Global Trade Expertise
Who We Are Attorneys Consultants
What We Do Practice Areas Services Education and Training
Ask the Experts Ask an Expert Pose Your Own Question
Ask the Experts/
Pose Your Own Question
Customized Solutions for International Trade
USTR Requests Comments on Annual GSP Product Review
June 20, 2019 / Jennie Kessinger
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will be accepting petitions regarding the 2019 GSP (Generalized System of Preferences) Annual Product Review until June 26, 2019.
June 26, 2019 at midnight EDT is also the deadline for submission of comments, pre-hearing briefs, and requests to appear at the GSP Subcommittee Public Hearing on the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review.
On July 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. EDT, the GSP subcommittee will hold a public hearing on all petitioned product additions, product removals, and competitive needs limitation waiver petitions that it accepted for the 2019 GSP Annual Product Review. The hearing will be held in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508.
August 15, 2019 is the deadline for submitting any comments or briefs following the July 2 hearing. On September 7, 2019, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is expected to deliver a report to USTR providing advice concerning probably economic impacts of adding products to GSP eligibility, of removing products from eligibility, and of granting CNL waiver petitions during the GSP Annual Product Review.
Comments can be posted on the USITC report at www.regulations.gov using Docket Number USTR-2019-0001. Electronic comments are preferred. For alternatives to on-line submissions, please contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Additional information can be obtained by contacting: Erland Herfindahl, Deputy Assistant USTR for GSP, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-2974 and the email address is gsp@ustr.eop.gov.
Suzanne DeCuir, Global Trade Expertise
June 20, 2019 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
Jennie Kessinger
Treasury’s OFAC Adjusts Civil Monetary Penalties
Effective June 14, 2019, The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is adjusting civil monetary penalties for inflation pursuant to the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the adjustment multiplier for the year 2019 is 1.0255. In order to complete the 2019 annual adjustment, each current CMP (Civil Monetary Penalty) is multiplied by the 2019 adjustment multiplier.
OFAC currently is authorized to impose CMPs pursuant to five statutes: The Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301–4341, at 4315) (TWEA); the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706, at 1705) (IEEPA); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1212–1319, at 1250; 18 U.S.C. 2339B) (AEDPA); the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Pub. L. 106–120, 113 Stat. 1626– 1636, at 1632; 21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, at 1906) (FNKDA); and the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108–19, 117 Stat. 631–637, at 634; 19 U.S.C. 3901–3913, at 3907) (CDTA).
Here are the existing and new maximum CMP amounts:
TWEA: Previous Max. $86,976; New Max. $89,170
IEEPA: Previous Max. $295,141; New Max. $302,584
AEDPA: Previous Max. $77,909; New Max. $79,874
FNKDA: Previous Max. $1,466,485; New Max. $1,503,470
CDTA: Previous Max. $13,333; New Max. $13,669
Complete information regarding the adjustment of all CMPs can be found at this link to the Federal Register.
OFAC
Qualcomm Prevails in One Patent Battle, but Loses AnotherQualcomm Prevails in One Patent Battle, but Loses Another
March 27, 2019 / Jennie Kessinger
Qualcomm Inc. has worked for several years to succeed in proving patent infringement and securing an import ban on the Apple iPhone. In separate cases, one attempt succeeded and one failed.
On March 26th, 2019, the US International Trade Commission found Qualcomm’s patent for a battery-saving feature invalid. However, earlier the same day, a different judge ruled that Apple had infringed on another Qualcomm patent; this judge recommended that certain older iPhone models be banned. A final decision is expected on that case this July.
There have been some 80 cases filed worldwide between these two companies. Qualcomm’s technology is an integral part of modern communication products. The company is earning money from all of its chips in mobile devices as well as collecting fees for the use of its inventions in chips made by other companies.
Qualcomm argues that it is being shorted out of billions of dollars in royalties on the iPhone as the two tech companies debate the value of Qualcomm’s patents. At the crux of the argument is Qualcomm’s claim that the Intel chips Apple uses are inferior and that Apple has been incorporating unlicensed Qualcomm inventions into the Intel chips to upgrade their quality.
In the second case, Qualcomm believes that the iPhones which contain Intel Corp. chips infringed two patents concerning methods for improving the quality and speed of data downloads as well as one for power-saving features. Qualcomm is requesting an order to ban imports of the iPhone and iPhone 7 Plus. Even if the ban is limited to these models, the impact could run to billions of dollars per year. It is anticipated that Apple would probably discontinue these models in the next two years.
Regarding this case, ITC Judge MaryJoan McNamara said she would be recommending a band pertaining to a broad wider range of iPhones, including the iPhone 7, iPhone 8, and iPhone X; only those with Intel chips are affected. iPhones with Qualcomm chips are not part of this legal battle. Until this matter is settled, Apple has directed its contractors to stop paying Qualcomm and is purchasing all its modem chips for new models from Intel.
The Federal Trade Commission has leveled an accusation at Qualcomm for using its patents on industry standards to weaken competition and gain market share and high licensing fees. To date, Qualcomm has won sales bans on iPhones in China and Germany, although the ban in China has not been enforced and Apple is working on measures to resume sales in Germany.
March 27, 2019 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
patents, Apple
U.S. Customs Ruling Concerning Country of Origin for Section 301 Purposes
October 25, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
On September 13, 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced a new ruling that will be pertinent to any company seeking to shift production from China to Mexico (or Canada) in hopes of mitigating the effect of Section 301 duties. The most important take-away is that although the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 C.F.R. Part 102) are used to determine the country of origin of articles imported into the U.S. from Mexico for marking purposes, the traditional substantial transformation test is used to determine the country of origin of articles for Section 301 duty purposes.
CBP illustrated the application of the ruling using the example of parts of a motor imported into Mexico for assembly. The assembly operation in Mexico was sufficient to satisfy the applicable NAFTA Marking Rule and thus for marking purposes, the finished article was deemed to be a "product of Mexico." However, CBP went on to say that the traditional substantial transformation test is used for purposes of "antidumping, countervailing, or other safeguard measures[.]" CBP then applied the traditional substantial transformation test to the facts and reached the conclusion that the Mexican assembly operations were not sufficient to confer origin and, therefore, the finished motor imported into the United States was a "product of China" for Section 301 purposes. So, in short, the product had to be marked to indicate that it was of Mexican origin, but the importer had to pay the Section 301 duty applicable to Chinese-origin articles.
Importers should be aware of what CBP’s analysis indicates: while the traditional substantial transformation test and the NAFTA Marking Rules are intended to rest on the same origin principles, they do not always produce the same result due to the nature of the tests. This is largely because the NAFTA Marking Rules are objective and the substantial transformation test is more subjective. Further, where Section 301 is concerned, the traditional substantial transformation test must be used even if the goods are imported from an FTA-partner country such as Mexico, Canada, Singapore, etc. Thus the NAFTA Marking Rules may be useful to that analysis, but cannot be considered determinative. In some cases, then, a company might find that an article marked as a product of Mexico could still be subject to duties applicable to products of China.
October 25, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
Rulings, cbp
Trump Tariffs Impact on Sourcing
September 04, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
The recent set of tariff revisions to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are the latest in an expanding and extensive set of the Trump Administration’s controversial tariffs. Effective July 6th, 2018 this revision added duties of 25% to select Chinese goods with the USTR announcing in the current edition of The Federal Register that additional increases (on over $200 billion worth of Chinese goods) are under proposal and awaiting comment. Moreover, while the dollar amounts of the U.S. tariffs and the Chinese counter-response are known for specific goods, the final effect of the tariffs and the overall outcome of what China calls “the largest trade war in history” is still uncertain and disputed.
Of chief concern to many is the effect that these tariffs may have on corporate profits and sourcing. Many companies have come out against the tariffs for this reason; in fact, Walmart and other top retailers who together generate over $1.5 trillion in GDP jointly sent out a letter to President Trump this past March. The concern has only grown with the implementation of the tariffs and a report that Walmart has recently asked its beauty suppliers if they would be able to change the sourcing of their products to a country other than China. While the effect has, so far, been relatively small, according to their latest earnings reports companies such as Walmart have already taken hits to their current and predicted bottom lines as a result of the tariffs. However, while some large companies such as Hasbro and Puma have announced a move away from China to other South-Asian countries, most large corporations seem to be only contemplating the possibility of changing production while they try to gauge how long these tariffs may last or if they can garner tariff exemptions for their products. Additionally, small businesses seem to have the most to fear regarding the additional section 301 tariffs and potential shifts in sourcing as 46% of small business owners have indicated that they anticipate the tariffs will have a negative impact on their businesses.
Aside from China, this set of tariff revisions, designed to hurt China's economy due to an "unbalanced trade deficit" and "intellectual property issues," has not been without consequence to the U.S. economy. Companies such as BMW and Moog Music have announced that they may need to shift production from the U.S. to China as a result of retaliatory tariffs. This result should not occur as a surprise. After all, after the Trump administration levied tariffs on the European Union, iconic American manufacturers such as Harley-Davidson were forced to move production to Europe from the U.S., costing certain states billions in exports and jobs.
A recent study by the National Retail Federation indicated that American consumers stand to lose $6 billion this year as a result of the currently proposed tariffs on Chinese "furniture, travel goods, and handbags" alone. Even if American companies can successfully re-source their products to countries other than China, American consumers will likely still be worse off due to increased prices and competition in these other countries. No figures on whose economy will be most affected are available, but initial reports seem to indicate that U.S. economic growth remains relatively stable, while China's has weakened just slightly. Either way, what is clear is that the economic effect of the tariffs on both countries will only grow over time and companies are necessarily considering long-term strategies to minimize the hit to their bottom lines.
September 04, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
President, Imports
Consequences of Non-Compliance – Lacey Act Enforcement
July 19, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
One particular area where U.S. companies have failed to comply with stringent import laws, knowingly or unknowingly, involves wildlife and natural products. The Lacey Act, 16 USC 3371, is one of the primary federal statutes employed to combat the illicit trafficking of products within these categories. Initially enacted to protect animal species, the Act was amended in 2008 to more broadly include plant species. Specifically, the Act now prohibits the U.S. importation of illegally-harvested timber, meaning it is unlawful to trade in any plant that is taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of the laws of any U.S. state, Indian Tribe, or any foreign law that protects plants. The Lacey Act does not impose U.S. law on other countries. “Illegally sourced” is defined by the content of a sovereign nation’s own laws. In addition, it is unlawful to falsify or submit falsified documents, accounts or records of any plant covered by the Lacey Act.
Violations of the Lacey Act carry serious penalties for companies and individuals. In addition to civil fines and forfeiture of goods, criminal penalties may also attach to the companies and individuals found to have knowingly violated the Act. A misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act is punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of $200,000.00 for companies and $100,000.00 for an individual. Felony culpability is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $500,000.00 fine per violation for a company and $250,000.00 for an individual.
Two Lacey Act enforcement agreements that demonstrate the severity of violations and highlight the importance of companies having compliance infrastructure that properly functions to avoid such violations are the Gibson Guitar Corporation Settlement and the Lumber Liquidators Settlement.
Gibson Guitar Corporation (“Gibson”) came under federal scrutiny not once but twice, first in 2009 and again in 2011 for violations of the Lacey Act. Gibson is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and manufactures a variety of musical instruments, most notably guitars. The violations involved parts of the guitar called fretboards. The imports at issue were orders of Madagascar ebony fingerboards (used to make fretboards) from a supplier called T.N. GMBH (“TN”), located in Hamburg, Germany. Gibson failed to verify that TN was sourcing its wood legally from Madagascar, and it turned out that it was illegally sourced. In addition, Gibson knowingly ignored red flags that the wood TN was providing was illegally obtained. For example, TN’s failed to provide documentation to Gibson evidencing that the ebony sourced from Madagascar was harvested lawfully. Madagascar law states that all ebony harvested after a specific date was illegal unless it was considered “finished wood” or had received “exceptional authority” from the government.
In addition, prior to purchasing the wood, Gibson had sent a specialist to Madagascar to assess the potential for supporting sustainable forestry. During his investigation, the specialist obtained the Madagascar Order regarding the particularities about finished and unfinished wood and in his report highlighted that this would be an issue for Gibson. Despite this knowledge, Gibson continued to purchase wood from TN.
These violations resulted in the finding of a Lacey Act misdemeanor violation with a fine of $300,000.00 plus a $50,000.00 community service payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In addition to the monetary fines, Gibson also was required to strengthen its compliance program.
Gibson established a new compliance program that clearly stated the objectives of maintaining compliance with relevant laws and in particular the Lacey Act. The new program provided the history and applicable penalties for the Lacey Act, listed the due care standard that it would apply to its processes to assure compliance with applicable law, and then listed the internal checks and balances that would be implemented to demonstrate the satisfaction of this duty. The compliance program also stressed Gibson’s commitment to developing policies and procedures for the procurement of wood and for verifying that all necessary foreign licenses and/or certifications are obtained prior to approval of a purchase. The compliance program listed resources to obtain current applicable law and stated a commitment to an annual audit of its wood purchasing processes, a commitment to training its employees, and plans for retaining adequate records.
The compliance program created by Gibson emphasizes the necessary steps required under the Lacey Act to specifically detail the unique company processes and procedures created to effectuate compliance and satisfy reasonable care in conducting imports.
The second settlement involved Lumber Liquidators (“LL”). LL is a Virginia-based flooring retailer that was sentenced to pay a total of $13.15 million for five counts of Lacey Act violations. The fines included 7.8 million in criminal fines, $969,175.00 in criminal forfeitures, $1.23 million in community service payments, and 3.15 million in civil forfeitures. They were also sentenced to a five-year probationary term during which they were to create an Environmental Compliance Plan and engage an outside accounting and environmental consulting firm. The $13.5 million dollar penalty constitutes the largest financial penalty ever for illegal trafficking in timber under the Lacey Act.
The retailer pleaded guilty to one felony count of importing goods through false statements and four misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act. The charges stated that Lumber Liquidators was using timber that was illegally logged in Far East Russia and had submitted false Lacey Act declarations that obfuscated the true species and the source of the timber. Although, LL had a compliance program in place that identified this activity, it ignored the red flags and continued to purchase the timber.
LL imports wood flooring from China and distributes it throughout the U.S. However, the timber used to manufacture the flooring in China was harvested from different countries, two of which were Far East Russia and Myanmar. LL had a compliance program at the time of the violations and, in fact, employees were aware that some of the wood was harvested from Far East Russia and posed a significant compliance risk. In addition, LL had also been conducting employee training discussing the compliance risk of Far East Russia. But despite this information, LL continued to import wood coming from Far East Russia and Myanmar. Thus, although the compliance program was in place, LL failed to uphold the policies in its manual. In addition, LL also submitted inaccurate information on Lacey Act documentation required upon importation.
What these examples illustrate is that the enforcement of U.S. Customs laws, and in particular the Lacey Act, has significant monetary and functional consequences. There is a strict duty to comply imposed on the party conducting the international trade and the responsibility to develop processes to comply with U.S. Customs laws is imposed on both the business and individual level. The penalties go far beyond mere monetary fines, and include forfeitures, corporate governance and operational restrictions.
Furthermore, having a compliance program alone does not protect against violations or mitigate penalties. Compliance programs will be judged on their actual application to relevant internal processes, the effectiveness of their implementation, and their actual capacity to successfully identify and remedy trade violations. Ultimately, the law imposes a corporate responsibility to educate employees and management who oversee trade functions and instruct them on how to effectively remedy identified violations.
What does this mean for the US business? Investing resources into developing a compliance program and implementation is an upfront cost that is absolutely necessary and indirectly required to avoid the significant consequences of violating US Customs laws.
Amber M. Johns
July 19, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
enforcement, Lacey Act
Limitations of 4th Amendment Border Exceptions: United States v. Kolsuz
The Federal Government has consistently maintained, and been upheld in, the assertion that the border search exception allows it to conduct searches and seizures at international borders without a wrrant or probable cause. While this assertion is generally accepted, the government's stance that electronic devices, such as computers and smartphones, also fall within this exception has been a point of contention. However, a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case, United States v. Kolsuz, is being hailed as a significant victory by civil rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
United States v. Kolsuz, deals with the case of Hamza Kolsuz, a Turkish national charged with three counts of violating the Arms Export Control Act. According to court filings, Kolsuz had attempted to smuggle prohibited firearms parts from the U.S. to Turkey on three separate occasions. On the third and most recent attempt, Customs officials were prepared and intercepted Kolsuz at Washington Dulles International Airport. Importantly, after his arrest, Customs agents conducted an immediate manual search of his smartphone and an additional month-long, off-site forensic analysis of the phone. Kolsuz's appeal concerns the suppression of this forensic analysis, which he maintains does not fall under the border search exception.
In many ways, this was a case that many likely saw coming. Case law concerning the 4th Amendment and electronic devices has been frequent and in the public eye. The notion that electronic devices may not fall under the border exception first came to the forefront in 2013. United States v. Cotterman, a 9th Circuit decision, held that manual searches of computers at the border fell under the exception, but forensic searches required reasonable suspicion. Prior to this, the governing decision was United States v. Ickes which held that computers were ordinary searches. Then, in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California. Riley held that a warrant is required to search a cell phone following an arrest. The Supreme Court essentially established differential treatment between digital and physical items due to the sheer amount and sensitivity of personal information that can be stored on cell phones.
These two cases, among others, caused many to question if Riley might influence Cotterman and also apply to the border. More recently, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits heard cases on forensic searches but failed to reach a substantive conclusion due to the scope of their cases.
The Kolsuz decision, citing Riley, affirms that at least reasonable suspicion is required for forensic searches of cell phones seized at the border. Taking Riley into account, the 4th Circuit, using language similar to United States v. Flores-Montano, found that forensic searches of phones are clearly non-routine border searches, but did not challenge Ickes due to the scope of the appeal. Moreover, the court left open the possibility that a standard even higher than reasonable suspicion could be required, but that which standard made no difference to the Kolsuz case. In response to Kolsuz, the Department of Homeland Security now internally requires reasonable suspicion for forensic searches of electronic devices.
While the outcome of Kolsuz may not have been positive for Kolsuz himself, who was convicted of his export violations, it is being hailed by many as a win. Moreover, it is likely just one of many upcoming cases concerning the Fourth Amendment's application to digital searches as the ACLU and EFF, among other organizations, push ahead with their own cases.
Customs, Enforcement
caselaw
Protests in the New ACE Single Window System
May 26, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
In an effort to streamline and automate the process of documenting the importing and exporting of goods, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has stated its aim of shifting fully to using the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) by the end of 2016. Under this process, ACE with become the “single window” through which the trade community will be able to report imports and exports and receive information regarding admissibility from the government. The entire process will eventually eliminate paper processing, allowing the trade community to comply with US laws more efficiently. Core ACE trade processing capabilities should be completed and deployed by December 2016.
One processing capability under development is the ACE module for filing protests. CBP recently hosted a webinar to review the current design of the ACE protest module, though it’s not yet finalized. CBP intends that ACE will provide an electronic mechanism for the submission of protests, thus reducing the need for the submission of paper, and this will allow for seamless processing by the agency. In order to submit a protest electronically through ACE, those wishing to file protests will be able to do so by creating an account. If already in possession of an ACE account, then ‘protest filer’ may be added to the list of business partners. Those without an ACE account will be able to obtain a ‘protest filer’ account (this is not yet available). In addition, attorneys will be able to have filer accounts, as well as corporate representatives.
Within the protest module, the data fields found on the traditional CBP Form 19 will be able to be populated. The lead entry number for the protest, once input, will auto-populate the importer identification number (“IIN”), port and team number for the protest based on that entry number. However, the assigned review team will be able to be overridden if it is known that a CEE or specific team should be assigned the protest. In other cases, CBP assigns the reviewing party based on the lead entry number. It will be possible for filers to see the protest history for an importer, but the history will only relate to protests submitted by that particular filer. For instance, a broker would be able to see protests that it filed but it wouldn’t be able to access the history of protests filed independently by an importer client. CBP is still developing certain processes within the module, such as the handling of samples, the submission of protests relating to situations without entry numbers, and the uploading of supplemental information. The protest module is currently designed to allow for additional arguments or amendments to be uploaded (“see attachment” can be noted in the reason field).
A few details still need to be worked out, since paper documents have not yet entirely been eliminated. For requests for accelerated disposition of the protest, the regulations specify that requests must be made by certified or registered mail. To handle this, CBP is asking that the filer input the protest in the module, and subsequently go into the protest record and request an “action” that specifies accelerated disposition. The filer will then still need to upload the proof that the request was mailed, the date, etc. As long as the regulations specify that accelerated disposition requests must be submitted by mail, extra steps will be required to designate accelerated disposition in ACE.
Since all the details on the ACE protest module have yet to be completely finalized and it has not yet been deployed, it is helpful to follow postings on its progress at CBP’s website.
Suzanne DeCuir
May 26, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
Deadlines for Objecting to Proposed Tariffs
April 08, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
According to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), U.S. companies and individuals will have until May 22nd to voice objections to President Trumps’ proposed 25% tariffs on some 1,300 foreign goods. In general, products subject to this retaliation against China fall within the sectors of aerospace, information and communication technology, robotics and machinery. (Left off the list are retail mainstays such a mobile phones and clothing, items that might provoke a U.S. consumer backlash.)
Important dates are as follows:
April 23 - due date for filing all requests to appear and to submit a summary of testimony to be presented at the public hearing; it is also the date for filing pre-hearing submissions
May 11 - due date for submission of written comments
May 15 - date of the 10 a.m. public hearing to be held at US International Trade Commission, 500 E. Street SW, Washington, D.C., 20436.
May 22 - due date for rebuttal comments following the May 15 hearing
Note: USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Instructions for submitting comments in sections F and G can be found at this link. The docket number is USTR-2018-0005.
On April 3, 2018, the United States Trade Representative published a proposed tariff retaliation list. This follows just a few weeks after the USTR’s March 22nd release of its Section 301 Report detailing findings regarding Chinese acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, innovation and intellectual property. The 301 Fact Sheet states that “the United States is committed to rebalancing the U.S.-China trade relationship to achieve more fair and reciprocal trade. After years of U.S.-China dialogues that produced minimal results and commitments that China did not honor, the United States is taking action to confront China over its state-led, market-distorting forced technology transfers, intellectual property practices, and cyber intrusions of U.S. commercial networks.”
The complete list of products that could be subject to a 25% tariff is included in the annex to the 301 Report.
Since the April 3 USTR tariff list was published, China responded by publishing its own list of products it may subject to increased tariffs if President Trump moves forward. These items include agricultural commodities such as soybeans as well as exports such as autos, aircraft, and chemicals. In response, Trump has threatened to slap additional tariffs on more goods, stating that he might consider whether an additional “100 billion in tariffs might be appropriate.”
April 08, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
Trade, Customs
Regulations, president, tariffs
The GDPR: A Broad-Reaching Game Changer
Passed by the European Union on April 26, 2016, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is set to take effect on May 25, 2018. Replacing the 1995 Data Protection Directive, the GDPR contains key changes that affect businesses throughout the world, including U.S. companies. Understanding these new regulations is essential to maintaining compliance and avoiding harsh penalties.
The GDPR is an EU regulation concerning data privacy. In the United States, data privacy laws tend to be segmented to specific fields (FERPA, HIPPA, etc.). However, the European Union considers data privacy to be a fundamental human right and thus applies data privacy laws consistently across the board. The main purpose of this regulation is to protect “personal data” in European Union member countries or countries where “personal data” originating in the EU is stored, processed or retained. This is important as it greatly expands who is regulated in comparison to its predecessor directive.
In this context, personal data is defined as “any information relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information, or a computer’s IP address”. Note that the inclusion of information as simple as email addresses, login-information, or computer IP addresses means that the GDPR can apply to many U.S. corporations simply through the course of normal business activities.
Companies are specifically required to comply with the GDPR if they fit any of three specific criteria. The GDPR applies to any company that maintains an “establishment” in an EU member nation, whether or not data collection or processing occurs there. Establishment generally means “any real and effective activity – even a minimal one” through “stable arrangements” in the EU. Secondly, the GDPR applies “where the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.” This provision even includes goods and services that are free. Moreover, the bar to “offering goods” is low and can be as simple as the specific language, shipping options, or currencies being that of an EU member. Lastly, the GDPR applies to a company “if it processes the personal data of data subjects in the EU and that processing is related to the ‘monitoring’ in the EU of the ‘behavior’ of data subjects as their behavior takes place within the EU”. In this context, “monitoring” includes the use of cookies and other information frequently used by advertisers to track and recommend products to consumers.
The GDPR can alternatively come into force against U.S. corporations who do not collect data but instead import/export data from the EU. Under the GDPR, in language mostly unchanged from the 1995 directive, data can only be exported to countries that are deemed to have equivalent or stronger data protection laws than the EU. However, the U.S. is not considered one of these countries and U.S. corporations must be able provide adequate assurances that data will be handled in accordance with the GDPR. An exception to this is U.S. companies under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Transportation that have signed on to the 2016 EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. The Privacy Shield, the successor of the Safe Harbor Program struck down in 2015 after the Edward Snowden leaks, allows companies that self-certify compliance to receive EU personal data as if they were in a country approved by the commission. Companies that are unable or do not wish to join the Privacy Shield program have alternatives. The European Commission allows companies to use pre-approved standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules, or codes of conduct that have been approved by the European Commission or independent state supervisory authorities. Importantly, companies are not only responsible for their own exports and compliance but also for any “onward transfers” and the compliance of any company down the chain.While companies can share data protected by the GDPR, they must ensure that said company or their contract meets the criteria above.
Knowing these broad categories for which a U.S. company can be subject to the GDPR, examining what must be met for compliance is essential. Penalties for the GDPR are extreme, failure to comply can result in fines of up to 4% of global revenue or 20,000,000 euros, whichever is greater, and direct liability to anyone impacted by mishandled data.
The GDPR has two different sets of requirements depending on a company’s classification as either a data “controller” or data “processor”. A data controller “acting alone or together with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.” A data processor “processes personal data on behalf of the controller”. While not all encompassing, important requirements for data controllers include: establishing when privacy notices are required, including insufficiency of pre-checked boxes which are common practice in the U.S; placing restrictions on choosing data processor; establishing data breach notification timelines and individual rights; recordkeeping; and appointing a data protection officer. This differs slightly for data processors who have regulations on issues such as data breach notification, data security, recordkeeping, and subprocessing, but not many of the restrictions concerning privacy and the actual notices themselves.
The GDPR updates EU data protection laws to provide a far-reaching jurisdictional range. The data protected includes many data types commonly used by US businesses. Act now, before May 25th, and review the specific controller or data processor regulatory requirements if you believe that your business falls under the GDPR’s authority.
Max Krauskopf
European Union, Regulations, privacy
A Hard Lesson Learned: What Capella v. United States Teaches Us
February 25, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
On January 4th, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the decision of the United States Court of International Trade in regard to Capella Sales & Services LTD v. United States, Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. In its affirmation, the court decision highlighted the importance of importers staying current with countervailing duty (CVD) legislation and Timken notices.
Background: The United States Department of Commerce is empowered to impose CVD’s on imported goods when they find a country is directly or indirectly subsidizing a given good. Under this authority, a 2010 investigation by the Department of Commerce found the People’s Republic of China (PRC) guilty of said subsidies for aluminum extrusions and assessed an all-others rate CVD of 374.15%. Numerous aluminum importers challenged this CVD in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) in MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States. The CIT ruled in favor of the importers, which resulted in a new all-others rate of 7.37% for imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC. However, Capella was not a party to this legislation.
Following the CIT’s decision, the Department of Commerce issued a Timken notice notifying the public that the court’s decision differed from its original final determination. As a result of this notice, some importers requested and received an administrative review of 2011 and 2012 entries subject to Commerce’s original determination. However, Capella never requested administrative review for its entries.
Considering that Capella’s entries were not enjoined by the court due to legislation and they did not request an administrative view within the appropriate period, Capella was charged the original CVD of 374.15%. This case was the final failure in their attempt to avoid payment.
The Court of Appeals reaffirmation of the Capella decision upholds the status quo in regard to CVD’s. Importers must stay up to date on current legislation. If they do not join legislation, they must file for an administrative review within the proper time period. Simply attempting to benefit retroactively without said actions will not fly, as Capella roughly discovered. Importers have plenty of time to join legislation and request administrative reviews. They should be considered with the utmost priority as they can often result in significant savings.
February 25, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
CIT, CAFC
France To Sidestep Sanctions by Setting up New Trade Financing Vehicles
Ever since France, the U.S., and other world powers agreed in 2015 to lift certain economic sanctions in exchange for controls on Iran’s nuclear program, European countries have been searching for a way to step up trade with Iran. France plans to structure financing in such a way as to increase trade with Iran while avoiding the long reach of U.S. sanctions. By offering euro-denominated credits to buyers in Iran, the French will be able to increase sales of its goods.
According to Nicolas Dufoursq, the head of France’s state-owned investment bank, Bpifrance, a lot of preparation has gone into this plan to provide new loans. “This is a completely separate flow (of money),” he explained. “There is no (U.S) dollar in this scheme.” He added that there is as much as 1.5 billion euros in potential contracts from French exporters alone.
The French have maintained trade ties with Iran for decades and still have large factories there, including a Renault plant. Other European countries such as Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Austria are working on their own financial mechanisms to enable them to bolster trade while not running afoul of U.S. sanctions.
As recently as October of 2017, Trump criticized such efforts to sidestep nuclear agreements, but has since told French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel they could "keep making money" in Iran.
February TFTEA Implementation
The U.S. Department of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is preparing for the implementation of new changes to duty drawback specified in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA). Passed in 2015, the law gave CBP a two-year implementation period which expires on February 24, 2018.
Important changes of note concern ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) and how drawback, the refund of duties, taxes, and other fees, are handled. Starting on February 24th, drawback, as defined under current statue, will begin to be filed through ACE. Furthermore, TFTEA greatly changed many aspects of drawback law. These new TFTEA claims will also become effective starting on February 24th. This distinction is important because core drawback claims, under the current legislation, will continue to be accepted via ACE until February 24th, 2019, as specified under TFTEA. During this transition, claimants will be able to choose whether they would prefer to submit under the current legislation or under TFTEA.
Other important changes under TFTEA include:
Redefining the concept of “substitution” of exported goods for imports. This change
uses the Eight-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
classification or Export Schedule B numbers instead of part number-based criteria.
The timeline for filing a drawback claim related to a given import has been expanded
from three years to five years from the date of importation.
Certificates of delivery are no longer required. Claimants must only be able to produce
“normal business records.”
Final touches are still being put on the exact specifics for how ACE and TFTEA will function. No new or revised regulations relating to TFTEA have been issued. However, regulations are currently being reviewed by the Treasury and must still be reviewed by other agencies as well. CBP is planning to release a guidance document for policies that will be applied to TFTEA claims while these regulations are still being reviewed. Keep your eye out for these finalized documents, as understanding the regulations and differences between regulations will be especially important for this transition year.
DHS/CBP Amends Customs Regulations to Include Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments
January 11, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger
On December 8, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) amended its regulations to adjust for inflation the amounts that CBP can assess as civil monetary penalties for the following three violations:
The penalty for transporting passengers between coastwise points in the United States by a non-coastwise qualified vessel has been increased from $750 to $762.
The penalty for towing a vessel between coastwise points in the United States by a non-coastwise qualified vessel has been increased from $875-$2,750 plus $150 per ton to a new amount of $889-$2,795 plus $152 per ton.
The penalty for dealing in or using an empty stamped imported liquor container after it has already been used once has been increased from $500 to $508.
These changes are being made in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 which was enacted on November 2, 2015. In addition, a number of other CBP civil penalty amounts were adjusted pursuant to this 2015 Act in previously published documents published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016, and January 27, 2017; however, the adjustments for these three civil penalties were omitted from those documents inadvertently and so are being published now. The rule went into effect on December 8, 2017. The adjusted penalty amounts will be applicable for penalties assessed after December 8, 2017 if the associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.
January 11, 2018 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
CBP, Enforcement
cbp, Penalties
DOC Announces New Civil Monetary Penalties Adjusted for Inflation
The Department of Commerce has announced new civil monetary penalty amounts adjusted for inflation that may be assessed for the following regulatory violations after January 15, 2017, including in instances when the associated violation took place before that date.
failure to file export reports or information required by 13 USC 304 within prescribed period – maximum for each day’s delinquency has been increased from $1,333 to $1,360, maximum per violation has been increased from $13,333 to $13,605
other unlawful export information activities under 13 USC 305 – the maximum has been increased from $13,333 to $13,605
failure to provide the information required under 22 USC Chapter 46 (international investment and trade in services survey) – minimum increased from $4,527 to $4,619, maximum increased from $45,268 to $46,192
foreign-trade zone violations (19 USC 81s) – maximum increased from $2,795 to $2,852; false or fraudulent claims under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 USC 3802(a)(1) and (2)) – maximum increased from $10,957 to $11,181
prohibited acts relating to inspections or recordkeeping violations under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (22 USC 6761(a)(1)(A) and (B)) – maximum increased from $36,849 to $37,601
violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1705(b)) – maximum increased from $289,238 to $295,141
Several other adjustments were also made pertaining to the use of false records to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government (31 USC 3729(a)(1)(G)) and to Fastener Quality Act violations (15 USC 5408(b)(1)). To see the full list of adjustments, see the Federal Register.
Penalties, commerce
Airbus Faces Probe into Compliance Irregularities
November 09, 2017 / Jennie Kessinger
It has been reported that Airbus of Toulouse, France, faces legal difficulties regarding its failure to notify U.S. authorities about the use of outside sales agents to broker defense equipment and services deals; this presents a compliance lapse and could lead to financial penalties and perhaps a criminal investigation.
According to The Guardian of London, the problems stem from the use of so-called “commercial agents” who act as intermediaries in “difficult” territories where they sometimes assist large companies in securing contracts. In some cases these intermediaries act as legitimate consultants on technical matters, while in other cases they are really nothing more than individuals who know whom to bribe for a government contract. This kind of action is contrary to Part 130 of U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) concerning political contributions, fees, and commissions involved in the export of military equipment.
Airbus’ Chief Financial Officer Harald Wilhelm briefed reporters on October 31 regarding these legal issues. He would not speculate on the company’s potential financial or criminal exposure. Both the U.S. State Department and the Justice Department are looking into the matter.
Failure to comply with regulations can lead to large penalties. Airbus engine manufacturer, Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC , recently agreed to settle allegations of corruption to the tune of an $800 million dollar penalty. Because Rolls-Royce agreed to the settlement, the company avoided prosecution.
The compliance lapses at Airbus came to light during an internal review and were first reported at the end of 2016. After discovering irregularities in certain foreign transactions, Airbus came forward to report the problems it had found. The company’s hope is that by self-reporting, the penalties might be less punitive.
November 09, 2017 / Jennie Kessinger/ Comment
Enforcement, ITAR
ITAR
U.S. Based Paper Company Settles with OFAC on Sanctions Violations
White Birch Investment, LLC, a paper company headquartered in Greenwich, CT, recently reached an agreement settling a case brought by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). White Birch’s Canadian subsidiary was facing possible civil liability for three alleged violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 538 (SSR). White Birch USA was accused of facilitating the sale and shipment of 543 metric tons of paper of Canadian origin valued at approximately $354,000. According to OFAC, White Birch USA and its Canadian subsidiary were “actively involved in discussing, arranging, and executing the export transactions to Sudan.” OFAC concluded that White Birch USA did not voluntarily self-disclose these apparent violations; however, it was determined that these violations constituted a non-egregious case. These transactions date back to between April and December of 2013.
This settlement underscores how critical it is that U.S. companies put processes in place to effectively wall off their U.S. operations and staff interactions to prevent violation of OFAC’s regulations. This is especially important for U.S. companies with overseas affiliates who may be transacting business involving sanctioned territories; such territories currently include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syrian and the Crimea area of Ukraine.
Suzanne DeCuir, Global Trade Expertise, October 23, 2017
Update: H.R. 3551: C-TPAT Reauthorization Bill
On September 25, 2017, the House Homeland Security Committee favorably reported a bill concerning C-TPAT to the House of Representatives. This bill, H.R. 3551, would reauthorize the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program (C -TPAT) which has not been reauthorized in its 11-year history. The bill was introduced by Rep. Martha McSally of Arizona. If passed, a number of changes will be put in place reflecting current global security concerns and trade conditions.
Some of the changes that the bill calls for are as follows:
1. Each C-TPAT participant must designate a company employee (not a contractor or third-party) to hold the participant accountable for managing participation in the program.
2. The bill would require CBP (in consultation with industry) to review the C-TPAT minimum security criteria at least every two years, making updates as needed.
3. CBP would be required to put in place additional security procedures for certain categories of participants, individual participants, and specific entities in order to focus closely on security vulnerabilities.
4. The bill would extend eligibility to participate in C-TPAT to exporters, importers, freight forwarders, customs brokers, air carriers, ocean carriers, land carriers, and contract logistics providers.
5. The bill establishes C-TPAT as the authorized economic operator program to grant CBP the latitude and flexibility to improve and expand its trusted trader program as needed.
CTPAT
Transition to New ACE System Begins July 8, 2017
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that July 8, 2017 is the effective date for the transition to the new electronic CBP authorized system for entry filings. This transition had been delay repeatedly, but it is finally ready for implementation, and all electronic drawback, duty deferral entries and entry summary filings will need to be processed using this system. ACE will be used for all flagging of entries as well. The old system, ACS, will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system after the transition.
Additional information about the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is available on the CBP website and includes the types of entries that will be supported by ACE, along with details related to filing protests, drawbacks, duty deferrals, reconciliations, liquidations, and other filings.
In December of 2016, CBP described in detail that changes that will affect reconciliation; these can be found on the first CBP site listed under sources, below. Two important changes pertain to flagging of entries and the filing of reconciliation entries. Under the new system, blanket flagging will be eliminated. Where filing of reconciliation entries is concerned, importers and their brokers will no long be able to submit entries using CD/ROMs or paper. The type 09 reconciliation entry using ACE is to be used even though the entries being reconciled were not initially filed using ACE. “Entry by entry” or “aggregate” reconciliation entries will still be accepted.
CBP, Imports
NAFTA Renegotiation
On May 18, 2017, Robert Lighthizer, the recently confirmed United States Trade Representative (USTR), notified Congress of the Administration’s intentions to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This notification, required by section 105(a)(1)(A) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, started the 90-day period in which the Administration must wait before beginning the renegotiation. This period ends on August 16, 2017, after which the Administration may begin negotiations. During this period, the USTR shall conduct both Congressional and public hearings in order to better clarify the intentions of the renegotiation. Notification from the public to testify and written testimony must be submitted by June 12, 2017.
No changes shall take effect until after the 90-day period, so importers and exporters should continue with business as usual. However, they should also note that significant changes might occur after that time period. The Office Of The United States Trade Representative has released a preliminary list of objectives about which they are seeking public comments. These objectives are presented with the goal of modernizing the NAFTA to better reflect a modern U.S. economy. These objectives include, among others, a reexamination of remaining tariffs and non- tariff barriers, changes in the treatment of digital goods, and changes to rules of origin procedures. A full list of objectives can be found here.
GTE will continue to monitor the specific objectives and changes of the renegotiation. If you have any questions or desire a consultation as to how these changes may affect your organization please contact us.
NAFTA, Trade
customs, nafta
A law and consulting firm specializing in international trade matters such as Customs, export control, OFAC embargoes and sanctions, and other import/export matters.
©Global Trade Expertise Attorney Advertising Legal Disclaimer Privacy Policy IP Policy Terms of Use


UCCI Board Announces New President
Mr. Anthony Ritch, Chair of the Board of Governors of the University College of the Cayman Islands (UCCI), is pleased to announce that the Board has appointed Dr. Stacy R. McAfee as the next President of the institution to take office on the 1st of January 2019.
“On behalf of the Board of Governors, I am delighted to welcome Dr. Stacy McAfee as the next President of UCCI,” said Chairman Ritch. “Dr. McAfee was selected following a most rigorous recruitment process that started in January of this year.”
Chairman Ritch explained that the months-long presidential search process included approximately 200 applications, 11 interviews and four candidates visiting the UCCI campus to meet faculty and staff. Dr. McAfee demonstrated the strongest expertise, motivational fit, and vision to carry out the duties of the institution’s chief executive officer in accordance with the new President position description and UCCI’s mission.
“We look forward to working with Dr. McAfee as we embrace our new Strategic Plan and seek to build on the many improvements, positive initiatives and landmark successes achieved under President Roy Bodden’s visionary and astute leadership. We also look forward to introducing Dr. McAfee to Cayman and to our many stakeholders in the public and private sector and across numerous NGOs who continue to provide significant and impactful support to the University College,” he said.
The Chairman also expressed appreciation for President Bodden who is retiring at the end of the year, saying, “We thank President Bodden for his nine years of extraordinary dedication to UCCI and for his immeasurable contribution to education across the Cayman Islands. He is leaving us with an enduring legacy and the Board is committed to ensuring that we continue to set exacting standards for excellence and educational achievement that build on the great work he has done.”
Similar sentiments were echoed by the Hon. Juliana O’Connor-Connolly, Minister for Education, Youth, Sports, Agriculture, and Lands.
“As Minister for Education, I am pleased to welcome Dr. Stacy McAfee to the Cayman Islands and the UCCI family. Under the exceptional leadership of outgoing President Roy Bodden, UCCI has experienced a rebirth; there is a newfound vitality, stability, enthusiasm, and sense of purpose that permeates both the campus and the classroom,” she said. “He has surely laid a solid foundation upon which Dr. McAfee can build. I look forward to working with President McAfee and the UCCI Board as we continue to provide students with educational programmes that meet internationally recognised standards of learning in the core and developing industries relevant to the socio-economic wellbeing of the Cayman Islands and its citizens.”
Dr. Stacy R. McAfee served as the Associate Vice President for External Relations, Strategic Partnerships and Presidential Initiatives for University of the Pacific, a selective nationally-ranked (#110) university in California. Dr. McAfee led business, government and community relations advancing corporate, foundation, educational, alumni and government relations across Northern California. The strategic partnerships she established bolstered experiential learning, philanthropy, new program development, career placement, and faculty research. As a member of the president’s cabinet, she led presidential initiatives including the clarification of institutional core values in 2017.
Prior to joining University of the Pacific, Dr. McAfee led University of Phoenix’s Bay Area campus that served over 4,000 students in the San Francisco Bay Area online and at various campus sites. She directed admissions, academic affairs, student services, operations, alumni relations, and financial services. Under her direction, the campus received national recognition for multi-faceted performance excellence. Prior to her Bay Area campus leadership position, she directed academic affairs for University of Phoenix’s West Region leading regulatory, legal, and academic quality assurance for 11 campuses.
Dr. McAfee has more than 30 years of leadership experience with a variety of public and private organisations across various industries. She served on the executive board of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the Capitol Public Radio board and Joint Venture Silicon Valley and as an executive with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. She has served on the faculty of institutions of higher education including DePaul University, Elmhurst College, University of Phoenix, St. Charles Community College, and College of DuPage. Dr. McAfee serves as a speaker, subject matter expert, and regular contributor for panels, events, and interviews.
“I am honoured to have the rare privilege of serving as the President and CEO of UCCI. Together, we will build upon the successes of the past while fulfilling a new vision for locally relevant and internationally recognized tertiary education for the Cayman Islands,” Dr. McAfee said.
Dr. McAfee holds a Doctorate in Educational Leadership and Management from Drexel University, an MBA from DePaul University, a Bachelor in Business Administration from Iowa State University, and an Associate of Arts from Highland Community College. She is a member of American Leadership Forum Mountain Valley Chapter and Leadership Sacramento.
She is passionate about improving educational and career outcomes for traditional students and working adults. Dr. McAfee believes that access to quality education enables both personal and professional development and is essential to sustained economic growth, civic leadership, and innovation. In addition to enjoying mentoring and developing others, she is actively engaged in her community supporting various non-profits and her church. She and her husband Terry have been married for 32 years and have two adult sons and a daughter-in-law.
UCCI Hosts International Business Practicum in Roatan
Dr. McAfee's Remarks at Chamber of Commerce Economic Forum 2019


Baris Ekincier
Baris Ekincier (Azerbaijani: Barış Əkinçiər; born 24 March 1999) is a German-born Azerbaijani footballer who plays as a midfielder for VfL Bochum.[1]
(1999-03-24) 24 March 1999 (age 20)
Hemer, Germany
Playing position
Youth career
FC Iserlohn
Rot-Weiss Essen
Senior career*
Team Apps (Gls)
VfL Bochum 1 (0)
National team‡
Azerbaijan U17 2 (0)
* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 18:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
‡ National team caps and goals correct as of 18:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Club careerEdit
Ekincier began his football career with the youth teams of FC Iserlohn and Rot-Weiss Essen, before joining the VfL Bochum youth academy in 2017. In August 2017, he played for the first team in a friendly match against Bayer Leverkusen.[2]
In June 2018, Ekincier signed his first professional contract with VfL Bochum, lasting two years until 30 June 2020.[3] On 19 August 2018, he appeared for Bochum in the first round of the 2018–19 DFB-Pokal, coming on as a substitute in the 62nd minute for Tom Weilandt in the 0–1 away loss against Regionalliga Nord side Weiche Flensburg.[4] Ekincier made his 2. Bundesliga debut for Bochum on 5 April 2019, coming on as a substitute in the 74th minute for Miloš Pantović in the 1–2 away loss against Jahn Regensburg.[5]
International careerEdit
Ekincier was included in hosts Azerbaijan's squad for the 2016 UEFA European Under-17 Championship in May 2016. He appeared in Azerbaijan's first two matches, with the team being eliminated in the group stage of the tournament.[1]
Ekincier was born in the German city of Hemer, North Rhine-Westphalia and is of Turkish descent.[1]
^ a b c "Baris Ekincier". worldfootball.net. HEIM:SPIEL. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
^ "Spielpraxis für Kießling und Lars Bender" (in German). Kicker. 31 August 2017. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
^ "Baris Ekincier erhält Profivertrag" (in German). VfL Bochum. 6 June 2018.
^ "Gelungenes Debüt: Weiche Flensburg kegelt Bochum raus" (in German). Kicker. 19 August 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
^ "Zuerst Assist, dann eigenes Tor – Grüttner Matchwinner für den Jahn" [First an assist, then a goal – Grüttner match winner for Jahn Regensburg]. kicker.de (in German). kicker-sportmagazin. 5 April 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
Baris Ekincier – UEFA competition record
Profile at DFB.de
Profile at kicker.de
Baris Ekincier at Soccerway
This biographical article relating to Azerbaijani association football is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baris_Ekincier&oldid=898572921"


Home > NEWS > / / Stars / Buzz
SM Entertainment Explains Why Sulli Was Not Included in f(x)'s Baskin Robbins CF
Sulli's non-appearance once again unearthed rumors and speculations about her leaving f(x). Baskin Robbins recently released a CF featuring its brand endorser f(x).
TAGㆍf(x)ㆍ sulli
Baskin Robbins recently released a CF featuring its brand endorser f(x). However, the CF stirred a buzz as f(x) member Sulli was noticeably absent from the said commercial. Sulli's non-appearance once again unearthed rumors and speculations about her leaving f(x) which first came out when she suddenly went on hiatus from group activities last year. Baskin Robbins and SM Entertainment have released individual statements to explain why Sulli is not in the CF.
"Sulli is not included in f(x)'s contract [with Baskin Robbins]," the brand rep explained, "When the contract was drafted and signed, Sulli was caught up in a dating scandal with Choiza. Thus, after discussing matters with SM Entertainment, we decided to sign the contract without Sulli's involvement."
SM Entertainment responded to speculations that Sulli's absence from the CF marks her looming departure from f(x). The agency denied rumors about Sulli's disbandment from the group. "Sulli's absence from f(x)'s [Baskin Robbins] CF was due to her hiatus at the time the contract [with Baskin Robbins] was signed. There are no other reasons behind her non-appearance."
In recall, Sulli officially went on hiatus starting July 25, 2014. She's only re-appeared in the limelight later that year to attend promotions for her movie "Fashion King".
Meanwhile, f(x)'s Victoria, Luna, Amber, and Krystal will appear in Baskin Robbin's summer special "bingsu" or shaved ice dessert CF in which they will lunch the "Shaved Ice Song" this month.
Also, f(x) is scheduled to make a comeback, as confirmed from an official statement from SM Entertainment's rep.


Mark Guiliana is an acclaimed drummer, composer, educator, producer and founder of the independent record label Beat Music Productions. His forward-thinking, conceptual approach to the instrument is also featured in Mehliana, the electric duo featuring Brad Mehldau on keyboards and synthesizers. The group’s highly anticipated debut album, Taming the Dragon (Nonesuch), was released in early 2014.
Over the past decade, Guiliana´s extensive touring has taken him across six continents with artists including Meshell Ndegeocello, Gretchen Parlato, Avishai Cohen, Matisyahu, Lionel Loueke, Now vs. Now, Dhafer Youssef, and his own groups, Beat Music and Heernt. He has also appeared on over 30 recordings to date.
Still in his early thirties, Guiliana, recognized by The New York Times as “a drummer around whom a cult of admiration has formed,” has earned international acclaim for his innovative and creative style. Time Out London sums him up perfectly: “What happens when you add hard bop drum masters Elvin Jones and Art Blakey to a 1980s Roland 808 drum machine, divide the result by J Dilla and then multiply to the power of Squarepusher? Answer: Mark Guiliana.”
Lesson Packs Featuring Mark Guiliana
Phrasing Fills in 16ths
Phrasing Fills in Triplets


Rare Colorado fish pulled back from extinction
Local | October 4, 2018
Dan Elliot
In this Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2018 photo, a Colorado River razorback sucker fish is shown swimming in a tank at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Lakewood, Colo. Officials say that the rare Colorado River fish has been pulled back from the brink of extinction, the second comeback this year for a species unique to the Southwestern United States. (AP Photo/Dan Elliott)
AP | AP
DENVER — Another rare Colorado River fish has been pulled back from the brink of extinction, wildlife officials said Thursday, the second comeback this year for a species unique to the Southwestern U.S.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended reclassifying the ancient and odd-looking razorback sucker from endangered to threatened, meaning it is still at risk of extinction, but the danger is no longer immediate.
The Associated Press was briefed on the plans before the official announcement.
Hundreds of thousands of razorbacks once thrived in the Colorado River and its tributaries, which flow across seven states and Mexico.
By the 1980s they had dwindled to about 100. Researchers blame non-native predator fish that attacked and ate the razorbacks and dams that disrupted their habitat.
Their numbers have bounced back to between 54,000 and 59,000 today, thanks to a multimillion-dollar effort that enlisted the help of hatcheries, dam operators, landowners, native American tribes and state and federal agencies.
“It’s a work in progress,” said Tom Chart, director of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. “We get more fish out in the system, they’re showing up in more places, they’re spawning in more locations.”
Chart’s program oversees the campaign to restore the razorback sucker and three other fish, all of them found only in the Colorado River system.
In March, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended changing the humpback chub from endangered to threatened. It takes 18 to 24 months to complete the process, including a public comment period.
The razorback sucker’s name comes from a sharp-edge, keel-like ridge along its back behind its head. Chart thinks the ridge may have evolved to help the fish stay stable in the turbulent waters of the Colorado.
It can grow up to 3 feet (1 meter) long and live up to 40 years.
Razorbacks have been around for between 3 million and 5 million years, but trouble arrived as the population expanded in the Southwest. State and federal agencies began introducing game fish into the Colorado without realizing they would devour the native fish, Chart said. A spurt of dam-building was a boon to cities and farms but interrupted the natural springtime surge of melting snow, which in turn shrank the floodplains that provided a safe nursery for young razorbacks.
Dams also made parts of the rivers too cold for razorbacks, because they release water from the chilly depths of reservoirs. And they blocked the natural migration of the fish.
By the late 1980s, most of the wild razorbacks were old, an ominous sign they were no longer reproducing, Chart said. The Fish and Wildlife Service began capturing the remaining wild razorbacks and moving them to hatcheries to begin rebuilding the population.
The agency designated razorbacks an endangered species in 1991, although Utah and Colorado enacted state protections earlier.
Biologists began restocking rivers with hatchery-raised razorbacks in 1995. Now, about 55,000 are released into the Colorado and its tributaries annually.
The Fish and Wildlife Service began working with dam operators to time water releases to help razorbacks spawn and restore flood plains for them to mature. Some dams were modified to help razorbacks to get by.
Wildlife officials began reining in non-native predator fish with nets and screens to keep them from escaping reservoirs, or removing them by electrofishing — stunning them with electricity and euthanizing them with an overdose of anesthetic.
Changing the fish from endangered to threatened will allow more flexibility in the way it is protected, said Kevin McAbee, deputy director of the recovery program.
Under endangered status, individual fish have to be protected, but threatened status means biologists can take steps to improve the overall population even if some fish might be hurt, McAbee said.
Razorbacks still face challenges. The first-year survival rate of hatchery fish, each roughly 14 inches (36 centimeters) long, is about 20 percent or less in the wild, Chart said. It climbs to 80 percent after that.
Drought, climate change and increasing human demand are straining the rivers, which makes it harder for fish to survive.
McAbee said the Fish and Wildlife Service took the river’s uncertain future into account before recommending the change for the razorbacks. Their long lifespan helps them endure low-water years when few young fish survive, he said.
Cooperation among water users in 2018, a year of devastating drought in much of the Southwest, shows the razorbacks’ needs can be accommodated, McAbee said.
“Things could have been catastrophic,” he said.
Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity is doubtful about how healthy the razorbacks really are.
The government’s reliance on hatcheries to boost the population shows they are not self-sustaining, he said, and he worries about their future in the overtaxed Colorado River.
“I think the elephant in the room right now with regard to recovery is climate change and river flows and regional aridification,” he said.
“We’re skeptical of the merits of this,” McKinnon said.
Glenwood prosecutor wins award for welfare fraud trial
Glenwood’s Midland Bridge to be closed July 19-20 for re-decking
Sunday profile: Glenwood resident Annie Zancanella known as ‘Tanzanian Tooth Fairy’ after 5 months in African nation
UPDATE: CDOT partially re-opens one lane of Highway 325 to all travelers
¡Postindependent.com ahora disponible en español!


Alice's Garage
Until recently, little was known about LGBTI Australian’s experiences of dementia. There was a myth that LGBT people who had dementia ‘became straight’ or ‘reverted’ to gender assigned at birth. On this page we share research and narratives about LGBTI people’s experiences of dementia.
A series of narrative based resources and a guide in LGBTI inclusive services for people living with dementia has been developed:
Still gay… Narrative resource (here)
Still gay … Guide to inclusive services (here)
Edie, a day in the life of a lesbian living with younger onset dementia (link)
Understanding the experiences and needs of LGBT people living with dementia. Article (link)
We are still gay … Article (link)
Pulse of My Heart
Pulse of my Heart, or ‘A chuisle mo chroi’, is an Irish Gaelic expression meaning ‘my darling, my love’. It involves an annual film documenting the importance of love in the life of Edie Mayhew and her partner Anne Tudor. Edie was diagnosed with younger onset dementia in 2015. Header photo (c) Lisa White, The Social Photographer.
2017: The Circle of Love
Our 2017 film has been made and is very, very beautiful. The film was shot at the Circle of Love celebration of Edie and Anne’s 33 years together – which happened during the Marriage Equality postal vote in Australia.
2016: Our Hearts Are Bigger
This second film was our first with professional film maker Andy Ferguson. Between this and the previous film Edie has needed more support from Anne – and so we decided to include both Edie and Anne in the film. In preparation for the film Edie and Anne were invited to write each other a letter about love every day for a week – and then to open and read them on film. The letter writing approach provided structure and opened up the possibilities. This film led to an international campaign called: Letters of Love and Dementia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eUQNDGFlcM
2015: A Day in the Life of Edie
This first film is a series of photographs and a sound track produced by Catherine Barrett as part of a project documenting the experiences of LGBTI people living with dementia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGFUQhCkT6U
Website by Dvize


The Promise of Electric Buses for Low Carbon Mass Transit
A new generation of fully electric buses is on the way making low carbon transport a reality. If we are to keep temperatures from rising more than 2C above preindustrial times we must find efficient, emissions-free solutions to mass transportation. The new generation of electric buses are a critical piece of the zero emissions puzzle. Electric buses will also reduce the air pollution that is plaguing urban environments.
Electric buses are not new, the Chinese automaker BYD introduced an electric bus in 2010. It is called the K9 and it is powered with an Iron-phosphate battery, that has a range of 155 miles or 250 kilometers on one single charge. Newer e-buses have quadrupled that range.
However a new generation of electric buses have much better ranges and are capable of traveling an entire day without recharging. In 2015 an Australian all-electric bus broke a record by driving 1,018km on a single charge. The bus was built by Brighsun in Melbourne and employs a high performance lithium ion battery with proprietary eMotor, battery management and a regenerative braking system.
As reported by One Step Off the Grid, Brighsun communications director, Gladys Liu, said:
"We believe it will bring a whole new concept of public transport with no pollution to Australia and to the world."
The company is planning on opening manufacturing facilities across Australia.
Another electric bus called the EV350 is GreenPower’s flagship product. This bus has the latest electric drive, battery technologies, and battery management system combined with a lightweight chassis and low floor body. The EV350 has a range of 185 miles or 300 kilometers. Another GreenPower product the 550 has an even better range of 240 miles or 385 kilometers.
The Proterra is an electric bus that has recently been analyzed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). It received high marks and as reviewed in EV Obsession, a recent analysis of the Proterra e-bus, "possess an average fuel economy roughly 4 times higher than that of baseline CNG [compressed natural gas] buses."
According to the NREL analysis, the Proterra is also highly reliable. This Proterra is touted as being "exceptional for an advanced technology bus in the early stage of commercialization."
However, the Green Car Congress reports that the average runtime per day is 13.2 hours with an average of 13 charges per day. Each charge averages 20 kWh energy delivered.
Here is an excerpt from the analysis:
"One major challenge is addressing demand charges and time of use charges that affect electricity cost. This will be a major challenge for any fleet looking to deploy electric buses that charge during peak times."


THE CHEMIST by Stephenie Meyer is a riveting page-turner that solidifies her debut as a Thriller author
November 30, 2016 November 30, 2016 / Amie's Book Reviews	/ Leave a comment
Title: THE CHEMIST
Author: STEPHENIE MEYER
Genre: FICTION, THRILLER
Price: $36.50 CDN (HARDCOVER)
Rating: 4.5 OUT OF 5 STARS 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Stephenie Meyer became famous as the author of the TWILIGHT SERIES of Young Adult books wherein a regular teenage girl meets a guy and falls in love. She learns that the love of her life is actually a vampire, but that’s okay because he is a “good” vampire. Anyone who has not read the Twilight books or who has not at least seen the movies made based on the books must have been living under a rock for the past decade.
After writing that series, she then penned the Young Adult science fiction novel – THE HOST which also became a movie. So, potential readers of THE CHEMIST can be forgiven if, at first, they expect this latest book to be another work of Young Adult Fiction.
However, after reading the first few pages of THE CHEMIST, it became readily apparent that this book was written for an adult audience.
Alex (not her real name) is on the run from her former employer – a shadowy, secret arm of the U.S. government – and has been running for the past three years. She doesn’t know what led to them trying to kill her, but somehow she went from prized asset to liability.
Her existence now consists of little more than trying to find a way to keep breathing for one more day.
She had been known as “The Chemist” and her skills at creating concoctions to help speed along interrogations of terrorist subjects was unsurpassed. But, actual field missions and the art of subterfuge were never part of her job.
So, when she receives an email from her former handler telling her that she is needed and that if she completes one last job for him, they will stop hunting her, she is cautiously optimistic. She knows it is likely a trap, but she is so tired of running that she agrees.
What she had thought would be a routine interrogation quickly becomes anything but.
The information she learns makes her an even bigger threat than she was previously,
Complicating matters even further she starts to fall for a man shè shouldn’t. She knows that the only chance of her ever having anything resembling a normal life will require her to go even deeper down the rabbit hole and to do things she had never believed herself capable of.
This book is so fast paced that readers become so swept up in the story that the everyday world falls away.
Stephenie has created characters so believable and so compelling that readers will be outraged with the treatment they receive from the very country they love.
This book has no sickeningly sweet (and therefore wholeheartedly unbelievable)love scenes that were so common in the TWILIGHT series. That series was written by a much younger Stephenie Meyer. With THE CHEMIST she proves that she has grown up. Stephenie dominated the Young Adult literary world for years. THE CHEMIST proves that she is ready to do the same with Adult Fiction.
Thoroughly researched and exceptionally well plotted, THE CHEMIST takes readers on a heart-pounding roller coaster ride that has so many twists and turns that 518 pages literally fly by. #TheChemist
I heartily endorse this book and give it a rating of 5 out of 5 stars.🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
The only negative I can see is that readers who had hoped that Stephenie Meyer had stayed stagnant, who hoped that she would remain a YA author forever may find themselves disappointed to discover that #StephenieMeyer has grown up and so has her writing.
Best known for her Twilight series, Stephenie Meyer’s four-book collection has sold over 100 million copies globally in over 50 countries, with translations in 37 different languages. Meyer was the highest-selling author of 2008 and 2009 in the United States, having sold over 29 million books in 2008, and 26.5 million books in 2009. In 2008, Meyer also released The Host, which debuted at #1 on The New York Times and Wall Street Journalbestseller lists. Additionally, USA Todaydeclared Meyer “Author of the Year,” citing that she had done something that no one else had in the 15 years of the USA Todaybestselling book list– she swept the top four slots in 2008. Meyer also accomplished this feat in 2009, when The Twilight Saga once again dominated the top of the bestseller list. All together, her books have spent over 303 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List.
Stephenie Meyer graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in English Literature. She lives in Arizona with her husband and sons.
To learn more about Stephenie Meyer visit any or all of the following links:


On 7 December 2015 the government announced, as part of its National Innovation and Science agenda, that the current ‘same business test’ for company losses will be relaxed to allow businesses to access past year losses when they have entered into new transactions or business activities.
To give effect to this, a new ‘similar business test’ will be introduced. Under this test, companies will be able to access losses where their business, while not the same, is similar having regard to:
the extent to which the company generates assessable income from the same assets and sources, and
whether any changes to the business are changes that would reasonably be expected to have been made to a similarly placed business.
This measure is expected to take effect from 1 July 2015. At the time of publishing, these changes had not become law.
A head company of a consolidated group or multiple entry consolidated (MEC) group must complete the schedule and lodge it with the Company tax return 2016 (NAT 0656), if any of the following apply:
The total of the group's tax losses and net capital losses carried forward to later income years is greater than $100,000.
The total of its tax losses and net capital losses transferred from joining entities is greater than $100,000.
The total of its tax losses deducted and net capital losses applied is greater than $100,000.
It has an interest in a controlled foreign company (CFC) that has current year losses greater than $100,000.
It has an interest in a CFC that has deducted or carried forward a loss to later income years greater than $100,000.
It is a life insurance company, or is treated as a life insurance company under Subdivision 713-L of the ITAA 1997, and has a total of complying superannuation class tax losses and net capital losses carried forward to later income years greater than $100,000 (complete part D of the schedule).
The examples provided in these instructions are for illustration purposes only and may use lower figures, for simplicity.
A head company may need to complete the schedule for certain aspects of its net capital losses. While some of the information requested in the schedule is also requested in the Capital gains tax (CGT) schedule 2016 (NAT 3423) (CGT schedule), a head company that completes a consolidated groups losses schedule may also need to complete a CGT schedule.
If the head company completes the schedule for any aspect of its losses, it must complete all relevant parts of the schedule. For example, if a head company completes the schedule as a result of having tax losses and net capital losses carried forward to later income years greater than $100,000, it must also provide details of controlled foreign company (CFC) losses, even if the total of these losses is less than $100,000.
These instructions are based on provisions relating to consolidated groups. Some of those provisions are modified in Division 719 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) in relation to MEC groups.


Some banking businesses are structured so that shares in the licensed bank are held by a holding company. Members of the public invest in the bank by acquiring publicly listed shares in the holding company.
To allow for this, the exemption for certain shares in a publicly listed foreign bank is extended to an interest that an Australian resident holds in a holding company with a wholly owned subsidiary that is a foreign bank. [section 504]
A company will qualify for the exemption from the FIF measures as a holding company of a bank if the following requirements are satisfied:
You hold shares in the holding company of a class listed on any stock market of a stock exchange approved in regulation 152I, Schedule 12 of the Regulations. See Appendix 1: Approved stock exchanges for more information.
Designated a bank
The holding company is included in a class of companies designated as a bank or engaged in banking on either:
an approved international sectoral classification system.
See Appendix 3: Approved international sectoral classification systems for more information.
The class of shares you have in the holding company must be widely held and actively traded on a regular basis on a stock market of an approved stock exchange during the period in which the exemption applies.
Subsidiaries principally engaged in banking business
If the holding company has only one wholly owned subsidiary, that subsidiary must be authorised under the law of its place of residence to carry on banking business and have been principally engaged in the active carrying on of a banking business.
If the holding company has more than one wholly owned subsidiary, the principal activities of the wholly owned subsidiaries in the group, considered together, must be the active carrying on of a banking business. At least one of the wholly owned subsidiaries must be authorised under the law of its place of residence to carry on banking business.


How much of the day has passed
Time plays very important role in life of any person . Time and clock are very closed relation of each other in modern age
Time, a central theme in modern life, has for most of human history been thought of in very imprecise terms.
The day and the week are easily recognized and recorded – though an accurate calendar for the year is hard to achieve. The forenoon is easily distinguishable from the afternoon, provided the sun is shining, and the position of the sun in the landscape can reveal roughly how much of the day has passed. By contrast the smaller parcels of time – hours, minutes and seconds – have until recent centuries been both unmeasurable and unneeded.
Sundial and water clock: from the 2nd millennium BC
The movement of the sun through the sky makes possible a simple estimate of time, from the length and position of a shadow cast by a vertical stick. (It also makes possible more elaborate calculations, as in the attempt of Erathosthenes to measure the world – see Erathosthenes and the camels). If marks are made where the sun’s shadow falls, the time of day can be recorded in a consistent manner.
The result is the sundial. An Egyptian example survives from about 800 BC, but the principle is certainly familiar to astronomers very much earlier. However it is difficult to measure time precisely on a sundial, because the sun’s path throug the sky changes with the seasons. Early attempts at precision in time-keeping rely on a different principle.
The water clock, known from a Greek word as the clepsydra, attempts to measure time by the amount of water which drips from a tank. This would be a reliable form of clock if the flow of water could be perfectly controlled. In practice it cannot. The clepsydra has an honourable history from perhaps 1400 BC in Egypt, through Greece and Rome and the Arab civlizations and China, and even up to the 16th century in Europe. But it is more of a toy than a timepiece.
The hourglass, using sand on the same principle, has an even longer career. It is a standard feature on 18th-century pulpits in Britain, ensuring a sermon of sufficient length. In a reduced form it can still be found timing an egg.
A tower clock in China: 1094
After six years’ work, a Buddhist monk by the name of Su Song completes a great tower, some thirty feet high, which is designed to reveal the movement of the stars and the hours of the day. Figures pop out of doors and strike bells to signify the hours.
The power comes from a water wheel occupying the lower part of the tower. Su Song has designed a device which stops the water wheel except for a brief spell, once every quarter of an hour, when the weight of the water (accumulated in vessels on the rim) is sufficient to trip a mechanism. The wheel, lurching forward, drives the machinery of the tower to the next stationary point in a continuing cycle.
Source : www.historyworld.net
Disaster's countdown
Patriotic Energy Booster ...Vande Mataram
Fountain of Wealth...
Proteins from 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones.
Researchers recently confirmed it is possible to extract proteins from 80-milliodinosaur n-year-old dinosaur bones. The discovery sparks hopes for new insights…
Smartphone and 5 minuets charging
Smartphones with batteries that fully charge in five minutes could be available to consumers next year. The technology was first…
D o n ' t Depress ......Read this ........
Don't Depress ......Read this ........ “Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to it.”– Dennis…


Early Christian/Byzantine Art (1)
Ancient Greece and Hellenistic States (2)
10000–1000 BCE (1)
1000–300 BCE (2)
CE 500–1000 (1)
1000–300 BCE x
Fashion, Jewellery, and Body Art x
Artist, Architect, or Designer x
Dexamenos of Chios
Dimitris Plantzos
(fl 5th century bc).
Greek gem-engraver, presumably born on the island of Chios. His signature survives on four of the gems he engraved, all fine specimens of 5th-century Classical Greek art. Two of these works come from sites in southern Russia, in the region to the north of the Black Sea, widely populated by Greek colonists since the 6th century bc. It is thus suggested that Dexamenos was active in the Black Sea colonies, catering for the Greeks residing there or for clientele drawn among the native populations, who widely interacted with the Greeks in most matters, as well as art.
Between 480 and 450 bc, gem-cutting in mainland Greece and the islands had undergone significant changes, gradually abandoning Late Archaic forms and motifs. The shape of choice was the scaraboid, a plain-backed, often highly domed oval stone, carrying a device engraved on its flat side. These stones were perforated lengthways, in order to be fitted in a metal swivel hoop or a plain piece of string. Chalcedony is the commonest material, in its white and blue varieties, though there are many examples cut in cornelian, rock crystal, agate and jasper. Dexamenos’ four signed works show a remarkable variety of subject-matter, as well as being some of the finest examples of Greek art of the time (...
Eleutherna
[Satra]
Greek city situated on the island of Crete, by the north-west foothills of mount Psiloritis (anc. Ida), 30 km south-east of the present-day city of Rethymnon. It was a centre for Aegean and Greek culture from the Prehistoric to the Byzantine periods (4th millennium bc–7th century bc).
Ancient Eleutherna is a typical example of a Cretan polis (city) inhabited continuously from at least from the 9th century bc (the so-called ‘Dark Age’ of Greek history) to the late Roman and Byzantine period (6th–7th century bc). Even before that, archaeological finds suggest the existence of a continuous presence on the site from the late Neolithic (4th millennium bc) through to a flourishing Minoan site of the 3rd to 2nd millennia bc. Although later construction all but eliminated traces of prehistoric architecture, there is still significant evidence to confirm unbroken habitation. In historical times (9th century...


String of Burger King burglaries reported on North, South Sides
CHICAGO (WLS) -- Businesses are being warned after a string of reported burglaries targeting Burger King restaurants on the city's North and South Sides.
Investigators say each time, the two suspects allegedly damaged security systems and cut wires to outside lighting. Once inside, the suspects broke into the restaurant's safe, police said.
Incidents were reported at the following locations:
5211 S. Cicero Ave. on Jan. 7 around 1:30 a.m.
2701 N. Western Ave. on Jan. 27 around 2:05 a.m.
3728 S. Archer Ave. on Jan. 29 around 1:45 a.m.
2840 W. North Ave. on Feb. 2 around 2 a.m.
Anyone with information on these incidents is encouraged to contact Chicago police at 312-744-8263.
archer heightslincoln parkburglary


CHIN344 Writing China: Texts, Ideas and History
A cultural-historical approach to examining the transformations of the Chinese culture of writing in the modern world. The course is taught in English. No previous knowledge of Chinese is required.
Why did language activists propose to abolish Chinese characters and replace them with the Latin alphabet at the beginning of the 20th century? How do Chinese characters enjoy a reversal of fate in the 21st century by tapping into new media technology? This paper examines the history of modern China and the transformations of today's China in terms of the changing mediums and practices of the Chinese language.
Writing China: Texts, Ideas and History
CHIN344
18 200-level CHIN or HIST points
CHIN 244
Suitable for students specialising in any discipline.
languages@otago.ac.nz
Convenor: Dr Lorraine Wong
The paper examines the relation between Chinese "language" and "culture" by analysing the cultural implications of different modern mediums of the Chinese language appearing in China from the late 19th century to the present. The primary materials of this paper include not only Chinese literary texts and intellectual essays on the themes of linguistic modernisation and nationalisation, but also songs, films, art works and digitalised representations.
Questions to be explored include: the interface between Pinyin, Chinese characters and the Latin alphabet in relation to global media culture; Mao Zedong as a poet and a calligrapher; the allegorical articulations of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) in the fake Chinese characters created by Chinese avant-garde artists; as well as the ways Chinese artists respond to and resist globalisation by re-imaging the Chinese script in terms of digital culture.
NOTE: This paper is also offered as CHIN 344 - the content of the paper is the same for both CHIN 244 and CHIN 344, but assessment is differentiated between the two levels.
All required readings are available on Blackboard.
Global perspective, Interdisciplinary perspective, Communication, Critical thinking, Cultural understanding, Research.
By participating in lectures, tutorials and screenings, students will gain:
An understanding of the complex, evolving and non-homogenous nature of the Chinese language (both as a medium and as a practice).
An understanding of the main themes of Chinese intellectual debates and their influences on Chinese society.
A critical awareness of the tensions between old traditions and modern situations facing Chinese thinkers, writers and artists.
By reading and completing the assigned readings/tasks, student will develop:
An ability to articulate the connections between modern Chinese history and media culture in the global contexts.
A historically-informed, up-to-date and critical knowledge about the transformations of Chinese literary culture.
An ability to independently investigate a particular topic focusing on aspects of past or contemporary Chinese society by refining their research and argumentation skills through essay-writing, tutorial discussion and in-class presentation.


SumUp becomes first mobile payment company to hit profitability
Europe’s leading mPOS provider doubled its revenue in six months
LONDON – SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2016 – SumUp, the leading mobile point-of-sale (mPOS) company, today announced that it has reached profitability. The company has doubled its revenues in the last six months and is approaching $100 million in annual revenue. Launched four years ago, SumUp has disrupted the payment industry by offering card acceptance at a fraction of the cost of traditional solutions. Today, the company enables small merchants in 15 countries to accept card payments in a simple, secure and cost-effective way with a team of more than 300 people. By focusing on small businesses, SumUp targets the so-called long tail of the market, a space with tight margins where no other payment company has ever been able to make a profit.
“We are the world’s first company to prove that empowering small merchants with card acceptance can be a profitable business, despite tight margins in the long tail”, said Daniel Klein, CEO of SumUp. “By building our own hardware, payment gateway and merchant service business we have reduced the cost of owning a card acceptance terminal to a tenth in just four years. Nothing can stop us now and we will keep making card acceptance more and more affordable around the globe.”
About SumUp SumUp is a leading financial technology company that is set to become the first ever global card acceptance brand. The company enables businesses to accept card payments at the Point-of-Sale or on the go in a simple, secure and cost-effective way. SumUp is the only company to offer an end-to-end EMV card acceptance solution built on proprietary hardware and mobile apps. This unique offering enabled SumUp to rapidly expand into 15 markets, including the U.S., Brazil and Germany, making it the mPOS company with the largest global footprint. The company has gone on to develop a full suite of SDKs and APIs for third parties to integrate card payments into their mobile apps. SumUp has been backed by renowned investors, including Groupon, BBVA Ventures, Holtzbrinck Ventures and American Express. In April 2016 SumUp has merged with the mPOS company payleven to create the global leader in mobile payment.