Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 21-24 in case you missed them.
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls issued a Jan. 23 guidance on the final rules for the transfer of gun export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department, including a clarification on license submissions during the transition period. The guidance also clarifies how the rules and transition period affect technical assistance agreements, manufacturing license agreements, reporting requirements, commodity jurisdiction determinations and regulatory oversight responsibilities. The rules -- which were published Jan. 23 and transfer export control authority from the State Department to Commerce for a range of firearms, ammunition and other defense items -- will take effect March 9 (see 2001170030).
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 13-17 in case you missed them.
The Commerce Department released its final rule for transferring export controls of firearms, ammunition and other defense items from the State Department to Commerce. The rule revises the Export Administration Regulations to transfer items that no longer “warrant control” on the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. The rule will be published alongside a final rule from the State Department, which details the changes made to Categories I, II and II of the USML and describes “more precisely” the items that warrant “export or temporary import control” on the USML. The rules, which have been highly anticipated by the firearms industry (see 1908130066), will be published Jan. 23 and take effect March 9.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 6-10 in case you missed them.
Recently Released Export Control Signals BIS Intent to Narrowly Control Emerging Tech, Law Firms Say
The Commerce Department’s narrow set of controls on exports of geospatial imagery software issued earlier this month (see 2001030024) could foreshadow a more “targeted and restrained approach” in the agency’s emerging technology effort, according to a Jan. 8 post from Paul Hastings. By limiting the controls to software that is only “specially designed” for specific purposes, such as “training a neural network to analyze geospatial imagery,” Commerce is signaling its intention to impose controls that only capture small slivers of technology, the post said. “The move might signal an inclination by [the Bureau of Industry and Security] to take a careful approach to regulating [artificial intelligence] and other emerging technologies.”
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for 2019 in case they were missed.
More than half of the sanctions-related enforcement actions issued by the Treasury Department in 2019 involved supply chain violations, signaling that supply chain compliance is one of the most important factors in avoiding violations, according to a December report released by Kharon, a sanctions advisory firm. The penalties are mostly due to deficiencies in three main areas of supply chain compliance, Kharon said: companies that operated in “heightened-risk jurisdictions,” companies that operated “existing and newly acquired” foreign subsidiaries, and companies that showed deficiencies while monitoring actors in its supply chain.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 16-20 in case you missed them.
World Trade Organization members should take several steps to resolve the WTO’s dispute settlement system “crisis” (see 1912090031), including better enforcement of the 90-day time frame for appeals and prohibitions on advisory opinions, according to a report by Bruce Hirsch of Tailwind Global Strategies and commissioned by the National Foreign Trade Council that was released Dec. 17. WTO members should also consider issuing guidance on Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding to clarify that it “does not justify expanding or narrowing the reach of WTO provisions or filling gaps.” In addition, “customary rules of interpretation of public international law” should “not justify gap-filling and expanding or narrowing the reach of WTO provisions,” the report said, and members should better address disagreements surrounding the appellate body’s findings on antidumping issues. Lastly, members should direct the body to “reject party arguments that expand or narrow the reach of agreement provisions or fill gaps in agreements.”