According to the announcement by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan ("MOFA"), the EPA between Japan and Vietnam will enter into force on Oct. 01, 2009.
The Exchange of Diplomatic Notes concerning the Entry into Force of the Agreement between Japan and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for an Economic Partnership will take place in Hanoi on August 26 (Wed) between the Embassy of Japan in Viet Nam and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam.
With this Exchange of Notes, the Agreement will enter into force on October 1 (Thu).
This EPA is 11th for Japan, followed by the EPA with Singapore, Mexico, Malaysia, Chili, Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei, Asean, Philippines, and Switzerland.
With this EPA with Vietnam, it is estimated both countries will be able to eliminate the 92% of customs tariff of combined trade amount within 10 years.
Japan will reduce the tariff to zero for 95% of its import from Vietnam within 10 years.
Vietnam will reduce the tariff to zero for 88% of its import from Japan within 10 years. (93% will be eliminated in 16 years time.)
Trader should bear in mind Japan have had Japan-Asean EPA which is already entry into force, and can claim preferential tariff with Vietnam. Both Japan-Vietnam EPA and Japan-Asean EPA are independent EPA treaty and no legal superiority, traders can choose whichever EPA preferential tariff. Need to check which preferential tariff is beneficial based on HS code of the product.
(Source: http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2009/8/1195112_1140.html )
2009年8月26日水曜日
2009年8月19日水曜日
ITAR and EAR (2)
In June 6, 2008, I listed the topic of "ITAR and EAR" in this blog.
http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2008/06/itar-and-ear.html
Both of them are US export control regulation, but they are different. Focusing the difference between ITAR and EAR, here's some tips for understanding ITAR.
http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2008/06/itar-and-ear.html
Both of them are US export control regulation, but they are different. Focusing the difference between ITAR and EAR, here's some tips for understanding ITAR.
- U.S. State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). On the other hand, U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) administers Export Administration Regulation (EAR).
- ITAR govern export of Defense articles and services. EAR control most of other dual-use items.
- Defense Articles are listed on ITAR's United States Munitions List (USML). USML is divided into 21 categories numbered I to XXI. Dual-use items subject to EAR is listed in EAR's Commerce Control List (CCL). CCL divided into 10 categories numbered 0 to 9. CCL further divided into 5-digit ECCN, e.g. 9A991.
- ITAR trumps EAR. Item subject to ITAR is not subject to EAR. (Even if ECCN specifically describes item, or even if BIS has classified item in a specific ECCN in writing ruling)
- What is ITAR controlled? Broadly speaking, was the item (regardless of how it is used now) originally specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified? For a military application, military end-item or a commercial satellite, spacecraft, or launch end-item or application?
Precise jurisdictional determinations are the most fundamental and most important part of any export compliance program. If item is subject to the jurisdiction to the ITAR, then there are almost always significant licensing requirements!
Take care.
2009年8月18日火曜日
Export violation case by US semiconductor company
On August 14, 2009, BIS has announced the following penalties for alleged violations of the Export Control Violations.
A U.S. semiconductor company in of Greensboro, N.C. has agreed to pay a $190,000 civil penalty in connection with exports of "spread-spectrum" modems to China. This product is classified in 5A001 according to BIS.
The allegations involved 14 unlicensed exports of these items to China with knowledge that the shipments would violate the EAR. BIS also alleged that on 13 occasions the company made false or misleading statements in connection with the submission of shipper’s export declarations (SEDs).
While the company voluntarily disclosed the violations, a manager at the company whose responsibilities at the time of the violations included export control compliance has agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty for making false and misleading statements in the course of the investigation.
Specifically, the manager was charged with telling a BIS investigator that an outside export control consultant had confirmed that the company’s products were not export-controlled to any region where the company was marketing or selling its products, even though she had been repeatedly advised that certain of the company’s products may have been classified under the Commerce Control List and may therefore have required an export license.
The lesson from this case is the importance of the keeping the written record. The written record would protect yourself, otherwise the situation may lead to "he said so, or she said so" confusion.
(Source: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2009/bis_press08142009.htm )
A U.S. semiconductor company in of Greensboro, N.C. has agreed to pay a $190,000 civil penalty in connection with exports of "spread-spectrum" modems to China. This product is classified in 5A001 according to BIS.
The allegations involved 14 unlicensed exports of these items to China with knowledge that the shipments would violate the EAR. BIS also alleged that on 13 occasions the company made false or misleading statements in connection with the submission of shipper’s export declarations (SEDs).
While the company voluntarily disclosed the violations, a manager at the company whose responsibilities at the time of the violations included export control compliance has agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty for making false and misleading statements in the course of the investigation.
Specifically, the manager was charged with telling a BIS investigator that an outside export control consultant had confirmed that the company’s products were not export-controlled to any region where the company was marketing or selling its products, even though she had been repeatedly advised that certain of the company’s products may have been classified under the Commerce Control List and may therefore have required an export license.
The lesson from this case is the importance of the keeping the written record. The written record would protect yourself, otherwise the situation may lead to "he said so, or she said so" confusion.
(Source: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2009/bis_press08142009.htm )
2009年8月14日金曜日
Horkos sanctioned export prohibition for 5 months
According to the News Release of METI on August 14, METI announced the administrative sanction of prohibition of export to Horkos.
As reported in this blog, Horkos Corp., high precision machine tool manufacturer in Japan, violated export control regulation by exporting license required high specification machine tool without export license of METI to South Korea and China.
http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2009/03/horkos-employees-arrested-by-feftl.html
In addition to criminal prosecution(*), METI imposed administrative sanction to Horkos of prohibition of export as ALL of their products to ALL countries for 5 months (from August 21, 2009 to January 21, 2010). This sanction is based on the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law ("FEFTL") Article 53.
This penalty of export prohibition is severe penalty for a machine tool company who depend on their revenue in export.
(*) In March 2009, METI prosecuted Horkos and was convicted as guilty in July 2009.
The penalty amount is JPY47,000,000 and the CEO and former employees are sentenced as imprisonment of 1 year to 2 years half (3 years suspended sentence).
(Source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20090814003/20090814003.pdf )
As reported in this blog, Horkos Corp., high precision machine tool manufacturer in Japan, violated export control regulation by exporting license required high specification machine tool without export license of METI to South Korea and China.
http://japantradecompliance.blogspot.com/2009/03/horkos-employees-arrested-by-feftl.html
In addition to criminal prosecution(*), METI imposed administrative sanction to Horkos of prohibition of export as ALL of their products to ALL countries for 5 months (from August 21, 2009 to January 21, 2010). This sanction is based on the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law ("FEFTL") Article 53.
This penalty of export prohibition is severe penalty for a machine tool company who depend on their revenue in export.
(*) In March 2009, METI prosecuted Horkos and was convicted as guilty in July 2009.
The penalty amount is JPY47,000,000 and the CEO and former employees are sentenced as imprisonment of 1 year to 2 years half (3 years suspended sentence).
(Source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20090814003/20090814003.pdf )
Asean-India sign FTA in goods
India and ASEAN signed a free trade agreement ("FTA") on Thursday Aug 13 after more than six years of negotiations, but the deal did not embrace software and information technology.
Thai and Indian officials said the agreement would eliminate tariffs on products including electronics, chemicals, machinery and textiles that account for more than 80 percent of total trade in goods between the two sides.
The agreement will be effective from Jan. 1, 2010, and tariffs on the products covered would be reduced to zero between 2013 and 2016, according to a joint statement.
ASEAN is India’s fourth-largest trading partner after the European Union, the United States and China. Two-way trade between India and ASEAN was $47 billion in 2008, the statement said.
Asean have FTA with China, Korea, Japan and Australia/New Zealand. With the FTA with India, Asean will play more important role as economic hub than ever in Asia Pacific region.
Thai and Indian officials said the agreement would eliminate tariffs on products including electronics, chemicals, machinery and textiles that account for more than 80 percent of total trade in goods between the two sides.
The agreement will be effective from Jan. 1, 2010, and tariffs on the products covered would be reduced to zero between 2013 and 2016, according to a joint statement.
ASEAN is India’s fourth-largest trading partner after the European Union, the United States and China. Two-way trade between India and ASEAN was $47 billion in 2008, the statement said.
Asean have FTA with China, Korea, Japan and Australia/New Zealand. With the FTA with India, Asean will play more important role as economic hub than ever in Asia Pacific region.
2009年8月11日火曜日
New FEFTL in force on Nov. 1, 2009
The update of Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law ("FEFTL") will be in force on Nov. 01, 2009. This update include the enforcement of "cross border" check of technology transfer, and impose more heavy penalty in case of WMD related violation.
One of the new article (Chapter 6-3, exporter's self compliance standard) is effective on April 01, 2010.
The main point of update is as follows:
- Basically all export of record media which includes controlled technology needs to have export license when exporting. Currently, the export license technology is required when the technology was received by non Japanese resident.
- Penalty: 10 years imprisonment in case of WMD related violation. Currently, the maximum imprisonment is 5 year.
(Source: http://www.cistec.or.jp/export/express/090811/090811index.html )
One of the new article (Chapter 6-3, exporter's self compliance standard) is effective on April 01, 2010.
The main point of update is as follows:
- Basically all export of record media which includes controlled technology needs to have export license when exporting. Currently, the export license technology is required when the technology was received by non Japanese resident.
- Penalty: 10 years imprisonment in case of WMD related violation. Currently, the maximum imprisonment is 5 year.
(Source: http://www.cistec.or.jp/export/express/090811/090811index.html )
2009年8月9日日曜日
DHL pay penalty to BIS and OFAC in export violation
According to BIS press release on Aug. 6th, DHL pay penalty of $9 millions to BIS and OFAC in violation of export control regulation. The charge is the past shipment to Iran, Sudan and Syria, and failure of relevant record keeping. Below is the quotation from BIS web site.
More in-depth analysis is available in web site of Bryan Cave bulletin.
http://www.bryancave.com/bulletins/
(Quote from BIS Press Release)
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) have entered into a joint settlement agreement with DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. (formerly known as DHL Holdings (USA), Inc.) and DHL Express (USA), Inc. (collectively “DHL”), regarding allegations that DHL unlawfully aided and abetted the illegal exportation of goods to Syria, Iran and Sudan and failed to comply with record keeping requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and OFAC regulations. DHL will pay a civil penalty of $9,444,744 and conduct external audits covering exports to Iran, Syria and Sudan from March 2007 through December 2011.
“Preventing exports to sanctioned countries and preserving export records are fundamental components of effective compliance,” said Kevin A. Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. “Large-scale compliance breakdowns lead to significant sanctions aimed at ensuring that freight forwarders put into place and maintain necessary measures to meet their compliance responsibilities.”
BIS charged that on eight occasions between June 2004 and September 2004, DHL caused, aided and abetted acts prohibited by EAR when it transported items subject to the EAR from the United States to Syria, and that with regard to 90 exports between May 2004 and November 2004, DHL failed to retain air waybills and other export control documents required to be retained under Part 762 of the EAR.
OFAC charged that DHL violated various OFAC regulations between 2002 and 2006 relating to thousands of shipments to Iran and Sudan. Like DHL’s EAR violations, its OFAC violations primarily involve DHL’s failure to comply with applicable recordkeeping requirements.
In addition to the monetary penalty, DHL will hire an expert on U.S. export controls laws and sanctions regulations for an external audit of DHL transactions to Iran, Sudan and Syria between March 2007 and December 2009. Annual calendar year audits will be conducted in 2010 and 2011. The external auditor will assess DHL’s compliance with the EAR and OFAC regulations, including recordkeeping requirements.
Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli praised the BIS Office of Export Enforcement’s Miami, Washington and San Jose field offices, along with OFAC for their outstanding work on the case. This case represents the largest joint settlement involving BIS and OFAC, and is the result of closer collaboration between the two agencies.
More in-depth analysis is available in web site of Bryan Cave bulletin.
http://www.bryancave.com/bulletins/
(Quote from BIS Press Release)
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) have entered into a joint settlement agreement with DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. (formerly known as DHL Holdings (USA), Inc.) and DHL Express (USA), Inc. (collectively “DHL”), regarding allegations that DHL unlawfully aided and abetted the illegal exportation of goods to Syria, Iran and Sudan and failed to comply with record keeping requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and OFAC regulations. DHL will pay a civil penalty of $9,444,744 and conduct external audits covering exports to Iran, Syria and Sudan from March 2007 through December 2011.
“Preventing exports to sanctioned countries and preserving export records are fundamental components of effective compliance,” said Kevin A. Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. “Large-scale compliance breakdowns lead to significant sanctions aimed at ensuring that freight forwarders put into place and maintain necessary measures to meet their compliance responsibilities.”
BIS charged that on eight occasions between June 2004 and September 2004, DHL caused, aided and abetted acts prohibited by EAR when it transported items subject to the EAR from the United States to Syria, and that with regard to 90 exports between May 2004 and November 2004, DHL failed to retain air waybills and other export control documents required to be retained under Part 762 of the EAR.
OFAC charged that DHL violated various OFAC regulations between 2002 and 2006 relating to thousands of shipments to Iran and Sudan. Like DHL’s EAR violations, its OFAC violations primarily involve DHL’s failure to comply with applicable recordkeeping requirements.
In addition to the monetary penalty, DHL will hire an expert on U.S. export controls laws and sanctions regulations for an external audit of DHL transactions to Iran, Sudan and Syria between March 2007 and December 2009. Annual calendar year audits will be conducted in 2010 and 2011. The external auditor will assess DHL’s compliance with the EAR and OFAC regulations, including recordkeeping requirements.
Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli praised the BIS Office of Export Enforcement’s Miami, Washington and San Jose field offices, along with OFAC for their outstanding work on the case. This case represents the largest joint settlement involving BIS and OFAC, and is the result of closer collaboration between the two agencies.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
