Presented by ABA Section of International Law Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee, cosponsored by the ABA Section of International Law Canada Committee in Cooperation with Ontario Bar Association, International Law Section and Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Export Committee In recent years, companies in the defense and satellite industries have been struggling to [...]
Presented by ABA Section of International Law Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee, cosponsored by the ABA Section of International Law Canada Committee in Cooperation with Ontario Bar Association, International Law Section and Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Export Committee
In recent years, companies in the defense and satellite industries have been struggling to address conflicts between US defense trade controls and human rights/privacy requirements in Canada and other jurisdictions. With a view to addressing these conflicts, ITAR section 126.18 came into effect on August 15, 2011 providing exemptions for certain intra-company, intra-organization, and intra-governmental transfers to employees that are dual or third-country nationals. In October 2011, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) began implementing its Enhanced Security Strategy, including new screening requirements for individuals accessing defense goods and technology in Canada.
How have the Canadian and U.S. regimes been working together over the last couple of years? Can companies be assured that compliance with the requirements of Canada’s Controlled Goods Program is sufficient for purposes of the ITAR rule? Join us for an update and discussion of these important issues with senior representatives from PWGSC and the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
Enforcement agencies in the international trade arena are increasingly scrutinizing international trade compliance programs in deciding on the appropriate penalty for violations of the FCPA, export controls, economic sanctions and anti-boycott laws. The latest example involves SEC and Justice Department non-prosecution agreements with Ralph Lauren about allegations of FCPA violations in Argentina where the penalties [...]
Enforcement agencies in the international trade arena are increasingly scrutinizing international trade compliance programs in deciding on the appropriate penalty for violations of the FCPA, export controls, economic sanctions and anti-boycott laws. The latest example involves SEC and Justice Department non-prosecution agreements with Ralph Lauren about allegations of FCPA violations in Argentina where the penalties imposed were relatively small.
They were relatively small despite the seriousness of the offenses because of the Company’s compliance program. According to an SEC press release, “This NPA [nonprosecution agreement] shows the benefit of implementing an effective compliance program.”
The Ralph Lauren case illustrates, if ever there was one, how important it is to have an effective compliance program. What is effective, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, but the SEC and Justice gave great weight to Ralph Lauren’s employees and the Company being able to detect and deal with corruption issues in an easy and effective way. They also gave great weight to the Company’s renewal of its compliance program as the Company’s circumstances changed. An effective compliance program is, of course, a mitigating factor under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Years of experience have taught us that simplification is the watchword. Also key is tailoring the compliance program to the Company’s circumstances and revisiting the program from time to time to deal with changed circumstances. Consistent enforcement is essential as well.
Source: Stanley J. Marcuss and George F. Murphy | Bryan Cave LLP
U.S. aerospace and defense contractor Raytheon Company has reached an agreement with the U.S. State Department to pay a $4 million fine and invest an equal amount in additional compliance measures for violations of federal arms control regulations. The State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs determined that [...]
U.S. aerospace and defense contractor Raytheon Company has reached an agreement with the U.S. State Department to pay a $4 million fine and invest an equal amount in additional compliance measures for violations of federal arms control regulations.
The State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs determined that Raytheon’s numerous violations demonstrated a “recurring, corporate-wide weakness in maintaining effective ITAR controls.”
Over the years, the State Department said Raytheon committed “hundreds of civil violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.”
The violations included inaccurate tracking, valuation and documentation of temporary exports and imports of controlled hardware, manufacture of such hardware by Raytheon’s foreign partners in excess of the approved amounts, and failures to timely obtain and submit required documents.
The initial $8 million fine was lowered to $4 million after Raytheon agreed to use an additional $4 million to go towards “remedial compliance measures, as ordered by the government.”
An external “special compliance official” will be engaged by Raytheon to oversee the consent agreement, which will also require the company to conduct two external audits of its compliance program during the agreement term as well as implement additional compliance measures.
Related: U.S. Department of State (DDTC) Consent Agreement
Amber Road invites you to attend their upcoming FREE webinar, Export Control Reform Update: Preparing for Transition, broadcasting live on Tuesday, April 23 at 2PM EDT. President Obama’s Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative is well under way, with significant changes anticipated over the coming months. This webinar will focus on the Administration’s recent progress on [...]
Amber Road invites you to attend their upcoming FREE webinar, Export Control Reform Update: Preparing for Transition, broadcasting live on Tuesday, April 23 at 2PM EDT.
President Obama’s Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative is well under way, with significant changes anticipated over the coming months. This webinar will focus on the Administration’s recent progress on ECR, what the industry can expect in the near term, and how to prepare for these and future changes. Key topics will include:
• The benefits of the anticipated changes and how the U.S. government is preparing for implementation
• The transition from proposed to final rules and the expected schedule for publication
• How exporters can stay up-to-date and plan for the transition
• Other potential improvements in the Export Administration Regulations
Hosted by American Shipper, this webinar is a must attend for U.S. exporters.
Click here to register now.
The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued an advisory opinion on licensing requirements in the Export Administration Regulations for deemed reexports to third-country national and certain dual national (Canadian citizens with second citizenships acquired later in time) regular employees residing in Canada with a Canadian employment history that includes a positive security assessment under [...]
The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued an advisory opinion on licensing requirements in the Export Administration Regulations for deemed reexports to third-country national and certain dual national (Canadian citizens with second citizenships acquired later in time) regular employees residing in Canada with a Canadian employment history that includes a positive security assessment under the Canadian government’s Controlled Goods Program’s Enhanced Security Strategy. Based on the facts presented, BIS has deemed such individuals to be Canadian nationals for purposes of Section 734.2(b)(5) of the EAR. As a result, technology or source code subject to the EAR may be released to these foreign nationals.
Under Section 126.18 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a foreign employer who is itself an authorized consignee or end-user may allow a dual or third-country national who is a bona fide regular employee to have access to unclassified defense articles (including technical data) without prior written approval if the employer (a) has in place a process to screen its employees for substantive contacts with restricted or prohibited countries and to have its employees execute a non-disclosure agreement providing assurances that they will not transfer any defense articles to persons or entities unless specifically authorized by the employer, and (b) determines through that process that the employee does not have substantive contacts with a restricted or prohibited country. The petitioner noted that, based on public statements by U.S . and Canadian government officials, a Canadian company registered under the CGP can meet this screening requirement if a regular employee residing in Canada receives a positive security assessment evaluation through the ESS.
Source: STR Trade Report
Effective immediately, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) is updating the procedures to utilize the ITAR §126.18 exemption for technical assistance agreements (TAAs) and manufacturing license agreements (MLAs). In guidance issued July 25, 2011, DDTC required all TAAs and MLAs to be amended prior to use of the ITAR §126.18 exemption for two reasons: [...]
Effective immediately, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) is updating the procedures to utilize the ITAR §126.18 exemption for technical assistance agreements (TAAs) and manufacturing license agreements (MLAs).
In guidance issued July 25, 2011, DDTC required all TAAs and MLAs to be amended prior to use of the ITAR §126.18 exemption for two reasons: updating the new verbatim clause at ITAR §124.8(5) and to add specific language to the ITAR §124.7(4) section of the agreement.
Upon further review of these requirements and through experience gained in administering the regulation, DDTC has decided to change the requirement for TAAs and MLAs.
With the posting of this web notice, TAAs and MLAs do not have to be amended to include the modifications cited above in order to utilize the ITAR §126.18 exemption. All agreement holders and foreign parties utilizing the ITAR §126.18 exemption must maintain a copy of this web notice in their records. Continue reading »
Online retail sales by U.S. companies have increased at breakneck speed since 2000 and have exceeded $30 billion over each of the past five years . In the U.S. alone, international e-commerce sales are expected to grow 10% a year and account for 11% of all retail sales by 2015. To take advantage of these [...]
Online retail sales by U.S. companies have increased at breakneck speed since 2000 and have exceeded $30 billion over each of the past five years . In the U.S. alone, international e-commerce sales are expected to grow 10% a year and account for 11% of all retail sales by 2015. To take advantage of these growth trends, companies considering entry into online retail markets or expanding their current e-commerce sales into international markets need to ensure that they are in compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations. Even companies dealing solely in low-level commercial, uncontrolled merchandise must be keenly aware of their U.S. export control obligations when engaging in international online retail activities. Severe civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties may be imposed for violating U.S. export controls.
This one-hour webinar on the relationship between U.S. export compliance and taking businesses global by way of e-commerce is a must for general counsel, international sales and marketing professionals, export compliance professionals and e-commerce/online retailers. Specific topics will include the following.
• unique U.S. export compliance challenges and risks posed by e-commerce transactions
• export classification and licensing concerns
• export screening (geolocation identification, restricted parties lists, embargoes and economic sanctions, diversion risks, end-use, and antiboycott)
• complying with Automated Export System requirements
• consequences of export non-compliance
• core elements of effective export compliance programs for international e-commerce activities
• best practices for preventing inadvertent export violations
Speaker:
Melissa Miller Proctor is a member of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., and leads its Export Practice Group.
Date: Wednesday | March 13, 2013
Time: 1:00PM-2:30PM EDT
Cost: $200
This seminar has been certified by NCBFAA Educational Institute for Certified Customs Specialist (CCS) continuing education credits.
CCS credits: 1.5
The US Government is requesting that the World Customs Organization (WCO) establish an international BASE CODE set of intended use codes. Governments often need to understand the intended use of an imported product to effectively review products for admission at borders. Although there is the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System can be used to [...]
The US Government is requesting that the World Customs Organization (WCO) establish an international BASE CODE set of intended use codes. Governments often need to understand the intended use of an imported product to effectively review products for admission at borders. Although there is the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System can be used to denote the static characteristics of a product, there is no standardized global set of intended use codes.
The US has proposed just such a system based on a standardized list of codes developed by the ITDS Product Information Committee (PIC). These codes were developed for adoption in the US, and is coordinating with the Canadian Border Services Agencies on behalf of the Canadian Other Government Departments under the auspices of the US Beyond the Border Single Window Initiative the adoption of these intended use codes as a regional standard. This code set is offered as the starting point for the development of an international standard by WCO.
Description of code set
A standardized intended use code set must meet two objectives: 1) ensure that each consignment can be codified with a high-level intended use code that is globally applicable; and 2) allow relevant specific use cases to be identified in accordance with national regulations. To accomplish both purposes, a two-part intended use code value is proposed, similar in concept to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The first part of the intended use code would be a globally managed base code that denotes the high-level intended use for that imported product. The second part of the code would be a nationally managed sub code that uses a three-digit ISO country code prefix to identify the nation that defined the sub code. The use of sub codes by national governments would be optional.
Read the full article on the Harmonized System for Intended Use Codes.
Bryce Hanson is a Search Engine Marketing Administrator for CUSTOMS Info | Global Data Mining and is a frequent blogger on their International Trade Industry Blog. Please feel free to reach out to him on Twitter, Google+, or Linkedin.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is inviting comments through Jan. 28, 2013, on a proposed rule that would implement numerous changes designed to make the Commerce Control List clearer. BIS notes that while this rule would only implement changes that can be made without requiring changes to multilateral export control regime guidelines or lists, it has [...]
The Bureau of Industry and Security is inviting comments through Jan. 28, 2013, on a proposed rule that would implement numerous changes designed to make the Commerce Control List clearer. BIS notes that while this rule would only implement changes that can be made without requiring changes to multilateral export control regime guidelines or lists, it has also identified changes that would require a decision of a multilateral regime to implement and is developing some of those into proposals for consideration by regime members.
According to BIS, the proposed changes include the following.
Existing Controls Continue reading »
BIS is proposing a number of clarifications to existing CCL controls, including by providing clearer definitions of the terms “parts” and “components” and adding or revising “related controls” paragraphs. Most of these changes would amend the CCL without changing the scope of the controls and serve only to provide additional regulatory guidance to those classifying items subject to the Export Administration Regulations. However, the proposal would remove Export Control Classification Number 8A918 and add certain marine boilers to ECCN 8A992, where they would be controlled for AT and UN reasons.
The rules governing the transfer or export of encryption goods, software and technology from Canada have undergone significant changes over the past two years. New exemptions, de-controls, General Export Permits, and Multi-Destination Permits, although intended to liberalize the control regime, have created a complex web of requirements for Canadian companies. Failure to comply can result [...]
The rules governing the transfer or export of encryption goods, software and technology from Canada have undergone significant changes over the past two years. New exemptions, de-controls, General Export Permits, and Multi-Destination Permits, although intended to liberalize the control regime, have created a complex web of requirements for Canadian companies. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties, detentions and seizures, delayed shipments, broken contracts and lost sales.
To help make sense of it all, this session will provide an overview of the export and technology transfer control regime for crypto goods and technology as well as current challenges and potential solutions for companies seeking to achieve full compliance and avoid harmful enforcement action. Sam Ruales, Executive Program Manager in IBM Canada’s Export Compliance Office, and John Boscariol, Leader of McCarthy Tétrault’s International Trade and Investment Law Group, will provide both industry and legal perspectives on addressing these challenges.
Date: Thursday November 22, 2012
Time: 1:00 – 2:30 PM
Cost: $200 (Non-IE Canada Member Rate)
The State Department has issued policy guidance that outlines its authorities under the Iran Sanctions Act and related executive orders, provides guidelines to further describe the technologies that may be considered sensitive for purposes of section 106 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, and provides information on State’s authorities under certain other [...]
The State Department has issued policy guidance that outlines its authorities under the Iran Sanctions Act and related executive orders, provides guidelines to further describe the technologies that may be considered sensitive for purposes of section 106 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, and provides information on State’s authorities under certain other EOs and statutory provisions related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Comments on this guidance, which includes the following provisions, are due no later than Jan. 12, 2013.
Due Diligence
All persons involved in activities in high-risk sectors should consider implementing enhanced due diligence to minimize the risks of inadvertently becoming engaged in a sanctionable transaction. This could include confirming that transactions in these sectors do not involve an entity owned or controlled by Iran or that Iran is not otherwise connected to any entities in the transaction, including by reviewing the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, searching commercial databases and verifying ownership structures of unknown companies and, in the case of transportation or insurance of crude oil and petroleum products, verifying that Iran is not the origin of the cargo.
Notes on a crash course in creating Export Management & Compliance Programs Last month, Peter Quinter, Chair of the Customs and International Trade Law Group at GrayRobinson, joined Jonathan Barnes, Special Agent with the Miami Field Office of the Office of Export Enforcement for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), US Department of Commerce, [...]
Notes on a crash course in creating Export Management & Compliance Programs
Last month, Peter Quinter, Chair of the Customs and International Trade Law Group at GrayRobinson, joined Jonathan Barnes, Special Agent with the Miami Field Office of the Office of Export Enforcement for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), US Department of Commerce, in running Export Compliance Bootcamps for Florida-area exporters, freight forwarders, and other trade and transport service providers. Here are highlights:
Special Agent Barnes shared many stories about his vast and varied experiences as a BIS Agent, and offered very pragmatic advice for any exporter to address the most common causes of civil enforcement cases regarding export violations:
- Incomplete transaction information
- Ignoring red flags
- Human error
- Incorrect SED/EEI filing
When going into more detail on each of these subjects, Special Agent Barnes spent a lot of time talking about Category #3 – human error. He strongly urged all exporters at the Bootcamps to take the time to create an Export Management and Compliance Program (EMCP). Although having written compliance program in place is not required of all exporters, it is an enormously effective tool to help an exporter manage its export transactions and detect human errors. It is also (as we’ve observed as attorneys) a positive factor in mitigating any potential penalty assessed by BIS for a violation.
The State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs released Sept. 28 a fact sheet detailing the expanded economic sanctions against Iran set forth by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, which President Obama signed into law Aug. 10. The fact sheet states that this law provides for sanctions on [...]
The State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs released Sept. 28 a fact sheet detailing the expanded economic sanctions against Iran set forth by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, which President Obama signed into law Aug. 10. The fact sheet states that this law provides for sanctions on activities related to Iran’s energy and financial sectors, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism and human rights abuses. The law also amends portions of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 and section 1245 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act in an effort to “greatly increase the pressure on Iran to comply with its full range of international nuclear obligations and engage in constructive negotiations with the international community.”
New categories of sanctionable commercial activities with Iran including knowingly doing the following:
• participating in a joint venture established on or after Jan. 1, 2002, with respect to the development of petroleum resources outside of Iran if the government of Iran is a substantial partner or investor in the joint venture or if Iran could receive technological knowledge or equipment not previously available to it that could directly and significantly contribute to the enhancement of its ability to develop its petroleum resources
• owning, operating, controlling or insuring a vessel that on or after 90 days from the law’s enactment was used to transport crude oil from Iran to another country (this does not apply to vessels used to transport crude oil from Iran to a country given a “significant reduction” exception under section 1245 of the NDAA)
• owning, operating or controlling a vessel that on or after 90 days from enactment is used in a manner that conceals the Iranian origin of crude oil or refined petroleum products transported on the vessel, including by permitting the vessel’s operator to suspend the operation of the vessel’s satellite tracking device or obscuring the ownership, operation or control of the vessel
• providing underwriting services, insurance or reinsurance on or after enactment for the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company or a successor entity to either
• purchasing, subscribing to or facilitating the issuance of sovereign debt of the government of Iran or debt of any entity owned or controlled by the government of Iran, including bonds, issued on or after enactment
State was previously required to impose at least three out of nine available sanctions once it determined that sanctionable activity had occurred. The new law expands the list of potential sanctions to include prohibitions on the following activities and requires State to impose at least five.
- export assistance from the Export-Import Bank of the United States
- licenses for export of U.S. military, dual use or nuclear-related goods or technology
- private U.S. bank loans exceeding $10 million in any 12-month period
- if the sanctioned person is a financial institution, designation as a primary dealer in U.S. government debt instruments or service as a repository of USG funds
- USG procurement contracts
- foreign exchange transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction
- financial transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction
- transactions with respect to property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction
- imports into the United States from the sanctioned person
- investment in equity or debt of the sanctioned person
- visas for corporate officers of sanctioned entities
The new law also requires State to impose at least five of these sanctions on persons that:
• materially assist, sponsor or provide financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, or engage in significant transactions with, the Iran Republican Guard Corps or its officials, agents or affiliates;
• engage in significant transactions with a person subject to, or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of a person subject to, financial sanctions pursuant to an Iran-related U.N. Security Council resolution;
• export, transfer, permit or otherwise facilitate the transshipment of any goods, services, technology or other items to any other person while the person knew or should have known that such shipment would likely result in another person exporting, transferring, transshipping or otherwise providing the goods, services, technology or other items to Iran and that the items would contribute materially to the ability of Iran to acquire or develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or related technologies or destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons; or
• participate in a joint venture established on or after Feb. 2, 2012, with the government of Iran, an entity incorporated in Iran or subject to the jurisdiction of the government of Iran, or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of the government or Iran or such an entity that involves any activity relating to the mining, production or transportation of uranium.
Source: STR Trade Report
The Justice Department always touts its FCPA, Criminal Antitrust and Health Care Fraud enforcement programs. It is very proud of its record in these areas. But quietly and methodically the Justice Department has ramped up, with little fanfare, its export control and sanctions enforcement program. For the first half of this year, while attorneys, client [...]
The Justice Department always touts its FCPA, Criminal Antitrust and Health Care Fraud enforcement programs. It is very proud of its record in these areas. But quietly and methodically the Justice Department has ramped up, with little fanfare, its export control and sanctions enforcement program.
For the first half of this year, while attorneys, client alerts, and marketing pitches continue to focus on FCPA enforcement, the Justice Department’s export control and sanctions enforcement program has become the shining star in the enforcement world. The FCPA program has taken a backseat.
We have not seen any of the anticipated blockbuster FCPA settlements this year. Instead, we are seeing blockbuster settlements in the export control and sanctions area. At the same time, individuals are being prosecuted for violating export controls, especially those in sensitive technology areas involving illegal exports to China and Iran.
Aside from the GlaxoSmithKline off-label marketing settlement for $3 billion, ING Bank paid a fine of $619 million for sanctions violations. Only the Siemens case involved a larger settlement for FCPA violations. That is very significant.
This year the Justice Department and the Treasury Department have brought more civil and criminal cases against companies for violating export controls and sanctions. Defense companies have to ensure that they know who the ultimate customer for their products are and have to make sure that there is no front company which is being used to skirt the law. Continue reading »
David Mills, assistant Commerce secretary for export enforcement, gave attendees at the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Update Conference in Washington, D.C., an overview of the bureau’s recent export enforcement performance and an outline of its planned enforcement efforts as items are transferred from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. Enforcement Performance [...]
David Mills, assistant Commerce secretary for export enforcement, gave attendees at the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Update Conference in Washington, D.C., an overview of the bureau’s recent export enforcement performance and an outline of its planned enforcement efforts as items are transferred from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List.
Enforcement Performance in 2011
Office of Export Enforcement investigations resulted in the conviction of 29 individuals who received prison sentences totaling 572 months. There also were criminal convictions of 10 companies. “With individuals being convicted three times as often as companies,” Mills said, “you are seeing our emphasis on individual responsibility.” Together these cases resulted in the imposition of $20.2 million in criminal fines and $2.1 million in forfeitures, and OEE is on track to meet or exceed those numbers in 2012.
Having focused on either imports or exports throughout our careers, many professionals ask – are the two really so different? In this unique webinar, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg will compare and contrast the similarities and differences in handling everyday import and export issues. In particular, the presenter will provide examples of how you can apply and [...]
Having focused on either imports or exports throughout our careers, many professionals ask – are the two really so different? In this unique webinar, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg will compare and contrast the similarities and differences in handling everyday import and export issues. In particular, the presenter will provide examples of how you can apply and leverage your experience and knowledge in certain areas to those where you may be less familiar.
Key topics to be addressed:
• The missions and priorities of import and export enforcement
• The exporter/forwarder versus importer/broker relationship
• Identifying critical regulatory agencies and admissibility/control requirements
• Dealing with restricted parties, countries and transactions
• Definitions of import/export and importer/exporter of record
• Transaction documents for imports and exports
• Classification, valuation and preference claims for imports versus exports
• Making post import/export corrections
• Addressing penalties, seizures and disclosures
• Compliance and security programs
• Question & Answer Forum
Speaker:
Lenny Feldman Esq. Managing Member, Miami Office, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. Lenny has innovatively and effectively advised hundreds of importers and exporters to simultaneously develop and adopt best practices and compliance programs in the import and export context. Prior to joining the Firm, Lenny served nine years as a senior attorney with the U.S. Customs Service responsible for issuing national rulings, decisions and directives relating to import and export compliance and enforcement and served as the Chief Compliance Officer of a software development company created to automate global import and export regulatory requirements.
Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012
Time: 1:00PM-2:30PM
Cost: $250 USD
Note: This seminar has been certified by NCBFAA Educational Institute for Certified Customs Specialist (CCS) continuing education credits. CCS credits: 2.
Survey finds companies are increasingly at risk for violating U.S. export regulations. The Obama administration is pushing export growth as a way to rev up the economy and boost job creation. But if the results of a recent survey are any indication, the small and mid-sized U.S. companies that stand to benefit most from export [...]
Survey finds companies are increasingly at risk for violating U.S. export regulations.
The Obama administration is pushing export growth as a way to rev up the economy and boost job creation. But if the results of a recent survey are any indication, the small and mid-sized U.S. companies that stand to benefit most from export growth need to educate themselves about the applicable regulations before they crank up their export engines.
The survey, conducted among mid-market companies by global trade management software provider Amber Road, found that these companies are increasingly at risk for violating U.S. export regulations. Of the 150 companies surveyed, 23 percent do not screen for restricted parties prior to engaging with trading partners and customers.
Of those survey respondents who do perform restricted-party screening, 30 percent do so manually using spreadsheets or websites. Two-thirds (66 percent) use manual processes to classify their products, opening the door to errors and inconsistencies. Of equal concern is that only 41 percent have a comprehensive export compliance program, and 20 percent have no formal compliance program in place.
Just over one-third (35 percent) of respondents have a management team that is somewhat aware of the regulations but has no involvement in the compliance process. In fact, survey respondents say a lack of executive sponsorship is largely to blame for their companies’ trade compliance deficiencies.
According to a March 2012 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis report, U.S. exports grew 7.7 percent from January 2011 to January 2012. That’s good news, yet it also raises concerns. “Mid-market companies in particular are increasing revenues by accessing foreign markets,” said Scott Byrnes, Amber Road’s vice president of marketing, in a statement. “Unfortunately, it appears that many mid-market companies aren’t fully aware of the regulatory requirements governing global trade.”
Click here to download the full results of the survey.
Source: DC Velocity
Regardless as to what your product or service may be, it is your responsibility as a U.S. exporter to screen your customers, including distributors. A new free export compliance tool called “Trade Wizards” from automated trade management solution provider Amber Road, Inc. allows U.S. exporters to establish whether a company or individual is present on [...]
Regardless as to what your product or service may be, it is your responsibility as a U.S. exporter to screen your customers, including distributors.
A new free export compliance tool called “Trade Wizards” from automated trade management solution provider Amber Road, Inc. allows U.S. exporters to establish whether a company or individual is present on any official restricted party or transshipment list, banned from import of export transactions, sanctioned by a government for performing illegal acts or a forced child labor or convict labor violation.
In addition to trade party screening, Trade Wizards also allows users to classify a product’s HS or ECN using number and Legal text search capabilities and to calculate the landed cost for a transaction including duties, taxes (excise, value-added, provincial, etc.) customs fees, port charges, and all other import taxes.
To learn more through a series of instructional videos an/or register for your free account, click here.
