Source: http://www.tradeinnovations.com/trade-update/previous/2
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:16:07+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has announced that a company incorporated in California, has agreed to settle its potential civil liability with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the amount of $515,400 for 56 alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560 (ITSR).
The company's obligation to pay the settlement with OFAC will be satisfied by: (a) its compliance with the terms of its September 24, 2013 Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of the Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security; and (b) its payment of $15,400 to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that a Houston, TX man was sentenced to 135 months in prison for conspiring to export and illegally exporting controlled microelectronics to Russia, and for conspiring to launder money.
The man, as well as ten other individuals and two corporations were indicted in October 2012; and were subsequently convicted at trial on all counts in October 2015. Of the remaining defendants, five pleaded guilty and three remain at large.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has updated the Customs Broker FAQ Web Page.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued CSMS #17-000110 to provide the trade with information concerning acceptable methods for submission of post-importation preference claims in light of a recent decision issued by the Court of International Trade.
Historically, importers have used various post-importation mechanisms to claim duty preferences under various free trade agreements, trade preference legislation, and certain tariff provisions in Chapter 98, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These mechanisms include Post­ Entry Amendments (PEAs), Post Summary Corrections (PSCs), protests under 19 USC §1514 and post-importation claims under 19 USC§1520(d).
On August 11, 2014, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued guidance specifying that when the implementing legislation for several preference programs specifically provides for post-importation claims, set forth in 19 USC §1520(d), such claims are the only appropriate mechanism to seek preference when not claimed at the time of entry.
Further, in the guidance CBP determined that if a preference program did not have a statutory post-importation mechanism, referenced in 19 USC §1520(d), importers were precluded from claiming post-importation duty preferences through protests under 19 USC §1514.2. Therefore, CBP instructed ports to reject as non-protestable any initial preference claims made under 19 USC §1514. Through the guidance below, CBP now amends that memorandum.
Pursuant to the earlier-referenced decision by the Court of International Trade,3 for those preference programs that do not specifically provide for claims under the statutory post­ importation mechanism of 19 USC §1520(d), CBP will permit use of the protest mechanism set forth in 19 USC §1514 to submit initial post-importation preference claims. CBP will continue to allow un-liquidated entries to be amended by filing a PEA or PSC prior to liquidation in accordance with current PEA and PSC procedures.
For clarity and ease of reference, below is a table of the existing preference programs and the method by which a claim may now be made after importation.
In compliance with the now-amended memorandum, dated August 11, 2014, ports may have rejected as non-protestable (rather than denied) initial post-importation preference claims made under 19 USC §1514. Pursuant to the decision by the Court of International Trade in Zojirushi America Corp. v. U.S., in order to assist CBP in processing protests previously rejected as non­ protestable, importers are requested to resubmit their protests to the appropriate field offices within 180 days of the issuance of this guidance.
Updates: The Office of Trade will be revising all internal and external guidelines applicable to preference programs to permit filing of claims under 19 USC §1514. This memorandum supersedes any conflicting guidance previously published, including, but not limited to, the now amended memorandum, dated August 11, 2014, implementing instructions for free trade agreements, the FTA Guidelines, and the Side-by-Side Comparison of Free Trade Agreements and Selected Preferential Trade Legislation Programs.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Textiles and Trade Agreements Division via email at fta@dhs.gov.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued CSMS #17-000114 to advise that in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 9492 of September 14, 2016, “To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)”, published in the Federal Register (www.federalregister.gov) on September 16, 2016, the designation of Burma as a least developed beneficiary country (LDBC) for purposes of the GSP Program, was reinstated, effective November 13, 2016.
As such, goods of Burma origin entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after November 13, 2016, should be entered with the benefit of GSP. Questions should be addressed to the Trade Agreements Branch at FTA@dhs.gov.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that one of the world’s largest suppliers of automotive safety-related equipment, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced to pay a total of $1 billion in criminal penalties stemming from the company’s conduct in relation to sales of defective airbag inflators.
According to admissions made during the course of the guilty plea, from 2000 through and including 2015, the company carried out a scheme to defraud its customers and auto manufacturers by providing false and manipulated airbag inflator test data that made the performance of the company’s airbag inflators appear better than it actually was. Even after the inflators began to experience repeated problems in the field – including ruptures causing injuries and deaths – company executives continued to withhold the true and accurate inflator test information and data from their customers.
CBP has announced that they will hold an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) Workshop in Washington, D.C. on March 14, 2017. The workshop will be held at 1717 H St., NW; Washington DC; 7th Floor, in Room C.
EAPA investigations are new and while CBP has issued regulations, the procedures continue to be refined as they gain experience with these investigations. The goal of this workshop is to provide parties who are filing allegations or defending against them with an overview of who they will be interacting with at CBP and at which stages in the investigation.
CBP will walk through an example EAPA investigation to demonstrate the role of the parties in the investigation and the steps that CBP may take to pursue an allegation, while also discussing what constitutes a valid allegation. Additionally, this workshop will provide the attendees with an opportunity to engage with the CBP officials in charge of enforcing the trade laws and learning what CBP is doing for enforcement of our antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
Welcome and Keynote presentation to give the vision for OT’s focus on the enforcement of AD/CVD orders.
Discussion of the organization of the new Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate (“TRLED”) and how each division will work together for AD/CVD enforcement.
An overview of the new Enforcement Operations Division and the vision for the Evasion NTAG branch that will be located within that division.
An overview of the role of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (“Centers”) in the enforcement of AD/CVD orders.
A discussion of how the Centers will be a key player in the EAPA investigations and who in the Centers will be working on these investigations.
A dialogue on the role of Regulatory Audit in AD/CVD Enforcement and how it is organized to facilitate that role.
An introduction into the specific role Regulatory Audit has in the EAPA investigations given their unique skills and abilities to do on-site visits and in-depth reviews of the financials of a company.
Compare and contrast example allegations and discuss what is required to meet the legal threshold for initiation.
Overview of CBP’s procedures in an EAPA investigation from initiation through interim measures, highlighting the roles of each part of CBP and the parties to the investigation.
Discussion of the maintenance of the record and creation of public version of documents submitted prior to the notification of interim measures.
Contrast the role of Regulatory Audit for EAPA investigations versus its conventional role in CBP audits.
Explain the role of Regulatory Audit after interim measures is issued in an EAPA investigation.
Discuss a “Request for Information” (aka questionnaire) and provide an example, explaining what an on-site visit would entail and the types of documents typically requested.
o Verify the status of the registration with the third party that filed the food facility registration on the manufacturer’s behalf.
o Verify with the manufacturer that they are willing to be registered and inspected by the US Food and Drug Administration.
o Verify the owner, operator, or agent in charge listed in the registration is still in that current position and employed by the manufacturer.
o To facilitate communication with FDA, verify the owner, operator, or agent in charge has current valid contact information including a valid email address listed in the food facility registration.
o Manufacturer or registrant needs to verify the U.S. agent in charge listed in the registration is still in that current position and agrees to be the U.S. Agent.
o Manufacturer or registrant needs verify the U.S. agent has current valid contact information including a valid email address listed in the food facility registration.
o Manufacturer or registrant needs to verify the U.S. agent has agreed to serve and confirmed the listing on the registration of a foreign facility. &#61607; To confirm the listing, the U.S. agent must create an online FURLS FFRM account and follow the instructions for the U.S. agent at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/ucm084398.htm#confirm. &#61607; US agent confirmation can only be completed electronically.
If your entry is in reject status due to invalid registration, perform a CA Correction (PGA correction / update). Filing a duplicate entry for the shipment without resolving the original entry rejection will cause a delay in the release of the shipment. A cancellation of the rejected entry will cause a review of the shipment by CBP and/or FDA to determine if registration requirements are being circumvented.
Manufacturers should contact the FURLS Help Desk at FURLS@fda.gov or call 1-800-216-7331 to verify the current status of your food facility registration. Due to the high call volume, please expect long wait times for phone calls. You may also access the Food Facility Registration Module (FFRM) to verify the status of your registration.
Trade may contact FDA ACE Support 24/7 at ACE_Support@fda.hhs.gov or 877-345-1101 for ACE inquiries to verify the rejection reason. Trade may also contact the Division of Food Defense Targeting at prior.notice@fda.hhs.gov or 866-521-2297 for assistance with valid food registrations verified by the FURLS Help Desk that may be rejecting improperly.

References: §1514
 §1520
 §1520
 §1514
 §1514
 §1520
 §1514
 §1514
 v. 
 §1514