DHS/CBP Posts Clarification on DDTC Implementation Guide V1.5

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: CSMS# 17-000091, 22 February 2017.)

New ACE Programming

[Reference CSMS# 16-000993 Updated DDTC Implementation Guide V1.6, October 2016]

“Updated DDTC Implementation Guide V1.6, October 2016” was issued on December 5, 2016 announcing the posting of DDTC Implementation Guide V1.6, dated October 2016. However, V1.6 included the PG25 line value which was determined to be Post Core work and is not yet implemented. The schedule for this implementation has not yet been determined. Therefore the current and accurate version of the DDTC Implementation Guide is V1.5, dated May 2016. It can be found at here.

Related CSMS No. 16-000993

Company Fined $500K for 56 ITSR Violations by OFAC

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

United Medical Instruments, Inc. (UMI) agreed to a settlement of $515,400 with the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) based on 56 alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. Part 560). Between 2007 and 2009 it was found that UMI sold medical imaging equipment with knowledge that the goods were going to be reexported from the United Arab Emirates to Iran. The total value of the goods associated with the transactions was approximately $2,493,597.

OFAC considered the following to be mitigating factors:

  1. The alleged violations occurred due to the actions of a single UMI employee rather than a systemic pattern of company-wide conduct;
  2. UMI took remedial action in response to the alleged violations, including by voluntarily ceasing transactions involving Iran and by implementing new procedures and updating its compliance program to prevent the recurrence of similar sanctions violations;
  3. UMI has not received a penalty notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the earliest date of the transactions giving rise to the alleged violations;
  4. UMI cooperated with OFAC’s investigation by providing timely responses to OFAC’s correspondence and by entering into multiple statute of limitations tolling agreements; (5) UMI is a small business, as determined by the size standards set forth by the Small Business Administration; and (6) based on the financial condition of UMI, including significant financial difficulties experienced by the company in recent years, additional mitigation is warranted.

Settlement: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170228.aspx

Department of State Import and Export Electronic Filings for Licenses and License Exemptions

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

Source: Robert C. Rawls (robert.c.rawls@cbp.dhs.gov)

This pipeline is to provide guidance based on the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Federal Register Notice dated January 3, 2017.  Persons not familiar with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) import and export regulations are encouraged to read the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130.  DDTC is the controlling and ultimate authority for international movements of United States Munitions List (USML) defense articles, technical data and defense services.

DDTC published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) amending the ITAR.  The amendment requires that importers and exporters electronically submit the data, via their agent/filer or direct,at the time of entry and export via Customs Systems (Automated Commercial Environment and the Automated Export System) for the decrementation of permanent export licenses (DSP-5), temporary import licenses (DSP-61), temporary export licenses (DSP-73), licenses for classified materials (DSP-85), and goods controlled under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program (DSP-94), along with the submission of license exemption claims.

The regulatory changes became effective December 31, 2016.

For imports against DSP-61, DSP-73, DSP-85, FMS shipments and shipments under a license exemption, the electronic submission is the DDTC Partnership Government Agency (PGA) message set, and will be submitted at the time of entry.  The PGA message set can only accept the data for one DDTC license or license exemption per one commodity line on the entry.  That commodity line’s entered value will be used as the DDTC endorsement value.  So, filers are required to “split the commodity entry line” to associate a single entry line with a single license whose entered value will represent the DDTC value.

Filing Examples:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>•        <!–[endif]–>9808 – Certified Emergency War Materials – The primary and secondary classification must be included in your BEI. Expeditors will assign the license to the 9808 line item only and transmit to CBP.  Upon receipt, CBP will increment the value associated with the 9808 classification only.

7501 line 1 – 9808.00.3000 – Hardware/DDTC value- *PGA transmission is required and includes license number*

9013.90.9000 – No value (associated HTS)

7501 line 2 –         9808.00.3000 – Repair value

9013.90.9000 – No value (associated HTS)

<!–[if !supportLists]–>•        <!–[endif]–>Any free & dutiable classifications – Any other HTS

7501 line 1 –         9013.90.9000- Hardware/DDTC value- *PGA transmission is required and includes license number 1*

7501 line 2 –         9013.90.9000- Repair value

7501 line 3 –         9013.90.9000- Hardware/DDTC value- *PGA transmission is required and includes license number 2*

7501 line 4 –         9013.90.9000- Repair value

 

Import Valuation Examples:

There are times when the import and export values of a commodity are not the same due to changes in the condition of the commodity, for example repaired items.  The importer/broker has three options regarding how the entry and PGA message set can be filed.

Example:  The item is valued at $750 and it has been sent out of the country for repairs.  The value of the repairs is $350.

Option 1

At the time of export the value declared via the Electronic Export Information is $750.  Upon entry the commodity line value is declared at $1100.  The license will be decremented for $750 for the export and $1100 for the import.

Option 2

At the time of export the value declared via the EEI is $750.  Upon entry the broker files two Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) lines, one for $750 with a DDTC PGA message set and the second HTS line using HTS 9802.00.50 for $350.  The license would be decremented for $750 for both the import and export.  Note, there may be additional documentary requirements is association with using HTS 9802.00.50.

Option 3

At the time of export the value declared via the EEI is $750.  Upon entry the broker files two HTS commodity lines, one for $750 with a DDTC PGA message set and the second HTS commodity for that commodity classification.  The license would be decremented for $750 for both the entry and export.

For Exports related to a DSP5s, DSP-61s, DSP-73s, DSP-85s, FMS shipments, and license exemptions will continue to be filed via the Customs system (Automated Export System (AES)) for each commodity filing.

Per DDTC’s FRN, paper DSP-61 and DSP-73 licenses will no longer be required to be presented for incrementation or decrementation since the import and export transactions against the shipment will be captured in Customs systems.  In order to ensure accurate license balances in Customs systems, for those DSP-61s and DSP-73s issued prior to January 3, 2017, license holders are requested to provide the following information to CBP (insert POC and address) in the form of a letter: the license number, the total value of all prior import shipments incremented against the license, and the date when this information was recorded.  The historic import values are required since the data was not collected on the PGA record set.  .

The license registrant is reminded of its temporary license requirements under 22 CFR 123.3 and 123.5 which will continue to be evidenced using the registrant’s business records.  Given the automation, these business records may be subject to review by CBP in order to meet its requirements under 22 CFR 123.23 to “permit the shipment of defense articles identified on a license when the total value of the export does not exceed the aggregate monetary value (not quantity) stated on the license by more than ten percent…”

For the FMS program, the DSP-94 and the Letters of Offer and Acceptance, along with any amendments or modifications still have to be lodged with CBP.  CBP is working on automation of this process and it is projected that the automation process will be completed in summer/fall 2017.  CBP will provide updated guidance when that automation has been completed.

For the DSP-85 classified program, endorsements continue to be managed by the Defense Security Service.

Corrections related to the electronic import (PGA record set) transmissions can be made within 10 days of entry.  Import corrections needed after 10 days or corrections for exports should be referred to Robert Rawls at Robert.Rawls@dhs.gov.

Any questions about this pipeline should be referred to Mr. Robert Rawls, Outbound Enforcement and Policy Branch Chief via email at Robert.Rawls@dhs.gov or phone at (202) 344-2847.

AES Changes Impacted by Export Control Reform Implementation Rules

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: census@subscriptions.census.gov, 22 February 2017.)

On July 28, 2016 and October 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security published final rules (available at here and here) that became effective December 31, 2016. As a result of these rules, the following changes were made to the Automated Export System (AES) in order for exporters and authorized agents to successfully report electronic export information in the AES.
(1) The Addition of “600 series” Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCN)

600-series ECCNs 1A607, 1B607, 1C607, 1D607, 1E607, 6B619, 6D619, 6E619, 7A611, 7B611, 7D611, and 7E611 were added to the AES ECCN reference table. See the following instructions to determine which “600 series” ECCNs are eligible for certain license types. By using any of the License Exceptions or “No License Required” (NLR), you are certifying that the terms, provisions, and conditions described in the EAR have been met.

  • C30 (BIS license), C40 (TMP), C41 (RPL), C42 (GOV), and C59 (STA) – All “600 series” ECCNs listed above are eligible to the extent permitted under part 740 of the EAR.
  • C33 (NLR) – All “600 series” ECCNs listed above are eligible only if exported to Canada. Some of these “600 series” items were previously authorized under an International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Canadian exemption (SCA).
  • C35 (LVS) – The following “600 series” ECCNs are eligible: 1B607, 6B619, 7A611, and 7B611.
  • C44 (TSU) – The following “600 series” ECCNs are eligible: 1D607, 1E607, 6D619, 6E619,7D611, and 7E611.

 

If the “600 series” ECCNs are reported under any other license type, AES will generate a fatal error (FATAL ERR 666-ECCN MUST BE FROM APPROVED LIST) back to the filer. Please note that under 758.1 of the EAR, an AES filing is required for exports of items classified under “600 series” ECCNs, regardless of the value of the item or destination.
(2) Items subject to the EAR, including “600 series” ECCNs that are licensed by the State Department under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

Under a delegation of authority, the State Department may license an item subject to the EAR on an ITAR license pursuant to new section 120.5(b) of the ITAR. If this occurs, the AES filer must report the ECCN (including “600 series” ECCNs) or the EAR99 designation in the ECCN field in AES, even if the license type is S05 (DSP-5). All other fields associated with license type S05 are required, such as registration number, significant military equipment indicator, DDTC eligible party certification indicator, USML category code, DDTC unit of measure and DDTC quantity.

A complete list of all of the AES License Type codes and reporting instructions for these types can be found at here.

For questions regarding these upcoming AES changes, please contact the Bureau of Industry and Security by email at ECR_AES@bis.doc.gov or at one of the phone numbers below.

  • Office of Technology Evaluation (located in Washington, DC): (202) 482-4933
  • Outreach and Educational Services Division (located in Washington, DC): (202) 482-4811
  • Western Regional Office (located in Irvine, CA): (949) 660-0144
  • Northern California branch (located in San Jose, CA): (408) 998-8806

Justice Publishes Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret, and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: Justice)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has published its Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret, and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases, (January 2014 to the present: updated February 17, 2017), available at here.

The list contains a brief description of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions by the Justice Department since January 2014. These cases resulted from investigations by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies.

ZTE Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges and Settles Civil Charges with BIS and OFAC

March 30th, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: Thomsen & Burke, LLP)

Authors: Roszel C. Thomsen, Esq., Roz@t-b.com; Antoinette D. Paytas, Esq., Toni@t-b.com; and Maher M. Shomali, Esq., maher@t-b.com, Wesley A. Demory, Esq. All of Thomsen & Burke, LLP.

Earlier today, ZTE Corporation and the Departments of Justice, Commerce and Treasury announced a global settlement of charges that ZTE violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Regulations.

In total, ZTE has agreed to pay the U.S. Government $892,360,064 and agreed to a significant conduct remedy, in the various plea and settlement agreements described below.
CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF IEEPA

ZTE agreed (contingent on the court’s approval) to plead guilty to three criminal charges, including:

  1. Conspiracy to unlawfully export, re-export and transship U.S.-origin servers, switches, routers and other components of a cellular network infrastructure to Iran;
  2. Obstruction of justice by hiding data regarding its sales to Iran, causing its defense counsel to unwittingly provide false information to the Department of Justice, and deleting all communications related to its cover-up; and
  3. Making a materially false statement that it was complying with the laws and regulations of the United States.

The criminal penalties include a fine in the amount of $286,992,532, which represents the largest criminal fine in the history of IEEPA prosecutions, and a criminal forfeiture in the amount of $143,496,266, as well as a conduct remedy discussed below. Because a conduct remedy in a case involving the violation of IEEPA, EAR and OFAC regulations is unusual, a summary of the conduct remedy and its implications is included, below the discussion of ZTE’s settlement agreements with the Departments of Commerce and Treasury.
SETTLEMENT OF CHARGES WITH COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

ZTE also agreed to settle charges with the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) of 380 violations of the EAR, including (1) Conspiracy (2) Acting with Knowledge of a violation in Connection with Unlicensed Shipments of Telecommunications Items to North Korea via China and (3) Evasion. As part of the settlement:

  1. ZTE agreed to pay a penalty of $661 million to BIS, with $300 million suspended during a seven-year probationary period to deter future violations. This is the largest civil penalty ever imposed by BIS.
  2. ZTE agreed to active audit and compliance requirements designed to prevent and detect future violations.
  3. ZTE agreed to a seven-year suspended denial of export privileges, which could be activated by BIS if any aspect of this deal is not met.
  4. BIS will recommend that ZTE be removed from the Entity List.

SETTLEMENT OF CHARGES WITH TREASURY DEPARTMENT

OFAC administers a comprehensive embargo on Iran as set forth in the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (“ITSR”; 31 CFR part 560), including prohibitions on the indirect supply of goods from the United States to Iran, the re-exportation of U.S.-origin goods with knowledge that those items are intended for Iran, and any activity designed to evade or cause a violation of the ITSR. OFAC identified at least 251 ZTE transactions that violated these prohibitions.

ZTE ultimately settled with OFAC for $100,871,266, which was 95% of the maximum statutory civil penalty. As a condition to settlement, ZTE agrees that it has terminated all conduct leading to the apparent violations and will maintain internal policies and procedures that are designed to minimize the risk of future occurrences. Should ZTE willfully violate this condition, the settlement can become null and void, subjecting ZTE to additional OFAC enforcement activity.

Key takeaways for U.S. companies include the need to identify red flags when a customer refuses to disclose the ultimate destination of goods and when a customer involves an unknown intermediary without an adequate explanation.
CONDUCT REMEDY

The conduct remedy imposed on ZTE includes some of the elements addressed in the recently updated BIS Export Compliance Guidelines – The Elements of an Effective Compliance Program and elements that are above and beyond the guidelines. In addition, ZTE’s press release regarding the Settlement includes additional compliance elements that the company implemented in its effort to implement an improved export compliance program.   The standard elements of a compliance program that are addressed in the conduct remedy are:

  1. Issuance of a statement of corporate policy of export control compliance from the chief executive officers of ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to ensure compliance with the EAR which will be distributed no less than annually to all relevant employees of ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun and their subsidiaries and affiliates.
  2. Implementation of a training program on applicable export control requirements to be provided to (a) its leadership, management, and employees and (b) the leadership, management and employees of its affiliates, subsidiaries, and other entities worldwide over which it has ownership or control.
  3. Record retention as required by the EAR.

The elements that are above and beyond the BIS guidelines are:

  • Submission of six annual audit reports regarding export compliance.
  • Hiring an initial independent compliance monitor that is approved by the U.S. government for a three-year term. The duties of the monitor include preparing the initial three annual audit reports.
  • Hiring an independent compliance auditor, also approved by the U.S. government, for an additional three years to prepare the remaining three annual audit reports.
  • The audit reports must include a certification to BIS, executed under penalty of perjury, from the chief executive officer and chief legal officer of ZTE that to the best of their knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, ZTE and its subsidiaries and affiliates are in compliance with the terms of the Agreement including the compliance program obligations.
  • An affirmative duty to report potentially unlawful transactions to the U.S. government during the probationary period.
  • A requirement to meet at least annually with BIS to discuss any suggestions, comments or proposals for improvement ZTE may wish to discuss with BIS.
  • A requirement to provide copies of training materials, the training schedule and training locations to BIS on a quarterly basis until January 1, 2020.

In its press release, ZTE noted that it has:

  • Appointed a new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and made major changes to the senior management team, all of whom have a mandate of leading a new ZTE with a best-in-class export compliance program.
  • Created a Chief Executive Officer-led Compliance Committee with the authority and remit to significantly change the company’s policies and procedures, and provide greater oversight of support for the compliance initiatives.
  • Hired a new Chief Export Compliance Officer with responsibility for overseeing the continued development and improvement of the global export compliance program.
  • Created a separate compliance department with increased headcount to build the compliance program with full independence.
  • Issued a new Export Control Compliance Manual created in conjunction with the review of BIS to provide more detailed guidance to the employees. ZTE also now requires an annual Compliance Commitment Agreement from all employees.
  • Implemented a software automation tool which screens shipments from ZTE Corporation and certain subsidiaries for export control obligations. The system is used to determine which items are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), provides embargo and restricted party screening on the transactions, and places shipments on hold that require detailed classification analysis, application of license exceptions, or application of licenses when necessary.

CONCLUSION

The penalties assessed by Justice, Commerce and Treasury are significant.  Cumulatively, they comprise the largest global settlement involving violations of IEEPA, the EAR and OFAC regulations in history.

Nevertheless, these announcements most likely are not the end of the ZTE saga.  In its plea agreement with the Justice Department, ZTE specifically agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department regarding any criminal investigation it may undertake with respect to the activities of third parties.  In its settlement agreement with the Commerce Department, that agency merely agreed to recommend removal of ZTE from the Entity List.  Removal of ZTE from the Entity List will require the agreement of other agencies (including State and Defense, which are not parties to the global settlement) and publication of a new rule in the Federal Register.

Source Documents:

Company Fined $301K for Exporting Thermal Imaging Cameras to Hong Kong, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Mexico

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: Danielle McClellan

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (Milwaukee Electric) of Brookfield, WI has settled with the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on 25 charges of Engaging in Prohibited Conduct (764.2(a)). The company has agreed to pay a fine of $301,000 and will not be debarred.

Between April 2012 and May 2014 Milwaukee Electric exported thermal imaging cameras classified as 6A003.b.4 (controlled for NS and RS) to Hong Kong, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Mexico without obtaining the required Department of Commerce export licenses. The total value of all shipments was approximately $129,284…nearly half of the fine that the company will pay.

Settlement Agreement: https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/export-violations/1099-e2489/file

Tips on How to Resolve AES Fatal Errors

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

(Source: census@subscriptions.census.gov, 18 Jan 2017.)

When a shipment is filed to the AES, a system response message is generated and indicates whether the shipment has been accepted or rejected. If the shipment is accepted, the AES filer receives an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) as confirmation. However, if the shipment is rejected, a Fatal Error notification is received.

To help you resolve AES Fatal Errors, here are some tips on how to correct the most frequent errors that were generated in AES for this month.

Fatal Error Response Code: 336

  • Narrative: Ultimate Consignee State Cannot be Reported
  • Reason: The Country of Destination reported does not allow a State Code.
  • Resolution: Report a State Code only if the Country of Destination is the United States or Mexico. Verify the Ultimate Consignee Country Code and State Code, correct the shipment and resubmit.

 

Fatal Error Response Code: 503

  • Narrative: The Port of Unlading Code is missing. All vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico must provide a Port of Unlading Code.
  • Reason: The Port of Unlading Code is missing. All vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico must provide a Port of Unlading Code.
  • Resolution: The Port of Unlading Code is the foreign port where the exported merchandise is unloaded from the exporting carrier. Report a valid Port of Unlading Code for all vessel shipments, and any air shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico. Verify the Port of Unlading Code, correct the shipment and resubmit.

 

For a complete list of Fatal Error Response Codes, their reasons, and resolutions, see Appendix A – Commodity Filing Response Messages.

It is important that AES filers correct Fatal Errors as soon as they are received in order to comply with the Foreign Trade Regulations. These errors must be corrected prior to export for shipments filed predeparture and as soon as possible for shipments filed postdeparture, but not later than five calendar days after departure.

For further information or questions, contact the U.S. Census Bureau’s Data Collection Branch.

EAR Expands License Application Support Document Requirements for Hong Kong

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: John Black

Effective April 19, 2017, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will  require persons planning on exporting and reexporting to Hong Kong any items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) for national security (NS), missile technology (MT), nuclear nonproliferation (NP column 1), or chemical and biological weapons (CB) reasons to obtain, prior to the export or reexport, a copy of a Hong Kong import license or a written statement from the Hong Kong Government that such a license is not required.   The purpose of this change is to require that the Hong Kong Government issue an import license as an acknowledgement that sensitive EAR-controlled items are entering Hong Kong and as an agreement to prevent unauthorized reexport or transfer of those items to prohibited destinations.  Interestingly, the prohibited destination that most concerns the US is the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  The EAR treats Hong Kong as a separate “country” from the PRC even though the PRC, the United Nations, and nearly everybody else in the world considers Hong Kong to be part of the PRC because Hong Kong is part of the PRC.

Leaving behind the interesting point that the EAR treats Hong Kong as if it is not part of the PRC, there are a lot of details in this new rule.  In addition what was described above, this rule will also require persons planning on reexporting from Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR and controlled for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons to obtain a Hong Kong export license or a statement from Hong Kong government that such a license is not required. This final rule will be effective April 19, 2017.

The following amendments have been made:

  • In § 740.2, add paragraphs (a)(19) and (20) to read as follows:

(a) *  *  *

(19) The exporter or reexporter to Hong Kong of any item subject to the EAR and controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP Column 1, or CB reasons has not received one of the following with respect to the item:

(i) A copy of an import license issued to the Hong Kong importer by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be exported or reexported pursuant to that license exception for which a Hong Kong import license is required and that is valid on the date of the export or reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no import license is required to import into Hong Kong the item(s) to be exported or reexported. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong importer or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one export or reexport to Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(20) The reexporter from Hong Kong of any item subject to the EAR controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons has not received one of the following with respect to the item:

(i) An export license issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be reexported pursuant to that license exception for which a Hong Kong export license is required and that is valid on the date of the reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no Hong Kong export license is required for the item(s) to be rexported.

The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong reexporter or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one reexport from Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

  • 748.9(b) is amended by revising the section heading, revising paragraph (b) and all notes to paragraph (b), and adding two sentences to the end paragraph of (e)(1), to read as follows:

§ 748.9    Support documents for evaluation of foreign parties in license applications and/or for promoting compliance with license requirements.

(b) Requirements to obtain support documents for license applications. Unless an exception in paragraph (c) of this section applies, a support document is required for certain license applications for:

(1) The People’s Republic of China (PRC) other than the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (see §§ 748.10 and 748.11(a)(2));

(2) ‘‘600 Series Major Defense Equipment’’ (see § 748.11);

(3) Firearms and related commodities to member countries of the Organization of American States (see § 748.12); and

(4) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (see § 748.13).

Note 1 to Paragraph (b): On a case-by-case basis, BIS may require license applicants to obtain a support document for any license application.

Note 2 to Paragraph (b): For End-Use Certificate requirements under the Chemical Weapons Convention see § 745.2 of the EAR.

*       *       *       *       *

(e) *  *  *

(1) *  *  * The documents issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region that are required pursuant to § 748.13 are not used to evaluate license applications. They must be obtained before shipment and need not be obtained before submitting a license application.

  • Redesignate § 748.13 as § 748.14 and add new § 748.13 to read as follows:

§ 748.13    Hong Kong import and export licenses.

(a) Requirement to obtain the document—(1) Exports and reexports to Hong Kong. An exporter or reexporter must obtain the documents described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section before using a license issued by BIS to export or reexport to Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR and controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, or CB reasons. Collectively, the documents issued by Hong Kong must cover all of the items to be exported or reexported pursuant to a license.

(i) A copy of an import license issued to the Hong Kong importer by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers the items to be exported or reexported pursuant to that BIS license for which a Hong Kong import license is required and that is valid on the date of the export or reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no import license is required to import into Hong Kong the item(s) to be exported or reexported to Hong Kong. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong importer or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one export or reexport to Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(2) Reexports from Hong Kong. No license issued by BIS may be used to reexport from Hong Kong any item subject to the EAR controlled on the CCL for NS, MT, NP column 1, and/or CB reasons unless the reexporter has received either:

(i) An export license issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Hong Kong Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations, that covers all items to be rexported pursuant to that BIS license for which a Hong Kong export license is required and that is valid on the date of the reexport that is subject to the EAR; or

(ii) A copy of a written statement issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that no export license is required from Hong Kong for the item(s) to be reexported. The statement may have been issued directly to the Hong Kong reexporter or it may be a written statement available to the general public. The statement may be used for more than one reexport from Hong Kong so long as it remains an accurate statement of Hong Kong law.

(b) Recordkeeping. The documents required to be obtained by paragraph (a) of this section must be retained and made available to the U.S. Government upon request in accordance with part 762 of the EAR.

  • In § 762.2 remove the word ‘‘and’’ from the end of paragraph (b)(52); remove the period from the end of paragraph (b)(53) and add in its place a semicolon followed by the word ‘‘and’’; add paragraph (b)(54) to read as follows:

§ 762.2    Records to be retained.

*       *       *       *       *

(b) *  *  * (54) § 748.13, Certain Hong Kong import and export licenses.

 

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-00446.pdf

BIS Announces Favorable Export License Approval Policy for India

March 2nd, 2017 by Danielle McClellan

By: John Black

Effective January 19, 2017, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to put in place a favorable export license approval policy for military items destined for India.  BIS stated that it generally will approve license applications subject to national security controls or regional stability controls to implement state that the US commitments related to the US and India becoming Major Defense Partners (according to the India-US Joint Statement of June 7, 2016).

More specifically, the following amendments have been made:

  • PART 742
    • 742.4 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

§ 742.4 National security.

(b) * * *

(8) For India, there is a general policy of approval for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items, including ‘‘600 series’’ items, for civil or military end uses in India, for ultimate end use by the Government of India, for reexport to countries in Country Group A:5, or for return to the United States, so long as such items are not for use in nuclear, ‘‘missile,’’ or chemical or biological weapons activities.

*       *       *       *       *

  • 742.6 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows: § 742.6    Regional Stability.

(b) *  *  *

(7) For India, there is a general policy of approval for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items, including ‘‘600 series’’ items, for civil or military end uses in India, for ultimate end use by the Government of India, for reexport to countries in Country Group A:5, or for return to the United States, so long as such items are not for use in nuclear, ‘‘missile,’’ or chemical or biological weapons activities.

  • PART 748
    • 748.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 748.15    Authorization Validated End-User (VEU).

(a) *  *  *

(2) In evaluating an end user for eligibility under authorization VEU, the ERC will consider a range of information, including such factors as: The entity’s record of exclusive engagement in appropriate end-use activities; the entity’s compliance with U.S. export controls; the need for an on- site review prior to approval; the entity’s capability of complying with the requirements of authorization VEU; the entity’s agreement to on-site reviews by representatives of the U.S. Government to ensure adherence to the conditions of the VEU authorization; and the entity’s relationships with U.S. and foreign companies. In addition, when evaluating the eligibility of an end user, the ERC will consider the status of export controls and the support and adherence to multilateral export control regimes of the government of the eligible destination.

(d) End-use restrictions. Items obtained under authorization VEU in China may be used only for civil end uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR. Items obtained under authorization VEU in India may be used for either civil or military end uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR. Exports, reexports, or transfers made under authorization VEU may be made to an end user listed in Supplement No. 7 to this part only if the items will be consigned to and for use by the validated end user. Eligible end-users who obtain items under VEU may only:

*       *       *       *       *

Paragraph (7)(ii) of the section titled Required Information for Validated End-User Authorization Requests in Supplement No. 8 to part 748 is revised to read as follows:

Supplement No. 8 to Part 748— Information Required in Requests for Validated End-User (VEU) Authorization

* * * * *

Required Information for Validated End-User Authorization Requests

* * * * *

(7) * * *

(ii) Understands and will abide by all authorization VEU end-use restrictions, including the requirement that items received under authorization VEU will only be used for authorized end-uses and may not be used for any activities described in part 744 of the EAR;

* * * * *

Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-00439.pdf