Source: http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2008/
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 12:17:21
Document Index: 470428931

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 732', 'art 774', '§ 2778', 'art 121', '§1324', 'art 774', '§ 2778', 'art 121', '§748', '§ 740']

Global Trade Compliance: 2008
1) Tariff concession details are available in Annex I.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/vietnam/epa0812/index.html
2) Overview presentation of Japan-Vietnam EPA (in Japanese)
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/fta/j_asean/vietnam/pdfs/gaiyo.pdf
On November 29 (Sat), Brunei made the notification on the completion of its legal procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Japan and Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Japan-ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement).
With this notification, the Agreement will enter into force on January 1 (Thu), 2009 in relation to Brunei.
This Agreement has already entered into force on December 1 (Mon) among Japan, Singapore, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar.
(Source: MOFA web site http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2008/12/1185514_1080.html )
After implementation of many EPAs recently, traders tend to confuse in mixing up with EPA preferential tariff and GSP ("Generalized System of Preference") tariff.
Basically, GSP tariff is no longer valid after EPA implementation date. However, there are some exceptions, which makes the things complicated.
Even after the EPA implementation, if the items are not included in the EPA or the GSP tariff is lower than EPA tariff, GSP is still effective.
In addition, for Laos and Myannmar, all GSP rate is effective for both two countries.
There is very useful information list in MOF web site which provide "still effective" GSP rate items after EPA implementation. (in Japanese only)
http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/kanzei/fta_epa/seido_tetsuduki/tokkei.htm
Traders who have used GSP rate need to check this site.
(Source: METI web site http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/GSP.pdf )
South Korea wants to offset the expected slowdown in growth next year by expanding free trade agreements (FTAs) with Russia and South America's Mercosur trade bloc, a government official said this week.
Kwon Tae-kyun, head of the trade office at the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, said Seoul plans to lay the groundwork to launch earnest free trade agreement talks with these countries in 2009.
With its rapidly expanding economy, Russia has become an important buyer of locally made goods, while Mercosur's Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay could help South Korea diversify its export market and become important sources of natural resources, he said.
The official added that Seoul wants to expand ongoing free trade talks with Australia, New Zealand, and Peru.
(Source: UPS Trade News for December 9, 2008 )
Delay and operational challenge of Japan-Philippine EPA
On Dec. 11, 2008, Japan-Philippine EPA will be on effective. However, according to Japanese METI web site, it was notice by Philippine government that they face operational delay in Philippine side and some operations are not in time for Dec. 11.
1) Delay of issue of Country of Origin.
Philippine will NOT issue Country of Origin ("C/O") in time for Dec. 11. The possible starting date is unknown.
2) Quota for steel products will NOT be ready
Japan-Philippine EPA have quota with zero duty in importing into Philippine for HS7208, 7209, 7210, and 7212 steel products. However, the Philippine side is not ready for operation of this quota by Dec. 11.
3) No refund of duty
If the normal rate of duty was paid in importing into Philippine, and it was simply because C/O was not ready, the difference of preferential duty and normal duty will NOT be refunded.
(Source: METI web site: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/html2/081209%20JPEPA.pdf )
Delay of AJCEP implementation in Vietnam & Myanmar
In addition to Singapore, some operational delay of AJCEP in Vietnam & Myanmar is reported in Japanese METI web site.
According to METI, Japanese government was noticed as follows by Vietnam and Myanmar government.
1) Delay of issuing C/O ("Country of Origin") by Vietnam and Myanmar
Due to their internal legal formalities, Vietnam and Myanmar are not able to issue C/O on December 1. At fastest, it will be after middle of December.
2) Preferential tariff in Vietnam Not applied so far
Due to Vietnam's domestic legal formalities, the preferential tariff of AJCEP will be applied only after February 2009. The retrospective refund of duty amount between MFN rate and the preferential tariff is uncertain. It is under consideration by Vietnam government.
(Source: JAPAN METI web site http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/html2/081128_AJ%20ベトナム・ミャンマーに係るアナウンス.pdf )
Japanese customs conduct audit to importers as regular basis annually.
The result of this audit was published in customs web site.
Approx 70% of importers are pointed out as declaration failure.
Period of audit: July 2007 to June 2008.
Number of importers audited: 5,865 companies
Pointed out as declaration failure: 4,099 companies - 69.9% of total investigation
Tax penalty by this audit is total JPY11,240,440,000.- which is equivalent to US$112millions.
This amount include shortage of duty/tax plus additional tax penalty.
This means average tax penalty by company is JPY2,740,000 which is equivalent to US$27,400.
The items which had the biggest penalty amount is electrical products. 2nd is machinery, then textile clothing, knitted clothing, and optical instrument.
The content of declaration failure is mostly short declaration of items such as raw material which was offered to overseas exporters for manufacturing, which must be included in import declaration amount, we call it as "Assist" element.
Customs valuation is somewhat difficult area for general business users to understand, however it is getting critical to know, considering this high rate of error declaration in audit.
(Source: Japan customs web site http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/kanzei/ka201127b.htm)
This interim final rule requires both importers and carriers to submit additional information pertaining to cargo to CBP before the cargo is brought into the United States by vessel. This information must be submitted to CBP by way of a CBP- approved electronic data interchange system. The required information is reasonably necessary to improve CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security.
Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 26, 2009.
CBP will hold public forum and requests comments by June 1, 2009.
More details and comprehensive summary of this regulation change, please take a look:
http://www.bryancave.com/bulletins/ Trade Bulletin IRB No. 417 dated Nov. 25, 2008.
According to Japanese METI web site on Nov 21, Japanese government was noticed from Singapore government that Certificate of Origin ("CO") for ASEAN-JP EPA will not be issued on December 1, which is the implementation day of ASEAN-Japan EPA.
This is due to Singapore's internal reason, the preparation system is not due on time.
Japan request to Singapore to make effort to issue CO on time as originally announced by Dec 1.
At this time, Singapore will come to issue CO by January 1st, including retrospective issuance.
As for receiving in importing CO as proof of origin, Singapore will accept as originally planned from Dec 1.
(Source: METI web site: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/081121%20AJCEP発効にあたって〔セット版〕.pdf)
Japan-Philippine EPA finally implemented on Dec 11
The announcement of diplomatic note exchanged with Philippine was published in Japanese government web site. (as of now, only in Japanese)
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/h20/11/1184607_919.html
According the this news release, The JP-Philippine EPA will be effective on Dec. 11 this year.
Validated End-User Program is well known among export control expert.
But according to GAO ("Government Accountability Office") report, they recognize this program doesn't work as intended and advise to suspend.
What is Validated End-User (VEU) Program?
The program allows U.S. companies to ship eligible products to VEU companies without an individual validated license. This program was first made available to China as part of a larger “China rule” that included expanded controls related to military end-use. The U.S. government has since extended the VEU program to India and may consider other countries in the future. Five companies have been approved for VEU status so far. This program is still in an early phase and the U.S. and Chinese governments are discussing issues and implementation.
Now, what companies are approved as VEU?
The five approved VEU companies are: Applied Materials China; Boeing Hexcel AVIC I Joint Venture; National Semiconductor Corp; Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp; and Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Corp. They are authorized to import certain controlled items without individual export licenses.
What is the problem in the program GAO point out?
The Government Accountability Office has called on the Department of Commerce to suspend a program designed to facilitate high technology exports to China. The GAO expressed concern that the DOC is unable to ensure that goods shipped under the validated end-user program, especially semiconductor equipment and materials, are being used as intended.
The VEU program allows select “trusted” Chinese companies to receive controlled items without a DOC export license. Instead of requiring a post-shipment verification check to ensure that the equipment is being used in accordance with the terms of the authorization, VEUs must agree to periodic records reviews and discretionary on-site reviews by U.S. government personnel. This program covers a wide range of items, may be used by foreign re-exporters and does not have an expiration date.
The GAO states that the introduction of the VEU program has yet to produce the anticipated advantages and that challenges with program implementation may hinder the DOC’s ability to ensure that items exported to VEUs are being used as intended. For example, although negotiations are ongoing, the department has not reached a VEU specific agreement with the Chinese government for conducting on-site reviews of VEUs, a mechanism cited by Commerce as critical for ensuring program compliance. Instead, as a stopgap measure, the DOC is attempting to conduct on-site reviews under a 2004 end-use visit understanding with China. The department also continues to lack specific procedures for selecting and conducting on-site reviews more than a year after the program was introduced.
The GAO therefore recommends that the DOC suspend the VEU program with respect to China until it (a) negotiates a VEU-specific agreement with China or the EUVU is amended to include the VEU program and (b) develops operating procedures for selecting and conducting on-site reviews that are applicable to all VEUs. The DOC disagreed with this recommendation, stating that the EUVU provides a framework for all inspections related to export controls in China and that procedures for conducting end-use checks exist and will be used for on-site reviews as applicable. The GAO noted, however, that the EUVU requirement to obtain end-user statements for shipments imposes an additional burden on VEUs and runs counter to the trade facilitating objectives of the program. The GAO also pointed out that end-use checks focus on ensuring that an item is being used for the purposes stated on the license, whereas on-site reviews are more comprehensive.
(Source: World Trade/Interactive - 10/28/08)
As reported in this blog on June 2 this year, AJCEP (Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Japan and Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) was signed in April this year with 11 countries in ASEAN.
Now it was announced by Japanese government that this AJCEP will be effective from December 01, 2008. After this date, AJCEP will be implemented with the countries who made notification. With regards to the ASEAN countries which will make the notification later, the Agreement will enter into force subsequently in accordance with the stipulations of the Agreement.
(Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2008/10/1184016_1060.html)
As reported in this blog on end of August, Japan lowered CVD (Counter Vailing Duty) rate from 27.2% to 9.1% based on the advice from WTO. The lowered rate was effective on Sept. 01.
On Sept 29, Hynix Korea requested to Japanese MOF to abolish CVD completely because the subsidy in question was no longer beneficial after 2003 which is the period for the investigation.
Japanese MOF and METI started re-investigation of the circumstance Hynix pointed out from October 15.
(Source: http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/kanzei/ka201015.htm )
ラベル: Customs, WTO
The New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which became effective on October 1, will phase out tariffs on 96 percent of New Zealand's exports to China and liberalize trade in goods and service between the two countries.
New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade also stated that the pact would give additional protection to New Zealand investors in China, while at the same time offering assistance to build existing business relationships with Chinese companies.
China currently ranks as New Zealand's third-largest trading partner.
(Source: UPS Trade News [Trade_News@ups-scs.service.com] Oct. 08, 2008)
An official with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says the agency has extended the grace period before enforcement of rules requiring electronic filing of export documents.
Exporters were to begin using the Automated Export System (AES) on October 1, however CBP says it must first issue guidelines to field offices, which should occur within the next few weeks.
Fines for exporters filing paper forms instead of using AES range from $1,100 to $10,000 per violation.
(Source: UPS Trade News for October 2, 2008)
Japan and Swiss reached agreement in principle in EPA according to Japanese government adjournment on Sept 29. The 99% of trade amount for both countries will be zero customs duty in 10 years after its implementation. It is good thing.
As a first EPA for Japan to European countries, there is one unique and new provision in it.
It is proof of origin when traders claim preferential tariff. A new framework will be provided for an origin declaration by an approved exporter. Although for Japan this framework is a new system, it is common system in European communities. An approved exporter is an exporter who has met certain conditions imposed by the customs authorities and who is allowed to make out invoice declarations. Declaration on certain commercial documents such as invoice can replace the specific country of origin. This is subject to prior authorization by the customs authorities granted to approved exporters. Just as the customs authorities can grant that status, they can also withdraw it if the exporter misuses or abuses the authorities. As for relevant authorities in each country, Swiss customs will take care in Swiss side and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (“METI”) will take care of Japan side.
(Source: Page 11 in http://www.mof.go.jp/singikai/kanzegaita/siryou/kana200930/kana200930b.pdf)
(Reference for Approved Exporter in EU: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_774_en.htm#approved_exporter)
As reported on this Blog in June, EU have been imposed high duty to foreign IT products which is considered to be zero duty based on WTO・ITA (Information Technology Agreement).
Here's good news for Japanese, US and other countries' manufacturers.
Bowing to pressure from several of its major trading partners, the European Union this week announced it would eliminate steep tariffs on certain high-tech products.
Earlier this year, the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan sued the EU because of high European tariffs on flat-panel monitors, cable and satellite boxes that access the Internet, and printers that can also scan, fax, and copy.
The move will also help the EU avoid a lengthy and costly investigation into the matter by the World Trade Organization.
(Source: UPS Trade News, Trade_News@ups-scs.service.com. Sept. 16, 2008)
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") issued guideline for violation penalty. The public comment is due no later than 60 days from issuance.
It basically state, if the violation is self-disclosed, the penalty will be one-half of not being voluntarily disclosed. The statutory maximum will be imposed in case of no self-disclosing. It is, therefore, motivating and urging companies to voluntary disclosure.
In Japan, METI don't issue any guideline of minimizing penalty in case of voluntary disclosure.
However, it is said the willingness of cooperation of disclosure or good attitude will lead to favorable result. (There is no guarantee, though....)
(Source: IRB NO 403: OFAC Issues Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines http://www.bryancave.com/bulletins/ )
Japanese National Police Agency ("NPA") recently published interesting web article regarding their activity to prevent illegal export in English.
http://www.npa.go.jp/english/biki1/index.html
Among them, the most interesting article is "Measures to prevent illegal export for WMD-related materials". It is concise 4 pages of material including background of world wide regime, recent export violation case reports, and their measures to tackle illegal export at Customs.
http://www.npa.go.jp/english/biki1/pdf/P05.pdf
For those who in trade compliance people, this is useful information to know Japanese export control activity.
CBP Introduces Online Trade Violation Reporting Tool
Last month, US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) announced a new online system called “e-Allegations” for concerned members of the public to report suspected trade violations. The e-Allegations system is limited to possible violations of trade laws or regulations on the importation of goods into the United States and is not meant for security issues. The public now has a convenient tool to report violations such as errors in classification, false country of origin markings, incorrect valuation, and imports infringing on intellectual property rights.
CBP will accept e-Allegations submitted anonymously, however the reporter must provide, at a minimum, a description of the alleged violation, the products or goods involved and the alleged violator’s name and/or company. The reporter may submit other information on a voluntary basis. If the reporter provides an e-mail address, CBP will respond with an e-mail address where the reporter can submit photos or supporting documentation. Because of US laws requiring CBP to keep trade information confidential, the reporter will not be advised by CBP of any questions asked or action taken as the result of an e-Allegation.
With e-Allegations, CBP has now made it extremely easy for anyone to report import violations for any reason. Some e-filers may view this as an opportunity to take aim against a competitor. Former employees could use e-Allegations to criticize a former employer. The impact of e-Allegations on the import community will depend on how CBP evaluates and acts on the information received. Of course, agency procedures may evolve over time as CBP builds experience evaluating the accuracy of the reports received through e-Allegations. However, it seems likely that soon after the announcement, CBP will look to demonstrate that the new program shows results and has identified important errors.
All of these possibilities make the e-Allegations announcement a useful reminder for importers to review their import procedures – especially compliance with CBP’s recordkeeping regulations. Each importer should consider what supporting documents could be provided in response to a request from CBP to demonstrate that critical data such as classification number, value and country of origin were declared according to the requirements of CBP’s regulations, rather than according to “how it has always been done.”
The e-Allegation tool is available online at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/e_allegations/.
For any issue that poses an immediate threat to the health and/or safety of the public, CBP asks the public to report by phone at 1-800-BE-ALERT.
President Bush has expanded sanctions against Zimbabwe in reaction to Zimbabwe’s election, widely condemned as rigged, and the violence and other human rights abuses committed against members of the opposition party and its supporters before, during and after the election. The new sanctions block the property and interests in property, in the United States or in the possession or control of a U.S. person, of a broad range of persons involved directly or indirectly with Zimbabwe’s government.
The most immediate effect of the expanded sanctions will be to prohibit transactions with Zimbabwean parastatal entities and other companies related to the Zimbabwe government. Following the President’s imposition of the new sanctions, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that it was designating eighteen persons as subject to the expanded sanctions.
More details: refer to http://www.bryancave.com/bulletins/ IRB No. 389 dated on July 28, 2008.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced July 3 that the U.S. and Japan plan to launch a pilot project under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Megaports Initiative at the Minami Honmoku Terminal at the port of Yokohama in Japan.
Under this project the terminal will install radioactive materials detection equipment to monitor cargo containers for nuclear and other radioactive material. The two governments will exchange information obtained through this project in accordance with their agreement on mutual assistance between customs administrations and other legal frameworks. They will then take the results of the project into account when consulting on future cooperation in this area.
The US Government agreed same initiative with 27 countries, and already implemented with Netherlands, Greece, Bahama, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Spain, Philippines, Belgium and Israel. (as of May 2008)
(Source: http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/kanzei/ka200703a.htm )
Avoiding Unintended Technology Transfers Under The EAR
A major focus of U.S. export enforcement agencies recently has been to prevent the unauthorized export or transfer of technology. While most of us are aware that the United States controls the physical export of goods and technology from the United States [The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Part 732 through Part 774) or Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR part 121)], many may not realize that the transfer of technical information or knowledge to a recipient in a foreign country or even to a non-U.S. citizen while here in the U.S. is subject to the same type of controls. We now have enhanced penalties for export violations provided by the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act (IEEPA Enhancement Act). Under the IEEPA Enhancement Act, civil penalties for violations of the export Administration Regulations can be as much as $250,000 per occurrence.
This article will review the basic rules on the export or transfer of technology and technical data, and provide suggestions on how companies may avoid unintended technology transfers, and the fines or penalties that can result there from.
I. The "Deemed Export" Rule
--Transfers of U.S. Origin Technology And Technical Data To Foreign Nationals In The United States An "export" of U.S. origin technology or technical data can occur even in the United States simply by disclosing information or technology to a foreign national from a country other than the United States. Section 734.2(b) of the EAR provides that the release or disclosure of technology or technical data subject to the EAR to a foreign national of another country is "deemed" to be exported to the home country of the foreign national. For purposes of U.S. export controls, technology is "released" for export through:
iii. The application to situations abroad of personal knowledge or technical experience acquired in the United States.
II. To Whom Does The Rule Apply?
The "deemed export" rule applies to all non-U.S. citizens, regardless of whether they are employees or visitors, except persons who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or persons who are protected individuals under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. §1324b(a)(3)).
III. What Is Technical Data?
When we talk about technical data, we really mean "technology," which is broadly defined by the EAR as information necessary for the "development", "production", or "use" of a product. It can take the form of either "technical data" or "technical assistance". "Technical data" is technology that takes on the form such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on media or devices such as disk, tape, or read-only memories. Technical assistance, on the other hand, can take on the form of instructions, skills training, working knowledge, or consulting services. Oftentimes, a transfer of technical assistance includes a transfer of technical data. The export of technology that is "required" for the "development", "production", or "use" of items on the Commerce Control List is controlled according to the provisions in each Category of the Commerce Control List to which the technology belongs.
IV. Not All Transfers of Technology to Foreign Nationals Require a License Like the export or reexport of goods or technology, not all transfers of technology to a foreign national in the United States require a license. In general, whether a license will be required before a transfer of technology can occur will depend on:
a. The nature and control status of the information to be transferred, and
b. The country of citizenship of the foreign national.
The first step in determining whether a license will be required is to classify the information to be communicated to the foreign national. In most cases, this technology will fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (the "EAR"), and the Commerce Control list (Supplement 1 to Part 774 of the EAR) (the "CCL"). In other cases, the technology may fall under the jurisdiction of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR part 121). The CCL is a list of all items subject to the jurisdiction of the EAR and the Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") in the Department of Commerce. The coverage of the CCL includes commodities, as well as software, technology, and technical data.
A. How to Determine if Your Technology Requires a License . . . .
B. Publicly Available Technology And Technical Data; Sales Technology . . . .
C. Sales-Related Technology and License Exception TSU . . . .
D. License Exception TSR for Technology Exports . . . .
E. License Exception CIV for Technology Exports . . . .
F. License Exception APP (Computers) . . . .
A Foreign National Review ("FNR") request (see §748.8(s) of the EAR) must be submitted to BIS and approved before the release of any technology or software to a foreign national from any Tier Three computer countries,
including: China (People's Republic of), Egypt, Georgia, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macau, Macedonia (The Former Yugoslav Republic of), Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, and Yemen. (See EAR § 740.7(d)(1) for a complete list of Tier Three computer countries.)
V. Technology Control Plans:
Avoiding The Unauthorized Transfer Of Technology Unlike hardware and physical materials, technology can leak from a company like water from a colander. Technology can be released by any number means, including phone, fax, e-mail, mail, courier, face-to-face meetings and visual tours. The only way to adequately stem the unauthorized flow of technology from a company is through education of employees and the adoption of a technology control plan (TCP). A sound TCP provides a company with a process to categorize technology and data, and to screen customers, visitors, and employees.
A. Developing A Technology Control Plan . . . .
B. Establishing Technology Control Procedures for Customers, Visitors, and Employees . . . .
Screening employees, both here in the U.S. and abroad, presents unique challenges because of issues associated with possible employment discrimination, or violation of foreign laws. A commonly voiced concern is whether U.S. anti-discrimination employment law prohibits an employer from asking employees information about their country of citizenship. Subsection 1324b(a)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code provides that it is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual with respect to the hiring or recruitment of an individual for employment, or for the discharging of the individual from employment, because of such individual's national origin. Subsection 1324b(a)(2), however, provides an exception to such practices where it is otherwise required in order to comply with a United States law, regulation, or executive order. It is, therefore, both possible and legal to require employees and potential new hires to verify citizenship information, provided the employee or potential candidate is notified in advance that the job or activity requires access to and/or disclosure of information and data subject to U.S. export control restrictions, and that one condition for consideration for the position is the issuance of a validated export license or other approval. The specifics of any program used to verify citizenship for employment-related purposes should be reviewed carefully with the company's immigration-employment law counsel before implementation.
(Source: Tuttle Law Offices, info@tuttlelaw.com)