; and &ldquo;mitigating&rdquo; factors, the Guidelines set forth General Factors for Taking Administrative Action (General Factors) that OFAC will consider in determining an appropriate enforcement response to an apparent violation and, if a civil monetary penalty is warranted, in establishing the amount of the penalty.   The Guidelines reflect a realization that in many cases, a particular factor may be considered either &ldquo;aggravating&rdquo; or &ldquo;mitigating&rdquo; (e.g. remedial action was considered a mitigating factor under 2003 rules; but, absence of remedial action considered as aggravating factor).  


Some or all of the following General Factors will be considered in determining the appropriate administrative action in response to an apparent violation of U.S. sanctions by a person, and, where a civil monetary penalty is imposed, the amount of such penalty:


...Second significant development is that the Guidelines provide for the issuance of either cautionary letters or findings of violation under certain circumstances, rather than the cautionary letters and warning letters provided for under the 2003 proposed rule and the evaluative letters provided for in the 2006 interim final rule. 


Third, in recognition of OFAC&rsquo;s position that enhanced maximum civil penalties authorized by the Enhancement Act should be reserved for the most serious cases, the Guidelines distinguish between egregious and non-egregious civil monetary penalty cases. 

...This process involves first determining a base penalty amount, which is based on two considerations: (i) whether the conduct, activity, or transaction giving rise to a violation is egregious or non-egregious, and (ii) whether the case involves a voluntary self-disclosure by the subject person. 

...Thus, under the Guidelines, the base penalty amount in a case determined to be non-egregious and involving voluntary self disclosure will not exceed one-half of the transaction value (capped at $125,000 per violation), while in an egregious case without voluntary self-disclosure, the penalty may reach the applicable statutory maximum.


Once a base penalty amount is determined based on the transaction value and egregiousness / voluntary self-disclosure factors, the amount may be adjusted upward or downward based on the other General Factors. 


With respect to responses to apparent violations, depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, an OFAC investigation may lead to one or more of the following actions: 


...In establishing the amount of civil penalties, including for failure to furnish information or to keep records, OFAC will review the facts and circumstances surrounding an apparent violation and apply the General Factors. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Extends Comment Period for Proposed Uniform Rules of Origin</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Origin</category><dc:date>2008-09-10T22:54:33-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d236c44907969ef3d5f520973ea34d1f-166.php#unique-entry-id-166</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d236c44907969ef3d5f520973ea34d1f-166.php#unique-entry-id-166</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2008, U.S.   Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that the comment period on the proposed uniform rules of origin for imported merchandise has been extended.   Interested parties may submit their comments to CBP on or before October 23, 2008. 


On July 25, 2008, CBP published a notice proposing to amend the CBP regulations to establish uniform rules of origin for imported merchandise.   Under the proposal, application of the country of origin rules codified in 19 CFR Part 102 will be extended to all imported merchandise. 


All merchandise imported into the U.S. undergoes country of origin determination.   Under current regulations, CBP uses two primary methods to determine the country of origin of imported goods that contain material from, or were processed in, more than one country.   To determine whether goods have been "substantially transformed" in a particular country, one method employs case-by-case analysis while the other primarily uses 19 CFR Part 102 rules detailing change in tariff classification. 


Under the proposed regulations, CBP intends to eliminate the &ldquo;substantial transformation&rdquo; test codified in Part 134 of the CBP regulations, and adapt the Part 102 rules that currently apply to textiles (with some exceptions) and to products originating in the NAFTA region. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DOJ Revises Corporate Charging Guidelines with Respect to the Waiving of Attorney-Client Privilege and Cooperation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DOJ</category><dc:date>2008-09-01T22:42:56-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f8ecf7034434b326eb7af3c322c81ace-165.php#unique-entry-id-165</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/f8ecf7034434b326eb7af3c322c81ace-165.php#unique-entry-id-165</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it is revising its corporate charging guidelines for federal prosecutors throughout the nation with respect to prosecuting corporate fraud.    The Department&rsquo;s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations govern how all federal prosecutors investigate, charge, and prosecute corporate crimes. 


The revisions will for the first time be included in the United State&rsquo;s Attorney&rsquo;s Manual, which is binding on all Department of Justice federal prosecutors.  

...The revised guidelines state that credit for cooperation will depend on the disclosure of relevant facts, rather than corporation&rsquo;s waiver of attorney-client privilege or work product protection.   Thus, whether or not a corporation waives attorney-client privilege or work product, it may receive due credit for cooperation if they disclose relevant facts.  

...The second important provision affects the federal prosecution&rsquo;s ability to receive non-factual attorney-client privileged communications and work product.   While under the old regulations federal prosecutors were allowed to request such information, titled &ldquo;Category II&rdquo; information, the new guidelines forbid it, with two exceptions well established in existing law. 


Among other significant changes, the new guidelines instruct prosecutors not to consider a corporation&rsquo;s advancement of legal fees to employees when evaluation cooperativeness.   Moreover, the new regulations establish that corporation may participate in a joint defense agreement and still be eligible for cooperation credit. 


Finally, federal prosecutors will be prohibited to consider whether a corporation sanctioned or retained culpable employees in evaluating whether credit for cooperation should be granted. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Retired Professor Convicted of Arms Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-09-05T21:44:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c1bb28c625e33223e1b72066a6f36eb-164.php#unique-entry-id-164</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c1bb28c625e33223e1b72066a6f36eb-164.php#unique-entry-id-164</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Reece Roth, a retired University of Tennessee (UT) professor, was found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and fifteen separate violations of illegally exporting sensitive information relating to a U.S. 

...(AGT), a Knoxville, Tennessee, technology company, with unlawfully transferring fifteen different "defense articles" to a graduate student, a national of China, in violation of the AECA. 

...Roth testified last week that he didn&rsquo;t break the law because the prosecution had not proved that the research was successful, reports the Associated Press. 

...Roth was also accused of taking reports and related studies in his laptop to China during a lecture tour in 2006, and having one report e-mailed to him there through a Chinese professor's Internet connection.


The government seized materials from Roth's office and took his laptop from him at the airport when he returned from the trip.   Prosecutors claimed he violated the export control act simply by taking the laptop with sensitive materials outside the country even if, as forensic evidence showed, he didn't open all of those files while he was in China.


"Today's guilty verdict should serve as a warning to anyone who knowingly discloses restricted U.S. military data to foreign nationals," said Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security.   United States Attorney Russ Dedrick said, "Our scientific and educational communities must take precautions to insure that technology and research are protected, when required, from disclosure to foreign governments." 


The maximum punishment for the conspiracy to violate AECA is five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.   The maximum penalty for each of the AECA offenses is 10 years imprisonment, a criminal fine of $1,000,000, and a mandatory special assessment of $100 for each offense. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Initiates Foreign Availability Assessment Process for Certain Thermal Imaging Cameras in China</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>China</category><dc:date>2008-09-04T18:29:10-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3cc75589e76ce902d3dae4a830889b0b-163.php#unique-entry-id-163</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3cc75589e76ce902d3dae4a830889b0b-163.php#unique-entry-id-163</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Department of Commerce&rsquo;s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a 90-day study to assess the foreign availability of uncooled thermal imaging cameras incorporating microbolometer focal plane arrays in China. 


BIS was required to initiate such assessment after the Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) certified a petition asserting that uncooled thermal imaging cameras were widely availably in China, thus rendering U.S. export controls ineffective.   In connection with the petition, SITAC has issued a report detailing the foreign availability of the uncooled thermal imaging cameras in controlled countries. 


Part 768 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) sets out the procedure associated foreign availability assessment.   The Secretary of Commerce has 90 days from the date of initiation to determine whether the thermal imaging cameras are available in China in sufficient quantity, and whether they are of comparable quality to render current U.S. export controls ineffective. 


To develop its own recommendation for the Secretary of Commerce consideration, BIS is also seeking information from the public and other U.S. ...  Once the Secretary completes the review process, both SITAC and Congress will be notified of the final assessment determination. 


If foreign availability is determined, the Department of Commerce may remove the license requirements, unless the President determines that this would be detrimental to national security.   The Secretary may also recommend to the President that negotiations be undertaken to eliminate the foreign availability.


The Federal Register notice details methods by which public may submit comments on the matter. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>North Korea to Remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>North Korea</category><category>State</category><dc:date>2008-08-26T22:58:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/278a347193c1e2c30e2cc19b4abddebf-162.php#unique-entry-id-162</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/278a347193c1e2c30e2cc19b4abddebf-162.php#unique-entry-id-162</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 25, 2008, after the U.S. refused to remove North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, North Korea announced it has stopped disabling its nuclear reactor complex and will consider rebuilding.


The statement comes two months after North Korea released the report of its plutonium programs and detonated the reactor&rsquo;s cooling tower, reports the Washington Post.   These actions prompted statements by the Bush administration that the U.S. will remove North Korea from the State Terrorism List and will lift some trade sanctions.  


However, on August 11, 2008, the United States refused to remove North Korea from the list, citing slow progress and refusal to permit outside experts to verify the scope of the nuclear program.  


The work to disable the Yongbyon nuclear reactor complex stopped on August 14, 2008, according to a statement issued by North Korea&rsquo;s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The official Korean Central News Agency added that the country will consider rebuilding the nuclear plant to its original state.   U.S. officials note, however, that the plant has been substantially dismantled under the supervision of outside nuclear technicians and it would take at least a year to restore it to its operation. 


North Korea entered into agreement with the U.S. in 2007 to abandon its nuclear program.   North Korea promised to start by disabling the Yongbyon plant and detailing the scope of its nuclear program. 

...The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has published Q &A for exporters on the Rescission of North Korea from the State Sponsor of Terrorism List, which can be found here. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Trial Begins for Retired Professor Charged with ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-08-25T22:26:32-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/10918087751da3f9e61d603144e8c1d4-161.php#unique-entry-id-161</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/10918087751da3f9e61d603144e8c1d4-161.php#unique-entry-id-161</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Reece Roth, a retired University of Tennessee (UT) physics professor went on trial charged with violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).   As reported by USA Today, prosecutors allege Roth violated AECA by allowing two UT students, one from China and another from Iran, unrestricted access to information about the technology used in an U.S. ...  The professor is also said to have taken documents relating to that project on his trip to China in 2006. 


The Air Force contract involved developing lightweight flight control system technology for use in unmanned air vehicles, otherwise known as drones.   According to USA Today, Atmospheric Glow Technologies (AGT), with Roth as a consultant and subcontractor, promised a control system that would use plasma, rather than mechanical flaps, to lift the aircraft.   Roth, an expert in plasma technology, was one of the founders of AGT, but later the company went public. 

...Roth came under investigation in 2006 when UT export-control officials discovered his use of foreign nationals in his UT lab on the military contract.    Government agents searched his office and seized his laptop computer when he returned from a lecture trip to China in May of 2006. 


On August 20, 2008, AGT pleaded guilty to 10 counts of AECA violations from late 2004 to May 2006, reports the Knoxville News Sentinel. ...  Knoxville News Sentinel reports that, as part of the plea agreement, AGT&rsquo;s board of directors now admits company officials knew Roth had allowed the China national access to information on the Air Force project without notifying the Department of Defense. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Announces Trade Symposium 2008 Details</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2008-08-25T22:15:44-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/60a2d4af14a48adc4edf44a9df5de0d0-160.php#unique-entry-id-160</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/60a2d4af14a48adc4edf44a9df5de0d0-160.php#unique-entry-id-160</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 25, 2008, Customs and Border Protection announced the dates and topic for its Trade Symposium 2008, The topic of this year&rsquo;s symposium is "Global Trade: Continuity Through Transition.''   The Symposium will focus on U.S.   Customs and Border Protection&rsquo;s (CBP) commitment to security and trade programs amidst transition within the administration.    Sessions will include: 


	&bull;	CBP Trade Strategy


...	&bull;	World Customs Organization


	&bull;	CBP Agriculture Mission


The symposium will be held at the JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20004.   Registration is expected to open September 2, 2008, and must be made on-line.   The registration fee is $250.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>First Sale Declaration Requirement Effective August 20&#x2c; 2008 </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>First Sale</category><dc:date>2008-08-26T22:04:19-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45b0e8fda22260d4b5350addb1e64b19-159.php#unique-entry-id-159</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/45b0e8fda22260d4b5350addb1e64b19-159.php#unique-entry-id-159</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Starting August 20, 2008 and effective for a one year period, all importers are required at the time of entry to provide the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with a declaration as to whether the transaction value of the imported merchandise is calculated on the basis of the First Sale Rule.   Under the Rule, when the merchandise is introduced into the United States as a result of a series of sales, the transaction value is calculated based on the first or earlier, rather than later sale.   However, this rule will not be enforced until September 20, 2008.


The First Sale Declaration Requirement was established under &sect; 15422(a) of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, commonly referred to as the Farm Bill.   To meet the Requirement, an importer must enter &ldquo;F&rdquo; next to the declared value of the merchandise on CBP Form 7501, or its electronic filing equivalent, if the declared transaction value of the imported merchandise is determined on the First Sale basis.   If First Sale is not the basis for the transaction valuation, the box will remain blank.  


The trade community has advised CBP that it would not be ready to comply with the Declaration Requirement by August 20, 2008 because of the complex programming changes required.   In response, to permit the community sufficient time to comply, CBP has delayed enforcement of First Sale Declaration Requirements for 30 days until September 20, 2008.   Thus, imports made between August 20 and September 19, 2008 will not be rejected based on the First Sale Declaration Requirement; however, these entries will require amendment. 

...The First Sale Declaration Requirement will enable CBP to gather information on the frequency of the first sale valuation, which will be reported to the International Trade Commission. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Rule for Expanding Entity List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-08-23T12:59:35-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0500c3d23c2bfa9fabfc277a9c26aa00-157.php#unique-entry-id-157</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0500c3d23c2bfa9fabfc277a9c26aa00-157.php#unique-entry-id-157</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 21, 2008, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule that expands the criteria for adding parties to the Entity List. 

...Effective immediately, the new rule authorizes imposition of foreign policy export and reexport license requirements, limiting the availability of license exceptions, and setting license application review policy for exports and reexports.   BIS may take such actions &ldquo;if there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entity has been involved, is involved, or poses a significant risk of becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.&rdquo; 


Under the rule, the activities at issue do not have to be subject to EAR in order for a party to be placed on the Entity List. 

...Actions that could strengthen military or terrorism capabilities of governments that have been designated by the Secretary of State as repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism;


Dealing or assisting dealing in conventional weapons in a way contrary to the U.S. national security or foreign policy interest; 


...Engaging in conduct that poses a risk of violating the EAR when such conduct raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports or reexports enhances BIS&rsquo;s ability to prevent EAR violations.  


The rule applies to foreign parties only, and will not be used to add U.S. persons on the Entity List.   Thus, a foreign party could be added to the Entity List if specific and articulable facts provide that it has been engaged in the type of conduct identified. 


The new rule also amends the EAR to include a procedure for addressing requests of a listed parties to be removed from the list or have their listing modified. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DDTC Publishes Notice &#x26; FAQs on License Support Documentation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2008-08-13T13:22:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/79197569effff25e8e7cb16e01851578-156.php#unique-entry-id-156</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/79197569effff25e8e7cb16e01851578-156.php#unique-entry-id-156</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On August 7, 2008, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published an updated notice on license support documentation.   In the notice, DDTC states:


The purpose of this requirement is to confirm the legitimacy of the transaction, including the roles and responsibilities of all the parties.   DTCL has received with increasing frequency supporting documentation that calls into question whether the applicants are in a position to fulfill their responsibilities as registered exporters and, in fact, whether anyone at the companies could meet the obligations as empowered officials under Section 120.25.   In these instances, the applications have been Returned Without Action advising the applicants of the ITAR requirements.   At this time, DTCL finds it prudent to iterate to exporters of defense articles the fundamental ITAR requirement for supporting documentation.


The FAQ questions can be found here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Agenda for Next Six Months Outlined</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-08-07T22:18:15-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d966975b53bce259104f53bc3997368-155.php#unique-entry-id-155</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/2d966975b53bce259104f53bc3997368-155.php#unique-entry-id-155</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 30, 2008, Under Secretary of Commerce Mario Mancuso delivered a keynote address to the Washington International Trade Association entitled, "Sprinting to the Finish - The BIS Agenda for the Final Six Months."


Highlights of the agenda are:


	1	BIS will continue to focus on the areas of highest enforcement concern to the agency: nations of illicit trans-shipment concern, proliferators, and terrorists - with Iran being of particular concern.   Reauthorization of the EAA is a priority for the agency.


	2	BIS will work to implement the dual-use directive signed by the President this past January and BIS hopes to make meaningful progress on the following regulatory issues: the intra-company transfer license exception, deemed exports, encryption, thermal imaging, foreign availability, and 17C.


	3	BIS will continue to support its current work and make a smooth transition to the new administration.   BIS is committed to doing its best to attract the best and brightest to public service, better integrate its enforcement and policy functions, improving interagency engagement, upgrading its technology infrastructure and business processes over time, and better aligning its workforce to address BIS's highest priorities.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>USPTO Publishes Notice Reminding Patent Filers of Export Controls</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Patents</category><category>USPTO</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2008-07-29T19:18:13-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a99225ced21f3b072049fe2c29dc6c86-154.php#unique-entry-id-154</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a99225ced21f3b072049fe2c29dc6c86-154.php#unique-entry-id-154</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 23, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the scope of its foreign filing licenses.   Through the notice, USPTO reminds applicants and registered patent practitioners that the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the USPTO, such as a foreign filing license, is limited to the purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications.   The USPTO reminds applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States to contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the Department of Commerce for appropriate clearances.


In the notice, the USPTO states that it has become aware that a number of law firms or service provider companies located in foreign countries that are sending solicitations to U.S. registered patent practitioners offering their services in connection with the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.   The USPTO states that, "if an invention was made in the United States, technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, can only be exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign patent application, after compliance with the EAR or following the appropriate USPTO foreign filing license procedure.   See 37 CFR 5.11(c).   A foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States."


Finally, the USPTO states:


This notice does not change existing laws or regulations.   Thus, while the notice is effective on July 23, 2008, this notice does not excuse or otherwise affect the legal consequence of a failure to comply with existing law or regulations that occurred prior to July 23, 2008.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>WTO Doha Talks Collapse Without Agreement</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Trade</category><category>WTO</category><dc:date>2008-07-29T13:35:49-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5931fb68192b2645f6fd2126c0833de4-153.php#unique-entry-id-153</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5931fb68192b2645f6fd2126c0833de4-153.php#unique-entry-id-153</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[After seven years of the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations and nine days of talks in Geneva, world trade talks collapsed in rancor on July 29, 2008.   The nine day talks were the longest trade summit diplomats in Geneva could recall, reported the Wall Street Journal, and were aimed at concluding a simple bargain:  The European Union and the United States would lower farm subsidies and tariffs in exchange for China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies opening up their markets for industrial goods such as chemicals and cars.   Trade experts stated that the failure of the talks were the result of huge changes in the global economy as countries such as Brazil, China, and India emerge as trading powerhouses.


The Wall Street Journal reports that talks between the 30-some countries almost collapsed last week, but a midnight handshake on Friday between Brazil and the U.S. kept talks going. ...  China and India insisted on a safeguard rule that would allow them to impose special tariffs if imports surged in certain products such as sugar, cotton, and rice.


The New York Times reported that the U.S. argued that the safeguard rule, which is not permitted today, would involve moving backwards on existing world trade commitments. ...  "It is unconscionable that we could have come out with an outcome that rolled the global trading system back not by one year or five years but by 30 years," she stated.


...The proliferation of bilateral deals and the continuing expansion of exports from both developing and developed countries have raised doubts among some Doha skeptics about the necessity of a global agreement. 

...&ldquo;There are people who argue that no Doha outcome is better than a weak Doha outcome, but I don&rsquo;t agree,&rdquo; said Katinka Barysch, the chief economist at the Center for European Reform in London.


...Deep skepticism about the advantages of open trade with China and other rising economic powers, on vivid display during the Democratic primaries in the United States, is a growing threat in Europe as well, particularly as France, Italy and other countries have fallen into an American-style economic swoon. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Proposes New Uniform Rules of Origin for Imported Products</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Origin</category><dc:date>2008-07-26T21:59:12-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/746a56fa9a1ca5e3b718b9d27dd34009-152.php#unique-entry-id-152</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/746a56fa9a1ca5e3b718b9d27dd34009-152.php#unique-entry-id-152</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[CBP states that under the current regulations, there are two primary methods that CBP uses to determine the country of origin of imported goods that are processed in, or contain materials from, more than one country. ...  CBP states that the other method employs codified rules, also used to determine whether a good has been "substantially transformed" primarily expressed through changes in tariff classification.


CBP states that the case-by-case substantial transformation standard has developed from federal court decisions issued over many years and was first applied by the U.S. 

...These problems derive in large part from the inherently subjective nature of judgements made in case-by-case adjudications as to what constitutes a new and different article and whether processing has resulted in a new name, character, and use. ...  Because the rule has been applied on a case-by-case basis to a wide range of scenarios and has frequently involved consideration of multiple criteria, the substantial transformation has been difficult for the courts and CBP to apply consistently and has often resulted in a lack of predictability and certainty for both CBP and the trade community.


...In an effort to simplify and standardize country of origin determinations, Customs developed a codified method that uses specified changes in tariff classification (tariff shifts) and other rules to express the substantial transformation concept.   Under this codified method, the substantial transformation that an imported good must undergo in order to be deemed a good of the country where the change occurred is usually expressed in terms of a specified tariff shift as a result of further processing.


After going through the history of Part 102 of the CFR, CBP states that since 1996, the Part 102 rules have applied to all imports from Canada and Mexico, and nearly all textile product, accounting for approximately 40 percent of total U.S. imports.   CBP states that it and the trade community have had extensive experience in applying Part 102 origin rules and in CBP's experience administering these rules, it has found that "by virtue of their greater specificity and transparency, codified rules result in determinations that are more objective and predictable than under the case-by-case adjudication method."


Therefore, CBP is proposing "to extend by application of the Part 102 rules of origin to all country of origin determinations made under the customs and related laws and the navigation laws of the United States, unless otherwise specified."
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Department Limits ITAR Registration to 1 Year</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-07-18T21:22:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c34a2a8ee163bbeb055e62978b35423-151.php#unique-entry-id-151</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6c34a2a8ee163bbeb055e62978b35423-151.php#unique-entry-id-151</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 18, 2008, the U.S.   Department of State published a final rule in the Federal Register which amends the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).   The final rule is effective on July 18, 2008 and revises the validity period for registration to one year (from up to 2 years) and limits the time frame in which a registration may be renewed.   A registrant must now submit its request for renewal of its registration at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the registration, but no earlier than 60 days prior to the expiration date.


The amended regulation follows:


Sec.   122.3 Registration fees.


(a) A person who is required to register may do so for a period of 1 year upon submission of a completed Form DS-2032, transmittal letter and payment of $1,750. 

(b) Expiration of registration.   A registrant must submit its request for registration renewal at least 30 days but no earlier than 60 days prior to the expiration date.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Dates for Update 2008 Conference</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Export</category><dc:date>2008-07-24T17:24:22-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0b3abf49c47842d38fb028005780a419-150.php#unique-entry-id-150</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0b3abf49c47842d38fb028005780a419-150.php#unique-entry-id-150</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 24, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the dates for its Update 2008 conference.   Update 2008 will be held from September 29, 2008 - October 1, 2008.   Further information can be found here and the agenda can be found here. 


...Update activities will begin on Monday, September 29 featuring mini training sessions for those new to Update as well as an Exhibit Hall with industry and government exhibitors.   The main conference will begin on Tuesday, September 30 and end on Wednesday, October 1.   Please see the Agenda for conference details.   A Program Description will be posted in the coming weeks.


BIS had posted information on how to express your interest in attending Update 2008 and will e-mail instructions on how to register on July 25, 2008.   BIS states, "Since there was more interest than space available at the conference, those whose names are not drawn will be placed on a waiting list and notified of how to register as space becomes available."   For those who receive the registration email, they must register by August 18th, or their spot will be given to those on the wait list.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>DOD Amends DFARS re: Export-Controlled Items</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Defense</category><category>DFARS</category><dc:date>2008-07-21T16:15:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/50af4bba8967b77afb8a85b2e6a17dd2-149.php#unique-entry-id-149</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/50af4bba8967b77afb8a85b2e6a17dd2-149.php#unique-entry-id-149</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 21, 2008, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued an interim rule in the Federal Register amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for complying with export control laws and regulations when performing DoD contracts.   The rule recognizes contractor responsibilities to comply with existing Department of Commerce and Department of State regulations. 


DoD published a proposed rule at 70 Fed.   Reg. 39,976 on July 12, 2005, to address requirements for preventing unauthorized disclosure of export-controlled information and technology under DoD contracts.   In consideration of the public comments received, DoD published a second proposed rule at 71 Fed.   Reg.   46,434.   In the Federal Register publication today, DoD sets out the changes from the interim rule and addresses the public comments received from 167 persons or organizations in response to the second proposed rule.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Commissioner Testifies re: Laptop Border Searches</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Border Security</category><dc:date>2008-07-14T16:07:40-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ce1b981d299b2845ce5cdab91b8277d8-148.php#unique-entry-id-148</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ce1b981d299b2845ce5cdab91b8277d8-148.php#unique-entry-id-148</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP), testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee in a hearing entitled, "Laptop Searches and Other Violations of Privacy Faced by Americans Returning from Overseas Travel." 

...At the outset, the Deputy Commissioner objected to the title of the hearing and stated that, "CBP's efforts do not infringe on Americans' privacy."   He stated that CBP is responsible for enforcing over 600 laws at the border, including those related to narcotics, intellectual property, child pornography and other contraband, and terrorism.   He stated that CBP's ability to examine what is coming into the country is crucial to its ability to enforce these laws and keep the country safe from terrorism.


...Ahern then discussed the recent Federal Court of Appeals cases from the 9th and 4th Circuits that upheld CBP's suspicionless search of an international traveler's laptop computer that uncovered child pornography.   He stated that not only has CBP uncovered child pornography in conducting such searches of computers and electronic devices, but CBP has also limited the movement of terrorists, individuals who support terrorist activities, and threats to national security, stating that CBP has found "violent jihadist material, information about cyanide and nuclear material, video clips of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) being exploded, pictures of various high-level Al-Qaida officials and other material associated with people seeking to do harm to U.S. and its citizens."


He then recounted an investigation where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents worked with CBP to conduct a border search of a laptop computer belonging to a Canadian national who was suspected of stealing ITAR-controlled software from a U.S. company with the intent to sell it to the Chinese. 

...Ahern continued to discuss how CBP's ability to search laptop computers and other electronic devices is essential to CBP's ability to ensure that a person entering the United States does not pose a threat to the safety and welfare of the country.   He described certain factors that CBP uses to determine whether a search is necessary, such as the individual's travel history to countries with significant terrorist activity, narcotics smuggling or child exploitation or their physical description and behavior (e.g., in response to questioning). 

...In regards to the privacy of these searches, CBP officers conduct their work in a manner designed to adhere to all constitutional and statutory requirements, including those that are applicable to privileged, personal, and business confidential information. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Changes North Korea&#x27;s Designations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</category><category>State</category><category>North Korea</category><dc:date>2008-07-02T15:11:18-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b549031b7fa082310cf0807c02bdee66-147.php#unique-entry-id-147</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b549031b7fa082310cf0807c02bdee66-147.php#unique-entry-id-147</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 26, 2008, President Bush announced the lifting of the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) with respect to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), and notified Congress of his intent to rescind North Korea's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST), which triggers a 45-day congressional notification period prior to formal rescission of the designation.   The Executive Order can be found here and the State Department's press release can be found here.


This presidential action was taken following North Korea's submission of a declaration of its nuclear programs, which will now be subject to verification, by the Six Parties.   The Six Party talks has been a series of meetings with six party states: the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), North Korea, the United States, the Russian Federation, and Japan, which were the result of North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003.


The Administration plans to carry out North Korea's rescission from the SST list only after the Six Parties reach agreement on acceptable verification principles and acceptable verification protocol regarding North Korea's nuclear activities; the Six Parties have established an acceptable monitoring mechanism; and verification activities have begun. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Posts Q &#x26; As on Recent North Korea Presidential Announcement</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>North Korea</category><dc:date>2008-07-09T14:36:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0c1ff98af1c66183d924ef40b15612be-146.php#unique-entry-id-146</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0c1ff98af1c66183d924ef40b15612be-146.php#unique-entry-id-146</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 8, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) posted questions and answers on the recent Presidential announcement with regard to the rescission of North Korea from the State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) List (here). 

...In essence, the Q&A states that the President's June 26, 2008 announcement triggered a 45-day congressional notification period prior to the formal rescission of the SST designation.   The Administration will carry out the formal rescission only after the Six Parties (along with North Korea - China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States) reach agreement on acceptable verification and monitoring principles and protocols regarding North Korea's nuclear activities.   Following such agreement, and barring further congressional action, BIS plans to publish an amendment to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) removing North Korea from Country Group E:1 and making other conforming changes to implement the rescission.   Removing North Korea from Country Group E:1 will raise the threshold value for calculating the de minimis level of foreign goods destined to North Korea to 25% controlled U.S. content. 

...BIS states that pursuant to Section 746.4 of the EAR, it will continue to require a license for the export or reexport to North Korea of items subject to the EAR, except food and medicine classified as EAR99.   BIS also stated that even after North Korea's SST designation is rescinded, certain export control requirements, in particular those related to North Korea's detonation of a nuclear device on October 9, 2006, proliferation activities, and human rights violations, will continue to apply on the basis of other laws and regulations, and in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718.


...Government will generally approve applications to export or reexport: (a) Non-food, non-medical humanitarian items meeting subsistence needs and intended for the benefit of the North Korean people; and (b) Items in support of the United Nations and other humanitarian efforts.


...Government will generally deny applications to export or reexport to North Korea: (a) Luxury goods (an illustrative list of luxury goods appears on the BIS website); (b) Arms and related materiel, and items controlled under the multilateral export control regimes; and (c) Items that could contribute to North Korea's nuclear-, ballistic missile-, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs.


...Government will review, on a case-by-case basis, applications to export and reexport all other items subject to the EAR, consistent with all applicable licensing policies set forth in the EAR
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State/DDTC Updates Guidance Documents</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>State</category><category>DDTC</category><dc:date>2008-07-07T11:45:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e2da3b52ca2f76b07975529f40afd445-145.php#unique-entry-id-145</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e2da3b52ca2f76b07975529f40afd445-145.php#unique-entry-id-145</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On July 1 - 3, 2008, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) updated its website with new guidance documents.   Specifically, the DDTC posted updated Agreements Guidelines on July 1, 2008; a listing of countries by DoS regional bureaus, licensing review checklists, and updated licensing FAQs on July 2, 2008; and updated its DDTC Outreach page on July 3, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Airlines Plead Guilty to Price Fixing Air Cargo Rates and Agree to Pay Criminal Fines of More than &#x24;500 Million</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DOJ</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-06-30T22:54:04-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d496b57aa0704a768426fd72b2fbc37c-144.php#unique-entry-id-144</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d496b57aa0704a768426fd72b2fbc37c-144.php#unique-entry-id-144</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 26, 2008, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that five major international airlines (Air France, Cathay Pacific, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Martinair, and SAS) have agreed to each plead guilty and pay criminal fines totaling $504 million for participating in a multi-year conspiracy to fix prices for air cargo rates.   Of the total, Air France-KLM, which now operates under common ownership by a single holding company, has agreed to pay a $350 million criminal fine, the second highest ever levied in a criminal antitrust prosecution, DOJ states.


According to the charges filed on June 26, 2008, the airlines each engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the cargo rates charged to customers for international air shipments.   The companies have each agreed to cooperate in the DOJ's ongoing investigation.


The DOJ stated: 


The plea agreements are subject to court approval.   Along with Air France-KLM&rsquo;s $350 million fine, Cathay has agreed to pay a $60 million criminal fine, Martinair has agreed to pay a $42 million criminal fine, and SAS has agreed to pay a $52 million criminal fine.   If the court accepts the plea agreements, it would bring the total fines imposed in the Antitrust Division&rsquo;s investigation in the air transportation industry to more than $1.27 billion, marking the highest total amount of fines ever imposed in a criminal antitrust investigation.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CIT Dismisses Gender Discrimination in Tariff Classifications Case</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CIT</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2008-07-07T12:50:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e133639121a5208400feff89e628a20-143.php#unique-entry-id-143</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e133639121a5208400feff89e628a20-143.php#unique-entry-id-143</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In the case, the Totes-Isotoner, an importer of men's gloves, claimed that by setting out different tariff rates for certain men's and other gloves (i.e., 14% duty for men's gloves and 12.6% duty for gloves "for other persons") the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) violates Totes' right to equal protection under the law because it discriminates on the basis of gender and/or age. 

...The government sought to dismiss the case on the basis of three claims: (1) the complaint presented a political question that was non-justiciable; (2) Totes did not have a sufficient stake in the matter so as to possess standing to bring an equal protection claim; and (3) Totes failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.   The CIT denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the first two claims, but dismissed the case without prejudice because it found that Totes did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim of unconstitutional jurisdiction.


...Thereafter, the court found that Totes had sufficient standing to raise its claim by having both constitutional standing as the payor of an allegedly discriminatory tax and prudential standing as Totes' claim is within the zone of interests protected by the Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee.


Finally, the court found that Totes failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

...In order to state such a claim for violation of the equal protection clause based on gender, Totes must allege that the government has engaged in gender-based discrimination without an exceedingly persuasive justification, or in other words, that the government has used discriminatory means that are not substantially related to important government objectives. 

...The court found that because the tariff provisions Totes challenged were not "actual use" provisions that require the imported gloves to be actually sold or used by people of the same sex or of some age category, but were "chief" or "principal use" provisions, the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish the government had engaged in gender-based discrimination. 

...Moreover, the discrimination alleged in Totes' Complaint, results from the imposition of the duty, or tax, imposed by tariff classifications.   But, as alleged by the Compliant, that duty or tax falls on importers, and there is not factual indication in the Complaint that the classification results in discriminatory application of the tax. 

...Since the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, Totes may revise the case and re-file with the CIT or appeal the CIT decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Laptop Searches Criticized at Senate Hearing</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Politics</category><category>Senate</category><dc:date>2008-06-27T16:51:33-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5daab7869e9ff6ccbf0c927cc15c2f84-140.php#unique-entry-id-140</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5daab7869e9ff6ccbf0c927cc15c2f84-140.php#unique-entry-id-140</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 25, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights) held a hearing on "Laptop Searches and Other Violations of Privacy Faced by Americans Returning from Overseas Travel."   At the hearing, advocacy groups and some legal experts stated that it was unreasonable for federal officials to search the laptops of U.S. citizens when returning from traveling abroad.


...Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could conduct searches of electronic devices such as laptops without reasonable suspicion.   Specifically, the court ruled that border control agents who found child porn on a traveler's laptop didn't violate the man's right to be free from unreasonable searches.   Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote, "We are satisfied that reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border." ...  Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld computer searches by border guard when a man drove from Canada to the U.S. with child porn on his computer.


As reported by the New York Times:


&ldquo;If you asked most Americans whether the government has the right to look through their luggage for contraband when they are returning from an overseas trip, they would tell you &lsquo;yes, the government has that right,&rsquo; &rdquo; Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said Wednesday at the hearing of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.


...Feingold continued, &ldquo;if you asked them whether the government has a right to open their laptops, read their documents and e-mails, look at their photographs and examine the Web sites they have visited, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing, I think those same Americans would say that the government absolutely has no right to do that.&rdquo;
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Applications for EU Duty Suspensions Due Mid-July</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>EU</category><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2008-06-28T15:32:48-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1dfa5d3b70ed5df4da8c09070173b629-139.php#unique-entry-id-139</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1dfa5d3b70ed5df4da8c09070173b629-139.php#unique-entry-id-139</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It may be possible to have the duties suspended on a particular product if the EU Commission approves your application for duty suspension.   The EU Commission will allow the suspension of customs duties to companies that apply for the relief on the basis of a valid economic argument as to why the import of duty-suspended goods will benefit and stimulate economic activity in the EU Community.


...The current deadline for duty suspension applications is July 25, 2008 for applications that would take effect on July 1, 2009. 


All current duty suspensions are listed by the EU Commission by EU Regulation.   Normally, if a company succeeds in getting a duty suspension on a product, it remains on the list unless an objection is lodged at some point in the future. 


...	&bull;	The goods in question are finished products intended for sale to end-consumers without further substantial processing or without forming an integral part of a bigger final product for whose functioning they are necessary


...	&bull;	Uncollected customs duties of the goods in question is estimated to be less than ECU 20,000 per year


...It appears this is due to:  the fact that PCC and IP customs economic procedures (similar to special trade programs in the U.S.) are proving time consuming to administer, create risk if not done correctly, and put a company of Customs' radar re: audits, etc.   Duty suspensions, if granted, operate by assigning a unique ten-digit code at import and no additional compliance is required thereafter. 


If you are interested in learning more about obtaining a duty suspension in the EU, please contact Global Trade Expertise or Eamonn Flood (eamonn@crannaghtrade.eu) or Carol Lynch (carol.lynch@crannaghtrade.eu) of Crannagh & Co. (www.crannaghtrade.eu).]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>First Sale Valuation to Remain Permissible Through At Least 2010 &#x26; &#x22;10+2&#x22; Rule May Be Finalized by End of Summer</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>First Sale</category><category>10+2</category><dc:date>2008-06-26T16:36:08-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eee02d9ced2fbd4bfa2b6780f60ed568-138.php#unique-entry-id-138</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eee02d9ced2fbd4bfa2b6780f60ed568-138.php#unique-entry-id-138</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Specifically, Basham stated that in January of this year, CBP published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Interpretation seeking public comment of the phrase "sold for exportation to the United States" for purposes of applying the transaction value method of valuation in a series of sales scenario.   Under the proposed interpretation, transaction value would be based on the price paid by the buyer in the U.S. to the foreign manufacturer, which is a departure from the current application of the valuation statute, which allows importers to use the price paid by an intermediary to the foreign manufacturer as the basis for transaction value. 

...No. 110-246)) requires CBP to collect valuation information from importers and included a sense of Congress that CBP should not publish a final interpretative rule on this issue before January 1, 2011. ...  Nor will we change the current interpretation with respect to first sale without consulting with Congress and the private sector, or without the explicit approval of the Secretary of Treasury." 

...	&bull;	CBP is required to submit a report that includes the number of importers that declare transaction value on the basis of first sale, the tariff classification of such merchandise and the value of the merchandise, on a monthly basis to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC).


...	&bull;	The Farm Bill also includes a sense of Congress that CBP should not proceed with its proposed interpretative rule until January 1, 2011 and upon certain coordination and consultation with Congress, the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, the International Trade Commission, the Secretary of Treasury, and the trade. ...  Nor will we change the current interpretation with respect to first sale without consulting with the Congress and the private sector, or without the explicit approval of the Secretary of Treasury.


Other items of interest include the status of the proposed "10+2" rule or Importer Security Filing, which requires importers to provide CBP with 10 data elements plus 2 data elements from carriers electronically at least 24 hours prior to vessel loading at foreign ports of origin. 

...The two additional elements required from carriers are: (1) a vessel stow plan used to transmit information about the physical location of cargo loaded aboard a vessel bound for the United States; and (2) container status messages, which report container movements and changes in status (e.g., empty or full).


It has been reported that in response to questioning by the committee, Basham stated that CBP hopes to submit the rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the end of the week and have it ready for publication by the end of the summer. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>USTR Initiates GSP Review for Vietnam</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>USTR</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2008-06-23T11:18:52-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/80084c9062ac8d7f76e4a75ef0a81539-137.php#unique-entry-id-137</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/80084c9062ac8d7f76e4a75ef0a81539-137.php#unique-entry-id-137</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 20, 2008, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced in the Federal Register the initiation of a review to consider designating the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a beneficiary developing country (BDC) for purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program and solicits public comments on whether Vietnam meets eligibility requirements for designation as a BDC.   Comments are due by Monday, August 4, 2008 and must be submitted in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Develops New Online Trade Violation Reporting System</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-06-18T10:53:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/44352c3f90882b6a1755cf3723a69f1c-136.php#unique-entry-id-136</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/44352c3f90882b6a1755cf3723a69f1c-136.php#unique-entry-id-136</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 17, 2008, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the development of a new online trade violation reporting system called eAllegations to provide concerned members of the public a means to confidentially report suspected trade violations to CBP. eAllegations is open for public use as of June 17, 2008.


CBP states that eAllegations is not intended to be used for reporting security issues such as terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, but rather is intended for trade violations such as misclassification, under valuation, country of origin markings, health and safety violations, intellectual property rights violations, and/or textile or other trade violations.   CBP provided the following example -- 


eAllegations will provide a means to report a possible violator who is importing substandard steel, claiming that it is of a higher grade, therefore creating a potential safety issue.   Other possible violations that can be reported include a company claiming a lower than actual value on a product they are importing to pay less duty or a company who is importing textiles from one country to avoid quota restrictions.


To report a possible violation, the following information must be submitted via eAllegations: the type of trade violation, description of what has occurred, the products or goods involved in the violation, and the alleged violator's name and/or company.   Other information may be provided on a voluntary basis.


CBP has provided frequently asked questions (FAQ) here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Antiboycott Online Training</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Antiboycott</category><category>Training</category><dc:date>2008-06-18T10:07:47-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1d66702b4ddfb0eb3696950cd8bb1a79-135.php#unique-entry-id-135</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1d66702b4ddfb0eb3696950cd8bb1a79-135.php#unique-entry-id-135</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On June 17, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the availability of a new training presentation on antiboycott compliance on its BIS Online Training Room.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Census Issues Mandatory AES Final Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Census</category><category>AES</category><dc:date>2008-06-04T13:21:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c2fe388af02054dba4cf3f53f2364aa-134.php#unique-entry-id-134</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/1c2fe388af02054dba4cf3f53f2364aa-134.php#unique-entry-id-134</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Census Bureau (Census) issued a final rule requiring mandatory filing of export information through the Automated Export System (AES) or through AESDirect for all shipments where a Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) is required (an announcement of the rule can be found here).   The new rule substantially revises Census' export regulations, significantly increases penalties, and allows for greater enforcement by Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and U.S. 

...Census has posted mandatory AES frequently asked questions (FAQs) here and "A Quick Guide to Title 15, Part 30 Foreign Trade Regulations" here.


The final rule was issued following a three year dispute between Census and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involving the sharing of confidential export information with foreign governments and the Option 4 program, which allows export data to be filed up to 10 days following vessel departure. ...  In the end, Census maintained the confidentiality of export data that existed in its previous regulations and continued the moratorium on new users for the Option 4 program with the program only allowed for current users.


...	&bull;	Increased civil penalties of a maximum of $1,100 per day of delinquency (but, not more than $10,000 per violation) for failures to file or delinquent filings; a maximum of $10,000 per violation for false filings or misleading information in AES, in addition to other penalties; and civil forfeiture of any property involved in a violation of the FTR;


	&bull;	Criminal penalties of a maximum of $10,000 per violation or five years' imprisonment or both for a knowing failure to file or a knowing filing, directly or indirectly, of false or misleading information;


...Voluntary disclosures are to be directed to Census, which will notify Customs and Border Protection (CBP), BIS' Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) and ICE.


	&bull;	Specific rules on what constitutes proper proof of AES filing citations or exemptions are provided as well as how they are to be annotated on other shipping documents.   For example, only the Internal Transaction Number (ITN), which confirms that the shipment information has been accepted in AES, is acceptable as proof of filing citation. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Protective &#x22;First Sale&#x22; Language Included in Farm Bill</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Congress</category><category>First Sale</category><category>CBP</category><dc:date>2008-05-29T23:53:13-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3054d9fd6ddfc990026ea31b9b1c9b85-133.php#unique-entry-id-133</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3054d9fd6ddfc990026ea31b9b1c9b85-133.php#unique-entry-id-133</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[House of Representatives in voting 306-110 to overturn the President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (also known as "the farm bill").   Of importance to the international trade community is protective first sale language that was added to the farm bill by Sen. ...  This language was not subject to any hearings and was not considered in committee.


...Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the Federal Register setting forth its proposed interpretation of the phrase "sold for exportation to the United States," which would effectively eliminate the use of "first sale" valuation.   CBP's proposed interpretation has drawn bipartisan opposition in the House, where 51 members wrote Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in an April 18 letter to ask that the CBP proposal be "immediately withdrawn."


...The longstanding practice of &ldquo;first sale&rdquo; allows an importer to assess the value of imported goods based on the first sale of goods destined for the United States, regardless of when that sale occurred. ...  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has proposed regulatory changes to assess duties on the &ldquo;last sale&rdquo; rather than the &ldquo;first sale&rdquo; value of goods. ...  The farm bill (1) requires CBP to collect information on the number of importers that value imports using the &ldquo;first sale&rdquo; methodology; (2) requires the United States International Trade Commission to provide Congress with a report on the number of importers using &ldquo;first sale&rdquo; methodology, and the value of those imports; and (3) expresses a sense of Congress that CBP should not implement its change in interpretation until at least January 1, 2011.


Thus, while the language in the farm bill does not prevent CBP from eliminating first sale, it does require CBP to study the change to determine how much more revenue it would collect and companies would be affected.   It also includes non-binding "sense of Congress" language that the change should not be implemented until 2011.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>USTR Posts Notice Regarding Initiation of the 2008 Annual GSP Product and Country Eligibility Practices Review</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>USTR</category><category>GSP</category><dc:date>2008-05-16T23:24:20-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ea280bdc9394aa1f981e2802c021d21b-132.php#unique-entry-id-132</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ea280bdc9394aa1f981e2802c021d21b-132.php#unique-entry-id-132</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 15, 2008, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it will receive petitions in 2008 to modify the list of products that are eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and to modify the GSP status of certain GSP beneficiary developing countries because of country practices. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Company Agrees to Pay &#x24;22 Million Penalty for FCPA Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>FCPA</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-05-15T22:48:24-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/90458c17583f9c9ae2974a4c1ecc5d2c-131.php#unique-entry-id-131</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/90458c17583f9c9ae2974a4c1ecc5d2c-131.php#unique-entry-id-131</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 14, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Willbros Group Inc., a publicly traded company that provides construction, engineering, and other services in the oil and gas industry, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Wilbros International Inc. have agreed to pay a $22 million penalty in connection with corrupt payments to Nigerian and Ecuadorean government officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). 


The DOJ stated:


According to the criminal information, from late 2003 through March 2005, Willbros employees agreed to make corrupt payments totaling more than $6.3 million to Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining and retaining a $387 million contract for work on a major engineering, procurement and construction gas pipeline project known as the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS).   In exchange for the EGGS project, the conspirators corruptly paid, promised to pay and authorized payments to officials of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the state-owned oil company in Nigeria; NNPC&rsquo;s subsidiary, the National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS); a senior official in the executive branch of the Nigerian federal government; officials of a multinational oil company serving as the operator of the EGGS joint venture; and a political party.


In recognition of Willbros' thorough review of the improper payments, the companies&rsquo; exemplary cooperation, the companies&rsquo; implementation of enhanced compliance policies and procedures, and the companies&rsquo; engagement of an independent corporate monitor, the Department has agreed to defer prosecution of these companies for three years.   If Willbros Group and Willbros International abide by the terms of the agreement, the Department will dismiss the criminal information when the term of the agreement ends.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Seeks Comments on Deemed Export Advisory Committee Recommendations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><category>Deemed Exports</category><dc:date>2008-05-20T22:28:20-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c449a15cbadacddd4d4da5a0b0fa27e4-130.php#unique-entry-id-130</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c449a15cbadacddd4d4da5a0b0fa27e4-130.php#unique-entry-id-130</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 19, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments on the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) Recommendations.   Specifically, BIS is seeking comments on whether the scope of technologies on the Commerce Control List that are subject to deemed export licensing requirements should be narrowed, and if so, which technologies should be subject to deemed export licensing requirements.   In addition, BIS is seeking comments on whether a more comprehensive set of criteria should be used to assess country affiliation for foreign nationals with respect to deemed exports.


Comments must be received no later than August 18, 2008.   The DEAC report may be accessed here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Forms Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC)</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-05-24T21:28:28-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ee747ba2dc2eb682d903e001b5628105-128.php#unique-entry-id-128</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ee747ba2dc2eb682d903e001b5628105-128.php#unique-entry-id-128</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 23, 2008, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the establishment of the Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC).   The ETRAC will assist BIS in evaluating currently controlled technologies and emerging technologies which may have national security significance.


BIS stated:


The ETRAC will provide recommendations to BIS on how to help keep the Commerce &nbsp;Control List current with respect to emerging technologies and research and development activities that have dual-use applications.&nbsp;   The committee will assess new and existing regulatory controls that are of greatest consequence to U.S. national security and study the implications of the release of dual-use technology to foreign nationals under current deemed exports licensing requirements.


The ETRAC was formed in response to the dual-use export control directive issued by the President on January 22, 2008 to the Secretary of Commerce to implement programs to assess whether regulations "control the export and reexport of sensitive items while minimizing the impact on U.S. competitiveness and innovation."   The ETRAC was also established in response to a recommendation of the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC).


BIS encourages qualified leaders in industry, academia, and research who have an in-depth knowledge of U.S. research and emerging technology that could affect U.S. national security to apply for ETRAC membership (information can be found in this Federal Register notice).]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Issues Report Critical of C-TPAT Progress</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>C-TPAT</category><dc:date>2008-05-27T20:17:41-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d888755446a04662d2cb8f6e54ce37f7-127.php#unique-entry-id-127</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d888755446a04662d2cb8f6e54ce37f7-127.php#unique-entry-id-127</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Office of Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the status of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program entitled, "U.S. 

...Under the program, roughly 8,000 importers, port authorities and air, sea and land carriers are granted benefits such as reduced scrutiny of their cargo. ...  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has made since 2005 in (1) improving its benefit award policies for C-TPAT members, (2) addressing challenges in validating members' security practices, and (3) addressing management and staffing challenges. 


...	&bull;	A company is generally certified as safer based on its self-reported security information that Customs employees use to determine if minimum government criteria are met.   But due partly to limited resources, the agency does not typically test the member company's supply-chain security practices and thus is "challenged to know that members' security measures are reliable, accurate and effective."


	&bull;	Customs employees are not required to utilize third-party or other audits of a company's security measures as an alternative to the agency's direct testing, even if such audits exist.


...Under the program, Customs also does not require its employees to systematically follow up to make sure the requested improvements were made and that security practices remained consistent with the minimum criteria. 


"Until Customs overcomes these collective challenges, Customs will be unable to assure Congress and others that C-TPAT member companies that have been granted reduced scrutiny of their U.S.-bound containerized shipments actually employ adequate security practices," investigators wrote. 

...Responding in part, CBP officials in the report agreed they could do more to follow up on suggested security improvements but noted that employees often use their expert discretion in assessing the potential danger before certifying a company. 

...In sum, GAO recommends that CBP improve its electronic validation instrument, improve the validation process, enhance its records management system, and establish performance measures for improving supply chain security. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Retired Professor Indicted on 16 Counts for ITAR Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-05-21T16:18:00-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fc9d02cc7efa60794f20a448cc5fd03d-126.php#unique-entry-id-126</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/fc9d02cc7efa60794f20a448cc5fd03d-126.php#unique-entry-id-126</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 20, 2008, the Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury returned an 18 count indictment charging J. ...  Air Force and disclose restricted U.S. military data about unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or "drones" to foreign nationals without first obtaining the required U.S. government license or approval. 

...Roth, who is 70 and now retired, was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S.   Air Force and violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA); 15 counts of violating the AECA; and one count of wire fraud for defrauding the University of Tennessee.   AGT is charged in the indictment with one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. 

...According to the indictment, between January 2004 and May 2006, Roth and AGT engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. ...  Air Force contract to develop plasma actuators for a munitions-type UAV, or &ldquo;drone,&rdquo; to one or more foreign nationals, including a citizen from the People&rsquo;s Republic of China. 

...United States Attorney Russ Dedrick said, &ldquo;The protection of United States technology is a continuing priority of the Department of Justice and this District. 

...Violations of the AECA carry a maximum possibly penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a $1 million fine.   Wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine and conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Department Posts Comments Received on Proposed Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DDTC</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-05-22T15:22:07-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5f66ea6aa8780ebb8d901eaab4e4bb89-125.php#unique-entry-id-125</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5f66ea6aa8780ebb8d901eaab4e4bb89-125.php#unique-entry-id-125</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 11, 2008, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published a notice in the Federal Register regarding a proposed rule intended to clarify the control of aircraft parts and components under Section 17(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA).    In the notice, the DDTC states that there have been an increasing number of Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) requests for certain basic parts and components having a long history of use on both civil and military aircraft.   DDTC stated, "The intent of this notice is to make it clear that these parts and components are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of State and to restate the Department's longstanding practice of using the CJ process of using the CJ process to determine the applicability of the criteria of Section 17(c) of the EAA ("Section 17(c)") in cases where there is uncertainty."


In the notice, DDTC stated it would accept comments to the proposed rule until May 12, 2008.    On May 22, 2008, DDTC posted the comments it received to the proposed rule here.   Comments were received from the following parties:


...	&bull;	Commerce/BIS Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee


	&bull;	deButts, Thomas, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP


...House of Representatives


	&bull;	Modification and Replacement Parts Association
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Chinese Grad Student Involvement Leads to Criminal Case: Physicist Pleads Guilty to ITAR Violation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Deemed Exports</category><category>ITAR</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-04-16T01:08:39-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7ecdbdc0af04e296a4579b8fd879120c-124.php#unique-entry-id-124</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7ecdbdc0af04e296a4579b8fd879120c-124.php#unique-entry-id-124</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 15, 2008, the Department of Justice announced that Daniel Max Sherman, a physicist who formerly worked as the director of plasma research at Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc., a Knoxville, Tennessee based company. ...  Reece Roth, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Tennessee, engaged in a conspiracy to transmit export controlled technical data related to a restricted U.S.   Air Force contract to develop plasma actuators for munitions-type Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or "drones", to a foreign national from the People's Republic of China. 


...Roth has been watched closely by those in academics since May 2006 when it was reported that Customs agents copied his laptop as he returned from a trip to China and that search warrants were executed at his office and laboratory.   University officials who monitor export control compliance believe that the Tennessee case may have arisen due to the involvement of a for-profit company.   The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) exempts fundamental research done by universities that is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community.   However, when a private company is involved and the research is proprietary or restricted from publication or disclosure, no exemption applies.


..."If you're blurring the lines between the work you do at one place and the work you do at another, you can quickly get into trouble," Patrick Schlesinger of the University of California said.   Doing only publishable research also allows universities to avoid segregating foreigners, a task that may be impractical in physical science programs where American citizen students are often a minority. ...  "This particular case in Tennessee will wake up the university community to export controls if they weren't aware of it already."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>State Department Website Updates </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-04-30T00:40:19-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/738e3c71f4fd7e135294cee8abe37063-123.php#unique-entry-id-123</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/738e3c71f4fd7e135294cee8abe37063-123.php#unique-entry-id-123</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 28, 2008 and April 22, 2008, the State Department published several updates to its website. 


On April 28, 2008, the following updates were published:


	&bull;	Updated DSP-73 and DSP-61 License Applications - Supporting Documentation Requirements


	&bull;	Updated DSP-73 and DSP-61 Support Documentation FAQs


	&bull;	Updated Notice on License Support Documentation


	&bull;	FAQs Notice on License Support Documentation


	&bull;	Reinstitution of In-House Seminars


On April 22, 2008, the following updates were published:


	&bull;	Guidance for an Agreement Rebaseline


...	&bull;	Updated Licenses in Furtherance of Agreements FAQs
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Issues Report Critical of State and Commerce&#x27;s Export Control Functions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>GAO</category><category>State</category><category>Commerce</category><dc:date>2008-04-25T23:43:04-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7ac29acd5be538be4b37b643c91a5cd6-122.php#unique-entry-id-122</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/7ac29acd5be538be4b37b643c91a5cd6-122.php#unique-entry-id-122</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In the report, the GAO found export licensing inefficiencies, poor interagency cooperation, and limits in the Departments of State's and Commerce's ability to provide a sound basis for changes to the system.   In November 2007, the GAO reported that procedural and automation weaknesses, along with workforce challenges, created inefficiencies in State's arms export licensing process.   The GAO noted that in less than 4 years, median processing times for license applications nearly doubled (from 14 days in 2003 to 26 days in 2006), with State's backlog of open cases peaking at 10,000.


...The GAO also found that State also lacked procedures to expedite certain cases such as exports to the UK and Australia and those to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, as required by law.   The GAO also found electronic processing problems with State's D-Trade system and that State has faced challenges in establishing and retaining a sufficient workforce with the experience and skills needed to efficiently and effectively process arms export applications.


In response to these findings, State has informed the GAO that it (1) has implemented procedures to more quickly determine whether referrals to other agencies are needed and instituted senior level reviews of cases that are over 60 days old, (2) is planning future D-Trade upgrades that are expected to facilitate case reviews by licensing officers and allow managers to better oversee the processes, and (3) has restructured its licensing divisions to ensure a more equitable distribution in the workload and skill level of licensing officers based on the GAO's analysis.


From 1998 through 2005, the GAO found that Commerce's overall median processing times have remained stable at around 40 days and are consistent with time frames established by a 1995 executive order. ...  For example, Commerce only measures its performance in terms of how long it takes to refer an application to another agency for review but does not have efficiency-related measures for other steps in its review process, such as how quickly a license should be issued once other agencies provide their input, or for the entire process.


...Finally, the GAO found that the absence of systematic assessments by State and Commerce limits their ability to identify problems and make improvements to the system.


The GAO concluded its report by stating that, "While the implementation of our recommendations is an important first step for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the export control system, a sustained commitment on the part of the departments to engage in a continuous process of evaluation, analysis, and coordination is needed."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Colombia FTA: Are U.S. Free Trade Agreements Doomed?</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Free Trade Agreements</category><dc:date>2008-04-29T22:36:33-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bf65afb7a01a7aafd070affed23df974-121.php#unique-entry-id-121</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/bf65afb7a01a7aafd070affed23df974-121.php#unique-entry-id-121</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 8, 2008, President Bush sent the U.S.- Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement to Congress for approval within 90 days under "Fast-Track" negotiating authority (also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)). ...  Fast track negotiating authority is granted to the President by Congress and was in effect from 1975 to 1994 pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 and from 2002 to July 1, 2007 pursuant to the Trade Act of 2002. ...  However, the authority will be available for Congressional consideration of free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, and South Korea, which were all signed by the United States before the deadline.


...House of Representatives voted 224-195 on April 10, 2008, to exempt the implementing legislation of the Columbia FTA from the fast-track authority of the Trade Act of 1974 via a one sentence resolution.  ...  Although President Bush has accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of "killing" the agreement with a close U.S. ally, Pelosi has responded by insisting that the White House and Congress agree on a new U.S. aid package before a vote is taken on the Colombia FTA.


...However, supporters of the FTA argue that about 90% of imports from Colombia already enjoy duty-free treatment under the Andean Trade Preferences Act while U.S. imports into Colombia do not receive similar treatment.   Once the Colombia FTA is signed, 80% of U.S. imports into Colombia will become immediately duty-free, and all remaining tariffs would be eliminated within a decade.   Additionally, supporters state that Congress was able to agree upon a very similar free trade agreement with Peru last year that was renegotiated to included stronger labor and environmental provisions. 

...Both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama oppose the Colombia FTA, siding with the AFL-CIO, which is fighting the agreement because it believes Colombia has not done enough to stop killings of trade unionists and bring their killers to justice. 

...Senators Clinton and Obama also oppose the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement because they say it fails to eliminate trade barriers to imports of American cars, though the U.S. and South Korea recently resolved a 4 year-old trade dispute over beef.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Announces International Registered Traveler (IRT) Pilot Program</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Policy</category><dc:date>2008-04-12T13:51:57-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/636e74a72683c352571c668f7a0c74e8-120.php#unique-entry-id-120</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/636e74a72683c352571c668f7a0c74e8-120.php#unique-entry-id-120</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 11, 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced in the Federal Register a pilot International Registered Traveler (IRT) program and requested comments.   The IRT program will allow for expedited clearance of pre-approved low-risk air travelers into the United States. ...  Kennedy International Airport in New York (JFK), the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston (IAH), and Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). 

...Applications to be an initial participant in the pilot program should be submitted by May 12, 2008 and the pilot program will commence on June 10, 2008.   Applications to participate will be accepted throughout the duration of the pilot and are available through the Global On-Line Enrollment System (GOES) at www.cbp.gov.   At this point, applicants must be either a U.S. citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident (LPR). 


Expedited clearance will be effected using automated kiosks located in the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) area of each participating airport.   IRT uses fingerprint biometrics technology to verify a participant's identity and confirm his or her status as a IRT participant. ...  A sticker affixed to the participant's passport at the time of acceptance into the IRT program will provide visual identification that the individual can be referred tot he IRT kiosk. 

...In the Federal Register notice, CBP invites public comments concerning any aspect of the pilot program, provides eligibility requirements for voluntary participation in the pilot program, describes the basis on which CBP will select participants, and describes how the IRT program will operate.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Publishes Current List of Priority Trade Issues</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><dc:date>2008-04-08T08:17:52-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a4eb7b5fc8bc817ac49208384ed216da-119.php#unique-entry-id-119</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/a4eb7b5fc8bc817ac49208384ed216da-119.php#unique-entry-id-119</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently published on its website it's current list of Priority Trade Issues (PTIs).   CBP states that PTIs are "issues that cause significant revenue loss, economic risk to U.S. industry or represent health and safety concerns to citizens."   They are identified to be:


...	&bull;	Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (ADCVD)


	&bull;	Import Safety


	&bull;	Intellectual Property Rights


	&bull;	Penalties


	&bull;	Revenue 


...You can read more about each PTI by clicking on it at CBP's website.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Deemed Export Webinar - April 15</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><category>Deemed Exports</category><dc:date>2008-04-03T12:14:51-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d710bb4474586a2ac99bbb2a06bbaa11-118.php#unique-entry-id-118</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d710bb4474586a2ac99bbb2a06bbaa11-118.php#unique-entry-id-118</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[BIS announced a Deemed Export Webinar which will take place on April 15, 2008 from 1pm - 2pm Eastern.   The webinar costs $35 and one can sign up here.   BIS states that participants will learn about the recently issued Deemed Export Advisory Committee's (DEAC) report and will learn about deemed exports rules and regulations.   Alex Lopes, Director of the Deemed Exports and Electronics Division of BIS, will be the main speaker and will respond to questions.   All that is needed to participate is a telephone for the audio portion and a computer with high speed internet access for the visual portion of the webinar.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New York Times Reports on Reexport from UAE to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>News</category><category>Politics</category><dc:date>2008-04-02T14:26:31-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d7ed544001cd00b57d293eeb2a1a6899-117.php#unique-entry-id-117</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/d7ed544001cd00b57d293eeb2a1a6899-117.php#unique-entry-id-117</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On April 2, 2008, the New York Times reported that the Bush Administration has been concerned about American-made items such as computer circuits, aircraft parts, specialized metals, and gas detectors that are controlled for export purposes and have been found in Iran and Iraq. 

...A spokesperson for AMD told the New York Times that the company had cooperated with the investigation and added that its customers are bound by agreements not to re-export its products to Iran. 

...The report states that the discovery of the computer circuits in the bomb detonators set off a clash when the Bush Administration cited the diversion of computer circuits to Iran and then to Iraq, as proof that the UAE were failing to prevent American technology from falling into the wrong hands. 

...The nation had invested billions to become a global trading hub and had begun a campaign to burnish its image in the United States after the uproar in 2006 over a proposal to allow a Dubai company manage some American port terminals.


...The article states that the U.S. has been concerned about the diversion of exports to the UAE since 2002 when the Commerce Department sent Mary O'Brien, an inspector, to the UAE for end use checks.   From her spot checks of factories, freight forwarders, and other companies that had ordered U.S. export controlled products, Commerce officials stated that it was clear that the products were being diverted on a grander scale than imagined.


...O'Brien's 4 years of end user checks, nearly 40% were unfavorable in that the regulated items were found to be missing or the recipient would not cooperate. 

...The NYT reports that the Commerce Department had proposed new export controls for "governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with the U.S. in its interdiction efforts," which would require special reviews before certain dual-use items could be exported to such nations. ...  In fact, the UAE claims to have shut down 12 companies late last year suspected of illegal exports or money laundering and recently arrested a Jordanian businessman who tried to import a metal used in nuclear reactors with the intention of selling to other countries.


Commerce and State officials say that they are encouraged by the steps taken by the UAE, but said that an export licensing system must still be introduced and other enforcement steps taken. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Update on Proposed Re-Interpretation of &#x22;First Sale&#x22; Valuation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-03-27T12:20:31-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8e6094bf0befcd86630e7078922003bf-116.php#unique-entry-id-116</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/8e6094bf0befcd86630e7078922003bf-116.php#unique-entry-id-116</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Comments for the proposed interpretation of the "First Sale" rule are due on April 23, 2008.&nbsp;   To date, 17 comments have been posted.&nbsp;   Two of the comments support the proposed change.&nbsp;&nbsp;  Comments against the proposed interpretation include Boeing, Wicked Fashions Inc., RG Barry Corporation, Northern Tool and Equipment Co., Inc., The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association and COAC.


&nbsp;


U.S.   Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") is proposing that the transaction value (or price paid or payable) for imported goods in a series of sales is the price paid or payable in the last sale occurring prior to the goods' importation into the United States, rather than the price in the first or earlier sale.&nbsp;   CBP states that this is based on its proposed revised interpretation of the phrase "when sold for exportation to the United States" such that CBP no longer believes that the first (or earlier) sale qualifies as a sale for exportation to the United States.&nbsp;   CBP states that this proposed interpretation is in line with the conclusions of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation as set forth in Commentary 22.1, entitled, "Meaning of the Expression 'Sold for Export to the Country of Importation' in a Series of Sales."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Highlights from BIS&#x27;s 2008 Export Control Forum in Newport Beach&#xd;</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-03-24T21:37:59-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0219bf95472effc69c058c0a645b7526-115.php#unique-entry-id-115</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0219bf95472effc69c058c0a645b7526-115.php#unique-entry-id-115</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Horner stated that BIS has been measuring EAR compliance by comparing data elements in AES and license approvals.   For example, BIS is comparing approved licenses to licensed exports, comparing license values to licensed export values, and comparing countries on license with licensed exports. 

...Lopes set forth two general findings of the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) Report as: (1) strengthening and streamlining deemed export policy and process; and (2) expanding BIS' outreach. 

...	&bull;	With regard to implementing the first recommendation: strengthening and streamlining deemed export policy and process, Mr. 

...	&bull;	BIS announced in February the establishment of the Emerging Technologies and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC), which will work on creating a list of technologies that should be regulated for deemed export purposes;


	&bull;	BIS is creating a license exception for intra-company transfers (ICT) of both commodities and technology that is currently being reviewed by other government agencies;


...	&bull;	Darryl Jackson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, stated that the fourth export enforcement priority is now Antiboycott Compliance (after Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation, Terrorism and State Sponsorship of Terror, and Diversions to Unauthorized Military End-Use).


...Jackson also revealed for the first time the 9 Factors to an Effective Compliance Program that would be entitled to great weight mitigation, which will be posted on the BIS website: (1) whether a company has performed a meaningful risk analysis; (2) the existence of formal written compliance program; (3) whether appropriate senior company officials are responsible for overseeing the export compliance program; (4) whether adequate training is provided to employees; (5) whether the company adequately screens its customers and transactions; (6) whether company meets recordkeeping requirements; (7) the existence and operation of an internal system for reporting export violations; (8) the existence and results of internal or external reviews or audits (with associated updates of the EMCP); and (9) whether remedial activity has been taken in response to export violations.


	&bull;	Todd Willis, Assistant Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis gave an update on BIS' end-use checks. ...  Willis provided information that BIS will look for during end use checks, which elicited questions from the audience regarding how much control BIS expects exporters to exert over foreign customers and what the effects of an unfavorable EUC will have on future license applications. 
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP and EU Commission Adopt a Joint Roadmap Towards Mutual Recognition of Trade Partnership Programs</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>C-TPAT</category><category>Security</category><dc:date>2008-03-28T12:31:19-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d29200a48319a8acd5b460d9b3281c6-113.php#unique-entry-id-113</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4d29200a48319a8acd5b460d9b3281c6-113.php#unique-entry-id-113</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection announced the adoption of the U.S.-EU Joint Customs Cooperation Committee (JCCC) Roadmap towards Mutual Recognition of Trade Partnership Programs.   Mutual Recognition of the U.S.'s Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the EU's Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) supply chain security programs would allow companies to receive benefits similar to those conferred on companies participating in the other country's program.


The Roadmap outlines six areas that the U.S. and the EU will address to achieve the goal of implementing Mutual Recognition: political, administrative, legal, policy, technical/operational, and evaluation. 

...The U.S. and EU began working towards implementing Mutual Recognition of C-TPAT and AEO in 2007.   The initial steps consisted of completing an in-depth comparison of both the U.S. and EU programs and conducting a pilot program in which CBP observed security components of the EU's AEO audit process.   The Roadmap was drafted and endorsed based on the conclusions drawn from the initial U.S.-EU effort. 


CBP states that, "Throughout the upcoming year, the U.S. and EU will:


	&bull;	Establish guidelines regarding information exchanges, including the exchange of validation/audit results and legalities associated with the disclosure of membership details


	&bull;	Perform joint verifications to determine remaining gaps between AEO/C-TPAT and resolve any discrepancies


...Although a number of tasks remain, both the U.S. and EU are optimistic about eventual achievement of Mutual Recognition in 2009."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>China and U.S. Launch Trade Security Pilot Program</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Security</category><category>C-TPAT</category><dc:date>2008-03-25T10:01:23-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b6332a76d9e0589463e3f9a7a9764e23-112.php#unique-entry-id-112</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b6332a76d9e0589463e3f9a7a9764e23-112.php#unique-entry-id-112</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the start of a validation pilot program in China made possible by cooperation between CBP and the General Administration of China Customs.   The pilot program involved three Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) importer partners whose supply chains predominately originate in China. 


CBP states that the U.S. companies were invited to participate based upon several factors including volume, product type, and location of their supply chains in China.   The companies voluntarily agreed to participate in the pilot program with the concurrence of both administrations. 


China Customs led the validations based on C-TPAT minimum security criteria as a guide and with CBP supply chain specialists providing technical assistance.   Prior to the validations, the companies were receiving minimal C-TPAT benefits due to CBP's inability to validate their security procedures in China.   However, the information gathered during the validation will now allow CBP the ability to assess whether greater C-TPAT benefits are warranted.   Both CBP and China Customs will evaluate the success of the pilot program and determine next steps.


C-TPAT Director Brad Skinner stated, "It took several months of intense discussions to get to this point and we look forward to continuing this effort as we explore future cooperation. ...  CBP and China Customs have the knowledge that all parties involved have good security practices in place and the companies can benefit by receiving fewer exams."]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>California Engineer Sentenced to 24 Years in Prison</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-03-27T17:45:01-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5a71a673334f0df10db7aee936dc2242-110.php#unique-entry-id-110</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5a71a673334f0df10db7aee936dc2242-110.php#unique-entry-id-110</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Los Angeles Times reported on March 25, 2008 that a Chinese-born, naturalized U.S. citizen was sentenced to 24 years and five months in federal prison and fined $50,000 for conspiring to export ITAR-controlled technology to China.   Chi Mak, 67, was a former electrical engineer at Power Paragon, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, which handled Navy contracts.   Mak was convicted of conspiracy to violate export control laws, attempting to violate export control laws, acting as an unregistered agent of China, and lying to the FBI.


Mak's conviction was the culmination of an 18-month long investigation of Mak's family that ended in October 2005 when he and four other family members were arrested by the FBI and charged with a scheme to illegally send military information to China.   Mak's wife, brother, sister-in-law, and nephew have all pleaded guilty and agreed to jail terms or probation.


The government's case centered around three encrypted computer disks that the family had tried to take with them on a flight to China.   Two of the disks contained information about an electrically powered propulsion system for warships and a solid-state power switch for ships. ...  Witnesses during the trial testified that some of these materials were available for purchase on the website of the American Society of Naval Engineers until the government put a stop to it.   In addition, Mak's attorney stated that information contained on one of the disks was discussed at an international conference attended by Chinese engineers and the FBI.


Mak's attorney stated that Mak was "sentenced as a trophy rather than a human being" and the case against Mak was unwarranted. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Minnesota Company Fined &#x24;400&#x2c;000 for Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-03-13T15:07:45-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/79a8be46065e3205b655a19924b759ec-109.php#unique-entry-id-109</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/79a8be46065e3205b655a19924b759ec-109.php#unique-entry-id-109</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[MTS Systems Corp. of Eden Prairie, MN, pleaded guilty and was sentenced on March 12, 2008 in connection with submitting false export license applications to the U.S.   Department of Commerce for proposed shipments to India.    (The DOJ news release can be found here.)   MTS Systems Corp. was sentenced to two years probation and a $400,000 fine.   Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court also ordered MTS to implement and maintain a model export compliance program and to sponsor an export compliance conference to be held at a future date.


The government alleged that MTS submitted a false export license application when it omitted any corporate knowledge of a possible nuclear end-use for seismic testing equipment to be shipped to India.   Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Darryl W.   Jackson stated, "Omitting material information to a licensing official about the intended end-use of a controlled technology item is a serious offense.   In this case, the omission clearly was an attempt to disguise the end-use of testing structural components of nuclear-power plants."


The case was the result of an investigation by BIS and ICE.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Establishes Online Export Control Training Room</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-03-19T22:40:05-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ab0be90c5d0b6cb5e06e483f8ce65745-108.php#unique-entry-id-108</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/ab0be90c5d0b6cb5e06e483f8ce65745-108.php#unique-entry-id-108</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the creation of an BIS Online Training Room. 

...As part of its ongoing efforts to improve outreach, BIS will continue to create and supplement the materials regularly.&nbsp;   The initial launch includes the first half of the Essentials of Export Controls seminar that BIS currently offers around the country, as well as five pre-recorded webinars covering a variety of topics.&nbsp;   The training modules are presented in a video streaming format.   The pre-recorded BIS webinars were conducted over the past year and focus on specific export control issues.


The Online Training Room currently provides 3 training modules:


...Also included in the Online Training Room are BIS' previously conducted webinars:


...An Introduction to Commercial Export Licensing Requirements (Spanish) (October 18, 2007)


...An Introduct to Commercial Export Licensing Requirements (May 15, 2007)


BIS states, "We wll continue to create and update content for the online training room, and would welcome your suggestions for how to further improve our outreach efforts."
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Requests Comments on EAR Crime Control License Requirements</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><dc:date>2008-03-19T22:29:37-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0599c37c8b71f4ea4da03ce77aa5bb7f-107.php#unique-entry-id-107</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/0599c37c8b71f4ea4da03ce77aa5bb7f-107.php#unique-entry-id-107</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the crime control export and reexport license requirements in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).   BIS is seeking comments on whether the scope of items currently subject to crime control license requirements should be revised to add or remove items and is also seeking comments on whether the destinations to which crime control license requirements apply should be revised.


The Notice of Inquiry can be found here.   Comments must be received no later than June 17, 2008.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Passenger Screening at Airports to be Reviewed by Homeland Security</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>DHS</category><category>Transporation</category><dc:date>2008-03-03T11:03:29-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e955d4170acac0d62c975b30c04b69d-105.php#unique-entry-id-105</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/5e955d4170acac0d62c975b30c04b69d-105.php#unique-entry-id-105</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In an interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on March 3, 2008 stated that the Department of Homeland Security will be undertaking a review of passenger screening at airports to explore ways to ease hassles and possibly paying more attention to screening private jets from overseas.   Mr.   Chertoff stated, "We are going to take a look at the whole system of screening at the airport in the next month and we're going to see if we can maybe make a couple of significant changes to remove some of the burden.   We may be able to make some significant changes to the system that may actually be welcomed by the travelers." 


USA Today reported that the review of passenger screening procedures will occur in the next 30 to 45 days.   Chertoff has directed Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) chief Kip Hawley to "look at the system" of passenger screening and determine "are there things we can do to reduce hassle."   USA Today reports that Chertoff stated that "some screening requirements may be unnecessary because of improvements in aviation security, such as hardened cockpit doors, a growing number of pilots carrying handguns and the deployment of hundreds of TSA screeners who scan airport crowds looking for people who are acting oddly and may pose a security threat."


To protect the U.S. from a private jet carrying a nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb, or biological weapons into the country, it was reported that DHS will issue new rules that will require crews and passengers to provide their names, birth dates, and other personal information one hour before taking off for the U.S.   This time will allow authorities to check names against terrorist watch lists.   Chertoff stated that the next step could be to require that private planes be scanned and passengers be screened and processed through Customs overseas.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>House Committee Requests Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension Bills</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Politics</category><category>Legislation</category><dc:date>2008-02-27T14:50:02-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/068fd625a08f67a8a4b6ade5f1f362c7-103.php#unique-entry-id-103</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/068fd625a08f67a8a4b6ade5f1f362c7-103.php#unique-entry-id-103</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member Wally Herger (R-CA) of the Subcommittee on Trade jointly announced that the Subcommittee is requesting written comments for the record from all parties interested in miscellaneous duty suspension proposals and corrections to the trade laws.


The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over legislation to amend the U.S. tariff schedule and to make corrections to trade legislation.   On November 1, 2007, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger requested that all Members who planned to introduce tariff legislation or miscellaneous corrections to the trade laws do so by December 14, 2007.&nbsp;   Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Herger are now requesting public comment on those bills listed here and are requesting budget scoring estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.&nbsp;   The deadline for the public to submit written comments to the Committee is Thursday, April 10, 2008.&nbsp; 


After the comment period, the Subcommittee will review all comments and determine which bills should be included in a miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB) package.&nbsp;   The Subcommittee will consider the extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively, attract controversy, or are not administrable. 

...The primary purpose of the bill is to help U.S. manufacturers compete at home and abroad by temporarily suspending or reducing duties on intermediate products or materials that are not made domestically, or where there is no domestic opposition.&nbsp;   Such reductions or suspensions reduce the costs for U.S. businesses and ultimately increase the competitiveness of their products.&nbsp;   The process will look carefully for domestic production and opposition to proposed modifications to the U.S. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>New AES Reporting Requirements for BIS License Exceptions</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>AES</category><dc:date>2008-02-27T10:51:11-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e8fe6991398737a3ce03bccca596c7ad-102.php#unique-entry-id-102</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/e8fe6991398737a3ce03bccca596c7ad-102.php#unique-entry-id-102</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[BIS has issued new AES reporting requirements for BIS license exceptions.   The notice can be found here.


The notice states that as of April 28, 2008, the following reporting change will be implemented:


The Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) will be required for License Exceptions reportable under the following License Exception codes:  C38-TSR, C41-RPL, C42-GOV, C43-GFT, C44-TSU, C45-BAG, C46-AVS, C47-APR, C48-KMI, C49-TAPS, C50-ENC]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Industry &#x26; University Groups Oppose DEAC Recommendations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Deemed Exports</category><dc:date>2008-02-26T10:28:52-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/41978aaee6a3386d33c284c9d5a9b00f-101.php#unique-entry-id-101</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/41978aaee6a3386d33c284c9d5a9b00f-101.php#unique-entry-id-101</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 15, 2008, twelve industry groups (listed below) issued a letter to the Secretary of Commerce offering their "preliminary reaction" to the report by the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) issued on December 20, 2007.   The signatories to the letter were: the American Electronics Association (AeA), American Council on International Personnel, Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT), Coaltion for Employment Through Exports, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Emergency Committee for American Trade, Information Technology Industry Council, International Safety Equipment Association, National Council on International Trade Development, National Foreign Trade Council, and U.S.-China Business Council.


In the letter, the groups note a "marked disparity between the DEAC's analysis of the difficulties of regulating the transfer of technological knowledge in a globally interconnected world," an analysis they largely endorse, and the specific recommendations for a new approach to controlling the transfer of controlled information to foreign nationals while in the U.S. -- which they believe would be "difficult to translate into regulations, burdensome for U.S. companies' compliance programs and ultimately counterproductive to the U.S. national interest."


...In conclusion, the groups stated, "We urge the Department to go back to the drawing board and work closely with industry in developing an approach that will produce a more balanced result."


Similarly, on February 20, 2008, the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) submitted a letter to the Secretary of Commerce expressing their views on the findings and recommendations of the DEAC report.   The groups stated that they strongly agree with the DEAC's principal conclusion that ". . . the existing Deemed Export Regulatory Regime no longer effectively serves its intended purpose and should be replaced with an approach that better reflects the realities of today's national security needs and global economy."


...Each technolgoy on the CCL should "sunset" automatically after a period of one year, unless there is explicit action to retain it on the list following a review process; and


...They urge Commerce to regject the deemed export decision process construct proposed in the report -- specifically, as with the industry groups, they disapprove of the proposed "loyalty" assessments, which they claim would raise very serious policy, practical, and legal issues for universities;


...They are concerned about the impact of loyalty assessments and broad-based background checks will have on reviews of deemed export license applications; and


...In conclusion, they state that they find the report to be well-considered and contains many helpful findings, but they urge Commerce to seriously consider the concerns outlined.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Civil Liberties Groups Sue Department of Homeland Security over Searches and Harassment at U.S. Borders</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Searches</category><dc:date>2008-02-11T17:33:45-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/200a899aeccc5bfdf0b68b82ebdb5007-99.php#unique-entry-id-99</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/200a899aeccc5bfdf0b68b82ebdb5007-99.php#unique-entry-id-99</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[ALC states that it has received more than 20 complaints from Northern California residents last year who said they were grilled about their families, religious practices, volunteer activities, political beliefs, or associations when returning to the United States from travels abroad.   In addition, customs agents examined travelers' books, business cards collected from friends and colleagues, handwritten notes, personal photos, laptop computer files, and cell phone directories, and sometimes made copies of this information. 

..."When the government searches your books, peers into your computer, and demands to know your political views, it sends the message that free expression and privacy disappear at our nation's doorstep," said Shirin Sinnar, staff attorney at ALC.   "The fact that so many people face these searches and questioning every time they return to the United States, not knowing why and unable to clear their names, violates basic notions of fairness and due process."


ALC and EFF asked DHS to disclose its policies on questioning travelers on First Amendment-protected activities, photocopying individuals' personal papers, and searching laptop computers and other electronic devices. 

...The question of whether Customs inspectors have a right to search laptops and electronic devices without reasonable suspicion of a crime has already been under review in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. ...  Ickes, 393 F. 3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (did not directly address the level of suspicion required to search laptops but did rule that laptops fall within border search authority); United States v. 

...Reasonable suspicion means that the facts known to the customs agents at the time of the search, combined with the agent's reasonable inferences from those facts, provides the agent with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the search will reveal contraband or a crime.&nbsp; 

...In recent years, CBP has argued that its authority to protect the country's border extends to looking at information stored on electronic devices such as laptops without any suspicion of a crime.   CBP is taking the position that a laptop is the equivalent of a suitcase or container with the information stored on the laptop as the equivalent of physical merchandise packed in luggage. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Extends Comment Period for Proposed Interpretation re: &#x22;First Sale&#x22; Valuation</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</category><category>Rulemaking</category><category>Valuation</category><dc:date>2008-02-08T20:31:28-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/15a1651bc3a61b600daaf1cb97bf00ff-98.php#unique-entry-id-98</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/15a1651bc3a61b600daaf1cb97bf00ff-98.php#unique-entry-id-98</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 7, 2008, the U.S.   Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") published a notice in the Federal Register extending by 30 days the comment period for its proposed interpretation of the phrase "sold for exportation to the United States" for purposes of applying the transaction value method of appraisement when a series of sales exist prior to importation into the U.S. 


CBP is proposing that the transaction value (or price paid or payable) for imported goods in a series of sales is the price paid or payable in the last sale occurring prior to the goods' importation into the United States, rather than the price in the first or earlier sale.   CBP states that this is based on its proposed revised interpretation of the phrase "when sold for exportation to the United States" such that CBP no longer believes that the first (or earlier) sale qualifies as a sale for exportation to the United States.   CBP states that this proposed interpretation is in line with the conclusions of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation as set forth in Commentary 22.1, entitled, "Meaning of the Expression 'Sold for Export to the Country of Importation' in a Series of Sale."


On January 24, 2008, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register setting forth its proposed interpretation with a comment period to expire on March 24, 2008.   CBP received correspondence requesting an extension of the comment period.   Accordingly, CBP has decided to allow an additional 30 days for comments.   Comments are now due on or before April 23, 2008. 


For further information, contact: Lorrie Rodbart, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade; Phone: (202) 572-8740.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Announces Steps to Implement Deemed Export Advisory Committee Recommendations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>BIS</category><dc:date>2008-02-07T14:44:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6b357fe944ab6ea60ccc346a66105c12-97.php#unique-entry-id-97</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/6b357fe944ab6ea60ccc346a66105c12-97.php#unique-entry-id-97</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that it had completed its review of the Deemed Export Advisory Committee's (DEAC) report.   BIS states that the Department has begun to work with its U.S. government partners, including the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy, to "consider the report's analysis and recommendations as a basis for reforming current deemed export policy." 


A "deemed export" is the transfer of controlled dual-use technology to a foreign national while in the United States.   BIS stated that, "Given the significant role that foreign nationals play in the U.S. research system, deemed export policy has significant implications for U.S. national security and economic competitiveness."


Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, stated, "U.S. deemed export policy must account for the variety of risks we face.   While our rules should not permit the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to a real or potential adversary, they must ensure the United States remains the most innovative and competitive economy in the world."


While certain proposals under active consideration will require interagency support, Under Secretary Mancuso has directed BIS to immediately:


	&bull;	Create an Emerging Technologies Advisory Committee, composed of representatives from leading research universities, government research labs, and industry to make recommendations to BIS regarding emerging technologies on a regular basis; and


	&bull;	Improve outreach and engagement efforts to the academic and technology communities about the progress and scope of the deemed export policy efforts.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>CBP Extends 10+2 Comment Period</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</category><category>Rulemaking</category><dc:date>2008-02-06T16:09:30-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4c8fdd72588835af69b0fce99ba3ff05-96.php#unique-entry-id-96</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/4c8fdd72588835af69b0fce99ba3ff05-96.php#unique-entry-id-96</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On February 1, 2008, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the Federal Register extending the comment period for its proposed "10+2" filing requirement for ocean cargo by 15 days until March 18, 2008.   It is expected that many interested parties will be filing comments on the proposed rule.


On January 2, 2008, U.S.   Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a proposed rule regarding importer security filing and additional carrier requirements, also known as the "10+2" rule.   The proposed rule will require that importers and carriers to submit additional information regarding cargo before the cargo is brought into the U.S. by vessel.    The information must be provided 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the vessel and via a CBP-approved electronic data interchange system.


The proposed rule is intended to allow CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security.   The proposed regulations originate from the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and the Trade Act of 2002.   CBP issued a news release about the rule here.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Political Backstory Behind Recent Presidential Export Control Directives</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Politics</category><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-01-31T09:35:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b54aa41671f741134e65950df581a80-95.php#unique-entry-id-95</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/3b54aa41671f741134e65950df581a80-95.php#unique-entry-id-95</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 31, 2008, Politico.com reported on the political lobbying that took place prior to President Bush's issuance of directives meant to modernize the State Department and Commerce Department's export control activities.   The report  entitled, "High-Tech Lobby Notches Victory," can be read here.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>President Bush Issues Export Control Directives</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>EAR</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-01-23T00:54:29-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/90c99b8c3997b54e028517c43f2e1e55-94.php#unique-entry-id-94</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/90c99b8c3997b54e028517c43f2e1e55-94.php#unique-entry-id-94</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 22, 2008, President Bush announced presidential directives aimed at modernizing export controls under both the ITAR and the EAR.   In a brief statement, the White House said the package of directives would promote a "more efficient and transparent export licensing process."


...	&bull;	Additional financial resources and intelligence support will be made available for the timely adjudication of defense trade licenses.


...Government on defense trade export license applications within 60 days, absent a strong reason for additional time, such as a requirement for Congressional notification.   Initial efforts in this regard have resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction since April 2007 in the number of export license applications pending with the Department of State.


	&bull;	The electronic licensing system will be upgraded to permit the submission of all types of defense trade licenses and to enable all agencies to access the same electronic information.


	&bull;	The Secretary of State will update U.S. controls on exports involving dual and third country nationals from NATO and other allied countries.


...	&bull;	A formal interagency dispute mechanism will be created to allow for timely resolution of licensing jurisdiction issues involving the Departments of State and Commerce under the Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) process.   The National Security Council will also undertake a review to make sure the CJ process is efficient and timely.


...&bull; Maintaining a Validated End User program to ease exports to &ldquo;reliable foreign companies,&rdquo; while imposing additional scrutiny on exports to less favored foreign buyers.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Report Criticizes Delays in State Department Export Licensing Process</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>GAO</category><category>ITAR</category><dc:date>2008-01-04T00:31:57-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c2be61d07747e145e0db44dc97e2c2b9-93.php#unique-entry-id-93</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/c2be61d07747e145e0db44dc97e2c2b9-93.php#unique-entry-id-93</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a report (dated November 2007) entitled, "State Department Needs to Conduct Assessments to Identify and Address Inefficiencies and Challenges in the Arms Export Process."   In 2005, GAO reported that processing times for arms export cases had increased despite State Department efforts to streamline its process.   GAO was asked to (1) describe recent trends in the processing of arms export cases and (2) identify factors that have contributed to these trends.   A summary of the report can be found here and highlights of the report can be found here.


For this report, GAO analyzed State arms export case data for fiscal year 2003 through April 30, 2007; reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and guidelines, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) funding and staffing information, and interviewed State and Department of Defense officials and selected arms exporters.


GAO found three key trends that indicate that DDTC's licensing process is under stress.   First, the number of cases processed by DDTC increased 20% between fiscal years 2003 and 2006.   Second, during the same period, median processing times almost doubled.   Third, the number of open arms export cases increased 50% from about 5,000 in October 2002 to about 7,500 in April 2007, with a high of more than 10,000 cases in September 2006.


GAO is recommending that State conduct systematic analyses to help achieve efficiencies in the processing of arms export cases. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues 2008 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><dc:date>2008-01-18T00:17:37-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b19d0c034d24dfd753b9aca779c27de3-92.php#unique-entry-id-92</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b19d0c034d24dfd753b9aca779c27de3-92.php#unique-entry-id-92</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 17, 2008, BIS issued its 2008 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls.   Export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension according to the provisions of Section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (the Act).   Section 6(f) of the Act requires the President to submit a report to Congress to extend the controls.   The President has delegated this authority to the Department of Commerce.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Fines Northrup Grumman &#x24;400&#x2c;000 for Illegal Exports of Navigational Equipment</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</category><category>Enforcement</category><dc:date>2008-01-26T00:04:20-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b00487ad58ff227e19f53a12aeaf3137-91.php#unique-entry-id-91</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/b00487ad58ff227e19f53a12aeaf3137-91.php#unique-entry-id-91</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 25, 2008, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS) announced that Northrop Grumman agreed to pay a $400,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that it committed 131 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), both in its own capacity and as successor to Litton Industries, Inc., which it acquired in April 2001. 


BIS states, "The allegations primarily involved unlicensed exports of specially designed components for navigation equipment and module manufacturing data that were to destinations in the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Italy, and the United Kingdom between January 1998 and September 2002."   Northrop Grumman made a voluntary self disclosure of these violations and cooperated fully in the investigation per BIS. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>AAEI 2008 Winter Regional Conference &#x26; Expo Recap</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>AAEI</category><dc:date>2008-01-23T22:10:32-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eec83b48ef9f1a4d96c4ee265ea83f94-90.php#unique-entry-id-90</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/eec83b48ef9f1a4d96c4ee265ea83f94-90.php#unique-entry-id-90</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Monika Brenner, Chief, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Customs and Border Protection, gave a presentation entitled, "Determining Transaction Value in Related Party Transactions" as part of a panel presentation called, "Walking the Transfer Pricing Tight Rope." ...  Brenner set out the differences between Customs and tax laws in determining an arm's length price and stated that an "APA or Transfer Pricing Study by itselfis not sufficient to show that a related party transaction value is acceptable for Customs purposes." 

...Brenner stated that compensating adjustments to transfer prices that occur post-importation may have the effect of making the transfer pr