Every Monday we post the highlights out of last week’s FCC Export/Import Daily Update (“The Daily Bugle”). Send out every business day to approximately 8,000 readers of changes to defense and high-tech trade laws and regulations, The Daily Bugle is a free daily newsletter from Full Circle Compliance, edited by James E. Bartlett III, Alexander P. Bosch, and Vincent J.A. Goossen.
We check the following sources daily: Federal Register, Congressional Record, Commerce/AES, Commerce/BIS, DHS/CBP, DOJ/ATF, DoD/DSS, DoD/DTSA, State/DDTC, Treasury/OFAC, White House, and similar websites of Australia, Canada, U.K., and other countries and international organizations. Due to space limitations, we do not post Arms Sales notifications, Denied Party listings, or Customs AD/CVD items. To subscribe, click here.
Last week’s highlights of The Daily Bugle included in this edition are:
- Unites States v. Burden Concludes that Magazines and Mounts are Defense Articles, The Daily Bugle, Wednesday, 14 June 2017, Item #9.
- DHS/CBP Reschedules Semi-Annual Customs Brokers License Examination to 25 October, The Daily Bugle, Wednesday, 14 June 2017, Item #3.
- Treasury/OFAC Publishes New Cuba-Related FAQs, The Daily Bugle, Friday, 16 June 2017, Item #10.
- Treasury/OFAC Removes Burmese Sanctions Regulations, The Daily Bugle, Friday, 16 June 2017, Item #4.
- DHS/CBP Announces Changes to EDI Manifest and Entry Summary Filings Using Four-Digit Foreign Port Codes, The Daily Bugle, Thursday, 15 June, 2017, Item #4.
United States v. Burden Concludes Magazines and Mounts are Defense Articles
(Source: 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154662) [Excerpts.]
* Case: United States v. Burden, Criminal Action No. 14-cr-0069 (RMC)
* Date: 8 Nov 2016
* Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
* Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer, U.S. District Judge.
OPINION ON JOINT MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
Defendants Pheerayuth Burden and Wing-On LLC moved at the close of the government’s case in their criminal trial and at the close of all evidence for judgment of acquittal. The Court heard arguments and denied both motions in open court. This Opinion explains those rulings.
By Superseding Indictment filed on July 16, 2015, Pheerayuth Burden and Wing-On LLC were charged with conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act by exporting and attempting to export defense articles on the United States Munitions List without a license. The same count also charged both Defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding its lawful function in administering its export laws by attempting to export defense articles on the Munitions List from the United States by deceit, craft, trickery, and dishonest means. See Superseding Indictment (Indictment) [Dkt. 48] ¶ 10 (Count 1). Further, both Defendants were charged in Count Two with knowingly and willfully exporting, attempting to export and causing to be exported on July 31, 2011, five (5) AR Style, NATO 5.56, 30-round magazines and one KAC-Knight Armament M203 Qd Mount, by which one could mount a grenade launcher onto an AR-15 rifle. See id. ¶ 16. Count Three charged both Defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering. See id. ¶ 18. The Indictment also contained a forfeiture allegation demanding that Defendants forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds traceable to a violation of the AECA. See id. at 10-11. …
Defendants argued that they should have been acquitted on Counts I and II of the Indictment because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the products at issue were defense articles. Specifically, both Counts I (conspiracy) and II (willful violation of the AECA) required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that either the five AR Style, NATO 5.56, 30-round magazines, or the KAC-Knight Armament M203 Qd Mount is a defense article. Defendants also argued for acquittal on Count II because (1) there was insufficient proof that Mr. Burden or Wing-On knowingly exported the magazines or mount to Thailand and (2) the Government did not prove that the magazines or mount were “components” as defined in the ITAR. …
- Did the Government Prove that the Gun Parts Are Defense Articles?
Defendants challenge the testimony, or lack thereof, by the government’s expert witness from the USDS Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Robert Warren. According to Defendants, the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the gun parts at issue were defense articles because its witness, Mr. Warren, failed to testify that the gun parts in question were “specifically designed, modified, or adapted for military application,” or to seek a commodity jurisdiction [*7] determination as to whether either the magazines, designed to hold 30 rounds, or the KAC-Knight Armament M203 Qd Mount, designed to attach a grenade launcher to a rifle, were defense articles.
Defendants note that prior to October 14, 2013 (the time relevant herein), an article or service was a defense article if it:
(a) [Was] specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application, and
- [Did] not have predominant civil applications, and
ii [Did] not have performance equivalent (defined by form, fit and function) to those of an article or service used for civil applications; or
(b) [Was] specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application, and [had] significant military or intelligence applicability such that control under this subchapter [was] necessary.
22 C.F.R. § 120.4 (2010) (tense altered); see also United States v. Chi Mak, 683 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that “the determination or designation of articles or services turns on whether an item is ‘specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for military application, and has significant military or intelligence applicability such that control under this subchapter is necessary'”). Defendants [*8] point out that, on cross examination, Mr. Warren testified that only those gun parts, components, accessories, and attachments that were specifically designed, modified, or adapted for military application can be designated as defense articles.
Defendants compared this testimony on cross-examination to the testimony on direct exam, when Mr. Warren testified that a variety of items constituted defense articles, explaining that each was a “critical” part or component of a firearm regulated under ITAR or that the type of item (e.g., a receiver) was specifically “called out” in the ITAR. Ex. F, Trial Tr. 9/23/16 PM [Dkt. 120-6] at 21:6-22, 25:3-16. Defendants surmise that “Mr. Warren used the word ‘critical,’ because that word is used in the version of 22 C.F.R. § 120.3 that came into effect on October 14, 2013,” after the charged events. Jt. Mot. at 6 (emphasis added). As amended, the regulation now provides that an article may be designated as a defense article if it “[m]eets the criteria of a defense article . . . on the U.S. Munitions List” or “[p]rovides the equivalent performance capabilities of a defense article on the U.S. Munitions List.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.3(a)(1), (2) (2013). Defendants also cite subsection (b) of the revised regulation which states that “a specific article or service shall be determined in the future as a defense article or defense service it if provides a critical military or intelligence advantage such that it warrants control under this subchapter.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.3(b) (emphasis added).
Defendants assail Mr. Warren’s testimony that a “flash hider” was a controlled item on the Munitions List when he testified that it was “specifically called out in the United States Munitions List under category e,” to which he added that category e included “[s]uppressors, flash suppressors or silence suppressors.” Jt. Mot. at 8 (quoting Ex. F, Trial Tr. 9/23/16 PM at 25:9-16). While Defendants acknowledge that “Category I of the munitions list ‘specifically calls out’ flash suppressors,” they argue that it was insufficient for Mr. Warren to testify to that effect without further explanation. Id. at 8. Their contention is that proving an item is on the Munitions List requires it to be “‘specifically designed, modified or adapted for military application'” and that Mr. Warren provided no such testimony. Id. at 9.
Defendants’ challenge to Mr. Warren’s testimony is based on United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2009). In that case, Mr. Pulungan was convicted of exporting 100 riflescopes. At trial, the government’s witness testified that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls had found the scopes in question to be “‘manufactured to military specifications’-but he would not say what those specifications are or why the Directorate” had concluded that the scopes in question were manufactured to them; nor was the Directorate’s decision produced. Pulungan, 569 F.3d at 327-28. Nonetheless, at the government’s request, the Pulungan judge instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, the scopes were manufactured to military specifications and thus took the issue away from the jury’s determination. The Seventh Circuit was mightily offended:
The Directorate’s claim of authority to classify any item as a “defense article,” without revealing the basis of the decision and without allowing any inquiry by the jury, would create serious constitutional problems. It would allow the sort of secret law that Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S. Ct. 241, 79 L. Ed. 446 . . . (1935), condemned. (That case dealt with an unpublished regulation that remained “in the hip pocket of the administrator,” as a serious problem apart from the nondelegation holding usually associated with Panama Refining.) A regulation is published for all to see. People can adjust their conduct to avoid liability. A designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian regimes. Government must operate through public laws and regulations. See United States v. Farinella, 558 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2009). Thus the United States must prove, and not just assert, that the . . . riflescope is “manufactured to military specifications.”
Defendants’ argument misses the mark. Mr. Warren was accepted as an expert witness “in the application of the Arms Export Control Act [and] its related regulations, the International Traffic and Arms Regulations and in particular determination of whether firearms, parts and accessories are controlled under those regulatory provisions.” Ex. F, Trial Tr. 9/23/16 PM at 9:13-17. Defendants offered “[n]o objection.” Id. at 9:18-19. The Court then instructed the jury that “because of his experience and training[,] this gentleman can tell you not only facts, but can also give you his opinions. You should evaluate his testimony just like anybody else’s and you can accept it or accept part of it, whatever you decide as to its credibility and support, but he unlike most witnesses is allowed [*12] to offer his opinions to you.” Id. at 9:23-10:3.
Most critically, Defendants’ argument fails because, as the government reminded the Court and Defendants in oral argument on the motion for judgment of acquittal:
In fact, what Mr. Warren testified on direct when talking about what exactly a defense article is[,] on page 12, line 21 [Ex. F, Trial Tr. 9/23/16 PM] he was asked . . . . What exactly is a defense article? And then he explained, well a defense article as we termed it is anything that has a military significance or military application.
So what he testified to was defense articles have military significance or application. They’re placed on the United States Munitions List. He then determined whether the particular items we have here are defense articles as enumerated in the ITAR itself. And that’s exactly what he did, then he conducted the comparison. Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM at 81:8-19.
Additionally, Mr. Warren testified to the history and development of the ACEA and the ITAR, commenting in part, “the law is somewhat hard to read okay, so the regulations simply simplify [it] and tell U.S. industry and the State Department quite frankly what they have to do to implement the law.” [*13] Ex. F, Trial Tr. 9/23/16 PM at 10:21-25. He testified that the ITAR “generally describes the articles that are controlled,” specifically, as relevant to this case, “automatic firearms, close assault weapons which we would consider carbine, scopes, barrels are called out specifically, receivers are called out specifically, breach mechanisms are called out specifically, suppressors are called out specifically. … And this final category is all parts, components and accessories of a firearm are called out in Category (h).” Id. at 11:1-18.
Clearly, Mr. Warren’s testimony was presented under materially different circumstances than those attending the government’s witness in Pulungan. First, as an unchallenged expert, he could testify to facts and opinions. Second, the jury was specifically instructed that it should treat his testimony as any other witness’s testimony, deciding for itself whether to credit it and, if so, how much to credit it. Third, Defendants had full opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Warren and identify any weaknesses in his testimony to the jury in separate closing arguments on behalf of Mr. Burden and Wing-On. Fourth, the jury alone decided what weight, if any, to [*14] give Mr. Warren’s testimony. To be precise, the circumstances of these Defendants’ trial were exactly the opposite of Mr. Pulungan’s.
Defendants also argue that it was necessary for the government to submit formal commodity determinations as to the mount and magazine. Defendants read this requirement from the language of the regulation, which states: “[t]he commodity jurisdiction procedure is used with the U.S. Government if doubt exists as to whether an article or service is covered by the U.S. Munitions List.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.4(a). Defendants equate the “doubt” referenced in the regulation with the doubt that exists in a criminal trial before a jury verdict of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970) (“Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [the defendant] is charged.”). Because Mr. Burden and Wing-On were presumed innocent until the Government proved each necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt, Defendants argued that there was “doubt” and “doubt” required the Government to employ the commodity jurisdiction process.
The Court does not interpret the word “doubt” to have such a specific meaning as it is used in the ITAR. Defendants offer no case or background to support their interpretation of the word “doubt” in the ITAR, and the Court refuses to interpret the use of “doubt” in all statutes to constitute a direct connection to the standard for conviction in a criminal case. Without evidence of the specific intent of the drafters, “doubt” can just as easily be read to allow for commodity jurisdiction when an exporter or importer doubts whether an item is on the Munitions List and asks if it is subject to ITAR’s jurisdiction. The Government’s expert, Mr. Warren, testified that he had no “doubt” as to the designation of the magazine or the mount and, therefore, he did not institute the commodity jurisdiction procedure. The Court will not read a greater regulatory requirement into the ITAR.
Defendants also imply that it is possible that if the commodity jurisdiction procedure had been completed the magazine and mount would have been determined not to be included on the Munitions List. If Defendants believed a commodity jurisdiction determination could have contradicted Mr. Warren’s testimony that the items were defense articles and were included on the Munitions List, they too could have requested a commodity jurisdiction determination.
At the close of the evidence, there was clearly sufficient evidence from which a jury could convict. The jury credited Mr. Warren, whose testimony was fairly straightforward. That was clearly its role and the Court had no basis to take the question from the jury. The Court finds the Government provided sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the magazine and mount at issue here are defense articles under AECA and ITAR.
- Was There Sufficient Evidence of Exportation by Defendants? …
- Was There Sufficient Evidence that the Magazines or Qd Mount were “Components” as Required by ITAR?
Defendants also argue for acquittal on Count II because the Government failed to establish that the magazine or mount at issue were “components” as defined in the ITAR. Defendants explain that components must be “useful only when used in conjunction with an end-item” and without which the end-item is inoperable. 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(b). “An end-item is a system, equipment, or an assembled article ready for its intended use. Only ammunition or fuel or other energy source is required to place it in an operating state.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(a). The AECA prohibits the import and export of more than just end-items and components, however, as defense articles may include parts, accessories, and attachments. 22 C.F.R. § 121.1, Category I(h) (including “[c]omponents, parts, accessories and attachments for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this category” in the Munitions List). “Accessories and attachments are associated articles for any component, equipment, system, or end-item, and which are not necessary for its operation, but which enhance its usefulness or effectiveness.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(c). “A part is any single unassembled element of a major or a minor component, accessory, or attachment which is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of designed use.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(d). Due to the nature of the magazine and mount, Defendants argue that the Government needed to establish that both were components and not mere parts or accessories. This argument was followed by noting the evidence that both items have dual uses, with real guns and airsoft guns. Defendants conclude that the magazines for bullets and the mount for a grenade launcher are “useful only when used in conjunction with an end-item,” as required to be a component. 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(b).
First of all, Defendants offer no testimonial or other support for their argument. Second, even assuming the magazine and mount could be categorized as components, rather than parts, accessories, or attachments, Defendants’ argument ignores the most reasonable interpretation of the ITAR. An item may be a component if, standing alone, it is not useful, but becomes “useful only when used in conjunction with an end-item.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.45(b). A magazine, for example, sitting on a table or in the hands of an assailant is not useful on its own. Once the magazine is used in conjunction with a firearm, it becomes useful and deadly for automatic fire. Therefore, the magazine is useful only in connection with an end-item, in this case a firearm.
As explained in the jury instructions for Count II-Willful Violation of Arms Export Control Act-the Government was required to establish the following:
(1) That the defendant knowingly exported the five AR Style, NATO 5.56, 30 round magazines, or the KAC-Knight Armament M203 Qd Mount;
(2) That the item exported was a defense article on the Munitions List that required a license from the U.S. Department of State for its export;
(3) That the defendant failed to obtain a license from the U.S. Department of State; and
(4) That the defendant acted willfully.
Jury Instructions at 40. As discussed above, the Court finds the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude (1) “[t]hat the defendant knowingly exported the five AR Style, NATO 5.56, 30 round magazines, or the KAC-Knight Armament M203 Qd Mount” and (2) “[t]hat the item exported was a defense article on the Munitions List that required a license from the U.S. Department of State for its export.” Id. Defendants do not dispute here the evidence applicable to the third and fourth prongs of Count II. Accordingly, the Court did not grant judgment of acquittal on Count II.
Having studied the brief submitted by Defendants before the argument on the motion for judgment of acquittal, having heard the parties’ arguments at the close of the government’s evidence and-more expansively-at the close of all evidentiary presentations, and having reviewed the briefs and transcripts again in the preparation of this Opinion, the Court is of the same opinion as it stated on September 27, 2016. “[T]here’s sufficient evidence from which a jury could reach [the] conclusion that at its crux Mr. Burden [and Wing-On] willfully violated the Arms Export Control Act.”Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM at 83:11-13. The motion for judgment of acquittal was denied. A memorializing order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
DHS/CBP Reschedules Semi-Annual Customs Broker’s License Examination to 25 Oct
(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
82 FR 27274: New Date for the October 2017 Customs Broker’s License Examination
* AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
* ACTION: General notice.
* SUMMARY: This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has changed the date on which the semi-annual examination for an individual broker’s license will be held in October 2017.
* DATES: The customs broker’s license examination scheduled for October 2017 will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neila Venne, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (843) 579-6407, Neila.M.Venne@cbp.dhs.gov. …
Dated: June 7, 2017.
Brenda B. Smith, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Treasury/OFAC Publishes New Cuba-Related FAQs
OFAC has posted new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in connection with the President’s announcement today on changes to U.S. policy with respect to Cuba.
Frequently Asked Questions on President Trump’s Cuba Announcement
(1) How will OFAC implement the changes to the Cuba sanctions program announced by the President on June 16, 2017? Are the changes effective immediately?
OFAC will implement the Treasury-specific changes via amendments to its Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The Department of Commerce will implement any necessary changes via amendments to its Export Administration Regulations. OFAC expects to issue its regulatory amendments in the coming months. The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
(2) What is individual people-to-people travel, and how does the President’s announcement impact this travel authorization?
Individual people-to-people travel is educational travel that: (i) does not involve academic study pursuant to a degree program; and (ii) does not take place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. The President instructed Treasury to issue regulations that will end individual people-to-people travel. The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
(3) Will group people-to-people travel still be authorized?
Yes. Group people-to-people travel is educational travel not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program that takes place under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. Travelers utilizing this travel authorization must maintain a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that are intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that will result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba. An employee, consultant, or agent of the group must accompany each group to ensure that each traveler maintains a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities.
(4) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect individual people-to-people travelers who have already begun making their travel arrangements (such as purchasing flights, hotels, or rental cars)?
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations. Provided that the traveler has already completed at least one travel-related transaction (such as purchasing a flight or reserving accommodation) prior to the President’s announcement on June 16, 2017, all additional travel-related transactions for that trip, whether the trip occurs before or after OFAC’s new regulations are issued, would also be authorized, provided the travel-related transactions are consistent with OFAC’s regulations as of June 16, 2017.
Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
(5) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect other authorized travelers to Cuba whose travel arrangements may include direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy?
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations. Consistent with the Administration’s interest in not negatively impacting Americans for arranging lawful travel to Cuba, any travel-related arrangements that include direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy will be permitted provided that those travel arrangements were initiated prior to the issuance of the forthcoming regulations.
(6) How do the changes announced by the President on June 16, 2017 affect companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction that are already engaged in the Cuban market and that may undertake direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy?
The announced changes do not take effect until OFAC issues new regulations. Consistent with the Administration’s interest in not negatively impacting American businesses for engaging in lawful commercial opportunities, any Cuba-related commercial engagement that includes direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services that may be implicated by the new Cuba policy will be permitted provided that those commercial engagements were in place prior to the issuance of the forthcoming regulations.
(7) Does the new policy affect how persons subject to U.S jurisdiction may purchase airline tickets for authorized travel to Cuba?
No. The new policy will not change how persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction traveling to Cuba pursuant to the 12 categories of authorized travel may purchase their airline tickets.
(8) Can I continue to send authorized remittances to Cuba?
Yes. The announced policy changes will not change the authorizations for sending remittances to Cuba. Additionally, the announced changes include an exception that will allow for transactions incidental to the sending, processing, and receipt of authorized remittances to the extent they would otherwise be restricted by the new policy limiting transactions with certain identified Cuban military, intelligence, or security services. As a result, the restrictions on certain transactions in the new Cuba policy will not limit the ability to send or receive authorized remittances.
(9) How does the new policy impact other authorized travel to Cuba by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction?
The new policy will not result in changes to the other (non-individual people-to-people) authorizations for travel. Following the issuance of OFAC’s regulatory changes, travel-related transactions with prohibited entities identified by the State Department generally will not be permitted. Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations.
(10) How will the new policy impact existing OFAC specific licenses?
The forthcoming regulations will be prospective and thus will not affect existing contracts and licenses.
(11) How will U.S. companies know if their Cuban counterpart is affiliated with a prohibited entity or sub-entity in Cuba?
The State Department will be publishing a list of entities with which direct transactions generally will not be permitted. Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations. The announced changes do not take effect until the new regulations are issued.
(12) Is authorized travel by cruise ship or passenger vessel to Cuba impacted by the new Cuba policy?
Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction will still be able to engage in authorized travel to Cuba by cruise ship or passenger vessel.
Following the issuance of OFAC’s regulatory changes, travel-related transactions with prohibited entities identified by the State Department generally will not be permitted. Guidance will accompany the issuance of the new regulations.
For more information on the National Security Presidential Memorandum visit here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/06/16/fact-sheet-cuba-policy.
Treasury/OFAC Removes Burmese Sanctions Regulations
(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts.]
82 FR 27613-27614
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Final rule.
* SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations the Burmese Sanctions Regulations as a result of the termination of the national emergency on which the regulations were based.
* DATES: Effective: June 16, 2017.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202/622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, or the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202/622-2410.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: … On October 7, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13742, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of the Government of Burma” (E.O. 13742). In E.O. 13742, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13047, with respect to the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, had been significantly altered by Burma’s substantial advances to promote democracy, including historic elections in November 2015 that resulted in the former opposition party, the National League for Democracy, winning a majority of seats in the national parliament and the formation of a democratically elected, civilian-led government; the release of many political prisoners; and greater enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13047, and revoked that order, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, E.O. 13619, and E.O. 13651.
As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. …
– 1. Remove part 537.
Dated: June 13, 2017.
John E. Smith, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
DHS/CBP Announces Changes to EDI Manifest and Entry Summary Filings Using Four-Digit Foreign Port Codes
(Source: CSMS# 17-000346, 15 June 2017.)
On 22 July 2017, the ACE Technical team is planning to remove four-digit foreign port codes, which are supposed to be five-digits, from the reference table of valid Foreign Port (Schedule K) Codes. When the foreign port code has a leading zero, a few carriers and filers have been omitting the first digit when filing a manifest, QP in-bond, or entry summary via EDI.
After 22 July, providing a four-digit foreign port code in the aforementioned EDI transactions will result in an Invalid Foreign Port Code error.