<?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>2008-12-11T11:58:53-08:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:Jennifer Kessinger" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:02:52 -0800</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>Report Finds U.S. Arms Sales are Undermining Human Rights</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Defense</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>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>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><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><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>Supreme Court Hears First Ever Antidumping Cases</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Litigation</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[On November 4, 2008, the U.S.   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.

...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>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><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>BIS to Hold Public Meeting on Proposed Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Rule</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</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>CBP Issues Guidelines For Assessment &#x26; Mitigation of Claims for Liquidated Damages</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</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>Retroactive Filing of First Sale Declaration Extended </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</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><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>State Amends ITAR to Include Eritrea on Prohibited Exports List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</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>An Update from BIS Update 2008</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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><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>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>Study Analyzes Economic Impact of U.S. 100&#x25; Container Scanning</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>WCO</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>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><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>BIS Publishes Update 2008 Plenary Remarks</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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><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><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>BIS to Post Commodity Classificaton Information Based on Exporters&#x27; Request</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>Physicist Charged with Arms Export and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>BIS Issues Guidance on Illicit Diversion of Goods to Iran</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>BIS Announces ETRAC Members</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>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><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>DDTC Publishes Updated Guidance on Licensing of Foreign Persons</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>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><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>New Customs Declaration Requirements for Imported Plants and Wood Products</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</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>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>FTZ Board Revises Proposal for Site-Designation and Management Framework </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</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>OFAC Issues New Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>OFAC</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><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>Defense Trade Advisory Group to Meet October 21&#x2c; 2008</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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>BIS Requests Comments on Foreign-Based Policy Export Controls </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</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>Retired Professor Convicted of Arms Export Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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><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>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>North Korea to Remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>North Korea</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>First Sale Declaration Requirement Effective August 20&#x2c; 2008 </title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Customs</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>Trial Begins for Retired Professor Charged with ITAR Violations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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....  Registration is expected to open September 2, 2008, and must be made on-line.   The registration fee is $250.
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>BIS Issues Rule for Expanding Entity List</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>Export</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><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><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><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><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><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>BIS Announces Dates for Update 2008 Conference</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</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><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>State Department Limits ITAR Registration to 1 Year</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>State</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>CBP Commissioner Testifies re: Laptop Border Searches</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</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>BIS Posts Q &#x26; As on Recent North Korea Presidential Announcement</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>BIS</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>CIT Dismisses Gender Discrimination in Tariff Classifications Case</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CIT</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>State/DDTC Updates Guidance Documents</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>ITAR</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>President Changes North Korea&#x27;s Designations</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>President</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>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><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>Applications for EU Duty Suspensions Due Mid-July</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>EU</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>Laptop Searches Criticized at Senate Hearing</title><dc:creator>Jennifer Kessinger</dc:creator><category>CBP</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>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><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><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><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><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><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 fili