The Bureau of Industry and Security will now require companies that report boycott requests to inform BIS of the “specific party who made the request,” Matthew Axelrod, the agency’s top export enforcement official, said in a July 26 policy memo to enforcement employees. Companies previously were only required to report to BIS that they received the boycott request and the “country from which the request originated,” the memo said. Information on the identity of the requester will allow BIS to “more easily investigate and hold accountable” parties engaging in a boycott.
The Bureau of Industry and Security this week signed an “agreement” with the Office of Foreign Assets Control to improve coordination among the two agencies’ export control and sanctions enforcement teams, said Matthew Axelrod, the top BIS export enforcement official. The agreement will help in “formalizing our close coordination and partnership,” Axelrod said during a July 26 Society for International Affairs conference, according to a copy of his speech emailed by BIS.
The U.S. this week issued new guidance on its various voluntary self-disclosure policies for sanctions and export control violations, urging companies to disclose offenses and stressing the importance of “robust” compliance programs. The six-page “compliance note,” the second jointly issued by the Commerce, Treasury and Justice departments (see 2303020054), outlines DOJ’s recently updated disclosure policies for criminal export and sanctions violations, the raft of changes made to the Bureau of Industry and Security's administrative enforcement policies over the past year, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s procedures for assessing voluntary disclosures. The notice also describes the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s whistleblower program.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo this week declined to say when she expects the Bureau of Industry and Security to finalize its Oct. 7 China chip controls (see 2210070049, saying it’s more important to her that the agency takes its time and gets the updated restrictions “right.” She also said she doesn’t see Chips Act funding and restrictions on American chips sales to China as contradictory and denied reports that the administration has delayed new export controls against China in an effort to limit damage to its relationship with Beijing.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Increasing export control coordination between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to result in an uptick in enforcement actions and lead to a range of compliance risks for multinational companies, law firms said this month. While much of the coordination so far has centered around Russia-related restrictions, the firms said they expect the efforts to also result in more export penalties for controls imposed against other countries.
The Bureau of Industry and Society last week issued guidance for license applicants seeking to export medical-related items to Russia, Belarus or certain occupied regions of Ukraine, outlining best practices for submitting applications and what information should be included. BIS urged exporters to “provide all the necessary information when the application is first submitted” so the agency can “promptly analyze the proposed scope of the transactions” before submitting it for interagency review, and the agency detailed what types of applications may lead to delays.
A former senior export control official with the Commerce Department told the House Select Committee on China that he thinks the Entity List is ineffective against China, because countries can change their names, establish partnerships, change locations, and because the Entity List is a "meat cleaver" approach, given that listed parties are subject to very strict licensing requirements.
Republicans on the House Select Committee on China urged U.S. officials this week to cut off a broader range of exports to China, arguing that trade with China is helping to fund Beijing’s efforts to undermine American national security. Committee chair Mike Galagher, R-Wis., specifically asked witnesses from the Commerce, State and Defense Departments to enact a technology export ban on Huawei that the administration has reportedly been considering for the last year (see 2301310009).
A State Department official this week denied allegations that the agency has held back sanctions and export controls in an effort to limit damage to the U.S.-China relationship, saying the Biden administration continues to enforce a range of human rights-related trade restrictions against Beijing. But the official also said the administration hasn’t yet imposed mandatory sanctions under the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 and was accused by at least one lawmaker of failing to comply with a congressional subpoena that sought information on sanctions against China.