Background on CBP Country of Origin Determination and USMCA
All merchandise of foreign origin imported into the United States (U.S.) must generally be marked with its country of origin, and it is subject to a country of origin (COO) determination by CBP. The country of origin of imported goods may be used as a factor to determine eligibility for preferential trade treatment under a free trade agreement.
Background on Export Administration Regulations
Over 95% of the world’s consumers are outside of the United States. Opportunities abound for U.S. companies that export. However, exporting is a privilege and not a right. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).
Administered by the U.S. Commerce Department, the EAR is a set of regulations which governs whether U.S. persons may export or transfer goods, software, and technology outside of the United States or to non-U.S. citizens. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to the EAR. Violations of the EAR carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned.
Co-Authored by Sharath Patil
Background on Export Administration Regulations
Over 95% of the world’s consumers are outside of the United States. Opportunities abound for U.S. companies that export. However, exporting is a privilege and not a right. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).
Administered by the U.S. Commerce Department, the EAR is a set of regulations which governs whether U.S. persons may export or transfer goods, software, and technology outside of the United States or to non-U.S. citizens. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to the EAR. Violations of the EAR carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned.
A Las Vegas woman has been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to export goods from the United States to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. According to the indictment unsealed recently, Tina Chen, 47 — aka Ya When Chen, Wen Tina Chen, Tina Dunbar, and Tina Dubner — is the owner of Top One Zone, LLC, a company exporting electronic and computer components that Chen operates from her residence. As alleged, from about November 2015 to May 2019, Chen conspired with others to buy and export goods from companies in the United States, and then send those goods to individuals in Iran through companies in Hong Kong. Chen concealed the identities of the end users, and she did not have a license from OFAC. Chen is charged with one count of conspiracy to unlawfully export goods to Iran.
According to the allegations in the indictment, Chen engaged in numerous overt acts of conspiracy including:
Diaz Trade Law’s President, Jennifer Diaz, and Associate Attorney, Sharath Patil, are enthusiastic to announce that our article, “An Overview of China’s New Export Controls Regime” was published by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA) in its Summer 2021 newsletter.
Our article discusses China’s new export control regime. The new framework is similar in many ways to U.S. export licensing mechanisms. The framework is seen by many as a mechanism to counter increasing U.S. export controls towards China as part of escalating U.S.-China tensions.
Below is the article for your reading pleasure.
Co-Authored by Sharath Patil
An Introduction to Export Controls
Over 95% of the world’s consumers are outside of the United States. Opportunities abound for U.S. companies that export. However, exporting is a privilege and not a right. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). Violations of export control laws carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned for violations of U.S. export control laws.
On April 30, 2021, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) announced that it had fined FLIR Systems, Inc. $307,922 for an egregious violation of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) for misrepresentations made in commodity jurisdiction (“CJ”) requests. A BIS spokesperson said: “BIS will not tolerate exporters that provide inaccurate or incomplete representations related to export regulations and laws.”
This recent announcement is a textbook example of why it is important to obtain counsel and be both proactive and truthful in regards to your export compliance. Whether you are new to exporting or looking to understand the foundations of export controls, including a discussion of recent penalty cases like FLIR’s (so they do not happen to you), or a seasoned professional looking to understand the latest developments, this one-hour webinar is a must attend. Register today to hear directly from the following expert duo:
Background on Section 232 Aluminum and Steel Tariffs
Section 232 investigations, administered by the U.S. Commerce Department, are conducted to determine the imports of certain goods on national security. Historically, Section 232 investigations have been conducted regarding U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products and uranium, among other critical imports. Under the Trump administration, the Commerce Department initiated investigations of U.S. imports of aluminum and steel on April 27, 2017. The investigation resulted in an affirmative determination that such imports harm U.S. national security. As a result of the investigation’s findings, Trump imposed tariffs on certain U.S. imports of aluminum and steel on national security grounds. An exclusion process was also implemented in which U.S. importers could apply for tariffs to be excluded for certain steel and aluminum product imports.
Background on AD/CVD Investigations
Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.
Co-Authored by Sharath Patil
Background on Export Administration Regulations
Over 95% of the world’s consumers are outside of the United States. Opportunities abound for U.S. companies that export. However, exporting is a privilege and not a right. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).
Administered by the U.S. Commerce Department, the EAR is a set of regulations which governs whether U.S. persons may export or transfer goods, software, and technology outside of the United States or to non-U.S. citizens. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to the EAR. Violations of the EAR carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned.