On June 23, 2021, Office of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register a notification of continuation of temporary travel restrictions at land ports of entry and ferries between the United States and Mexico from June 22, 2021 to July 21, 2021, unless amended or rescinded prior to that time. For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Mexico border shall be limited to “essential travel.” At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Mexico, but does apply to passenger rail, passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat travel between the United States and Mexico.

On the same date, a similar notification was published by DHS/CBP in the Federal Register that continues to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Canada into the United States at land ports of entry and ferries along the United States-Canada border through July 21, 2021.

Given the definition of “essential travel” in each notification, the temporary alteration in land ports of entry operations should not interrupt legitimate trade between the two nations or disrupt critical supply chains that ensure food, fuel, medicine, and other critical materials reach individuals on both sides of the two borders.

“Essential travel,” includes, but is not limited to—

  • U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;
  • Individuals traveling for medical purposes (e.g., to receive medical treatment in the United States);
  • Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;
  • Individuals traveling to work in the United States (e.g., individuals working in the farming or agriculture industry who must travel between the United States and Canada in furtherance of such work);
  • Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes (e.g., government officials or emergency responders entering the United States to support Federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial government efforts to respond to COVID-19 or other emergencies);
  • Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade (e.g., truck drivers supporting the movement of cargo between the United States and Canada or Mexico);
  • Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;
  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and
  • Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.

The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—

  • Individuals traveling for tourism purposes (e.g., sightseeing, recreation, gambling, or attending cultural events).

The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”

The post US – DHS/CBP extend land and ferry travel restrictions to/from Mexico and Canada appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On June 24, 2021, the White House announced that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) on silica-based products made by Hoshine Silicon Industry Co., Ltd., a company located in Xinjiang, and its subsidiaries. This WRO is based on information reasonably indicating that Hoshine used forced labor to manufacture silica-based products. As a result, personnel at all U.S. ports of entry have been instructed to immediately begin detaining shipments that contain silica-based products made by Hoshine or materials and goods derived from or produced using those silica-based products. CBP investigates allegations of forced labor in US supply chains and will continue investigating allegations in the polysilicon industry and other industries in Xinjiang and elsewhere.

The post US – CBP issues Withhold Release Order (WRO) appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

Please join us for a new weekly video series, hosted by Baker McKenzie’s North America Government Enforcement partners Tom Firestone and Jerome Tomas.

This weekly briefing is available on demand and will cover hot topics and current enforcement actions related to white collar crime and criminal investigations in the US and abroad to arm you with the information you need to start your business week.

As one of the largest global law firms, we will call upon our exceptionally deep and broad bench of white collar experts throughout the world and particularly in the commercial hubs of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to join our weekly discussion series.

These briefings will cover:

  • High-profile DOJ case updates and implications
  • SEC enforcement developments 
  • CFTC enforcement developments
  • Other white collar defense industry developments 

29 June 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following: 

  • SEC Cybersecurity Enforcement Sweep:  The SEC Clarifies, Sort Of
  • Latest, and Interesting, Comments By SEC Commissioner on ESG
  • Combating Global Corruption Act of 2021
  • Global Magnitsky Reauthorization Act
  • New Belarus Sanctions 

Video Link

Podcast Link

22 June 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following: 

  • New Charges in 1MDB Case
  • FARA Reform Proposals
  • Possible New Russia Sanctions  
  • Cyber SEC Enforcement: Latest SEC Disclosure Controls and Procedures Enforcement Case
  • A New SEC Cyber Enforcement Sweep

Video Link

Podcast Link

9 June 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following: 

  • Potential SEC ESG Disclosure Rulemaking and Materiality:  Commissioners Allison Herren Lee and Elad Roisman Continue to Volley
  • White House strategy statement on corruption and national security
  • Belarus sanctions
  • Bulgaria sanctions
  • Executive Order on Western Balkans

Video Link 

Podcast Link

25 May 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following: 

  • Insight on Gary Gensler’s SEC Enforcement Agenda: SEC Chair’s Remarks at 2021 FINRA Annual Conference
  • Discussion of Treasury’s Plan to Increase IRS Enforcement and Narrow the Tax Gap
  • Update on Nord Stream 2 Sanctions 

Video link 

18 May 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Russian Response to US Sanctions and Designation of US as an “Unfriendly” Country  
  • Trial of Mayor of Fall River, Massachusetts for Extorting Marijuana Businesses  
  • The Challenges of Fitting Modern Practices into Old Laws: SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s Statement Regarding an Index Fund SEC Settlement  
  • SEC’s Continued Slow Embrace of Crypto Assets: Division of Investment Management’s Statement on ETF Holdings of Crypto Assets and Potential Enforcement Implications  to Assets and Potential Enforcement Implications  

Video Link

10 May 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Crypto developments:  SEC Chair Gensler’s Testimony, Dogecoin and Saturday Night Live
  • The “Swiss George Floyd Case”  (for more information about this case, please see this documentary featuring Simon Ntah here

Video Link

3 May 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • First Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Sanctions and Export Violations Leads to Settlement between Software Company and DOJ
  • The Sudden Resignation of SEC Enforcement Director Alex Oh:  What is Next For SEC Enforcement?

Video Link

26 April 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • New SEC Enforcement Director Alex Oh: What It May Mean For SEC Enforcement
  • DOJ Pattern and Practice Investigation of Minneapolis Police Department

Video Link

19 April 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • First guilty plea in Capitol attack cases: What it means for future prosecutions
  • New Russia sanctions: What they do and don’t do, and what could be next
  • Comments by Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, “SPACs, IPOs and Liability Risk under the Securities Laws”: What it means for SEC enforcement

Video Link

12 April 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Criminal Antitrust Prosecutions of No Poaching and Wage Fixing Agreements: Perspective of a Leading Antitrust Lawyer.
  • Enforcement perspectives arising out of the SEC’s April 9, 2021 “Risk Alert” relating to ESG products and services offered by investment advisers, registered investment companies and private funds.
  • DOJ Priorities under the Biden Administration: What the Budget Tells Us.

Video Link

30 March 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • SEC Enforcement Sweep Looks Into SPAC IPOs
  • New Legal Issues in the Capitol Riot Cases

Video Link

15 March 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • DOJ/SEC FCPA priorities
  • Oath Keepers conspiracy case
  • New Russian law to protect officials against corruption charges
  • Does SEC Commissioner Crenshaw’s speech about increased corporate penalties foreshadow a possible retraction of the SEC’s 2006 Statement Concerning Financial Penalties and what we can expect from corporate securities enforcement over the next 4 years?

Video Link

8 March 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • This week, Jerome is joined by his partners Amy Greer and Jen Klass and they will dig deep into the enforcement issues presented by the SEC’s “Enforcement Task Force Focused on Climate and ESG Issues” 

Video Link

1 March 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • The SEC’s Plan to Dig Into Public Company Climate Change Disclosures: A White Collar Enforcement Perspective
  • Key Takeaways from Merrick Garland Confirmation Hearing
  • Update on Capitol Riot Cases
  • Secretary Blinken Statement on Anticorruption Champions 

Video Link

22 February 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Potential prosecution of former President Trump for incitement of the Capitol attack
  • The SEC’s latest message following the “The Market Events”: trading suspension in In the Matter of SpectraScience, Inc. 
  • New Transparency International Corruption Report
  • The SEC’s ICO enforcement initiative lives on: SEC v. Coinseed, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. 17 February 2021)

Video Link

15 February 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Update on Capitol riot cases
  • The legal definition  of “incitement of insurrection” 
  • Discussion of the reported DOJ and SEC investigations into the retail traders in last month’s market events
  • A reminder on the scope of the US insider trading laws, courtesy of SEC v. Mark Ahn (D. Mass) (also a parallel criminal case was filed)

Video Link

8 February 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • An update on the Capitol Riots
  • Consideration of new sanctions on Russia
  • An update on stock market events, including the FINRA notice on broker-dealer “game-style” trading apps 

Video Link

1 February 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • Analysis of the Reddit/WallStreetBets-driven stock surges, with a special appearance by Jerome’s 15 year old son, Sam, who has been following the events on Reddit and Discord  
  • Discussion of the Hoskins appeal and the future of the FCPA’s “Agency” theory
  • Update on the Capitol raid prosecutions

Video Link

18 January 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • New SEC Enforcement Statute of Limitations and Disgorgement Provisions Contained in the NDAA
  • New AML Whistleblower Bounty Provision in the NDAA
  • Criminal charges against Capitol rioters
  • Julian Assange extradition case

Video Link

4 January 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following:

  • What criminal statutes might apply to the attack on the Capitol?
    • 18 USC 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection
    • 18 USC 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy
    • 18 USC 1752 – Restricted Building or Grounds
  • What, if any, criminal statutes might apply to President Trump’s call last week with Georgia Secretary of State?
  • The 25th Amendment — A brief history of the amendment, what the amendment provides for and how it might apply in light of these events.

Video Link

14 December 2020

Video Link

07 December 2020

Video Link

23 November 2020

Video Link

16 November 2020

Video Link

9 November 2020

Video Link

26 October 2020

Video Link

19 October 2020

Video Link

5 October 2020

Video Link

29 September 2020

Video Link

8 September 2020

Video Link

24 August 2020

Video Link

17 August 2020

Video Link

10 August 2020

Video Link

3 August 2020

Video Link

27 July 2020

Video Link

20 July 2020

Video Link

13 July 2020

Video Link

6 July 2020

Video Link

29 June 2020

Video Link

22 June 2020

Video Link

17 June 2020

Video Link

9 June 2020

Video Link

26 May 2020 

Video Link

The post United States: This Week in Government Enforcement (Video Chat) appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

On 5 April 2021, the US Court of International Trade (Court) issued a significant ruling that overturns a portion of the Section 232 tariffs imposed by President Trump under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862). The decision affects the duties imposed on US imports of steel and aluminum “derivative” products but not the more general steel and aluminum tariffs. The Court found that President Trump missed the statutory deadline when he extended Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivative products more than two years after he received the original Section 232 report. In particular, the President failed to issue the proclamation expanding the duties within the 105-day window beginning upon receipt of the investigation report issued by the Secretary of Commerce. The decision may provide a path to meaningful relief (i.e., refunds and future imports with no Section 232 duties) to importers of these products and also provides important precedent for the ongoing litigation challenging the Section 301 tariffs imposed on Chinese goods.


CASE0456603 Image 1

This recent decision follows an earlier one in the same proceeding (Slip Op 21-8, dated 27 January 2021), in which the Court denied both the government’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, meaning the Court ordered additional briefing on the critical question of when the 105-day period began. The US Government declined to submit additional evidence on this question, and the Court concluded that the government therefore waived an argument that it complied with the 105-day time limit. After finding the President’s actions unlawful, the Court ordered covered entries to be liquidated without the assessment of duties and refunds of past duties paid by the plaintiff.

CASE0456603 Image 2

The decision is subject to appeal. However, importers of derivative steel and aluminum products should assess the status of entries immediately and preserve rights to refunds, including through the filing of protests or post-summary corrections. The “derivative” steel products covered by the action include nails, tacks, drawing pins, corrugated nails, staples, bumper stampings of steel, certain accessories of motor vehicles, and body stampings of steel for tractors suitable for agricultural use. The “derivative” aluminum products covered by the action include stranded wire, cables, plaited bands, and slings, whether or not with steel core. Further guidance from US Customs and Border Protection may follow, but action is likely needed to seek immediate relief.

Section 301 Tariffs:

In addition, the timeliness of the President’s actions under trade statutes is a central issue in the ongoing Section 301 litigation, where nearly 4,000 complaints have been filed challenging the expansion of tariffs on Chinese imports through two additional “lists” of covered products.

For further details, please contact the authors or the Baker McKenzie lawyer with whom you regularly work.

Download alert

The post United States: US Court of International Trade declares Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on ‘derivative’ products invalid and orders refunds the tariff appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On June 15, 2021, the White House announced that the US and European Union (EU) have reached an agreement in the 16-year WTO Boeing-Airbus dispute and agreed to address shared challenges from China. The US and EU will suspend tariffs that were authorized by the WTO that are related to this dispute for five years and work together to challenge and counter China’s non-market practices in this sector in specific ways that reflect standards for fair competition. This includes collaboration on inward and outbound investment and tech transfer.  

White House Fact Sheet and a USTR press briefing said both sides agreed to the following general principles to guide their future cooperation.

White House Fact Sheet:

Suspend the tariffs related to this dispute for five years. This signals a mutual determination to embark on a fresh start in the relationship. The agreement also retains flexibility for the United States to reapply tariffs if the US believes it is no longer competing on a level playing field. [These tariffs will remain suspended so long as EU support for Airbus is consistent with the terms of this agreement. Should EU support cross a red line and U.S. producers are not able to compete fairly and on a level playing field, the United States retains the flexibility to reactivate the tariffs that are being suspended.]

Establish a Working Group to analyze and overcome any disagreements that may arise between the sides. The Working Group will collaborate on and continue discussing and developing these principles and appropriate actions. The Trade Ministers leading the Working Group will consult at least yearly. The Working Group will meet on request or at least every 6 months.

Ensure that US workers and industries can compete on a level playing field. The US and EU agreed to clear statements on acceptable support for large civil aircraft producers that affirm the outcomes of the disputes and the intention of the parties to ensure that US workers and industries can compete on a level playing field.

Confront the threat the US and EU face from China’s ambitions to build a sector upon non-market practices, including:

  • Meaningful cooperation on countering (1) investments in the EU and the United States by non-market actors, which can lead to the appropriation of technology; and (2) outward investments into China that are influenced by non-market forces. 
  • Identifying where joint work is needed to take parallel action against non-market practices.
  • Sharing information regarding these and other areas to forge a common approach in the large civil aircraft sector.

EU press release:

On 15 June 2021, the European Commission announced that European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis and US Trade Representative Katherine Tai reached an understanding relating to large civil aircraft, transforming almost 17 years of disputes into a forward-looking, collaborative platform to address bilateral issues as well as global challenges.

Both sides will now seek to overcome long-standing differences in order to avoid future litigation and preserve a level playing field between our aircraft manufacturers and will also work to prevent new differences from arising.

The EU and the US also agreed to suspend application of harmful tariffs worth of USD 11.5 billion for a period of five years that hurt companies and people on both sides of the Atlantic.

The two sides will  collaborate on jointly analysing and addressing non-market practices of third parties that may harm our large civil aircraft sectors.

Under the Understanding on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft, the two sides expressed their intention to:

  • establish a Working Group on Large Civil Aircraft led by each side’s respective Minister responsible for Trade,
  • provide financing to large civil aircraft producers on market terms,
  • provide R&D funding through an open and transparent process and make the results of fully government funded R&D widely available, to the extent permitted by law,
  • not to provide R&D funding as well as specific support (such as specific tax breaks) to their own producers that would harm the other side,
  • collaborate on addressing non-market practices of third parties that may harm their respective large civil aircraft industries,
  • continue to suspend application of their countermeasures, for a period of 5 years, avoiding billions of euros in duties for importers on both sides of the Atlantic

The post US and EU reach understanding on large civil aircraft and China; tariffs to be suspended for five years appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On 5 April 2021, the US Court of International Trade (Court) issued a significant ruling that overturns a portion of the Section 232 tariffs imposed by President Trump under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862). The decision affects the duties imposed on US imports of steel and aluminum “derivative” products but not the more general steel and aluminum tariffs. The Court found that President Trump missed the statutory deadline when he extended Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivative products more than two years after he received the original Section 232 report. In particular, the President failed to issue the proclamation expanding the duties within the 105-day window beginning upon receipt of the investigation report issued by the Secretary of Commerce. The decision may provide a path to meaningful relief (i.e., refunds and future imports with no Section 232 duties) to importers of these products and also provides important precedent for the ongoing litigation challenging the Section 301 tariffs imposed on Chinese goods.

This recent decision follows an earlier one in the same proceeding (Slip Op 21-8, dated 27 January 2021), in which the Court denied both the government’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, meaning the Court ordered additional briefing on the critical question of when the 105-day period began. The US Government declined to submit additional evidence on this question, and the Court concluded that the government therefore waived an argument that it complied with the 105-day time limit. After finding the President’s actions unlawful, the Court ordered covered entries to be liquidated without the assessment of duties and refunds of past duties paid by the plaintiff.

Download alert

The post US Court of International Trade declares Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on ‘derivative’ products invalid and orders refunds the tariff appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On June 16, 2021, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register a final rule [CBP Dec. 21-09] that amends the CBP regulations to reflect the imposition of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological and ethnological material from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). These restrictions are being imposed pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Turkey (the Agreement) that has been entered into under the authority of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (the Act). This final rule amends the CBP regulations by adding Turkey to the list of countries which have a bilateral agreement with the United States that imposes cultural property import restrictions. This final rule also contains the Designated List that describes the types of archaeological and ethnological material to which the restrictions apply.

On March 27, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations required by the Act, including: (1) that the cultural patrimony of Turkey is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological material representing Turkey’s cultural heritage dating from approximately 1.2 million years ago to A.D. 1770, and ethnological material dating from approximately the 1st century A.D. to A.D. 1923; (2) that the Turkish government has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that import restrictions imposed by the United States would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and remedies less drastic are not available; and (4) that the application of import restrictions as set forth in the final rule is consistent with the general interests of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes. The Assistant Secretary also found that the material described in the determinations meets the statutory definition of “archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party” (19 U.S.C. 2601(2)).

In accordance with the Agreement, importation of material designated below is subject to the restrictions of 19 U.S.C. 2606 and § 12.104g(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a)) and will be restricted from entry into the United States unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and § 12.104c of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 12.104c) are met. CBP is amending § 12.104g(a) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a)) to indicate that these import restrictions have been imposed. Import restrictions listed as 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of not more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the Agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the Agreement exists. The import restrictions will expire on March 24, 2026, unless extended.

The post US – Import restrictions imposed on categories of archaeological and ethnological material of Turkey appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

Shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders have been prevalent throughout the United States since March 2020 as state and local governments have sought to protect their citizens from the spread of the COVID-19 virus while at the same time reopen their economies in accordance with phased reopening plans. Keeping abreast of the evolving nature of these orders and plans as the spread of the virus continues to evolve is critical to the functioning of all businesses throughout the country.

Baker McKenzie has a team in place that has been advising clients real-time on these most critical issues since the first orders were enacted. We are pleased to provide this tracker, which identifies the relevant state-wide shelter-in-place orders and their related expiration dates, as well as the applicable state-wide reopening plans, in each of the 50 United States plus Washington, D.C. The “What’s Open” table on each page highlights the reopening status of four major sectors (office, manufacturing, retail and bars/restaurants).

In addition, the tracker includes links to the relevant quarantine requirements or recommendations for incoming travelers in each state plus Washington, D.C.

Key developments reflected in this week’s update to the tracker include the following:

  • The following jurisdictions extended their state-wide orders and/or the duration of the current phase of their reopening plans: Georgia.
  • The following jurisdictions eased restrictions, mask requirements and/or advanced to the next phase of their reopening plan: Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Vermont and West Virginia.

You can also view our brochure which highlights key areas of expertise where we can support your business’s tracking and reopening plans. Please call or email your regular Baker McKenzie contact if you require additional analysis regarding these matters.

Last updated 18 June 2021

DOWNLOAD US SHELTER-IN-PLACE/REOPENING TRACKER

The post US 50 State Shelter-in-Place / Reopening Tracker appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

The Ever-Changing International Trade Landscape

We are pleased to invite you to our Virtual Global Trade Conference. In lieu of our annual conference in Bellevue, WA, we are excited to again provide a virtual offering available to all our clients and friends worldwide! The conference will be comprised of nine one-hour sessions over the course of three days. Please join us on July 13, 14 and 15 for any or all sessions.

Our international trade compliance lawyers from around the world will review the major developments impacting international trade. Please see full agenda below for the details and timing of each session. You may register for each session by clicking the “Register for this session” buttons in the agenda below.

CLE, CPE, CCS, MCS, CES, MES Credit Pending

Event Details
Date and Time
July 13 | Day One
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

July 14 | Day Two
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

July 15 | Day Three
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

Contact
Registration
Liz Rittinger​

elizabeth.rittinger@bakermckenzie.com
+1 415 984 3853

General Inquiries
Anna Discutido
annamarie.discutido@bakermckenzie.com
+1 416 865 6946

Sign Up for a Virtual One-to-One Meeting

If you would you like to arrange a 20 minute virtual one-to-one session with one of our International Trade attorneys, please indicate the topic or question you’d like to discuss here. We’ll contact you to schedule a convenient time to meet. 

Sign Up for a Virtual One-to-One Meeting

Agenda

Panel Date and Time
Topics of Discussion
Speakers
 

July 13 | Day One

Overview & Trade Policy Landscape
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT

Globalization in an era of geopolitics
Biden Administration trade policy 6 months in CFIUS and international foreign investment regulation developments
The evolving foreign investment regime landscape
World Trade Organization: Prospects and Key Priorities
America’s Supply Chain Focus: Supply Chain Executive Order, ICTS Executive Order, NDAA s. 889 and Buy American initiatives
John Rood (Guest Speaker – Former U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
John McKenzie
Rod Hunter
Sunny Mann
Pablo Bentes  

Export Control Developments
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT

Emerging and foundational technologies: implementation of the mandate of the ECRA
New military and military intelligence end-user/military end-use export control requirements
Huawei-specific “foreign direct product” rule and related licensing for 5G
BIS Entity List proliferation and implications
Hong Kong: Update on the implications of the changed status of Hong Kong
European and UK export control developments 
Implications of BREXIT and divergence of regulatory approaches and requirements
New UK guidance on technology exports, cloud computing and remote access
Encryption amendments and Wassenaar Amendments implementation
Janet Kim
Paul Amberg
Alex Lamy
Alison Stafford Powell
Ben Smith  

Economic Sanctions
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

Burma/Myanmar
Iran – Prospects for US rejoining the JCPOA
Russia
Major new Russia-focused sanctions authorities for Specified Harmful Foreign Activities
NordStream II
CBW sanctions
Implications of designation of the FSB as a NPWMD sanctioned party
European sanctions
Russian response
Venezuela
Belarus
EU/UK Sanctions developments and prospects post-BREXIT
New UK global anti-corruption sanctions
Alison Stafford Powell
Alex Lamy
Ben Smith
Kerry Contini
Sylwia Lis  

July 14 | Day TwoSpotlight on China Trade Developments – Part 1
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT

Sanctions against China
China-related Entity List Sanctions
OFAC sanctions programs used against China
Investment Restrictions in certain Chinese Military Companies – EO 13959 and EO 14032
Hong Kong Autonomy Act implementation
European Union, UK sanctions against China
Trade compliance and ESG Risks and mitigation in China-related supply chains
State Department Advisory
CBP withhold release orders
Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Laws
California Transparency in Supply Chains Act
Section 307 of the Tariff Act and CAATSA provisions on North Korean labor
Semiconductor and Advanced Packaging initiative (BIS)
Alison Stafford Powell
Kerry Contini
Aleesha Fowler
Eunkyung Kim Shin
Sven Bates

Spotlight on China Trade Developments – Part 2
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT

Implementation of the Chinese export control law
MOFCOM’s new export control compliance program guidelines
China’s Encryption Law and Announcement 63: import and export restrictions
MOFCOM’s Order No. 4: Implementing China’s Unreliable Entity List System
MOFCOM’s “Blocking” Regulation: Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-Territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures and China’s response to US and foreign sanctions
Implementation of China’s National Security Law in Hong Kong
Status and Prospects for the U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement
John McKenzie
Ivy Tan
Weng Keong Kok
Vivian Wu
Iris Zhang

Import and Customs Developments
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

Customs Valuation
First sale and the CIT decision in U.S. v. Meyer
Transfer pricing and customs valuation 
Section 301 Developments
Challenge to China lists 3-4:  HMTX case status
The Ireland/Northern Ireland Border Issue
USTR product exclusion procedures
Country of origin analysis (USMCA and “products of China” for section 301 purposes)
Digital Services Tax Developments and Section 301 investigations
ICTS – Developments Towards Protecting the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (EO 13873) and Protecting American’s Sensitive Data (EO 14034)
John McKenzie
Alison Stafford Powell
Christine Streatfeild
Gene Tien 

July 15 | Day Three

Export Control and Economic Sanctions Enforcement
8:00 am – 9:00 am PDT

Leading Cases: Lessons Learned
Export Control and Economic Sanctions Enforcement Trends
Expectations of Regulatory Authorities (DoJ, OFAC, OEE)
Ransomware – Trade compliance and data privacy issues in ransomware attacks
Focus on cryptocurrency and blockchain issues in sanctions compliance cases
Alison Stafford Powell
Terry Gilroy
Jess Nall
Helena Engfeldt
Tristan Grimmer
Sam Kramer

Trade Agreements Developments
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm PDT

USMCA:  What we have learned in the past 18 months 
Comprehensive Pacific Partnership: Prospects for U.S. participation
The challenge of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)
Prospects for a US− UK Free Trade Agreement
European Union − UK Free Trade Agreement 
Various UK trade agreement initiatives
Transpacific Partnership (without the United States)
John McKenzie
Adriana Ibarra-Fernandez
Paul Burns
Jenny Revis
Ivy Tan  

Trade Developments – Rest of the World
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm PDT

Canada
Japan 
ASEAN
Brazil
South Africa
John McKenzie
Brian Cacic
Junko Suetomi
Weng Keong Kok
Alessandra Machado
Virusha Subban               

The post International: 2021 Virtual Global Trade Conference – July 13-15 appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On June 9, 2021, the Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14034, “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries” (“EO 14034”). EO 14034 revokes three executive orders issued by the Trump Administration that effectively banned certain Chinese connected software applications (“apps”) from operating in the United States. Although EO 14034 revokes these legal authorities and calls for their implementing rules to be rescinded, EO 14034 signals that the Biden Administration will continue to analyze the national security risks presented by apps developed by persons subject to the jurisdiction or control of “foreign adversaries” and suggests that additional restrictions may be issued in the future.

The Revoked EOs

The Trump Administration issued three executive orders (“Revoked EOs”) that provided the authority for the US Commerce Department to restrict or prohibit certain Chinese apps from operating in the United States:

  • Executive Order 13942 (prohibiting certain transactions involving ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiaries (including the TikTok app)) (“EO 13942”);
  • Executive Order 13943 (prohibiting certain transactions involving Tecent Holdings Ltd.’s WeChat app) (“EO 13943”); and
  • Executive Order 13971 (prohibiting certain transactions involving persons that develop or control the following Chinese apps, or their subsidiaries: Alipay, CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, Tencent QQ, VMate, WeChat Pay, and WPS Office) (“EO 13971”).

The Revoked EOs were originally issued under the authority of Executive Order 13873 (“EO 13873”), which authorizes the Commerce Department to block or impose conditions on transactions involving information and communications technology and services (“ICTS”) originating in certain countries designated as “foreign adversaries.” Our blog posts on the EO 13873 regulations and EO 13971 are available here and here, respectively. EO 14034 does not revoke EO 13873 and directs the Secretary of Commerce to continue to evaluate transactions involving apps that may pose risks to US national security under EO 13873 and its implementing regulations.

EO 14034 repeals the Revoked EOs and directs the relevant executive agencies to rescind the regulations implementing EO 13942 and 13943. Commerce Department orders barring certain transactions involving ByteDance Ltd. and WeChat were blocked from taking effect in 2020 through legal challenges that resulted in injunctions against implementation of the orders. The Biden Administration abandoned litigation challenging the injunctions in February 2021 pending completion of a broader review of the national security threat presented by the collection of US persons’ data through such apps.

Broad review of national security risks of apps with ties to “foreign adversaries”

EO 14034 reflects the Biden Administration’s new approach to addressing the national security risks presented by apps from “foreign adversaries.” EO 14034 calls for a “rigorous, evidence-based analysis” of the national security risks associated with the transfer of or access to US persons’ data, particularly with regard to access by persons owned, controlled, or subject to the jurisdiction of “foreign adversaries,” including the People’s Republic of China.  

Reports analyzing these risks and recommending additional legal actions to address such risks are due to be submitted to the US National Security Advisor on October 7, 2021 and December 6, 2021, respectively. EO 14034 suggests that future legal authorities issued by the Biden Administration to protect the ICTS supply chain may be more general and will not focus on individual companies. 

The post United States: Biden Administration revokes Executive Orders banning certain Chinese software applications appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source