EU Cuts Syria Sanctions Term

The European Union will reduce its renewal term for sanctions on Syria to three months from an expected year. EU diplomats think that doing so will make it easier to equip rebels fighting to depose President Bashar al-Assad.

The current sanctions package is scheduled to expire on December 1, and consists of:

  • Visa bans and asset freezes on individuals and businesses connected to Assad’s government
  • A ban on oil imports from Syria
  • An embargo on the supply of arms to the country, imposed to prevent the flow of weapons to Assad’s forces

Ambassadors from the 27 EU member states decided to review the whole package of sanctions every three months, from here on out.

“This sends a strong message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that all options remain on the table and makes clear the need for real change,” a British Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

Read this Reuters article to learn more.

EmailPrintFacebookTwitterDeliciousDiggEvernoteGoogle+LinkedInPinterestRedditStumbleUponTumblrBookmark/FavoritesShare

US Senate Unanimous in Vote for Tougher Sanctions Against Iran

On November 30, 2012, the United States’ Senate passed the Menendez amendment (SA 3232) adding stronger Iran sanctions to the National Defense Authorization Act. Key features of the amendment, drafted by Senators Robert Menendez, Mark Kirk, and Joe Lieberman, according to Robert Menendez’ website, are that it:

  • Designates Iran’s energy, port, shipping, and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation due to the role they play in supporting and funding Iran’s proliferation activities
  • Imposes sanctions on persons selling or supplying a defined list of commodities to Iran – commodities that are relevant to Iran’s ship-building and nuclear sectors such as graphite, aluminum, steel, metallurgical coal and software for integrating industrial processes
  • Designates the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting entity and its President as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of forced televised confession and show trials

It adds that:

To address concerns about access to humanitarian goods in Iran there are exceptions for the provision and sale to Iran of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices and other humanitarian goods AND the amendment imposes new human rights sanctions on those in Iran who are engaged in corruption or the diversion of resources related to these goods and that are preventing them for [sic] reaching the Iranian people.

Responding to the Senate’s vote in favor of the amendment (by 94-0), Menendez said, “I applaud my colleagues…for joining us in sending a clear message to Iran: you can’t just try to wait us out. The waiting game is over and, in the end, one way or the other, Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon with which to threaten the United States, Israel, the region, and the world.”

Michael Burton, partner at the law firm Arent Fox and co-chair of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee said:

“The Senate has yet to pass the NDAA, but as they obtained closure on December 3, the vote on final passage may occur soon. And then the House must agree to it – it’s possible a conference would have to be convened – so passage isn’t a sure thing yet.”

Source: http://www.worldecr.com/news

BIS Proposal Revises Export Controls for Military Electronics

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has recently proposed a new rule regarding the control of military electronic equipment and related items. The rule mandates that the President will no longer determine warrant control under the United States Munitions List (USML), but rather on the Commerce Control List (CCL). This rule is being proposed along with another from the Department of State‘s Directorate of Defense Controls, which would amend the list of articles controlled by USML Category XI.

BIS said its intent is that the new Export Control Classification Numbers “not increase the number of destinations to which a license is required, alter the policy under which license application are reviewed or create any apparent instances of an item that is subject to the EAR being covered by more than one ECCN.”

BIS has issued a deadline of January 28, 2013 for comments to the proposed rule. Click here to view the full notice from the Federal Register. Check out this article for more information.

Understanding the Recent Ruling on Conflict Minerals

Existing Global Trade Management and Supply Chain Technology will need to Adapt to these Regulations

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed regulations that require US and certain foreign companies to report the use of “conflict minerals” from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or adjoining countries in their products.

Conflict minerals are mined under conditions of armed conflict and human rights abuse. Areas notably affected are in the eastern parts of Africa, where various armed rebel groups within the DRC are largely responsible for using these natural resources to finance continued fighting, but neighboring countries such as Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda have also profited significantly. Conflict minerals mined in the DRC are typically passed through various intermediaries before being finally purchased.

At present, four minerals are listed as conflict minerals:

  • Columbite-tantalite, or commonly known as Coltan – used primarily in the production of capacitors, hearing aids, pacemakers, airbags, GPS, ignition systems, anti-lock braking systems, laptop computers, mobile phones, video game consoles, cameras, etc.
  • Cassiterite – used in production of tin, a common component of biocides, fungicides, high performance paint manufacturing, etc.
  • Wolframite – an important source of tungsten, used in fishing weights, dart tips and golf club heads, in addition to use in other metalworking tools.
  • Gold – used in jewelry, electronics and dental products.

In practical terms, what does this ruling mean for companies whose products use these minerals? According to the National Retail Federation, the regulations will apply not only to manufacturers but also to retailers considered to be “contracting to manufacture” private-label merchandise.

A retailer simply placing its brand on a generic product would not be covered, but those that have “some actual influence over the manufacturing of that product” would be covered, NRF explained. Retailers selling only third-party merchandise under the product’s own brand rather than the store’s brand are not affected. Companies are able to avoid the disclosure rules if they use recycled or scrap minerals.Companies will have until May 31, 2014, to make their first disclosures about whether the minerals they use are “conflict free,” meaning they did not finance or benefit armed groups in Central Africa. And for two years — four years for smaller firms — companies will be able to disclose simply that they could not determine whether the minerals were helping to finance fighting in the DRC.

Final Thoughts

Existing global trade management and supply chain technology will need to adapt to these regulations. Here are some initial steps companies can take to ensure they are ready for compliance in 2014:

  • Ensure that your source of global trade content lists sanctions against the conflict mineral countries and the minerals themselves.
  • Consider using questionnaires or surveys to determine whether your product suppliers are obtaining minerals from conflicted areas. Much the same way that suppliers certify eligibility for preferential duty treatment, they can also certify that their products do not contain conflict minerals.
  • Perform admissibility reviews on transactions that contain the minerals or products made with the minerals.
  • Update your standard operating procedures to include processes for requesting and capturing declarations from suppliers and for performing transaction reviews.

 

United States to impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels

On Thursday, May 17th, the United States announced that it will impose anti dumping tariffs of more than 31 percent on solar panels from China. This decision, likely to ratchet up the trade tensions between the US and China, is the result of the US Department of Commerce finding several Chinese solar panel companies guilty of dumping their goods (selling them at below fair-market value).

The United States bought $3.1 billion worth of Chinese solar cells in 2011, which comes to more than half the American market for these devices. The anti-dumping duties are intended to level the playing field for US solar panel makers who may be undermined by Chinese competition, but may not necessarily be high enough to drive the Chinese makers out of the business altogether. Regardless, this imposition is said to be one of the strongest by the Obama administration in addressing complaints of unfair Chinese trade and economic practices.

This change also comes with opposition from many solar panel installers in United States who have opposed anti-dumping duties. They believe the inexpensive imports have helped spur many homeowners and businesses to put solar panels on their rooftops. However, this change is likely to mean a substantial increase in the price of solar panels going forward. High duties are likely to raise costs, slowing demand for the polysilicon that is used to make solar panels.

As per the Department of Commerce, merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000.

The Commerce Department said a final determination on tariffs would be made in early October.