APRIL 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES

This newsletter is a listing of the latest changes in export control regulations through April 30, 2021.  The newsletter is provided as a complimentary service to assist exporters with their ITAR and EAR export compliance responsibilities. It provides a summary of recent changes to export control regulations or other regulatory matters of interest that may impact your company’s international trade and export compliance functions. Call us at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net with questions or comments.

See also our “Latest Sanctions Fines & Penalties” section below for an update on companies and

persons denied export privileges by the United States Government.

 REGULATORY UPDATES

U.S. Courts

The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit Overturned A Preliminary Nationwide Injunction Regarding Technical Data And Software Related To 3D Printed Guns

April 27, 2021:  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a preliminary nationwide injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, WA on March 6, 2020 (see March 2020 Regulatory Update) that prohibited the transfer of  jurisdiction over “technical data and software directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a 3D-printer or similar equipment” from the U.S. Munitions List (USML, 22 CFR Sec. 121.1) to the Commerce Control List (CCL, EAR Part 774, Supp. No. 1).  (This transfer would otherwise have occurred as part of the implementation of the rules adopted Jan. 23, 2020 by the Commerce Department (85 Fed. Reg. 4136) and the State Department (85 Fed. Reg. 3819), effective March 9, 2020, that transferred jurisdiction over many firearms and related technologies controlled under USML Categories I, II, and III from the State Department to the Commerce Department.)  The Ninth Circuit based its decision on a holding that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review agency determinations of whether any item is, or is not, a “defense article” because the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1)) “precluded judicial review of both the designation and undesignation of items as defense articles.”

See the State Department section below for an announcement that the State Department will continue to enforce implementation of the District Court’s injunction, maintaining the technical data as export controlled ITAR data.

The President

President Biden Issued Additional Russia Sanctions Via Executive Order 14024

April 18, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 20249:  President Biden issued Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities Of The Government Of The Russian Federation.”  The harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation that underlay E.O. 14024 included, among others, undermining the conduct of free and fair democratic elections in the U.S. and its allies, engaging in and facilitating “malicious cyber-enabled activities,” and fostering and using transnational corruption to influence foreign governments.  E.O. 14024 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to block property and impose other sanctions on Russian persons found to be involved in any of a wide range of malign activities.  The sanctions do not involve the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130).  A White House Fact Sheet about E.O. 14024 and its implementation is on the White House website at   https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/15/fact-sheet-imposing-costs-for-harmful-foreign-activities-by-the-russian-government/.  See information about implementation of E.O. 14024 in the Treasury Department Sanctions section below.

Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security

BIS Applied Military Intelligence-Related Controls To Burma (Myanmar)

April 9, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 18433:  The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the EAR to apply military intelligence-related controls to Burma (Myanmar) and to restrict U.S. persons’ activities in  connection with military-intelligence end uses and end users in Burma.  Specifically, EAR Sec. 744.22 was amended to impose a license requirement on the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of any item subject to the EAR if an exporter, reexporter, or transferor has knowledge, or is informed by BIS, that the item is destined for a military-intelligence end use or end user in Burma, expressly including Burma’s Office of Chief of Military Security Affairs (OCMSA) and the Directorate of Signal, a branch of the Burmese Army responsible for the military telecommunications network.  Also, EAR Sec. 736.2(b)(7)(i)(A)(5) (General Prohibition Seven, on U.S. Person controls) and Sec. 744.6(b)(5) (Restrictions on specific activities of ‘‘U.S. Persons’’) are revised by adding Burma to the list of countries in which U.S. persons are prohibited from supporting military intelligence end uses or end users, even when such support does not involve an item subject to the EAR.

In the same rule, BIS also made further technical corrections and conforming changes to the Jan. 15, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 4865) rule that amended the EAR to implement, among other things, controls on exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country), as well as specific activities of U.S. persons, in connection with military-intelligence end uses and end users in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela.  (See January 2021 and March 2021 Regulatory Updates for information on original Jan. 15 rule and technical corrections made March 17, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 14534).)

This interim final rule became effective April 9, 2021.

*******

BIS Added Seven Chinese Supercomputing Entities To The Entity List

April 9, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 18437:  BIS added seven Chinese supercomputing entities to the Entity List (15 CFR Part 744, Supp. No. 4) based on their procurement of U.S.-origin items for activities that support China’s military actors, its destabilizing military modernization efforts, and/or its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.  The 7 entities are:

  • National Supercomputing Center Jinan;
  • National Supercomputing Center Shenzhen;
  • National Supercomputing Center Wuxi;
  • National Supercomputer Center Zhengzhou;
  • Shanghai High-Performance Integrated Circuit Design Center;
  • Sunway Microelectronics; and
  • Tianjin Phytium Information Technology.

 

For these entities, BIS imposes a license requirement with a license review policy of a presumption of denial for all items subject to the EAR. In addition, no license exceptions will be available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these entities.

Department of State

DDTC Name And Address Changes Posted To Website

April 5, 7, 12, 14, 21, and 30, 2021:  The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted the following name and/or address changes on its website at    

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=bd72ca0adbf8d30044f9ff621f961981:

  • Change in Name from Pratt & Miller Engineering & Fabrication Inc. to Pratt & Miller Engineering & Fabrication LLC due to corporate restructure;
  • Change in Name and Address from Leonardo MW Ltd to Leonardo UK Ltd due to corporate reorganization;
  • Change in Name of Babcock Spain entities due to corporate rebranding as follows:

From:                                                                          To:

Helisureste Centro de Mantenimiento Aeronautico SA;    Babcock Mission Critical Services Espana

Helicopteros del Sureste SAU;                                         SA

Helicsa Helicopteros, SAU;

Inaer Helicopteros Off Shore SAU;

Transportes Aereos del Sur SA;

Transportes Aereos del Sur SLU;

Helisureste Centro de Mantenimiento Aeronautico SA;

Inaer Maintenance SA Heliasset SL;                              Babcock Mission Critical Services Asset

Inaer Asset Management SAU                                       Management SAU

Inesair Fleet Spain SLU;                                                Babcock Mission Critical Services Fleet

Inaer Fleet Management SAU                                        Management SAU

Prioris Aviation Spain SAU;                                          Babcock Mission Critical Services Group

Avincis Mission Critical Services Group SAU                SAU

Inaer Inversionres Aereas SL;                                        Babcock Mission Critical Services SAU

Inaer Aviation Spain SAU;

Avincis Mission Critical Services SAU Idomeneo SLU;

Inaer Aviation International SLU;                                  Babcock Mission Critical Services

Inaer Aviation International SAU                                   International SAU

Heli-Europa SA;                                                           Babcock Mission Critical Services

Heli-Europa SL;                                                            Galicia SL

Inaer Galicia SL

  • Change in Name from SAVIS Tecnologia e Sistemas S/A to Embraer S.A. due to merger of Savis with Embraer;
  • Change in Name of FLIR Radars Inc. and 360 Surveillance Inc. to FLIR Unmanned Aerial Systems ULC due to corporate restructure;
  • Change in Name from Milrem LCM to Milworks OU due to corporate rebranding;
  • Panta Aerospace B.V. Acquires GKN Aerospace Netherlands B.V. Subsidiaries Fokker Services B.V. and Fokker Techniek B.V. (Names/Addresses Unchanged); and
  • Due to Corporate Reorganizaiton HENSOLDT AG is now a party to DSP authorizations and agreements to which HENSOLDT Holding Germany GmbH, its German subsidiary, is a party.

Each announcement includes a link to a notice detailing the change and its effects on pending and currently approved authorizations involving the listed entity.

*******

DDTC Issued A Factsheet, “Summary Of Changes To International Traffic in Arms Regulations Sec. 126.1 – Russia” And Updated FAQs

April 12, 2021:  DDTC issued a Factsheet, “Summary of Changes to International Traffic in Arms Regulations Sec. 126.1 – Russia,” and updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to the March 18, 2021 amendment (86 Fed. Reg. 14802 – see March 2021 Regulatory Update) that subjected Russia to the coverage of ITAR Sec. 126.1(d)(2), which applies a policy of denial for exports, subject to an exception in Sec. 126.1(l) providing that a license or other approval may be issued on a case-by-case basis (1) for government space cooperation, and (2) prior to September 1, 2021, for commercial  space launches; and also amends ITAR Sec. 126.1(a) to allow exporters to use the exemptions provided in
ITAR § 126.4(a)(2) and (b)(2) for exports to Russia when in support of government space cooperation.  The Factsheet and related FAQs are on the DDTC website at https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/sys_attachment.do?sysparm_referring_url=tear_off&view=true&sys_id=a6baec641baf2c14d1f1ea02f54bcbfc ; many more new FAQs are at https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_public_portal_faq_cat&topic=840e3f6cdb3bc30044f9ff621f9619c0&subtopic=e4d3fc6c1b236c14d1f1ea02f54bcbb3#e4d3fc6c1b236c14d1f1ea02f54bcbb3 .

*******

DDTC Issued A Notice That It Is Still Enforcing The Court Injunction Treating Technical Data And Software Related To 3D Printed Firearms As ITAR Controlled

April 30, 2021:  DDTC issued a notice ( https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_public_portal_news_and_events )  stating that it is continuing to enforce the March 6, 2020 injunction calling for the treatment of “technical data and software directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a 3D-printer or similar equipment” as subject to control on the U.S. Munitions List  (USML, 22 CFR Sec. 121.1), because the opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (see Courts section above) that mandates vacating that injunction will not go into force until certain further court procedures have been completed.

Department of the Treasury

OFAC Published New Syria FAQs

April 5, 2021:  The Office of Foreign  Assets Control (OFAC) published new Syria FAQs 884 and 885. FAQ 884 states that non-U.S. persons who engage in or facilitate activities that would be authorized for a U.S. person under a general license issued pursuant to the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SySR) do not risk exposure to U.S. secondary sanctions pursuant to the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 (Caesar Act).  FAQ 885 states the general rule that U.S. and non-U.S. persons, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and foreign financial institutions, may provide or facilitate certain humanitarian assistance to Syria without the risk of sanctions; recommends contacting the BIS Foreign Policy Division for questions specific to transactions involving items subject to the EAR destined to Syria; and for additional information cites OFAC’s April 16, 2020 Fact Sheet on Provision of Humanitarian Assistance and Trade to Combat COVID-19 (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/covid19_factsheet_20200416.pdf; see April 2020 Regulatory Update).  FAQ 885 also states as a general principle applicable to transactions by non-governmental organizations that may implicate sanctioned persons or countries that “OFAC remains committed to ensuring that humanitarian assistance can flow to the people of Syria and maintains a favorable policy supporting the provision of humanitarian assistance.”    FAQs 884 and 885 are on the Treasury Department website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/884 and https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/885 .

*******

The Treasury Department Published Its Quarterly List Of Countries That Require Or May Require Participation In, Or Cooperation With, An International Boycott And Removes The UAE From The List

April 8, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 18374:  The Treasury Department published its quarterly list of countries that require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott. The countries named are Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.  The Treasury Department states that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been removed from the list due to the repeal of its law mandating a boycott of Israel and subsequent UAE government actions to implement this new policy.  Exporters and others should note, however, that this action by the Treasury Department does not change the scope or the substantive rules and reporting requirements of the Anti-Boycott Regulations (ABR, EAR Part 760) administered by the Department of Commerce Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance (OABC).

*******

OFAC Published FAQs Regarding Format Options For OFAC License Applications

April 12, 2021:  OFAC published amended FAQ 97 (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/97) and FAQ 98 (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/98), which address presentation and format options for license applications pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA).  

*******

OFAC Published Two Amended FAQs On Sudan-related Sanctions

April 12, 2021:  OFAC published two amended FAQs on Sudan-related sanctions issues.  FAQ 500 (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/500 ) states that  no license from OFAC is required to export or reexport agricultural commodities, medicines, or medical devices to Sudan, and FAQ 836 ( https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/836 ) summarizes the few Sudan-related sanctions that remain in effect since the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR, 31 C.F.R. Part 538) were revoked on June 28, 2018.

*******

OFAC Amended The Somalia Sanctions Regulations

April 28, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 22346:  OFAC amended the Somalia Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR Part 551) by reissuing them in their entirety, replacing regulations that were published in abbreviated form on May 5, 2010.  Effective April 28, 2021, this new final rule includes additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, statements of licensing policy, and other regulatory provisions to provide further guidance to the public.

*******

OFAC  Moved Its its Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies (NS-CCMC) List To Its Standard List Format

April 30, 2021: OFAC announced that it will migrate its Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies (NS-CCMC) List from its current temporary PDF and CSV format to the standard OFAC list format, and that this data will now be included in OFAC's Non-SDN Consolidated Data Files for machine processing.  Human-readable versions of the NS-CCMC list will now be available on a dedicated NS-CCMC landing page.

LATEST SANCTIONS FINES & PENALTIES

 This section of our newsletter provides information on the latest sanctions, fines and penalties for export violations or matters of non-compliance with the ITAR or EAR issued by the US government enforcement agencies. It is provided as a service to exporters and associates of FD Associates to remind them of the importance of extreme due diligence in all international trade and export compliance matters, particularly those involving exports subject to the ITAR or the EAR. Don't let this happen to you or your company! Call us with questions or concerns at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net.

Sanctions

Department of the Treasury

April 15, 2021:  OFAC took numerous actions to implement Executive Order 14024, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities Of The Government Of The Russian Federation,” signed by President Biden April 15, 2021.  (See The President section above.)   In accordance with E.O. 14024, these actions involve sanctions such as blocking property, prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from participating in the primary market for Russia’s sovereign debt, and adding persons to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) List; they do not involve the EAR or the ITAR.  A Treasury Department release at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0127 summarizes the sanctions and identifies the sanctioned Russian persons that are designated as Russian Companies in the Technology Sector Supporting Russian Intelligence Services and Russian Malicious Cyber Actors; another Treasury Department release at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20210415 includes links to new FAQs 886, 887, 888, 889 ,890, and 891 and updated FAQs 673, 674, 675, and 676.

 

 

Fines and Penalties

April 15, 2021:  Harsimran Singh and Panther Trading Company, Inc. (PTC), both of Landsdowne, MD, have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $42,000, for which they are jointly and severally liable, to settle charges by BIS that they committed three violations of EAR Sec. 764.2(a) (two violations by engaging in prohibited conduct by exporting items controlled for crime control reasons to Mexico without BIS authorization  and one violation by exporting items controlled for crime control reasons to the Dominican Republic without BIS authorization) and one violation of EAR Sec. 764.2(b) (causing, aiding, or abetting exports of crime control items to Nigeria without BIS authorization).  A payment of $12,500 will be paid within 30 days, and the remaining $29,500 will be suspended for one year and then waived, provided that Singh and PTC have made full and timely payment of the $12,500 and have committed no further violations of the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA, 50 U.S.C. § 4801 et seq.), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder.

*******

April 19, 2021:  OFAC announced that Alliance Steel, Inc. of Oklahoma City, OK, a designer and manufacturer of prefabricated steel structures, agreed to pay $435,003 to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR, 31 CFR Part 560) when on at least 61 occasions it knowingly imported engineering services from a third-party engineering company located in Tehran, Iran.   Alliance sells its products exclusively to domestic consumers, does not export goods or services, and does not market itself outside the United States.  However, when demand for engineering services exceeded its available resources, it outsourced the work to third-party contractors, including an Iranian engineering company.  Numerous senior managers were aware that the subcontractor was an Iranian company, and several were involved in the process of approving and paying for each transaction with the Iranian company.  However, Alliance asserted that because the company otherwise operates entirely within the United States, these management officials were “not attuned to the laws and regulations administered by OFAC.”

In the announcement of this case (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/20210419_alliance.pdf), OFAC notes that this enforcement action demonstrates the importance of developing and maintaining effective, risk-based sanctions compliance controls, even for companies operating predominantly within the United States, and recommends several OFAC resources that can aid in this task.

*******

April 28, 2021:  Shuren Qin, a Chinese national residing in Wellesley, MA, pleaded guilty in Federal District Court in Boston, MA in connection with illegally procuring and causing the illegal export of $100,000 worth of U.S.-origin hydrophones to Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU), a Chinese military university that works closely with the People’s Liberation Army, to one count of conspiracy to unlawfully export items from the U.S. to NWPU without first obtaining the required export licenses as well as counts of visa fraud, making false statements to law enforcement agents, money laundering, and smuggling. Qin and his company, LinkOcean, concealed from the U.S. manufacturer of the hydrophones that NWPU was the true end-user, thereby causing false end-user information to be filed with the U.S. government.

*******

April 29, 2021:  FLIR Systems, Inc., of Wilsonville, OR agreed to pay an administrative fine of $307,922 to resolve allegations by BIS that it made inaccurate or incomplete representations in the course of seeking a commodity jurisdiction determination that a newly developed Uncooled Focal Plane Array (UFPA) was subject to the EAR rather than the ITAR.  In response to concerns expressed by the U.S. Government about possible diversion of the UFPA to end-users of concern, FLIR represented that the UFPA was designed specifically for insertion into commercial smartphones and that FLIR recognized the need to prevent diversion to other uses, while internally contemplating other markets and developing plans for military applications.  Later, FLIR sold cameras incorporating the UFPA to a Norwegian customer in the defense industry.  FLIR also represented to USG officials that its UFPAs incorporated novel anti-tamper encryption protection, but it never actually developed or added such protection to the UFPA.

*******

April 29, 2021:  SAP SE of Walldorf, Germany, entered into separate agreements with the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Treasury as part of a global resolution of voluntary disclosures to all three agencies of violations of the EAR and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR, 31 CFR Part 560).    All three cases involved the export of SAP software products to Iran in two ways: releasing U.S.-origin software, including upgrades or software patches, more than 20,000 times to users in Iran without using geolocation filters to identify and block Iranian nationals, and allowing foreign subsidiaries to permit approximately 2,360 Iranian users to access U.S.-based cloud services from Iran.

The charges by DOJ resulted in a non-prosecution agreement that recognized the importance of SAP’s voluntary self-disclosures and cooperation with the government during and after the three-year investigation, spending more than $27 million on measures including remediating and implementing changes in its export compliance and sanctions program, deactivating thousands of users of SAP cloud-based services based in Iran, instituting automated sanctioned party screening of its affiliates, auditing and suspending partners that sold to Iran-affiliated customers, hiring experienced U.S.-based export controls staff, and conducting more robust due diligence regarding new acquisitions.  SAP will also disgorge $5.14 million of ill-gotten gain. The Commerce Department case concluded with an administrative settlement of $3,290,000 and a requirement of three annual audits.  The Treasury Department case concluded with an administrative settlement of $2,132,174, which will be satisfied by the penalties assessed by DOJ and DOC.

In its announcement, DOJ stated that this is the first case in which a voluntary self-disclosure of export violations led to a non-prosecution agreement between the violating company and the DOJ. Also, it encouraged companies to voluntarily self-disclose all potentially willful violations of the statutes implementing the U.S. government’s primary export control and sanctions regimes — the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), — directly to the National Security Division (NSD). DOJ also recommended a DOJ publication as a source of guidance for future cases:  Export Control And Sanctions Enforcement Policy For Business Organizations, https://www.justice.gov/nsd/ces_vsd_policy_2019/download (Dec. 13, 2019).

APRIL 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES Read More »

MARCH 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES

 

 

This newsletter is a listing of the latest changes in export control regulations through March 31, 2021.  The newsletter is provided as a complimentary service to assist exporters with their ITAR and EAR export compliance responsibilities. It provides a summary of recent changes to export control regulations or other regulatory matters of interest that may impact your company’s international trade and export compliance functions. Call us at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net with questions or comments.

See also our “Latest Sanctions Fines & Penalties” section below for an update on companies and

persons denied export privileges by the United States Government.

 

REGULATORY UPDATES  

European Union

EU To Establish A Union Regime For Export Controls Of Dual-Use Items

March 25, 2021:  The European Parliament agreed to adopt a regulation establishing a Union regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering, technical assistance and transit of dual-use items.  This rule, which still requires agreement by the European Council, is on the European Parliament website  at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0101_EN.pdf ; a press release describing it is at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210322IPR00534/parliament-agrees-to-new-eu-export-rules-on-dual-use-items?xtor=AD-78-[Social_share_buttons]-[linkedin]-[en]-[news]-[pressroom]-[control-of-exports-transfer-brokering-technical-assistance.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) Published Updated Guidance On Transferring Military And Dual Use Technology

 

March 24, 2021:  The United Kingdom Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) published updated detailed guidance on the scope of U.K. regulations on transferring controlled military or dual-use technology and the definitions of terms used in those regulations. This information can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exporting-military-or-dual-use-technology-definitions.

U.S. - Miscellaneous 

DOS/ISN, OFAC and BIS Jointly Issued A North Korea Ballistic Missile Advisory

March 11, 2021:  The U.S. State Department of State Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN), the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and the Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) jointly issued a North Korea Ballistic Missile Advisory identifying key North Korean ballistic missile procurement entities, describing their deceptive procurement techniques, and listing key materials and equipment used in the ballistic missile program.  The Advisory is intended to aid persons that produce or trade in these products or provide related services in establishing procedures and making informed decisions to avoid the risk of violating United Nations, U.S., and other sanctions and laws.  This 19-page Advisory is on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/policy-guidance/2625-2020-north-korea-ballistic-missile-advisory-005/file.

Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security

BIS Adds 14 Entities In Germany, Russia and Switzerland To The Entity List

March 4, 2021 -- 86 Fed. Reg. 12529:  BIS amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) by adding 14 entities in Germany, Russia, and Switzerland to the Entity List (EAR Part 744, Supp. No. 4) based on a determination that each of these entities had acted contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S. by engaging in proliferation activities in support of Russia’s weapons of mass destruction programs and chemical weapons activities.  The 14 entities are:

  • Germany
    Chimconnect Gmbh;
    Pharmcontract Gmbh; and
    Riol-Chemie
  • Russia
    27th Scientific Center of the Russian Ministry of Defense;
    Chimmed Group;
    Femteco;
    Interlab;
    LabInvest;
    OOO Analit Products;
    OOO Intertech Instruments;
    Pharmcontract GC; and
    Rau Farm
  • Switzerland

Chimconnect AG

A license requirement with a policy of denial will now apply to exports, reexports, or in-country transfers to these persons of all items subject to the EAR, and no license exceptions will be available.

The rule also corrected one existing Entity List entry for the destination of Germany for the entity “Huawei OpenLab Munich,” and five entries for China.

*******

BIS Amends The EAR To Apply More Restrictive Treatment To Myanmar (Burma)

March 8, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 13173:  In response to the military coup that overthrew the elected government of Myanmar (Burma), BIS made the following amendments to the EAR to apply more restrictive treatment to exports and reexports to, and in-country transfers within, Myanmar:

  • Moved Burma from Country Group B to Country Group D:1 (EAR Part 740, Supplement No. 1), resulting in –
    • Removal or limitation of eligibility for the following License Exceptions:
  • Shipments of Limited Value (LVS) (EAR Sec. 740.3);
    • Shipments to Group B Countries (GBS) (Sec. 740.4);
    • Technology and Software under Restriction (TSR) (Sec. 740.6);
    • Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (in-country) (TMP) (Sec. 740.9);
    • Servicing and Replacement Parts and Equipment (RPL) (Sec. 740.10);
    • Aircraft, Vessels, and Spacecraft (AVS) (Sec.740.15);
    • Additional Permissive Reexports (APR) (Sec. 740.16(j)); and
    • Encryption Commodities, Software and Technology (ENC) (Sec. 740.17);
  • Restrictions on the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of certain microprocessors and associated “software” and “technology” to “military end uses” and “military end users” in Myanmar;
  • Restrictions on certain exports and reexports to vessels and aircraft located in ports in Myanmar or owned, operated or controlled by Myanmar or a Myanmar national; and
  • Imposition of licensing requirements for reexports of foreign-produced direct products of certain U.S.-origin technology and software to Myanmar (General Prohibition Three, EAR Sec. 736.2(b)(3)).
  • Changes in licensing policy to policies associated with Sec. 744.21 for military end use and end user controls, and with Sec. 742.4(b)(7) for NS-controlled items.

*******

BIS Added Four Entities To The Entity List

March 8, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 13179:  BIS amended the EAR by adding four entities in Myanmar to the Entity List to support U.S. Government efforts to promote a return to democracy in Myanmar and prevent Myanmar’s military and security services from obtaining items subject to the EAR.  The four Myanmar  entities are:

  • Ministry of Defence;
  • Ministry of Home Affairs;
  • Myanmar Economic Corporation; and
  • Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited.

*******

BIS Revises Incorrect Instruction Related To “Military-Intelligence End User” or “Military-Intelligence End Use”

March 17, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 14534:  BIS revised an incorrect instruction in the January 15, 2021, rule (86 Fed. Reg. 4865) that created a new license requirement for transactions involving a “military-intelligence end user” (MIEU) or “military-intelligence end use” in certain countries (see January 2021 Regulatory Update). BIS updated an instruction error, which directed the revision of paragraph (a)(3) of § 744.3 of the EAR, rather than only the introductory text of that paragraph, upon its effective date, the January 15 rule would have resulted in the inadvertent deletion of § 744.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii) of the EAR, which describe the license requirements that apply when an exporter, reexporter, or transferor cannot determine the range capabilities of a rocket system or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in certain countries of missile technology concern (Country Group D:4) (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR), or whether such rocket system or UAV will be used in connection with the delivery of certain weapons of mass destruction. Following the incorrect instruction would have resulted in the inadvertent deletion of § 744.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii) restricting certain rocket systems and unmanned aerial vehicles.

*******

BIS Imposes Sanctions On Russia

March 18, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 14689:   BIS issued a Notification of Implementation of sanctions imposed on Russia by the State Department pursuant to a determination under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that Russia had used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals.  (See State Department March 2 announcement in State Department section below.)  The sanctions imposed by BIS under this State Department determination include a prohibition, subject to a partial waiver, on the export to Russia of national security-controlled goods and technology subject to the EAR.  Accordingly, BIS will now review license applications for exports and reexports to Russia of items controlled for national security (NS) reasons under a presumption of denial and will suspend License Exceptions (LEs) Servicing and Replacement Parts and Equipment (RPL), Technology and Software Unrestricted (TSU), and Additional Permissive Reexports (APR) for NS items destined for Russia.

 

However, a partial waiver will continue to permit the use of the following LEs for such exports and reexports:  Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (TMP); Governments, International Organizations, International Inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Space Station (GOV); Baggage (BAG); Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft (AVS), and Encryption Commodities, Software, and Technology (ENC).  Also, license applications for the export and reexport to Russia of the following NS-controlled items will be reviewed under the licensing policy in effect prior to these sanctions:  items necessary for the safety of flight of civil fixed-wing passenger aviation; deemed exports and reexports to Russian nationals; items destined for wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries and other foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies that are located in Russia; items in support of government space cooperation; and (until Sep. 1, 2021 only) items in support of commercial space launch activities.

*******

BIS Publishes Interim Final Rulemaking, Which Allows The Secretary Of Commerce To Prohibit Certain Information And Communications Technology And Services Supply Chain (ICTS) Transactions

March 29, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16312:  On Jan. 19, 2021 BIS published an interim final rulemaking, effective March 22, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 4909 – see January 2021 Regulatory Update), which allowed the Secretary of Commerce to prohibit certain Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (ICTS) transactions to address national security threats and committed BIS to implement a pre-approval licensing process or similar program that would reduce uncertainty for entities seeking to engage in ICTS transactions.

The March 29, 2021 announcement is an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on such a pre-clearance process.  The announcement includes several detailed questions for which responses would be of particular interest.  Deadline for comments is April 28, 2021.

*******

BIS Amends The Commerce Control List And Related EAR Provisions To Conform With Changes In The Wassenaar Arrangement

March 29, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16482:  BIS amended the Commerce Control List (CCL, EAR Part 774, Supp. No. 1) and related EAR provisions to conform with changes in the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) dual-use control list that had been agreed upon at the WA 2019 Plenary meeting.  The changes include elimination of reporting requirements in some encryption items to reduce the regulatory burden for exporters; changes in various provisions related to CCL Category 5 – Part 2 (Information Security) including LE Encryption Commodities, Software, and Technology (ENC); and changes in the following 22 Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs):  0A502, 0A503, 0A606, 1A002, 1A005, 1A006, 1A613, 1B002, 1C001, 1C002, 1C006, 1C010, 2A001, 3B001, 3E002, 5A002, 6A004, 6A005, 6A008, 9A011, 9D515, 9E003.  Contact us if your company works in these effected ECCNs to learn more details.

Department of State

Editor’s Notes:

In response to a client inquiry, we learned that the State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) accepts digital signatures from U.S.-registered applicants on transmittal letters for Agreements.  However, DDTC does not currently accept a digital signature as valid to sign an approved Technical Assistance Agreement or Manufacturing License Agreement. DDTC will accept a PDF copy of a pen-and-ink signature as an acceptable signature for an Agreement.

Annual Sales Reports for 2020 – It’s time to uploaded the Annual Sales reports for your Manufacturing License Agreements and Warehouse Distribution Agreements to DDTC/DECCS.

*******

DDTC Name And Address Changes Posted To Website

March 4, 22, and 29, 2021:  DDTC posted the following name and/or address changes on its website at    

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=bd72ca0adbf8d30044f9ff621f961981:

  • Change in Name from Wajax Industrial Components Limited Partnership to Delom Services Inc., due to corporate rebranding;
  • Change in Name from CMI Defence S.A. to John Cockerill Defense S.A. due to corporate rebranding;
  • Change in Name from Geodis USA, Inc., to Geodis USA, LLC, due to corporate restructure;
  • Change in Name from Rolls-Royce plc to ITP Aero UK Limited due to transfer of business unit (Hucknall, UK, manufacturing plant and personnel) to ITP Aero;
  • Change in Name from Andoya Test Center AS to Andoya Space Defence AS due to corporate rebranding of Andoya Space subsidiary;
  • Changes in Name of the following foreign entities resulting in formation of the HTM Technologies Group:
  • PM Aerotec B.V. to HTM Aerotec B.V.;
  • PM Precision B.V. to HTM Precision B.V.; and
  • PM PSM B.V. to HTM PSM B.V.;
  • Change in Name of the following Maxar Technologies Inc. subsidiaries due to corporate rebranding:
  • Space Systems/Loral, LLC to Maxar Space LLC;
  • SSL Robotics LLC to Maxar Space Robotics LLC;
  • DigitalGlobe, Inc. to Maxar Intelligence Inc.;
  • DigitalGlobe International Inc. to Maxar International Inc.;
  • Radiant Missions Solutions Inc. to Maxar Mission Solutions Inc.;
  • Radiant Analytic Solutions Inc. & Radiant Geospatial Solutions LLC to Maxar Mission Solutions Inc.;
  • DigitalGlobe International Great Britain Limited to Maxar International Great Britain Limited;
  • DigitalGlobe International India Private Limited to Maxar International India Private Limited;
  • DigitalGlobe Australia Pty. Ltd. to Maxar Australia Pty. Ltd;
  • DigitalGlobe International Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. to Maxar International Asia Pacific PTE. Ltd.;
  • GeoEye Middle East Ltd. to Maxar Middle East Ltd.; and
  • DigitalGlobe International Canada Inc. to Maxar International Canada Inc.

Each announcement includes a link to a notice detailing the change and its effects on pending and currently approved authorizations involving the listed entity.

*******

The State Department Posts A Fact Sheet, “U.S. Sanctions And Other Measures Imposed On Russia In Response To Russia’s Use Of Chemical Weapons”

March 2, 2021:  The State Department posted a Fact Sheet, “U.S. Sanctions and Other Measures Imposed on Russia in Response to Russia’s Use of Chemical Weapons,” on its website at https://www.state.gov/u-s-sanctions-and-other-measures-imposed-on-russia-in-response-to-russias-use-of-chemical-weapons/

announcing that the Secretary of State had “determined that the Government of the Russian Federation has used a chemical weapon against its own nationals, in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” and that as a result, specific sanctions (subject to specified full or partial waivers) would be imposed after a 15-day Congressional notification period.  The sanctions, which will require implementation by the appropriate government agency actions, include termination of the following with respect to Russia:

  • Assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except for urgent humanitarian assistance and food or other agricultural commodities;
  • Sales of defense articles or defense services under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA, 22 USC 2778 et seq.) and licenses for the export of any item on the U.S. Munitions List (USML, 22 CFR Sec. 121.1), except in support of government space cooperation and, for only 6 months, commercial space cooperation;
  • Foreign military financing under the AECA;
  • S. Government credit or other financial assistance; and
  • Exports of goods or technology on the National Security Control List established under 50 App. Sec. 2404(c)(1).

Currently applicable waivers that will remain available, with license applications reviewed on a case-by-case basis include:

  • Foreign assistance – waived in all respects;
  • Certain waivers currently available for existing sanctions, including –
    • As noted earlier, export license exceptions TMP, GOV, BAG, AVS, or ENC;
    • As noted earlier, exports to ensure the safe operation of commercial passenger aviation;
    • Exports to wholly-owned subsidiaries of U.S. and other foreign companies in Russia;
    • Deemed export licenses for Russian nationals working in the U.S.; and
    • Exports in support of government space cooperation.

However, some currently applicable waivers will no longer be available, including:

  • As noted earlier, EAR export license exceptions RPL, TSU, and APR;
  • Exports and reexports of EAR NS items to commercial end-users in Russia for civil end-uses; and
  • After a 6-month transition period, exports of USML and NS items in support of commercial space flight activities in Russia.

In the same Fact Sheet, DDTC also announced new designations by the State Department and the Treasury Department under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) Sec. 231 List of Specified Persons; Section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13382 (“Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters”); and E.O. 13661 (“Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine”).

*******

DDTC Updates Its Website Content Related To The Canadian Exemption

March 15, 2021:  DDTC announced that it had refreshed its website content related to Canada, including updated information about the Canadian exemption, key Canadian partners, Canada’s Controlled Goods

Program, a Canadian exemption user guide, and FAQs.  The updated content is on the DDTC website in the “Country Policies” section under “Canadian exemption,” or https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=31002473dbb8d300d0a370131f9619b0.

*******

DDTC Adds Russia As A Sanctioned Destination

March 18, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 14802:   Consistent with the March 2, 2021 announcement of the determination by the Secretary of State that Russia had violated international law by its use of chemical weapons (see item above), the Department of State added Russia to the list in Sec. 126.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130) of countries that are subject to a policy of denial of exports of defense articles and defense services.  Specifically, ITAR Sec. 126.1(d)(2) was amended to subject Russia to a policy of denial for exports of defense articles and defense services with the exception of case-by case review of exports to Russia in support of government space cooperation and – for six months only – exports related to commercial space launches.

*******

The State Department Issues A Notice Implementing Sanctions Against Russia

March 18, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 14804:  The State Department issued a Notice of Sanctions implementing the sanctions against Russia described in its March 2 notice (see item above).  The sanctions are based on the authority of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. Sec. 5604 and 5605), with waivers essential to U.S. national security.   The sanctions, all specific to Russia and all “to be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the U.S. Government,” include:

  • Foreign Assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except urgent humanitarian assistance and food or other agricultural commodities or products, with application waived because essential to U.S. national security interests;
  • Arms Sales: Sales under the AECA of defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services, and export licenses of any item on the USML, with waivers relating to certain space activities;
  • Arms Sales Financing: All foreign military financing under the AECA;
  • Denial of U.S. Government Credit or Other Financial Assistance:  Any credit or other financial assistance by any U.S. Government instrumentality, including the U.S. Export-Import Bank;
  • Exports of National Security-Sensitive Goods and Technology on control list established under 50 USC 4813(a)(1), with specified full or partial waivers and license requirements for exports and reexports involving –
    • EAR License Exceptions GOV, ENC, BAG, TMP, and AVS;
    • Safety of Flight: Goods or technology pursuant to new licenses necessary for the safety of flight of civil fixed-wing passenger aviation;
    • Deemed Exports/Reexports:  Deemed exports to Russian nationals;
    • Wholly-Owned U.S. and Other Foreign Subsidiaries in Russia;
    • Government Space Cooperation;
    • Commercial Space Launches (only until Sep. 21, 2021);
    • Goods or technology pursuant to new licenses for commercial end-users civil end-uses; and
    • Goods or technology pursuant to new licenses for Russian state-owned or state-funded enterprises.

Department of the Treasury

OFAC Issues Cyber-Related General License 1B Regarding Russia

March 2, 2021:  The Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Cyber-related General License 1B "Authorizing Certain Transactions with the Federal Security Service" (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/cyber_gl1b.pdf) authorizing a narrow range of transactions and activities involving the Russian Federal Security Service acting in its administrative and law enforcement capacities. The GL was issued to ensure that U.S. persons engaging in certain business activities in Russia that are not otherwise prohibited are not unduly impacted.  OFAC also amended and issued three related FAQs on its website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/501, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs /502, and https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs /503.

*******

OFAC Adjusts Civil Monetary Penalties

March 17, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 14534:  OFAC issued a final rule adjusting civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violations of the statutes it administers for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, effective March 17, 2021.  The current and new maximum penalties are:

 

Statute Existing Maximum

CMP Amount

Maximum CMP

Amount Effective

March 17

Trading With the Enemy Act $90,743 $91,816
International Emergency Economic Powers Act $307,922 $311,562
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 $81,283 $82,244
Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act $1,529,991 $1,548,075
Clean Diamond Trade Act $13,910 $14,074

 

The rule also includes updated CMPs for violations of recordkeeping requirements.

This section of our newsletter provides information on the latest sanctions, fines and penalties for export violations or matters of non-compliance with the ITAR or EAR issued by the US government enforcement agencies. It is provided as a service to exporters and associates of FD Associates to remind them of the importance of extreme due diligence in all international trade and export compliance matters, particularly those involving exports subject to the ITAR or the EAR. Don't let this happen to you or your company! Call us with questions or concerns at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net.

Sanctions

 

Department of Commerce

March 11, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 13876:  BIS denied the export privileges of Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr., of Mountainside, NJ, for 15 years based on his participation in a multi-year conspiracy to export U.S.-origin electronic components to Russia without the required export licenses, including exports to a Russian entity whose public website states that it is a world-class nuclear weapons center.  The conspiracy included the use of front companies and falsification of shipping documents to understate the value of the items to evade the requirement of filing Electronic Export Information with the U.S. Government.  Brazhnikov pleaded guilty in federal court for the District of New Jersey to charges of smuggling and conspiracy to commit money laundering and was sentenced to 70 months in prison, a $75,000 criminal fine, a $56 million forfeiture, forfeiture of his two houses valued at approximately $500,000 each, and a $200 special assessment.

*******

March 30, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16578:  BIS denied the export privileges of Alonso Gonzalez-Granados for 5 years based on his March 8, 2019, conviction in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a) by exporting and unlawfully sending from the U.S., and attempting to export and send from the U.S., 50 rifle magazines and two boxes of ammunition without the required State Department licenses.  In the criminal case, Gonzalez-Granados was sentenced to 10 months in prison with credit for time served and supervised release for two years.

*******

March 30, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16579:  BIS denied the export privileges of Mark Hammond based on his conviction in U.S. District Court in Arizona of violating Sec. 38 of the AECA by knowingly and willfully exporting and causing to be exported from the U.S. to Mexico 5 AK-47 Draco Mini Pistols and 5 30-round firearms magazines designated as defense articles on the USML without the required State Department licenses.  In the criminal case, Hammond was sentenced to 27 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.  He was also placed on the U.S. Department of State debarred list.

*******

March 30, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16580:  BIS denied the export privileges of Claudia Guerra for 10 years based on her conviction in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas of violating Sec. 38 of the

AECA by knowingly and willfully attempting to export to Mexico 18 boxes of 1,020 rounds of 7.62 x 39-mm caliber ammunition which were designated as defense articles on the USML, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. In the criminal case, Guerra was sentenced to 48 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

*******

March 30, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16583:  BIS denied the export privileges of Jean Baptiste Kingery for 7 years based on his conviction in U.S. District Court in Arizona of violating Sec. 38 of the AECA by knowingly and willfully attempting to export from the U.S. to Mexico, MK-II, M-67, M-61 Grenade Shells, M213, M228 Detonating Fuse, Winchester .45 Caliber 230 FMJ ammunition, and Speer Lawman .380 Caliber ammunition which were designated as defense articles on the USML without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. In the criminal case, Kingery was sentenced to 60 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment. He was also placed on the U.S. Department of State debarred list.

*******

March 30, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 16584:  BIS denied the export privileges of Luis Felipe Varela for 5 years based on his conviction in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas of violating 18 U.S.C. § 554(a) by fraudulently and knowingly attempting to export two FN M249S, 5.56 caliber rifles from the U.S. to Mexico, designated as defense articles on the USML, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses.  In the criminal case, Varela was sentenced to 6 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Fines and Penalties

March 5, 2021:  MSI Aircraft Maintenance Services International GmbH & Co., of Ruesselsheim, Germany agreed to pay $51,921 and accept a three-year denial of export privileges (suspended and waived if MSI pays the fine, cooperates with BIS and OFAC during the three-year period, and does not commit any further violations of the  Export Control Reform Act (ECRA, 50 U.S.C. § 4801 et seq.)), to settle charges by BIS that it conspired with a German company and Mahan Airways to procure U.S.-origin aircraft parts and components that were subject to the EAR and export or reexport them to Iran via transshipment through Germany.

*******

March 5, 2021:  In a case involving illegal exports of cesium atomic clocks to Hong Kong without authorization, Alex Yun Cheong Yue of South El Monte, CA was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Boston, MA to time served (one day) and 3 years of supervised release (a year of which must be served in home confinement) during which he will be prohibited from engaging in import or export transactions, based on his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit export violations, two counts of unlawful exports and attempted exports of U.S. goods to Hong Kong, and one count of smuggling.  Yue purchased the atomic clocks by falsely representing to the U.S. seller that they would be used solely in California for cordless phone research and redevelopment; however, he reshipped them from California to Hong Kong without obtaining the required export licenses from BIS, with paperwork that falsely described them and undervalued their worth.

*******

March 10, 2021:  Comtech XiCom Technology, Inc., of Santa Clara, CA agreed to pay an administrative penalty of $122,000 to settle allegations by BIS that on three occasions between 2015 and 2017, Comtech had violated the EAR when it exported Traveling Wave Tubes (TWT) controlled for National Security reasons to Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Brazil without the required export licenses.  According to BIS, in each of these cases Comtech XiCom had correctly identified the appropriate ECCN for the TWTs, but its internal compliance officials had mistakenly determined that the exports did not require licenses.

*******

March 15, 2021:  UniControl, Inc., of Cleveland, OH, a manufacturer of process controls, airflow pressure switches, and other instrumentation, agreed to remit $216,464 to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR, 31 CFR Part 560) for 19 shipments of its goods from the U.S. to two European companies with reason to know that the two companies intended to transfer the goods to Iran, and two shipments with actual knowledge that they would be reexported to Iran.  The OFAC announcement of this case, at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/20210315_uc.pdf, includes useful descriptions of warning signs  of intended illegal reexports and steps exporters can take to avoid such violations.

*******

March 26, 2021:  OFAC announced that Norddgas, S.r.l., an Italian company that produces and sells components for gas boiler systems and applications, had agreed to remit $950,000 to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of the ITSR.  OFAC reported that Nordgas knowingly reexported 27 shipments of air pressure switches procured from a U.S. company intended for as many as 10 customers in Iran, obfuscating the reexportation and Iranian customers from the U.S. company and causing the U.S. company to indirectly export its goods to Iran. In view of Nordgas’s cooperation with OFAC, its agreement to implement enhanced compliance commitments, and other circumstances, $650,000 of the settlement amount will be suspended pending satisfactory completion of Nordgas’s compliance commitments.

*******

March 30, 2021:  Oleg Vladislavovich Nikitin, general director of KS Engineering (KSE)a St. Petersburg, Russia-based energy company, and KSE pled guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to conspiracy to evade the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 USC Sec. 1701-1707) and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) and to defraud the United States in an effort to purchase a power turbine from a U.S.-based manufacturer for intended use on a Russian Arctic deepwater drilling platform without first obtaining the required license. Nikitin admitted that he and another KSE employee conspired with Gabrielle Villone and his Italian-based company to obtain the turbine from a U.S.-based manufacturer and have it shipped overseas, concealing the true end user from the U.S. manufacturer and the U.S. Government by submitting false documentation that stated it would be used by a U.S. company in Georgia.  Nikitin, Villone, and a third conspirator, Dali Bagrou, were arrested in Savannah, GA while attempting to complete the illegal transaction.  Villone was sentenced in June 2020 to 28 months in prison after pleading guilty to the conspiracy, and Bagrou remains in custody pending further legal action.

 

 

 

MARCH 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES Read More »

Honeywell International, Inc. Reaches 3 Year Consent Agreement With The Department Of State

By Jenny Hahn, President

The U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has announced that Honeywell International, Inc. has entered into a 3 year Consent Agreement to resolve charges that it committed 34 violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the ITAR between July 2011 and July 2018 involving unauthorized exports or retransfers of technical data resulting from the failure to exercise appropriate internal controls.


Alleged Violations:

In December 2015, Honeywell initially disclosed to the Department of State that its Integrated Supply Chain (ISC) organization had sent Requests For Quotation (RFQs) to U.S. and foreign suppliers via its DEXcenter (file exchange program) requesting pricing for parts. The RFQs generally included drawings.

In its initial notice of disclosure Honeywell identified that there had been multiple exports of ITAR-controlled drawings without authorization via DEXcenter to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) in July 2015. It was subsequently determined that 51 of the drawings exported had been to unaffiliated suppliers in the PRC, an ITAR sanctioned country. Honeywell had exported 20 of the drawings to its affiliates in the PRC.

In Honeywells' September 2016 filing of the final report regarding the voluntary disclosure, Honeywell informed the Department of State of multiple corrective actions it had taken to prevent the types of violations it disclosed from recurring. The actions included:

1) a mandatory second-level review requirement for all international document transfers through DEXcenter;

2) mandatory training measures to address the risk of human error due to misidentifying export classification or authorizations, especially in the RFQ context; and

3) enhancing DEXcenter to further reduce the risk of human error by limiting the user's ability to select an export authorization that does not match a drawing's export classification and by providing additional warnings, reminders, and training resources and requirements.

By March 2017, based on an internal investigation and additional analysis conducted at the Department of States request, Honeywell ultimately identified 71 ITAR-controlled drawings that had been exported without authorization between July 2011 and October 2015  had exported via DEXcenter to Canada, Ireland, the PRC, and Taiwan, 65 of which form the basis of the alleged violations.

The 71 drawings, which Honeywell identified in its first voluntary disclosure and supplemental correspondence with the Department of State are controlled under Categories VIII(i), XI(d), and XIX(g) of the United States Munitions List (USML), contained engineering prints showing layouts, dimensions, and geometries for manufacturing castings and finished parts for multiple aircraft, military electronics, and gas turbine engines, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 Aircraft, B-1B Lancer bomber, C-130, A-7H Corsair, A-10 Aircraft, Apache Longbow Helicopter, the M1A1 Abrams Tank, the Tactical Tomahawk Missile and the T55 Turboshaft Engine.

Some of the drawings contained technical data designated as Significant Military Equipment under the ITAR. The SME designation has significance because the USG has determined that special export controls are warranted because of the capacity for substantial military utility or capability.

In October 2018, Honeywell submitted a second voluntary disclosure describing how personnel in the same organization within Honeywell Aerospace, ISC, committed another series of ITAR violations between June and July, 2018 that were similar to the violations disclosed in the first voluntary disclosure.

According to the second voluntary disclosure, a team of ISC personnel invented what Honeywell referred to as "an alternative process, which the team believed complied with export compliance requirements," for soliciting RFQs.

Under the alternative process, ISC personnel either failed to review the export control classifications for multiple technical documents or used a classification analysis method that did not properly categorize the documents as described on either the USML or the Commerce Control List (CCL). 

Additionally, ISC personnel without authorization exported technical drawings using a different file exchange tool than DEXcenter called Daptiv. The reasoning for the use of Daptiv was to increase the efficiency and speed of a procurement project.

There were a total of 27 additional exports using this system, 2 to Canada, 2 to the PRC and 23 to Mexico. The drawings were classified on the USML as Category VIII(i) and XIX(g) and contained the same type of information as before for the manufacture of castings and finished parts for the following platforms:

  • F35 Joint Strike Fighter
  • F/A-18 Hornet
  • F135 turboshaft engine
  • F414 turboshaft engine
  • T55 turboshaft engine
  • CTS800 turboshaft engine

Like the first disclosure, some of the drawings contained technical data designated as SME.

Lastly, the two drawings to the PRC was to an employee at one of Honeywells' subsidiaries and that employee retransferred one of the drawings to another employee at its subsidiary in the PRC.

Settlement

(i) Civil penalty of $13,000,00, with $8,000,000 payable in three installments and the remaining $5,000,000 assessed for remedial compliance measures

(ii) appointment of a Special Compliance Officer or Internal Special Compliance Officer

(iii) implementation of an automated export compliance system

(iv) a minimum of one external audit

(v) on-site reviews by DDTC with minimum advance notice, and

(vi) other strengthened makeup Compliance Policies, procedures, and training, including legal department support to all divisions for all matters involving the AECA and the ITAR.

DDTC posted the following documents in connection with this settlement: Draft Charging Letter, Consent Agreement, and Order.

Read each of the documents here

What is the lesson learned?

Beyond the clear national security violations that this case presented because of the exports to China which triggered the fine amount imposed, the voluntary disclosures revealed a startling lack of consideration of export jurisdiction and classification, the failure to follow company guidelines, processes and procedures and that even in the largest of companies exports of technical data via established processes and procedures can go easily go astray.

The most rigorous of processes installed to ensure secure transfer of  the companies valued technical data was not a fool proof mechanism and the trade compliance team bears the responsibility to routinely investigate, test and validate exports are compliant to the ITAR or EAR and the associated licensing and other authorizations within the ITAR or EAR.

A lack of detailed training is often attributable to these types of export violations. It is critical for defense contractors, large and small to ensure functional department training is provided along with detailed written processes/work instructions that include specific export compliance obligations for that department to make clear the expectation for the department before they make exports of technical data, controlled or non controlled. Following such training regular auditing of department processes is necessary to validate compliance.

As this case demonstrates it is imperative that all company personnel share the same corporate objective of trade compliance and understanding of all the fundamental elements to export compliance when exporting technical data.

In all instances before company personnel make an export of technical data, they must know export jurisdiction, export classification and licensing responsibilities under the ITAR or the EAR for the release of that data.

Small, medium and large companies all have the same responsibilities and the same risks.

Best practices include (not a comprehensive list)

  • Dedicated personnel assigned to determine export jurisdiction and export classification for all items or technical data being exported
  • Having a single point of export for a program, a license or a department that minimizes that number of humans involved in the export of technical data and allows for an assessment whether the technical data is properly within the scope of the export authorization and whether the export classification is correct
  • Use of secure portal for sharing export controlled data
  • IT tools that restrict/quarantine exports to China or any other prohibited destination (ITAR 126.1) before release after trade compliance review
  • Trade compliance follow up on export activity for licensed and non licensed exports made by individual functional departments
  • Regular audits, both internal and external, of export activities
  • Follow up of compliance actions resulting from any matter of non compliance
  • Training, training, training
  • Employee certifications and acknowledgment of responsibilities
  • Consequences up to and including termination for violations of the company policies and procedures causing export violations

Honeywell International, Inc. Reaches 3 Year Consent Agreement With The Department Of State Read More »

To Register Or Not, That Is The Question

By Jenny Hahn, President

Do I need to register or maintain registration with the Department of State (“DOS”)? Companies may find themselves asking this question, as a result of Export Control Reform. There are several factors to consider before deciding that your company should or should not register or maintain its registration with the Department of State.

  1. Are you a manufacturer of defense articles (items identified on the US Munitions List)? The USML can be found in Part 121 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). If yes, you have a regulatory obligation under the ITAR, Part 122, to be registered and maintain registration with the Department of State, as long as you continue to manufacture defense articles. Remember, a manufacturer of an article on the USML needs to be registered whether it exports or not. Under the ITAR, even the manufacture of one defense article requires registration.
  2. Have all of the articles you manufacture transferred to a 600 or 515 series ECCN (Export, Control Classification Number) on the Commerce Control List? If yes, you will no longer need to be registered with DOS but you will want to document your review. (Remember: not all categories have been revised and some of the old “catch‐all’ provisions remain). Additionally, you should ask yourself the question: do you provide defense services, e.g. assisting a foreign customer with the integration of the non‐TAR hardware into an end item/platform, which is described on the USML, and therefore your actions are subject to ITAR controls. If yes, you should consider maintaining your registration for the purposes of obtaining licenses/agreements to perform these defense services.
  3. Are you an exporter of defense articles? Today that question is a little easier to answer, as the USML in most instances, clearly defines the articles that are subject to the ITAR. If yes, you should obtain or maintain your registration with DOS as an exporter, so that you may apply for or continue to apply for export licenses.
  4. And then there is the broker registration with DOS: Changes October 25, 2013, to ITAR Part 129 made more clear who is required to register with DOS as a broker. All persons located in the US (US and foreign), who are not the OEM, may be deemed to be conducting brokering activities if they assist the US or foreign manufacturers with marketing and selling their products. These companies/persons should register as brokers as required by ITAR Part 129.3. Foreign persons not located in the US and not owned or controlled by US persons assisting in the marketing or selling of US-origin products do not need to register with DOS as a broker unless they actually conduct brokering activities in the US.
  5. If your company provides processing, inspection, or testing services or other engineering and technical services as a support function to a US manufacturer of defense articles, you will also need to register if you were are exporting. How might you do that? Employ a foreign person and assign them to ITAR designated programs or send ITAR work offshore. These are just two examples of how an export may occur. Your company would need to be registered to be able to apply for an export license under these circumstances or any time it provides ITAR controlled technical data or defense services to a foreign person.

While Export Control Reform has made significant changes to the USML, these changes have not changed the requirements for US companies involved in defense work or persons engaged in brokering activities to obtain or maintain registration with DOS. On a brighter note, the number of licenses companies are required to seek from the Department of State has been reduced and thus the annual registration fee for companies may be less than past years.

Do you have questions about your obligation to register with DOS or any other export compliance matter? Contact the export experts at FD Associates to navigate your regulatory obligations.

https://fdassociates.net or info@fdassociates.net

To Register Or Not, That Is The Question Read More »

ITAR Certified, What Does It Mean?

Posted in 2016, very relevant today and worth a second read!

Updated by Jenny Hahn, President

Today many prime defense contractors and others involved in the manufacture and sale of defense articles regulated by the ITAR require evidence that companies in their supply chain are registered with the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), or, my personal favorite, be “ITAR Certified.” “ITAR Certified” is not defined within the regulations, thus creating more confusion among the small and medium size companies as they try to understand how to become “Certified”.

A company cannot become “ITAR Certified”, although its trade compliance employees can take courses in which they can receive titles like CUESCO, which means they individually are a "certified" export compliance officer. The better question is how did “certification” become an expectation imposed on supply chain?

ITAR Certification is a misnomer; you cannot gain an ITAR Certification like you can an ISO Certification or a CMMI rating. There isn’t a specific standard or set of criteria to be rated against to achieve “ITAR Certification.” Of course, you can include your ITAR Compliance program in the ISO Certification and auditing process but that’s not going to prove you are following the ITAR regulations; it will only demonstrate that your Company is following the Company’s policy, procedures and work instructions consistently.

Some companies have believed that being registered with DDTC is all that is required to allow them to complete the prime contractor questionnaire that will demonstrate they are “ITAR Certified”.

The reality is much more than a simple registration with DDTC. The ITAR imposes a requirement for companies to register, if they meet one of three conditions, manufacture defense articles, export defense articles or furnish defense services, or broker defense articles.

In our experience, many companies do not have a clear understanding of what they are signing up for when registering with DDTC. Just Google “ITAR Certified” and click on Images; you will find many companies have posted their DDTC registration letters with their registration codes. This doesn't make them "ITAR Certified". In fact, a seasoned trade compliance professional will wonder what the company doesn't know by this bold statement.

When a company registers with DDTC, its certifying that a corporate officer or board member of the company understands the obligations of the ITAR, and has established an export compliance program, which includes designation of an ITAR Empowered Official and a trade compliance program. Each year with a company registers or renews its registration with DDTC, DDTC will provide the company with the letter acknowledging their registration and a 4 page compliance program guideline.

What the prime contractors are really concerned with beyond the registration of your company with DDTC, is does my supplier understand that the ITAR imposes licensing obligations if they have a foreign person working at their facility that have access to and release of my technical data? Does my supplier understand if they send my technical data offshore to fulfill the purchase order or contract obligation that an ITAR export license is going to be required? Is my supplier in any way ineligible to participate in an ITAR export transaction because they have become ineligible under the ITAR?

In addition to the prime contractor concerns triggering the "ITAR Certified" form, once a company registers with DDTC, DDTC expects that the Company will stand up a Trade Compliance Program that is clearly documented in writing, tailored to the business, regularly reviewed/updated and fully supported by management. Your program should address these basic elements:

Registration

Determine export jurisdiction of your products, data and services;

Know the end user and end use of defense articles and services (not limited to international transactions);

Know the intermediate parties to a transaction, including supply and title chain

Know what countries are prohibited destinations

Conduct denied party screening of all parties to the transaction, this includes banks, freight forwarders, supply chain (U.S) and all foreign parties;

Ensure party names and address are accurate;

Licensing of items when/if being exported or use an exemption if its applicable to the transaction and conditions imposed in the ITAR;

Ensuring reporting requirements related to the payment of fees and commissions associated with the export transaction are researched and made as part of licensing filing;

International travel by employees

Foreign Visitors to the company facilities

Marking of export controlled materials internally and externally for domestic use and for exports;

Maintaining records of the manufacture and disposition of defense articles. Having a policy that addresses which records need to be maintained, who is responsible and where they are to be maintained;

Ensuring administrative reporting requirements of the ITAR are met, such as the reporting of the initial export of technical data or the performance of defense services against an ITAR license, submitting executed Technical Assistance Agreements, providing annual sales reports for Warehousing Distribution Agreements or Manufacturing License Agreements or making semi annual reports related to exports authorized by the ITAR 126.5 Canadian Exemption;

Training employees on the basic elements of the regulations and how to comply. Irregardless of the size of you company, if your employees don’t understand the many ways an export can take place how are they going to know what to watch out for?

Auditing of Company compliance program, exports and any USG authorizations in place;

Last but not least, having a specific policy regarding what the Company will do when a potential issue of non-compliance is raised. Who will conduct the investigations, provide the reports to management and prepare the voluntary disclosure to the DDTC?

If you have a compliance program that addresses these elements and have appointed trade compliance responsibilities within your company and on your organization chart, when asked to complete the forms for “ITAR Certification” you can do so with more confidence.

In the end, let’s call “ITAR Certification” by its real name, a Trade Compliance Program, and no matter your company size it really boils down to risk adversity. While the regulations don’t specifically state you must have a documented program in place but with the DOJ taking a position regarding the individual responsibility of Corporate employees [see (Yates, 2015) Memo] and DDTC and BIS both detailing their expectations for compliance programs on their websites, how can you not?

Contact FD Associates at 703-847-5801 or Tell Us Your Needs, for support in enhancing your compliance program so you can be more confident when requested to complete the “ITAR Certified” forms for your customers.

ITAR Certified, What Does It Mean? Read More »

Do You Know Where Your Export Controlled Technical Data Is?

By Jenny Hahn

President

FD Associates, Inc.

In today’s global environment, the transfer of export controlled technical data, your company’s IP or customer technical data occurs in an instant. Export controlled technical data is regularly transferred electronically by email or other means to domestic and international customers, partners, vendors, legal counsel and consultants. To ensure compliance with U.S. export regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are met, it is important to understand what happens to the export controlled technical data when it is received by the domestic or international party. Who will have access to the export controlled technical data? Where will it be stored? If the export controlled technical data will be shared with other persons employed by the recipient or external to the recipient.

A recent case we encountered highlights just how far the questions need to go. In this situation, a U.S. company was exporting export controlled technical data to a foreign company. In doing its due diligence, it asked the foreign company where the export controlled technical data would be stored, and whether there were any external IT companies supporting the foreign company (i.e. administering its servers or supply chain partners that would receive the export controlled technical data). The U.S. company learned that backup of the foreign company servers would be at the foreign company’s parent location in another country. This backup of U.S. origin export controlled technical data in a separate country is a reexport under the ITAR and EAR, for which export authorization is or maybe required. If this question had not been asked during the license development process, the U.S. company would have released export controlled technical data to the foreign company and the foreign company would have caused an unwitting export violation.

How often do you ask this simple question of your domestic and foreign customers, partners, vendors, legal counsel or consultants?

Knowing where the export controlled technical data will reside once released from your company is a critical component of your export compliance program and due diligence.

Most companies require the implementation of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) before releasing export controlled technical data or company IP to another party. The primary reason for the NDA is not trade compliance related but for protection of company trade secrets. Those NDAs often permit the recipient to release the technical data to parties integral to the recipient to facilitate their cooperation with your company. Many NDAs do not include export compliance language articulating the need to comply with the ITAR or EAR prior to the transfer of the protected export controlled technical data to

another party. While an NDA can give the receiving company the permission to release the export controlled technical data to other parties, it is not an ITAR or EAR approval and it cannot override either the ITAR or EAR requirements for authorization for the release/retransfer/reexport of export controlled technical data to a foreign person or foreign company in the form of a license, or license exemption/exception.

When executing an NDA with a domestic or foreign party or evaluating the export regulatory considerations associated with an export of technical data to a foreign party, whether by license, license exemption/exception, be sure to perform your due diligence. This includes researching the party that you are doing business with, verifying whether there is any foreign ownership of that entity, asking if the U.S. company has foreign person employees, inquiring where the export controlled technical data is going to be stored, asking whether there are any IT service providers who will have access to the server and confirming whether backup of the company servers is done by a third party or by the same company in a different country.

Due Diligence also includes knowing where the servers are physically located. With the rampant use of the cloud to cut equipment costs, it is important to know that not all cloud providers can commit to hosting solutions that comply with the ITAR or EAR requirements (Not to mention DFARS requirements if the data is generated related to a U.S. government contract).  Today both the ITAR and the EAR do not consider transfer to the cloud an export if suitable encryption is used in transit and in rest, and no access information is provided to foreign persons to unlock the data.  If encryption is not used and the export-controlled data is placed in a cloud environment unsecured, that export controlled data may only be stored in a cloud environment hosted in the United States and managed by U.S. persons, to avoid violations of the ITAR or EAR.

A red flag regarding possible use of the cloud by customers, partners, vendors, legal counsel, consultants and others is the use of non-company email accounts like gmail, yahoo, aol, hotmail, msn etc. The use of such email service provider suggests the recipient does not have a traditional network infrastructure and is using the cloud to store any export controlled technical data sent to them. Companies like Google and Yahoo have servers located around the world and storage of the emails can take place at any of them.

Prior to any release of export controlled technical data, your company should determine what path that export controlled technical data will travel when it leaves your company and is received by the domestic or international customer, partner, vendor, legal counsel or consultant for storage and access.

Only when your company fully appreciates the electronics transfers made by others of your company IP, can your company be fully compliant with the ITAR and EAR.

This article does not address the separate Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Cybersecurity obligations, DFARS 252.204-7000 and 252.204.7012 and the NIST SP 800-171. Refer to our article by Keil Ritterpusch on this subject.

Do You Know Where Your Export Controlled Technical Data Is? Read More »

FEBRUARY 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES

 

 

February 2021

This newsletter is a listing of the latest changes in export control regulations through February 28, 2021.  The newsletter is provided as a complimentary service to assist exporters with their ITAR and EAR export compliance responsibilities. It provides a summary of recent changes to export control regulations or other regulatory matters of interest that may impact your company’s international trade and export compliance functions. Call us at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net with questions or comments.

See also our “Latest Sanctions Fines & Penalties” section below for an update on companies and persons denied export privileges by the United States Government.

 

REGULATORY UPDATES

 

The President

President Biden Issues Executive Order 14014, “Blocking Property With Respect to the Situation in Burma.”

Feb. 12, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 9429:  President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, “Blocking Property With Respect to the Situation in Burma,” authorizing sanctions on a wide range of persons and government entities found to be involved in the February 1, 2021, coup in which the military overthrew the democratically elected civilian government of Burma (Myanmar) and undermined the country’s democratic transition and rule of law.

Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security

BIS Limits Exports And Reexports Of Sensitive Goods To Burma’s Military And Security Services

Feb. 18, 2021 – 85 Fed. Reg. 10011:  In response to the military coup in Burma (Myanmar), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) took action to limit exports and reexports of sensitive goods to Burma’s military and security services.  Specifically, BIS –

  • announced that it will apply a presumption of denial for items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) requiring a license for export, reexport, or in-country transfers when destined to Burma’s Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Home Affairs, armed forces, and security services, and
  • suspended the use of the following License Exceptions (LEs) that would otherwise be available to Burma as a result of its current placement in Country Group B:

o   Shipments to Country Group B Countries (GBS, EAR Sec. 740.4);

o   Technology and Software under Restriction (TSR, EAR Sec. 740.6);

o   Shipments of Limited Value (LVS, EAR Sec. 740.3); and

o   Computers (APP, EAR Sec. 740.7).

*******

BIS Posted Two Sets Of FAQs Regarding Changes In The Treatment Of Exports To Hong Kong

Feb. 19, 2021:  BIS posted two sets of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding changes in the treatment of exports to Hong Kong under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) in light of the shift in Hong Kong’s status under the EAR from being treated as a separate destination to being treated as a part of China.  A set of five FAQs clarifying the effects of this change is on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/2719-new-china-hong-kong-faqs/file, and a three-page collection of  “Revised China/Hong Kong Recordkeeping Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)” is at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/2720-china-hong-kong-recordkeeping-faqs/file.

Government Accountability Office

 

GAO Report On The Humanitarian Impact Of U.S. Sanctions On Venezuela

Feb. 4, 2021:  The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report on the humanitarian impact of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela titled, “Venezuela: Additional Tracking Could Aid Treasury’s Efforts to Mitigate Any Adverse Impacts U.S. Sanctions Might Have on Humanitarian Assistance” (GAO-21-239, https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/712232.pdf). The report examined how the Venezuelan economy performed before and after sanctions were imposed in 2015, the steps U.S. agencies have taken to identify and mitigate the sanctions’ potential negative humanitarian consequences, and the impact of the sanctions on the U.S. oil industry.  As the title of the report indicates, the report was unable to draw broad conclusions, as the agencies involved have not collected adequate data.

Department of State

 

DDTC Name And Address Changes Posted To Website

Feb. 4, 11, and 16, 2021:  The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted the following name and/or address changes on its website at

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=bd72ca0adbf8d30044f9ff621f961981:

  • Change in Name of Hydroid Inc. to HII Unmanned Systems due to acquisition of Hydroid, Inc. by Huntington Ingalls Industries;
  • Change in Name of Aeroflex Wichita Inc. to Viavi Solutions LLC due to corporate reorganization;
  • Change in Name from Fuji Xerox Service Link Co., Ltd. to FUJIFILM Service Link due to corporate rebranding;
  • Change in Name from Bell Helicopter Co., Ltd. to Bell Textron Co., Ltd. due to corporate rebranding.

Each announcement includes a link to a notice detailing the change and its effects on pending and currently approved authorizations involving the listed entity.

*******

DOD Adjusts The Civil Penalty For Violations Of The ITAR

Feb. 2, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 7804:  The State Department made its annual inflationary adjustment of civil monetary penalties (CMPs), based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.  The maximum CMP for violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130) was increased from $1,183,736 to $1,197,728.  The new amount will apply only to penalties assessed on or after Feb. 2, 2021, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.

Department of the Treasury

 

OFAC Issues Venezuela-related General License (GL) 30A, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Port and Airport Operations.”

Feb. 2, 2021:  The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Venezuela-related General License (GL) 30A, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Port and Airport Operations.”  GL 30A authorized payments to Instituto Nacional de los Espacios Acuaticos (INEA), Venezuela's major port operator.   OFAC’s designation of INEA as a Specially Designated National (SDN) on Jan. 19, 2021, had triggered concerns about humanitarian and other imports into the country.  GL 30A is on the Treasury Department website at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/venezuela_gl30a.pdf.

*******

OFAC Revokes Restrictions On Ansarallah As A Foreign Terrorist Organization And A Specially Designated Global Terrorist

Feb. 16, 2021:  In an announcement about actions regarding Yemen (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20210216), OFAC referenced the revocation by the Department of State of the designations of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (see Feb. 16, 2021, State Department action in Sanctions section below) and noted that U.S. persons no longer require authorization from OFAC to engage in transactions or activities with Ansarallah, provided such activities do not involve blocked persons or otherwise prohibited activities.  Accordingly, OFAC revoked the following Counter Terrorism-related general licenses:  GL 9, “Official Business of the United States Government,” GL 10, “Official Activities of Certain International Organizations,”  GL 11, “Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations’ Activities in Yemen,” and GL 12, “Transactions Related to the Exportation or Reexportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, Medical Devices, Replacement Parts, and Components or Software Updates” (all of which OFAC had issued Jan.19, 2021) and GL 13, “Authorizing Transactions Involving Ansarallah,” which it had issued Jan. 25, 2121.  OFAC also removed FAQs 875, 876, and 877 from its website.

LATEST SANCTIONS FINES & PENALTIES

This section of our newsletter provides information on the latest sanctions, fines, and penalties for export violations or matters of non-compliance with the ITAR or EAR issued by the US government enforcement agencies. It is provided as a service to exporters and associates of FD Associates to remind them of the importance of extreme due diligence in all international trade and export compliance matters, particularly those involving exports subject to the ITAR or the EAR. Don't let this happen to you or your company! Call us with questions or concerns at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net.

 

 

Sanctions

 

Department of Commerce

Feb. 1, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 7693:  BIS denied the export privileges of Issam Hamade of Beirut, Lebanon, for 10 years based on his April 27, 2020 conviction in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota of violating 18 U.S.C. 371 by conspiring to export parts and technology, including inclusion in unmanned aerial vehicles from the United States to Lebanon, specifically to Hizballah, without obtaining the required export licenses under the EAR or the ITAR.  In the criminal case, Hamade was sentenced to time served and a $100 special assessment.

*******

Feb. 1, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 7695:  BIS denied the export privileges of Irma Lizette Trevizo of Federal Correction Institution Victorville Medium II, Adelanto, CA, for 10 years based on her April 30, 2019, conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas of violating 18 U.S.C. 371 by knowingly and willfully conspiring to smuggle firearms and ammunition from the U.S. to Mexico.  In the criminal case, Trevizo was sentenced to 24 months in prison, supervised release for two years, and a $100 special assessment.

*******

Feb. 24, 2021 – 85 Fed. Reg. 11223:  BIS denied the export privileges of Fahad Saleem Kharbey of  Federal Medical Center, Lexington, KY for 7 years based on his May 31, 2019 conviction in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a) (Smuggling goods from the U.S.) by fraudulently and knowingly exporting firearms and magazines, designated as defense articles on the U. S. Munitions List (USML, 22 CFR Sec. 121.1), from the U.S. to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), without having first obtained a license or other approval from the U.S. Department of State.  In the criminal case, Kharbey was sentenced to 36 months in prison, supervised release for three years, a $200 special assessment, and restitution of $755,281.13.

*******

Feb. 24, 2021 – 85 Fed. Reg. 11224:  BIS denied the export privileges of Siddharth Bhatt, of Chicago, IL and Mumbai, India, for 10 years based on his Sep. 16, 2020, conviction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 USC Sec. 1701 -1707) by willfully exporting, attempting to export, and causing to be exported a U.S.-origin thermal imaging camera from the U.S. to the UAE without having first obtained the required license from the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bhatt was sentenced to probation for a term of 48 months, a $100 assessment, and a fine of $2,500.

 

*******

Feb. 24, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 11225:  BIS denied the export privileges of Jesse Rodriguez of Brownsville, TX for 5 years based on his Jan. 16, 2019, conviction in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a).  Specifically, Rodriguez was convicted of fraudulently and knowingly facilitating the transportation, concealment, and sale of merchandise, including .223 and 7.62 caliber ammunition, which were defense articles as defined under the USML, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554. In the criminal case, Rodriguez was sentenced to 30 months in prison, supervised release for one year, and a $100 special assessment.

 

 

Department of State

Feb. 16, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 9568: In a single-sentence notification in the Federal Register, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken revoked the designation of Ansarallah – the formal name of the political and religious armed rebel group in Yemen better known as Houthi – as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, changing a long-standing U.S. policy on the conflict in Yemen.  Immediately following this action, Blinken revoked the designations of Ansarallah and three other persons as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

Fines and Penalties

Jan. 13, 2021:  Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. of Chicago, IL, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $81,000 and complete an internal audit of its antiboycott compliance program to settle charges by BIS of eight violations of 15 CFR Sec. 760.2(d) (Furnishing Information About Business Relationships With Boycotted Countries or Blacklisted Persons) and two violations of 15 CFR Sec. 760.5 (Failing to Report the Receipt of a Request To Engage in a Restrictive Trade Practice of Foreign Boycott Against a Country Friendly to the U.S.)  The charges involved trade with Libya and Oman.

*******

Feb. 1, 2021:  Princeton University of Princeton, NJ agreed to pay a civil penalty of $54,000, complete one external audit and one internal audit of its export compliance program, and, if the audits identify actual or potential violations, provide BIS with a detailed plan of corrective actions, and complete two reports describing enhancements to its compliance with the EAR to settle charges by BIS that on 37 occasions it had exported various strains and recombinants of animal pathogens classified under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 1C351, 1C352, or 1C353 to various foreign research institutions without the BIS licenses required by EAR Sec. 742.2.  The illegally exported items had a total value of approximately $27,000.  The university voluntarily self-disclosed the potential violations and cooperated with the investigation.

 

 

FEBRUARY 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES Read More »

JANUARY 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES

 

 

This newsletter is a listing of the latest changes in export control regulations through January 31, 2021.  The newsletter is provided as a complimentary service to assist exporters with their ITAR and EAR export compliance responsibilities. It summarizes recent changes to export control regulations or other regulatory matters of interest that may impact your company's international trade and export compliance functions. Call us at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net with questions or comments.

 

See also our "Latest Sanctions Fines & Penalties" section below for an update on companies and persons denied export privileges by the United States Government.

 

REGULATORY UPDATES

 

United Kingdom

 

The United Kingdom (UK) Department For International Trade Published Guides On Export Controls Following The End Of The Brexit Transition Period

 

January 8, 2021:  The United Kingdom (UK) Department for International Trade (DIT) published a compendium of guides on export controls following the end of the Brexit transition period.  The guides, issued by the Export Control Joint Unit, cover topics including overall key changes, changes to licensing of exports to European Union (EU) countries, changes of rules for exporting specific types of items such as firearms, differences between rules for exports from Great Britain vs. Northern Ireland, UK trade sanctions, changes in general export authorizations (GEAs), and many others.  The compendium is on the DIT website at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-to-exporters-202101-changes-to-export-control-legislation-and-licensing/nte-202101-changes-to-export-control-legislation-and-licensing

 

Editor's Note: FD Associates has teamed with a U.K. consultant expert in U.K. export controls. Please contact us for details.

 

Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security

BIS Extended ECCN 0Y521 Controls On Software Specially Designed To Automate The Analysis Of Geospatial Imagery, Through January 6, 2022

January 6, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 461: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) by extending the existence of temporary Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 0Y521, Software Specially Designed to Automate the Analysis of Geospatial Imagery, through January 6, 2022.  Specifically, ECCN 0Y521 covers Geospatial imagery "software" "specially designed" for training a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to automate the analysis of geospatial imagery and point clouds.  ECCN 0Y521 is a unilateral U.S. control; the U.S. has submitted a proposal for multilateral control of such software to the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), but the WA has not considered acceptance of the proposal because it has not convened due to the pandemic.

*******

BIS Amended The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations

January 7, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 936:  BIS amended the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR, 15 CFR Parts 710-722) and EAR Part 745 by adding three "Schedule 1" chemical families and one individual "Schedule 1" chemical to CWCR Part 712 and EAR Part 745, consistent with decisions adopted by the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) at their Conference in November 2019. The rule also amended the definition of "production" in CWCR Sec. 710.1.

*******

BIS Amended ECCN 1C991

January 7, 2021 -- 86 Fed. Reg. 944:  BIS amended ECCN 1C991 to clarify that it includes vaccines containing, or designed for use against, any item identified in ECCN 1C351, 1C353, or 1C354.  (Previously, it had indicated only that it controlled vaccines "against" such items.) This rule also expands the scope of medical products controlled under ECCN 1C991 to include those containing genetically modified organisms and genetic elements described in ECCN 1C353.a.3. In addition, this rule clarifies the definition of 'immunotoxin' that appears in ECCN 1C351 and ECCN 1C991 and removes the definition of 'subunit' from ECCN 1C351.

Finally, this rule renumbers ECCN 1C991.c and .d by listing medical products that are subject to chemical/biological (CB) controls, as well as antiterrorism (AT) controls, under ECCN 1C991.c and listing medical products that are subject only to AT controls under ECCN 1C991.d. A conforming amendment is made to § 742.2(a)(3) of the EAR to reflect this change in paragraph sequencing.

1C991 Vaccines, immunotoxins, medical products, diagnostic and food testing kits, as follows (see List of Items controlled). Medical products that contain any of the following:

c.1. Toxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d (except for botulinum toxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.3, conotoxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.6, or items controlled for CW reasons under ECCN 1C351.d.11 or .d.12); or

c.2. Genetically modified organisms or genetic elements controlled by ECCN 1C353.a.3 (except for those that contain, or code for, botulinum toxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.3 or conotoxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.6);

d. Medical products not controlled by 1C991.c that contain any of the following:

d.1. Botulinum toxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.3;

d.2. Conotoxins controlled by ECCN 1C351.d.6.

*******

The Commerce Department Adjusted The Maximum Civil Monetary Penalties For Inflation

January 11, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 1764:  The Commerce Department issued its annual rule adjusting maximum civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for inflation.  Adjusted maximum CMPs for violations involving dual-use export controls include the following:

  • BIS: violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 USC Sec. 1705(b)) – maximum increased from $307,922 to $311,562;
  • BIS: violations of Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA, 50 USC Sec. 4819) – maximum increased from $305,292 to $308,901;
  • Census Bureau: violations of 13 USC Sec. 304 (Collection of Foreign Trade Statistics) – maximum per day increased from $1,419 to $1,436; maximum per violation increased from $14,194 to $14,362;
  • Census Bureau: violations of 13 USC Sec. 305(b) (Collection of Foreign Trade Statistics) – maximum increased from $14,194 to $14,362.

The new maximum CMPs will apply to violations assessed after January 15, 2021, including violations that occurred prior to that date.

*******

BIS Removed Three Entities From The Unverified List

January 11, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 1766:  BIS removed the following three entities from the Unverified List (UVL, EAR Part 744, Supp. No. 6) on the basis that BIS was able to verify their bona fides (i.e., legitimacy and reliability relating to the end-use and end-user of items subject to the EAR) through successful end-use checks:

  • DMA Logistics GmbH (Germany);
  • Halm Elektronik GmbH (Germany); and
  • Integrated Production and Test Engineering (Mexico).

*******

BIS Amended EAR Sec. 742.5(b)(1) To Change The Licensing Review Policy For Certain Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) That Are Controlled For Missile Technology (MT) Reasons

January 12, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 2252:   BIS amended EAR Sec. 742.5(b)(1) to change the licensing review policy for certain Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) that are controlled for Missile Technology (MT) reasons, specifically, UAS that have a range and payload capability equal to or greater than 300 km/500kg and a maximum true airspeed of less than 800 km/hr.  Applications to export these UAS, which are identified on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex as Category I items, will now be considered on a case-by-case basis under the more flexible review policy generally applied to MTCR Category II items, and MT items for the design, development, production, or use in such UAS will now also be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  This action was consistent with a change in U.S. policy regarding the export of UAS announced by President Trump on July 24, 2020.  (See July 2020 Regulatory Update.)

*******

BIS Added One Entity In China To The Entity List, One Entity In China To The Military End-User List And Removed Two Russian Entities From The Military End User List

January 15, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 4862:  BIS amended the EAR by adding one entity in China to the Entity List (EAR Part 744, Supp. No. 4) based on a determination that this entity had acted contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S.  A license requirement with a license review policy of presumption of denial and no license exceptions will be available for exports, reexports, or in-country transfers to this person of all items subject to the EAR.  The entity is:

  • China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd.

In the same action, BIS also added one entity in China to the Military End User (MEU) List pursuant to the criteria set forth in EAR Sec. 744.21.  A license requirement with a license review policy of a presumption of denial will apply to the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to this entity of any item subject to the EAR listed in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744.  Also, no license exceptions will be available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to this entity of such items.  The entity is:

  • Beijing Skyrizon Aviation Industry Investment Co., Ltd.

Finally, in this action, BIS also removed the following two Russian entities from the MEU List:

  • Korporatsiya Vsmpo Avisma OAO; and
  • Molot Oruzhie.

 

*******

BIS Issued New License Requirements For Transactions Involving Military-Intelligence End Users or Military-Intelligence End Use in China, Russia, Venezuela Or any Country Group E:1 Or E:2 Country

January 15, 2021 -- 86 Fed. Reg. 4865:  BIS issued an interim final rule creating a new license requirement for transactions involving a "military-intelligence end-user" (MIEU) or "military-intelligence end-use" in China, Russia, Venezuela, or any country in Country Group E:1 or E:2 (currently Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria), including (in some circumstances) whether or not the underlying item(s) involved is subject to U.S. export controls. "MIEU" is defined as "any intelligence or reconnaissance organization of the armed services (army, navy, marine, air force, or coast guard); or national guard;" a "military-intelligence end use" is defined as "the design, 'development,' 'production,' use, operation, installation (including on-site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of, or incorporation into, items described on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR part 121, International Traffic in Arms Regulations), or classified under ECCNs ending in "A018" or under "600 series" ECCNs, which are intended to support

the actions or functions of a 'military-intelligence end-user'." The rule includes a non-exclusive list of MIEUs.  It is possible that this rule will be rejected or revised by the Biden administration, as it will not become effective until March 16, 2021.  The deadline for comments is March 1, 2021.  This rule is very complex.  Contact us if you believe that any proposed transaction may be subject to this rule.

*******

BIS Issued Interim Final Rule To Implement "Securing The Information And Communications Technology And Services Supply Chain"

January 19, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 4909:  BIS issued an interim final rule to implement Executive Order 13873, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain" (May 15, 2019).  It flows from a perception of the criticality of the Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) Supply Chain in the U.S. and aims to protect it from any breach or interference by any "foreign adversaries" – defined as China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuelan politician Nicolas Maduro (Maduro Regime).  To accomplish this goal, the rule authorizes the Commerce Department to prohibit or restrict a broad but not universal range of U.S. transactions involving the ICTS supply chain that have a nexus with any foreign adversary.  The definitions of "ICTS" and "ICTS Transaction" that largely define the scope of the controls are detailed and sometimes difficult to apply. We recommend that you consult with us if you have questions about whether any proposed action involving a "foreign adversary" will be covered.  The rule will go into effect March 22, 2021; deadline for comments is March 1, 2021.   (This interim rule supersedes a proposed rule issued November 27, 2019 – 84 Fed. Reg. 65316.)

*******

BIS Amended The EAR To Remove Sudan From Country Group E:1

January 19, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 4929:  BIS amended the EAR to remove Sudan from Country Group E:1 (Terrorist supporting countries) and added Sudan to Country Group B, thereby removing the license requirement for the export and reexport to Sudan of items controlled only for AT reasons, moving Sudan's de minimis level from 10 percent to 25 percent, and potentially making Sudan eligible for several new license exceptions (but excluding License Exceptions Shipments to Country Group B Countries ("GBS") and Technology and Software under Restriction ("TSR")).  The change implemented the President's October 2020 decision to rescind Sudan's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SSOT), based on the certification that Sudan had not provided any support for acts of international terrorism during the preceding six months and that it had provided assurances that it would not support acts of international terrorism in the future.

*******

BIS Submitted Its Annual Report To Congress For The Fiscal Year 2020

January 25, 2021:  BIS submitted its annual report for the Fiscal Year 2020 to Congress.  The report includes narrative descriptions of BIS' major actions and other activities, regulatory changes, enforcement actions, industrial base activities, and others, as well as a timeline and statistics on license processing, criminal convictions, administrative enforcement actions, end-use checks, and others.  See it at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/2711-2020-bis-annual-report-final/file.

*******

EAR Encryption

Editor's Note: EAR Semi-Annual Encryption reports were due February 1 to BIS and NSA.

 

*******

 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA Issued A Temporary Final Rule Extending, Modifying, And Clarifying Existing Requirements On Exports Of Certain Critical Health And Medical Supplies, Which Are Needed For Domestic Use In Fighting The COVID-19 Pandemic

December 31, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 86835:  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a temporary final rule extending, modifying, and clarifying existing requirements on exports of certain critical health and medical supplies which are needed for domestic use in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.  Under the new rule, and subject to exemptions specified in the rule, explicit FEMA approval is required for exports of specifically described subcategories of Surgical N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators, PPE surgical masks, PPE nitrile gloves, Level 3 and 4 Surgical Gowns and Surgical Isolation Gowns, and syringes and hypodermic needles.  Enforcement of this rule will be coordinated with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  The rule is valid until June 30, 2021.

*******

Department of State

DDTC Name And Address Changes Posted To Website

Jan. 6, 12, and 26, 2021:  The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted the following name and/or address changes on its website at

https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=bd72ca0adbf8d30044f9ff621f961981:

  • Change in Name from L3 Oceania PTY LTD and L3 Communications Systems-Australia to Mission Systems Australia PTY LTD (a subsidiary of L3 Harris Technologies, Inc.) due to corporate reorganization;
  • Change in Name from CMI Defence SAS to John Cockerill Defense France due to corporate rebranding;
  • Change in Name from Patria Land Services Oy and Patria Land Systems Oy to Patria Land Oy due to corporate reorganization;
  • Change in Name from Aero Parts Australia to Gentex Australia Pty Ltd. due to acquisition of Aero Parts by Gentex;
  • Change in Name from Research Electro Optics, Inc., to Excelitas Technologies Corp. due to acquisition of Research Electro by Excelitas;
  • Change in Name from The Ellison Group, Inc., and Ellison Surface Technologies, Inc. (both wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries of Bodycote USA, Inc.), to Bodycote Surface Technology Group, Inc., and Bodycote Surface Technology, Inc., respectively, due to corporate rebranding;
  • Change in Name from Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd. to Ventia Australia Pty Ltd. due to acquisition of Broadspectrum by Ventia; and
  • Change in Address for BAE Systems (International) Limited-Malaysia.

 

Each announcement includes a link to a notice detailing the change and its effects on pending and currently approved authorizations involving the listed entity.

*******

DDTC Updated The List Of Restricted Entities And Subentities Associated With Cuba

January 8, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 1561:  DDTC published an updated List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated With Cuba (Cuba Restricted List) with which direct financial transactions are generally prohibited under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR, 31 CFR Part 515).  The announcement noted that the Department of Commerce's BIS will generally deny applications to export or reexport items for use by entities or subentities on the Cuba Restricted List.  The Cuba Restricted List and additional information concerning it are on the Department of State website at https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-restricted-list/.

*******

DDTC Undertook A Comprehensive Review Of The Criteria Used To Adjudicate Proposed Direct Commercial Sale Transfers Of Precision-Guided Munitions

January 19, 2021: DDTC announced that as part of fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that exports of defense articles and defense services are consistent with all aspects of the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy (https://www.state.gov/conventional-arms-transfer-cat-policy/) it had undertaken a comprehensive review of the criteria used to adjudicate proposed direct commercial sale transfers of precision-guided munitions (PGMs), their critical components, and/or related technical data and defense services against the criteria of a partner's advanced targeting infrastructure.  The announcement details the PGMs that are subject to this policy (classes of PGMs, crucial components, technical data, and defense services).  To ensure that these items are used in a manner consistent with U.S. intent when approving the transfer, the review will specifically include a partner's complete targeting infrastructure, including ability to properly mitigate the risk of civilian casualties and advanced target development capabilities including weaponeering, collateral damage estimation, and target coordinate mensuration.  This announcement is on the DDTC home page, https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public.

*******

The Department Of State Declared Cuba A State Sponsor Of Terrorism

January 22, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 6731 (signed January 12, 2021):  In an order signed January 12, 2020, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo determined that the Republic of Cuba had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.  Accordingly, pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect by Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001) and other legislation, Cuba is now deemed a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

 

Department Of State Editor's Reminder:

 

Annual sales reports for Manufacturing License Agreements and Warehousing Distribution Agreements are due to DDTC.

 

*******

 

Department of the Treasury

OFAC Issued Venezuela General License No. 31A

January 5, 2021:  The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Venezuela General License No. 31A titled, "Certain Transactions Involving the IV Venezuelan National Assembly, the Interim President of Venezuela, and Certain Other Persons Authorized," authorizing transactions and activities involving the current interim president of Venezuela, Juan Gerardo Guaidó Marquez (Guaidó), his staff, many of his appointees, members and staff of the IV Venezuelan National Assembly, and many other domestic and foreign officials.  GL 31A, which replaces GL 31, issued on August 6, 2019 (see August 2019 Regulatory Update) is on the OFAC website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/679.  Related FAQ No. 679 is on the OFAC website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/679.

*******

OFAC Issued Two New FAQs Relating To Ukraine And Russia Related Sanctions

January 5, 2021:  OFAC issued two new FAQs relating to Ukraine and Russia Related Sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA, 22 USC 9201 et seq.):  FAQ 869, about whether the non-blocking menu-based sanctions described in CAATSA Sec. 235(a) apply to entities owned 50 percent or more by a listed person and FAQ 870, about what is prohibited by the loan and credit-related sanction described in CAATSA Sec. 235(a)(3) (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/869 and https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/870     ).  OFAC also amended two FAQs related to CAATSA:  FAQ 545, defining several terms used in CAATSA (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/545), and FAQ 546 (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/546), about the coverage of the law.

*******

OFAC Issued The Hong Kong Related Sanctions Regulations

 

January 15, 2021 – 86 Fed. Reg. 3793:  OFAC issued the Hong Kong Related Sanctions Regulations (HKSR, 31 CFR Part 585) to implement Executive Order EO 13936 of July 14, 2020, "The President's Executive Order 13936 on Hong Kong Normalization." OFAC stated that it intends to supplement the HKSR with a more comprehensive set of regulations, possibly including additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, and statements of licensing policy.  The HKSR became effective immediately.

*******

OFAC Issued Four General Licenses In Support Of The U.S. Commitment To Supporting The Provision Of Humanitarian Assistance To The Yemeni People

January 19, 2021: OFAC issued four General Licenses in support of the U.S. commitment to supporting the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni people:  GL 9, "Official Business of the United States Government" (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ct_gl9.pdf), GL 10, "Official Activities of Certain International Organizations" (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ct_gl10.pdf),   GL 11, "Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations' Activities in Yemen" (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ct_gl11.pdf), and GL 12, "Transactions Related to the Exportation or Reexportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, Medical Devices, Replacement Parts, and Components or Software Updates" (https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ct_gl12.pdf).  In a further effort to help facilitate the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian assistance, including COVID-19-related assistance, and certain other critical commodities to the people of Yemen, OFAC also issued three FAQs:   FAQ 875, about humanitarian efforts involving Ansarallah (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/875), FAQ 876, about the exposure of non-U.S. persons in efforts involving Ansarallah (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/876), and FAQ 877, about assistance in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Yemen (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/877).

*******

OFAC Upgraded Its Sanctions List Search Tool To Utilize Fuzzy Logic

January 25, 2021:  OFAC announced that it had upgraded its Sanctions List Search tool (https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/) with fuzzy logic.  Questions about this change can be addressed to OFAC technical support at 1-800-540-6322 Option #8 or O_F_A_C@treasury.gov.

LATEST SANCTIONS FINES & PENALTIES

 

This section of our newsletter provides information on the latest sanctions, fines, and penalties for export violations or matters of non-compliance with the ITAR or EAR issued by the US government enforcement agencies. It is provided as a service to exporters and associates of FD Associates to remind them of the importance of extreme due diligence in all international trade and export compliance matters, particularly those involving exports subject to the ITAR or the EAR. Don't let this happen to you or your company! Call us with questions or concerns at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net.

 

Fines and Penalties

January 12, 2021:  The U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment of Arash Yousefi Jam, a/k/a Arash Yousefijam of Ontario, Canada, Aminn Yousefi Jam, a/k/a Amin Yousefija of Ontario, Canada, and Abdollah Momeni Roustani, a/k/a Abdollah Momeni, Ab Momeni, and Amir Amiri, thought to live in Iran, all citizens of Iran, for conspiracy to export U.S. goods to Iran in violation of IEEPA and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR, 31 CFR Part 560), conspiracy to smuggle goods from the U.S., and conspiracy to engage in international money laundering.  The three men allegedly conspired to export and send goods including nine electrical discharge boards, one CPU board, two servo motors, and two railroad crankshafts from the U.S. to Iran via the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in violation of the U.S. sanctions, using third parties to arrange for payment and transportation of the goods, intentionally concealing information about their destinations from the U.S. sellers, and exporting the items without obtaining the required licenses.

*******

January 13, 2021:  Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. (Chicago) agreed to pay a civil penalty of $81,000 and undergo a 12-month internal audit of all transactions subject to EAR Part 760 (including recordkeeping requirements and an assessment of the company's compliance therewith) to settle charges by BIS of 8 violations of 15 CFR Sec. 760.2(d) (Furnishing Information about Business Relationships with Boycotted Countries or Blacklisted Persons) and two violations of 15 CFR Sec. 760.5 (Failing to Report the Receipt of a Request to Engage in a Restrictive Trade Practice or Foreign Boycott against a Country Friendly to the U.S.).  The boycotting countries involved in these violations were Libya and Oman.

*******

January 22, 2021:  Lionel Chan, previously a resident of Brighton, Mass., and Muhammad Mohd Radzi, previously a resident of Brooklyn, NY, both Malaysian nationals, both pleaded guilty in federal court in Boston to conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA, 22 USC 2778 et seq.) for a buyer located in Hong Kong. Chan, later joined by Radzi, purchased a variety of U.S.-origin firearm parts, including parts used to assemble AR-15 assault rifles and 9MM semi-automatic handguns online and shipped them via Federal Express to the Hong Kong purchaser without first obtaining the required export licenses, intentionally concealing the contents of the shipments by providing false information about the shipments and concealing the parts inside of each package.  The violations were discovered when Hong Kong authorities interdicted two packages, which were found to contain numerous export-controlled firearms parts, including a firing pin and gun sight.

*******

January 27, 2021:  Julian Demurjian of San Francisco, CA, agreed to pay an administrative settlement of $540,000 (of which $480,000 will be suspended for a two-year probationary period) to BIS and accept a two-year suspended denial of export privileges under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) to resolve allegations that he and CIS Project, a company owned and operated by Demurjian, caused, aided, or abetted 7 violations of the EAR.  In 6 of the violations, Demurjian/CIS provided a freight forwarder with invoices that vastly understated the value of the items, causing the forwarder to subsequently file Electronic Export Information (EEI) containing these false values in the Automated Export System.  The settlement also included a seventh violation in which Demurjian/CIS falsely undervalued the items to be exported so that the stated value did not exceed $2,500 and thus did not trigger an EEI filing requirement.

*******

January 29, 2021:  The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia announced the indictment of Cheng Bo, a/k/a Joe Cheng, a Chinese citizen, for criminal conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 USC Sec. 1701 -1707) by shipping export-controlled U.S. power amplifiers from the U.S. to Hong Kong knowing that the goods were intended for subsequent shipment to China. Cheng's former employer, Avnet Asia Pte., Ltd., a Singapore company, admitted responsibility and agreed to pay a penalty of $1,508,000 to the U.S. to settle a criminal liability for the conduct of Cheng and a Singapore-based foreign employee who illegally caused U.S. goods to be shipped to China and Iran without the required license.

At the same time, BIS announced that Avnet Asia had agreed to pay $1,721,000 as part of a $3,229,000 administrative penalty (partially suspended) to settle civil charges alleging that its employees had illegally exported various electronic components, many of which were classified under ECCN 3A001, through Singapore to China and Iran, including to a company on the BIS Entity List.

 

 

JANUARY 2021 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES Read More »

Due Diligence Considerations When Exporting To China

by Keil J. Ritterpusch Senior Compliance Associate and Jenny A. Hahn President

The current climate between the U.S. Government and China related to export-controlled commodities is quite hostile and is not likely to change in the near term, even with a new U.S. President in place.  The U.S. Government, concerned with national security threats, human rights abuses, military modernization, theft of U.S. technology, and theft of U.S. personal information by Chinese actors, has gone on the offensive from an export regulatory perspective to attempt to prevent parties supportive of the Chinese Government and Chinese military from acquiring US-origin products, including, in some cases, products that are EAR99.

The U.S. Government, acting through the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security ("BIS"), has recently added a large number of Chinese companies, including companies that are predominantly involved with commercial enterprises, to the Entity List under the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR").  By being added to the Entity List, any export from the U.S. to a listed party is subject to an export license requirement under the EAR, with a presumption of denial applicable in most cases.  Listed parties cannot receive U.S. exports indirectly either, such as by buying through intermediary parties.  These intermediary parties know that it is not lawful for U.S. exporters to engage in transactions involving ultimate end use by parties on the Entity List.  Thus, in many cases, they disguise the intended end-use, end-users, and parties to the export transactions.

Beyond the expansion of the Entity List, BIS has taken steps to expand the EAR's Foreign Direct Product Rule at EAR Section 736.2(b)(3) to specifically target Chinese telecommunications giant, Huawei Technologies Group Co. Ltd. ("Huawei") and affiliates in China and worldwide.  The EAR's Foreign Direct Product Rule was expanded so that foreign origin products built-in plants with U.S.-origin equipment and technology that are exported from abroad or re-exported to Huawei and affiliates are subject to the EAR and prohibited without a license from BIS.

In addition to the broad prohibitions that have been placed on numerous Chinese companies, preventing them from receiving exports of any commodity from the United States, a large number of Chinese companies and organizations have recently been identified under the EAR as Military End Users ("MEUs").  The action to formally identify companies as MEUs,  in China, as well as Russia and Venezuela, follows their identification by the U.S. Department of Defense as parties with strong ties to military end-users and military end-uses.  By adding entities as MEUs under the EAR, U.S. exporters are officially on notice that any export transaction involving these entities where an item on the EAR's Commerce Control List ("CCL") -- meaning any item with an Export Control Classification Number ("ECCN") requires an export license approved by BIS.

Given the extensive expansion of export restrictions involving China (as well as Russia and Venezuela), it is more important than ever for parties exporting from the United States to carefully identify the parties to their export transactions and the export classifications of products being exported.  Even items that are EAR99 or are otherwise No License Required ("NLR") to most worldwide destinations now require licensing for export to certain end-users and for certain end uses in China.  Thus, exporters must take formalized steps to document their export due diligence for transactions involving China, as well as Hong Kong and Macau (which are now treated as part of China by the U.S. Government).

BIS has published "Know Your Customer Guidance and Red Flags" as a supplement to the Ten Prohibitions listed in EAR Part 736.  The guidance explains the appropriate due diligence required for U.S. export transactions and provides context as to how to sufficiently establish "knowledge" of the particulars of export transactions, including the proper identification of parties, end uses, and end-users.  The General Prohibitions cover a gamut of export-related matters but generally prohibit exporters and re-exporters from engaging in export transactions involving prohibited end uses and prohibited end-users.  In order to comply with the EAR's General Prohibitions, exporters and re-exporters must establish "reasonable " knowledge regarding the parties to their export transactions and the ultimate end-use and end-users of the exports.

The industry standard for validating this information is through the End User Statement ("EUS")/End User Certification ("EUC").  Without a EUS/EUC, an exporter is arguably self-blinding with respect to compliance with the EAR General Prohibitions, as well as overall export compliance with EAR requirements.  Companies that fail to establish sufficient "knowledge" of the details of export transactions can be hit with substantial fines when export transactions result in end uses or end users that are prohibited.

What is Reasonable Due Diligence?

An array of documentation can be used by exporters and re-exporters to validate the parties, end uses, and end users involved with export transactions.  The following are tools that should be used by exporters and re-exporters in varying degrees as part of the due diligence to validate export transactions.

  • End-Use and End-User Statements
  • Denied Party Screening
  • Internet research validating the parties to the export transaction
  • Business licenses and other documents validating the bona fides of the parties, should information regarding the entities to the transaction not be easily discovered through internet searches.

Of these tools for performing due diligence, the most important, by far, is the End User Statement/End-Use Certification.  In our opinion, this document should be obtained for all export transactions.  After receipt of the EUS/EUC, the U.S. exporter should perform Denied Party Screening on the names of the parties to the export transactions, including the purchaser, intermediate consignees, ultimate consignee, and end-user, doing "fuzzy" searches of company names and variations on the company name.  In addition, the Denied Party Screening should search for companies at the same or similar addresses.  Widely scoped Denied Party Screening is crucial to the overall due diligence, as it demonstrates to the U.S. Government that the exporters (and re-exporters) took steps to validate that the parties to the transaction are not prohibited from receiving U.S. exports.

Following the Denied Party Screening, we recommend that exporters and re-exporters perform an internet search to ensure that the parties named on the EUS/EUC exist and are in a business with a connection to the product to be exported. Should information on the parties not be able to be readily found on the internet, the exporter or re-exporter should contemplate getting a more detailed EUS/EUC and having it signed both by their customer and the ultimate consignee/end-user.  Even in cases where a multi-party signed EUS/EUC is received. It may be necessary to receive copies of business formation documents if the exporter or re-exporter cannot find information on a party to the export transaction after an internet search, particularly the stated end-user/ultimate consignee.

What Flags Should a Prospective Exporter Look For?

Exporters and re-exporters are responsible under the EAR for engaging in lawful export transactions and not engaging in export transactions where they "know" or have "reason to know" that the export transaction may involve an unauthorized party, end-use, or end-user.  When evaluating the due diligence collected in relation to prospective export transactions, exporters and re-exporters should highlight any facts where there is missing information or where answers to questions about the parties, end-use, and end-users do not "add up."

For example, if a party receives a completed EUS/EUC that lists a distributor as an end-user, the entire export transaction is a red flag since details regarding the true end-use and end-user are not being provided.  Similarly, if a party receives a completed EUS/EUC that lists various parties, including the purchaser, ultimate consignee, and end-users, that cannot be validated through an internet search, there is a red flag to the export transaction, and additional due diligence should be performed.

Liability in the Event that a Party to An Export Transaction Provides Incorrect Information?

Entities in China that have been placed on the Entity List or designated as MEUs still need to receive components to manufacture their products.  Companies like Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation ("SMIC") have not slowed their production of products for the commercial marketplace or for the Chinese Government.  As a result, we fully expect that "front" companies will be formed solely for the purpose of diverting goods to companies like Huawei and SMIC in contravention of the EAR.  Exporters and re-exporters cannot afford to completely stop exporting to China and Hong Kong (and other destinations) solely because there is a possibility that their shipments will be diverted for unauthorized end uses or unauthorized end users.

To mitigate the risks associated with diversions downstream in export transactions, exporters and re-exporters need to be able to rely on certifications made by legitimate parties to export transactions.  There is no requirement to perform post-delivery validation of export transactions involving products that are EAR99 or controlled by the EAR for Anti-Terrorism ("AT) reasons alone.  However, exporters and re-exporters need to be able to validate before shipment that the parties to export transactions are legitimate legal entities and that other red flags are overcome.

Therefore, a critical burden on exporters and re-exporters is to ensure that the parties who sign EUS/EUC for prospective export transactions are legitimate legal entities.  Once the EUS/EUC is received and the bona fides of the parties have been established and export classifications validated, exporters and re-exporters can export/re-export freely, whether under an export license, under a license exception, or as NLR, if applicable.  If an exporter or re-exporter learns after the fact that there has been a diversion, the matter should be reported to BIS, and steps taken internally to document concerns with the pertinent parties to the export transaction resulted in diversion should be undertaken to avoid any recurrence of the diversion.

*                       *                       *                       *

FD Associates is available to help exporters and re-exporters to establish processes and procedures for collecting and performing the appropriate due diligence for their prospective export transactions, particularly those involving China.  FD Associates provides export classifications, end-user and end-use validation, and the investigation of red flags for export transactions.  We can be reached by email at info@fdassociates.net or by phone at (703) 847-5801.

**FD Associates notes that there are financial sanctions applicable to other parties to export transactions that do not relate to the EAR but rather are implemented under U.S. Department of Treasury regulations. This article does not address such requirements, but parties engaged in export transactions with a nexus with the United States should consult the U.S. Department of Treasury regulations and website to validate that other parties to export transactions, including freight forwarders, banks, and issuers of credit, are not debarred from engaging in transactions involving U.S. jurisdiction.

Due Diligence Considerations When Exporting To China Read More »

DECEMBER 2020 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES

 

This newsletter is a listing of the latest changes in export control regulations through December 31, 2020.  The newsletter is provided as a complimentary service to assist exporters with their ITAR and EAR export compliance responsibilities. It summarizes recent changes to export control regulations or other regulatory matters of interest that may impact your company’s international trade and export compliance functions. Call us at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net with questions or comments.

 See also our “Latest Sanctions Fines & Penalties” section below for an update on companies and persons denied export privileges by the United States Government.

 

REGULATORY UPDATES

 

Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security

BIS Amended The EAR To Correct Errors In Sept 11, 2020 Report Of Decisions Made At The Wassenaar Arrangement 2018 Plenary And Other Revisions Related To National Security Controls

Dec. 4, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 78684: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) to correct errors in Sep. 11, 2020, report of decisions made at the Wassenaar Arrangement 2018 Plenary and other revisions related to national security controls (85 Fed. Reg. 56294).  The corrections, which do not change BIS policy, including any applicable licensing requirements, are in Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 3A001, 3A002, 3A991, 5A002, 7A005, and 9E003.

*******

BIS Published 26 FAQs About Changes To The Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule

Dec. 18, 2020:  BIS published a compendium of 26 FAQs about an amendment to the Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule (FDP Rule, General Prohibition Three, EAR Sec. 736.2(b)(3)) issued on August 20, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 51596), which revised the control over certain foreign-produced items when there is knowledge that the items will be incorporated into, or will be used in the production or development of, any part, component or equipment produced, purchased or ordered by an entity on the Entity List (EAR Part 744, Supp. No. 4) with a footnote 1 designation or when an entity with a footnote 1 designation is involved in a transaction involving the foreign-produced item. At present, all of the entities with a “Footnote 1” designation in the Entity List are affiliates of Huawei located outside of the United States. The FAQs clarify the manner in which the EAR’s Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule applies for exports from abroad and re-exports (i.e., export activities involving non-US parties) where the EAR governs the export activity as a result of the foreign product being produced using U.S. origin technology and/or equipment or produced in a plant (or major component of a plant) that is a direct product of U.S. origin technology and/or equipment.  The FAQ addresses the scope of the revised FDP Rule and includes the following topics: Types of Items, Prior Exports, Plant/Major Component, De Minimis, Supply Chain, Prior Licenses, Licensing Policy, Item-Specific Questions, and Savings Clause.  The FAQs can be found at  https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/about-bis/2681-2020-fpdp2-faq-120820-ea/file.

*******

BIS ADDS 77 Entities In 10 Countries to the Entity List

 

Dec. 22, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 83416:  BIS amended the EAR by adding 77 entities in 10 countries to the Entity List based on a determination that each of these entities had acted contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S.  Over 60 of these entities are in China; the remaining entities are listed in  Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Malta, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  A license requirement will now apply to exports, reexports, or in-country transfers to the listed entities of all items subject to the EAR, and no license exceptions will be available to them.  A license review policy of presumption of denial will apply to 60 of the persons; license policies for the remaining 17 persons vary.

Most notably, BIS states that Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), commercial done manufacturer and retailer, DJI, and SMIC related entities were included in this action as a result of China’s military-civil fusion (MCF) doctrine and evidence of activities between these entities and parties of concern in the Chinese military-industrial complex.  The designation under the Entity List will limit SMIC’s, DJI’s, and the other listed parties’ abilities to acquire U.S. technology by requiring exporters, reexporters, and in-country transferors of such technology to apply for a license to export any product subject to the EAR (including EAR99 items) to these companies.  All items subject to the EAR will have a presumption of denial for export to DJI, except items necessary to detect, identify, and treat infectious disease.  Items destined for SMIC and affiliates that are uniquely required to produce semiconductors at advanced technology nodes (10 nanometers or below, including extreme ultraviolet technology) will be subject to a presumption of denial to prevent such technology from supporting China’s military modernization efforts.  Other items subject to the EAR will be subject to a case-by-case review by BIS.

The rule also revises one existing destination in China and one in Pakistan and removes a total of 4 entities in Israel and the United Arab Emirates.  A list of all the affected entities is on the BIS website at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/22/2020-28031/addition-of-entities-to-the-entity-list-revision-of-entry-on-the-entity-list-and-removal-of-entities.

Refer to our consultant corners article for more details at https://fdassociates.net/consultants-corner.

*******

BIS Amends The EAR Removing Hong Kong As A Separate Destination From The People’s Republic of China

Dec. 23, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 83765:  BIS amended the EAR to remove the PRC Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong as a separate destination under the EAR. In most cases, it will now be considered a part of China.  Accordingly, BIS also removed the entries for Hong Kong in the Commerce Country Chart (EAR Part 738, Supp. No. 1) and the Country Group List (EAR Part 740, Supp. No. 1, Country Groups A:6 and B), and in other provisions that provide differential and preferential treatment for Hong Kong as compared to the treatment of such transactions to or within China.  (Provisions specific to Hong Kong that remain in the EAR recognize certain differences but do not provide preferential treatment.)  With respect to submissions in the Automated Export System (AES) for the exports of items that are intended for end use in Hong Kong, the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) have not been modified to remove Hong Kong.  Exporters should still cite HK as the Ultimate Country of Destination in EEI filings where ultimate end-use or the ultimate consignee is located in Hong Kong. While exporters should continue to use HK in EEI submissions as the Ultimate Country of Destination for exports with the ultimate consignment to Hong Kong, the exports will be treated pursuant to the EAR as though they are exports to China. Thus, EEI submissions are required for all exports intended for ultimate consignment to Hong Kong of items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) (e.g., with an ECCN) regardless of value.

 

*******

BIS Adds Supplement No. 7 to EAR Part 744 - Military End User List

Dec. 23, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 83793:  BIS amended EAR Part 744 by adding a new Supplement No. 7, “Military End User” (MEU) List of entities that have been determined to be “military end-users” for purposes of the “military end user” control that imposes a license requirement on exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of specified items to China, Russia, and Venezuela when such items are destined for a “military end-user.”  The MEU List is non-exhaustive, i.e., parties not included on the list remain subject to the “military end-use” and “military end user” controls.

This announcement also includes the first tranche of 103 MEUs, consisting of 58 Chinese and 45 Russian companies.

Editor’s note: These additions to the military end-user list impose additional due diligence obligations on exporters to ensure licenses are obtained prior to export, reexport, or in-country transfer.

*******

BIS Amended The EAR To Change The Country Group Designations For Ukraine, Mexico, And Cyprus

Dec. 28, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 84211:  BIS amended the Country Group List (EAR Part 740, Supp. No. 1) to revise the designations for Ukraine, Mexico, and Cyprus.  Ukraine is moved from Country Group D:1 to Country Group B but is noted to be ineligible for License Exceptions GBS (Shipments to Country Group B countries) and TSR (Technology and Software Under Restriction); Mexico is added to Country Group A:6; and Cyprus is also added to Country Group A:6.  At the same time, however, Cyprus also remains in Country Group D:5 (U.S. Arms Embargoed Countries). The announcement includes a section on the “Impact of the Amendments in this Rule” that specifically describes the impact of the changes for each country at the level of the availability of specific license exceptions and licensing policies that are affected by the changes.  The rule also includes conforming changes. A full copy of the Federal Register notice is found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/28/2020-26552/amendment-to-country-groups-for-ukraine-mexico-and-cyprus-under-the-export-administration.

 

Editor’s note: These shifts in-country groups change the requirements for BIS licenses and available EAR license exceptions for exports to Ukraine, Mexico, and Cyprus. When exporting to any of these countries, it is imperative to reconfirm the export obligations after reviewing the ECCNs, the reason for control, the country chart, and EAR general prohibitions.

 

Department of Commerce – Census Bureau

Census Updated The Schedule B and Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Dec. 30, 2020:  In its Global Reach Blog, the Census Bureau noted that the Schedule B and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) tables had been updated to accept the changes to the Jan. 1, 2021 codes.  Shipments with outdated codes will be accepted during a 30-day grace period; an outdated code after Jan. 30, 2021, will result in a fatal error.  The ACE AESDirect program has been updated with the 2021 codes.

The 2021 Schedule B and HTS tables are available for download at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/aes/documentlibrary/#concordance.  The list of HTS codes that are not valid for AES remains unchanged.

Department of State

DDTC Name And Address Changes Posted To Website

Dec. 1, 7, 19, and 23, 2020:  The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) posted the following name and/or address changes on its website at:

  • Effective November 30, 2020, change in address for Raytheon Saudi Arabia to Riyadh Front, Bldg. S-1, 9054 King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh 13413-3677, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  • Due to corporate restructuring and reorganization, changes in a name for the following Singapore Technologies Engineering, Ltd., legal entities effective on the following dates:
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Engineering Aerospace Aircraft Maintenance Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering Defence Aviation Services Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective November 2, 2020, change in name from ST Synthesis Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering Synthesis Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from SDDA Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering Land MRO & Services Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics (Info-Software Systems) Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering Mission Software & Services Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics (Training and Simulation Systems) Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering Training and Simulation Systems Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics (SatCom & Sensor Systems) Pte. Ltd. to ST Engineering SpaceTech Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Engineering Aerospace Ltd., EDC Division to ST Engineering Defence Aviation Services Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Engineering Aerospace Supplies Pte. Ltd., part of Logs Division, to ST Engineering Defence Aviation Services Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Engineering Electronics Ltd. Part of Large Scale Group Division to ST Engineering Advanced Networks & Sensors Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics (SatCom & Sensor Systems) Pte. Ltd., Defense Division to ST Engineering Advanced Networks & Sensors Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics Engineering Ltd., Defense Division to ST Engineering Unmanned & Integrated Systems Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Electronics (Info-Comm Systems) Pte. Ltd., AUV/UW Division to ST Engineering Unmanned & Integrated Systems Pte. Ltd.
    • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from ST Engineering Electronics Ltd., Part of Large Scale Group Division to ST Engineering Unmanned & Integrated Systems Pte. Ltd.
  • Effective December 17, 2020, change in name from VMS International Pty Ltd. to TR Pty Ltd. Due to corporate reorganization.
  • Effective January 1, 2021, change in name from Kongsberg Maritime CM AS to Kongsberg Maritime AS and change in address to Strandpromenaden 50, 3183 Horten, Norway due to corporate reorganization.
  • Effective December 23, 2020, change in name from HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions, Inc., to HII Defense and Federal Solutions, Inc. due to corporate reorganization.
  • Effective December 23, 2020, change in name from Nammo Buck GmbH to Nammo Defence Germany GmbH due to corporate rebranding.

Each announcement includes a link to a notice detailing the change and its effects on pending and currently approved authorizations involving the listed entity.

*******

DDTC Extended Its Temporary Suspensions, Modifications, And Exceptions To The Requirements Of The ITAR That Are Currently In Effect Due To SARS-COV2

Dec. 11, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 79836:  The State Department announced a further extension of temporary suspensions, modifications, and exceptions to the requirements of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130) that are currently in effect to permit continuity of operations during the current SARS-COV2 public health emergency and to provide time for DDTC to consider a permanent revision to the ITAR provisions relating to remote work.  The following suspensions will continue to apply until June 30, 2021, unless further extended in writing:

 

  1.  The suspension of the requirement that a regular employee work at the company's facilities, to allow the employee to work at a remote location (except Russia or a country listed in ITAR Sec. 126.1); and
  2. The suspension authorizing a regular employee of a licensed entity who is working remotely in a country not currently authorized by a technical assistance agreement, manufacturing license agreement, or exemption to send, receive, or access any technical data authorized for export, reexport, or re-transfer to their employer via a technical assistance agreement, manufacturing license agreement, or exemption (so long as the regular employee is not located in Russia or a country listed in ITAR § 126.1).

These actions were initially authorized May 1, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 25287) and were extended to December 31, 2020, on July 29, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 45513).

Department of the Treasury

OFAC Enacted A New Non-SDN Menu Based Sanctions List

Dec. 4, 2020:  The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the introduction of a new Non-Specially Designated National Menu Based Sanctions (NS-MBS) List, located on the Treasury Department website at and https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/mbs/mbslist.pdf and https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/mbs/mbslist.txt.  The NS-MBS List will identify persons subject to menu-based sanctions such as those described in Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA); if the chosen sanctions do not include blocking, that will cause the person to be identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx).  Additional information about the NS-MBS List and other OFAC sanctions lists is at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/consolidated-sanctions-list/non-sdn-menu-based-sanctions-list-ns-mbs-list.

*******

OFAC Updated Four FAQs related to EO 13902, "Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran"

Dec. 7, 2020: OFAC updated four export-related FAQs related to EO 13902, "Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran" (Jan. 14, 2020 - 85 Fed. Reg. 2003 - See January 2020 and June 2020 Regulatory Updates). The FAQs address the scope of products, services, economic sectors, and activities that are covered under this EO. Updated FAQs 830, 831, 832, and 847 are on the Treasury Department website at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/830https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/831https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/832, and https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/847.

*******

OFAC Issued Three New FAQs About The Scope Of Sanctions Under The Syrian Sanctions Regulations

Dec. 22, 2020:  OFAC issued three new FAQs about the scope of sanctions under the  Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SySR, 31 C.F.R. Part 542) for engaging in transactions with the Central Bank of Syria (CBoS) (FAQ 866, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/866 ); engaging with the CBoS in connection with humanitarian assistance and certain other trade with Syria otherwise authorized by the SySR or exempt from regulation (FAQ 867); and engagement by a non-U.S. person in certain humanitarian-related transactions or activity (FAQ 868).

*******

OFAC Issued Ukraine-Related General License (GL) 15J

Dec. 23, 2020:  OFAC issued Ukraine-related General License (GL) 15J, authorizing certain transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations ("URSR", 31 C.F.R. Part 589) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the manufacture and sale of specified vehicles and components produced by GAZ Group until Jan. 26, 2022, and superseding Ukraine-related GL 15I.

LATEST SANCTIONS FINES & PENALTIES

This section of our newsletter provides information on the latest sanctions, fines, and penalties for export violations or matters of non-compliance with the ITAR or EAR issued by the US government enforcement agencies. It is provided as a service to exporters and associates of FD Associates to remind them of the importance of extreme due diligence in all international trade and export compliance matters, particularly those involving exports subject to the ITAR or the EAR. Don't let this happen to you or your company! Call us with questions or concerns at 703-847-5801 or email info@fdassociates.net.

 

 

Sanctions

 

Department of Commerce

 

Dec. 1, 2020 – 85 Fed. Reg. 77147:  BIS renewed for an additional 180 days the Temporary Denial Order (TDO) against the following persons and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns agents, or employees:

  • Mahan Airways, Tehran, Iran;
  • Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard A/K/ A Kosarian Fard, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE);
  • Mahmoud Amini, Dubai, UAE;
  • Kerman Aviation A/K/A Gie Kerman Aviation, Paris, France;
  • Sirjanco Trading LLC, Dubai, UAE;
  • Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Dubai, UAE;
  • Mehdi Bahrami, Istanbul, Turkey;
  • Al Naser Airlines A/K/A Al-Naser Airlines A/K/A Al Naser Wings Airline A/K/A Alnaser Airlines And Air Freight Ltd., Baghdad, Iraq, Dubai, UAE, and Amman, Jordan;
  • Ali Abdullah Alhay A/K/A Ali Alhay A/K/A Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay, Baghdad, Iraq, and Qatif, Saudi Arabia;
  • Bahar Safwa General Trading, Dubai, UAE;
  • Sky Blue Bird Group A/K/A Sky Blue Bird Aviation A/K/A Sky Blue Bird Ltd A/K/A Sky Blue Bird FZC Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, UAE; and
  • Issam Shammout A/K/A Muhammad Isam Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout A/K/A Issam Anwar, Damascus, Syria, Beirut, Lebanon, London, United Kingdom, and Istanbul, Turkey.

 

*******

Dec. 14, 2020:  BIS announced that it had implemented a policy of denial for license applications for exports to the Turkish Presidency of Defense Industries (Savunma Sanayii Baskanligi, or SSB) as a result of Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile system from Russia.  This action was coordinated with the Department of State, based on sanctions imposed under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA, 22 USC 9201 et seq.).  See below for State Department imposition of CAATSA sanctions on SSB.

Department of State

Dec. 15, 2020:  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, imposed 5 sanctions on the Turkish Presidency of Defense Industries (Savunma Sanayii Baskanligi, or SSB), a Turkish government entity, and its President and 4 of its senior officers.  The sanctions include a prohibition on the grant of specific authorizations to export or re-export any defense articles, including technical data or defense services where SSB is a party to the transaction.  (See Commerce Department section above for action against SSB taken by BIS implementing this sanction.)  The sanctions were triggered when Turkey took initial delivery of a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system under a contract reportedly worth approximately $2.5 billion.  The sanctions were imposed pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA, 22 USC 9201 et seq.), based on a determination that SSB had knowingly engaged in a significant transaction with a person operating on behalf of the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Fines and Penalties

Dec. 17, 2020:  Colin Fisher, a citizen of the United Kingdom, was sentenced in federal court in Pensacola, FL to 2-1/2 years in federal prison and fined $5,000 based on his September 2020 plea of guilty of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 USC Sec. 1701-1707) and attempted smuggling in an effort to violate the Iranian embargo by attempting to export a Solar Mars 90 S turbine core engine and parts from the U.S. to an end-user in Iran.  U.S. law enforcement authorities discovered the plan and seized the turbine before its transatlantic journey to a co-conspirator in Iran who was linked to an Iranian energy company.  Fisher was arrested on Aug. 7, 2020, when he arrived at the Pensacola International Airport to finalize the illegal transaction. Fisher’s U.S. co-conspirator, James Meharg, is currently serving a 3-1/2 year sentence in federal prison. (See January and September 2020 Regulatory Updates.)

 

DECEMBER 2020 EXPORT CONTROL REGULATION UPDATES Read More »