trade regulation Archives - The National Law Forum

Buy American and Buy European

The Buy American Act was originally passed by Congress in 1933 and has undergone numerous changes across several presidential administrations. While the core of the Act has essentially remained the same, requiring the U.S. government to purchase goods produced in the U.S. in certain circumstances, the domestic preference requirements have changed over the years. While the Buy American Act applies to direct government purchases, the separate (but similarly named) Buy America Act passed in 1982 imposes similar U.S. content requirements for certain federally funded infrastructure projects. Generally, the Buy American Act’s “produced in the U.S.” requirement ensures that federal government purchases of goods valued at more than $10,000 are 100% manufactured in the U.S. with a set percentage of the cost of components coming from the U.S. As of 2024, that set percentage has been increased to 65%. Therefore, the cost of domestic components must be at least 65% of the total cost of components to comply with the rule. Under the existing rules, the threshold will increase to 75% in 2029. These planned changes are consistent with the trend of increasing preferences for domestic goods over time (a trend that has continued across administrations from both sides of the political spectrum).

Unsurprisingly, protectionist policies favoring American production can produce similar protectionist measures enacted by foreign countries. The European Union’s (EU) European Green Deal Industrial Plan (sometimes referred to as the Buy European Act), which includes the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), were both formally adopted within the last few months. The NZIA, which was agreed upon in February, is aimed at the manufacture of clean technologies in Europe and sets two benchmarks for such manufacturing in the EU: (1) that 40% of the production needed to cover the EU will be domestic by 2030; and (2) that the EU’s production will account for at least 15% of the world’s production by 2040. The NZIA contains a list of net-zero technologies, including wind and heat pumps, battery and energy storage, hydropower, and solar technologies. The CRMA, adopted on March 18, sets forth objectives for the EU’s consumption of raw materials by 2030: that 10% come from local extractions; 40% to be processed in the EU; and 25% come from recycled materials. The CRMA also provides that “not more than 65% of the Union’s annual consumption of each strategic raw material at any relevant stage of processing from a single third country.”[1] While Europe’s new acts are perhaps more geared towards raw materials and clean technology, the U.S. and Europe’s concerted efforts to focus on domestic production will be something to watch for years to come. In particular, it is worth watching whether the recent EU measures generate a response from U.S. lawmakers. If so, it could accelerate the already increasing stringency of Buy American and Buy America requirements.

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-industrial-policy/

by: Kevin P. Daly, Jeffrey J. White , Sabrina M. Galli of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more news on the Buy American Act and the European Green Deal Industrial Plan, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Congress Extends Statute of Limitations for Sanctions Violations

What Happened:

On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed into law the Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence (FEND) Off Fentanyl Act, as part of a national security legislative package, which, among other things, amended the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) to extend the statute of limitations for the enforcement of sanctions violations from five years to ten years (the Amendment). The ten-year statute of limitations applies to civil and criminal enforcement for all sanctions programs.

The Bottom Line:

The Amendment changes the lookback period for sanctions compliance from five years to ten years, impacting how sanctions compliance is treated internally at companies with international touchpoints, as well as counterparty diligence in corporate transactions. Companies will need to update their compliance programs to account for the extended period.

The Full Story:

IEEPA authorizes the President of the United States to impose economic sanctions by declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual or extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States that originates outside of the United States. IEEPA authorizes both civil enforcement actions and criminal prosecution against persons found to have violated US sanctions and previously established a five-year statute of limitations on enforcement.

As part of a broader national security package, President Biden signed into law the FEND Off Fentanyl Act on April 24, 2024. The Act requires the President to, among other things, impose sanctions under IEEPA on any person involved in the trafficking of Fentanyl through a forthcoming Fentanyl sanctions regime and amends IEEPA to extend the statute of limitations on enforcement to ten years. Critically, the extended statute of limitations under the Amendment applies not only to the forthcoming Fentanyl sanctions regime, but to almost all sanctions programs administered by the US Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The Amendment also impacts other programs authorized under IEEPA, including some programs administered by the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), such as the Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) Program, as well as other programs administered by the Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury.

The Amendment impacts compliance obligations for US companies and others seeking to comply with US sanctions. For example, OFAC regulations implementing US sanctions include record-keeping requirements for financial institutions with respect to certain transactions that currently track the previous five-year limitations period under IEEPA and it is likely that OFAC will amend its regulations to increase record-keeping requirements to ten years. Similarly, OFAC guidance on effective sanctions compliance has pegged recommended record retention periods to the five year limitations period. For example, the “safe harbor” for service providers under the prohibition on maritime services for Russian oil under the Russian oil price cap sanctions requires that persons retain records for five years. It is likely that OFAC will update its guidance to reflect the new ten-year limitations period following the Amendment and companies should carefully consider updates to sanctions compliance programs accordingly.

The Amendment does not address retroactive application. Retroactive criminal prosecution (i.e., for conduct currently beyond the prior five year limitations period) raises constitutional concerns. It is currently unclear whether OFAC will seek to bring civil enforcement actions for conduct already beyond the five-year limitations period.

The new ten-year limitations period should also be considered in conducting sanctions diligence on external counterparties. Companies will need to consider the longer lookback period when evaluating potential mergers and acquisitions and when seeking or providing representations and warranties involving sanctions compliance.

Understanding How U.S. Export Controls Affect Manufacturers’ Hiring Practices

The U.S. government has adjusted export control regulations in an effort to protect U.S. national security interests. The revisions primarily affect export of electronic computing items and semiconductors to prevent foreign powers from obtaining critical technologies that may threaten national security. As manufacturers are facing increased demand for their products and critical labor shortages, they may find themselves seeking to hire foreign national talent and navigating U.S. export control and immigration and anti-discrimination laws.

Export Control Laws in United States

The primary export control laws in the United States are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Under these regulations, U.S. Persons working for U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. U.S. Persons include: U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, Lawful permanent residents, Refugees, and Asylees. Employers might need authorization from the appropriate federal agency to “export” (in lay terms, share or release) export-controlled items to workers who are not U.S. Persons, which the regulations call foreign persons. Employers apply for such authorization from either the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Department of Commerce, depending on the item.

The release of technical data or technology to a foreign person that occurs within the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the foreign person’s “home country.” Whether an export license is required for a particular release may depend on both the nature of export controls applicable to the technology or technical data (including whether it is subject to the ITAR or EAR) and the citizenship of the foreign person.

Recent revisions to the EAR cover controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items, among other controls. These revisions particularly affect semiconductor and chip manufacturers and exporters.

Intersection With Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics.

The INA prohibits discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, among other characteristics. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, which typically includes discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, the INA prohibits “unfair documentary practices,” which are identified as instances where employers request more or different documents than those necessary to verify employment eligibility or request such documents with the intent to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship.

The intersection of export control laws, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws can create a confusing landscape for employers, particularly manufacturers or exporters of export-controlled items. Manufacturers and exporters, like all employers, must collect identity and employment authorization documentation to ensure I-9 compliance. At the same time, however, they must collect information relating to a U.S. Person in connection with export compliance assessments. To address these areas of exposure for employers, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division released an employer fact sheet to provide guidance for employers that includes best practices to avoid discrimination.

Implications

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should separate the I-9 employment authorization documentation process from the export control U.S. Person or foreign person identification process. Employers should implement or revisit internal procedures and provide updated training to employees.

The export rule revisions highlight the challenges for employers in avoiding discrimination when complying with export control laws. Manufacturers and exporters should review their compliance practices regarding U.S. export control, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws with experienced counsel. Employers should implement policies and procedures reasonably tailored to address export control compliance requirements while not engaging in discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.

by: Maurice G. Jenkins , Kimberly M. Bennett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more news on Export Control Laws, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

As Three Recent Settlements Demonstrate, Whistleblowers Are the Key to Enforcement of Section 301 Tariffs

The Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-made goods—at the time, known as the Trump Tariffs, although President Biden has embraced them as well—were put in place in 2018. Only recently, more than five years later, have enforcement efforts begun to show up publicly. And, as is often the case, whistleblowers are the tip of the enforcement spear. In particular, over the course of two weeks at the end of 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced settlements of three qui tam cases, brought under the False Claims Act, that alleged evasion of Section 301 tariffs. These are the first such settlements to be made public, but likely signal the beginning of a wave of settlements or litigation in the coming years.

Starting in July of 2018, and pursuant to Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 301 through 310, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411-2420), titled “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices,” and often collectively referred to as “Section 301,” the United States imposed additional tariffs on a wide range of products manufactured in China. The Section 301 tariffs were rolled out in tranches, but they fairly quickly covered a majority of all Chinese-made products imported into the United States. The Section 301 tariffs imposed an additional 25% customs duty on those products.

As is always the case when high tariffs are imposed on imported goods, the Section 301 tariffs were met with a mix of responses by importers. In some cases, importers simply paid the additional 25% duties. In some cases, the importers found new sources, outside of China, for the products they wished to import. And in many cases, the importers started cheating—evading the tariffs either by lying to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) about what was being imported, or engaging to transshipping schemes to make it appear that the products were actually made in some country other than China.

Evasion of customs duties violates the False Claims Act, a federal law that, among other things, outlaws the making of false statements to avoid payment of money owed to the government. Evasion of customs duties will almost always involve such false statements because when goods are imported into the United States, the importer must provide CBP with a completed form, called an Entry Summary (also known as a Form 7501), in which the importer provides information about the nature, quantity, value, and country-of-origin of the goods being imported. To avoid or reduce the payment of duties, the importer will almost always lie on the Entry Summary about one or more of those, thus exposing the importer to liability under the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act has a qui tam provision, which means that a private person or company may bring a lawsuit in the name of the government against the importer that has evaded payment of duties. If the qui tam lawsuit is successful, most of the money goes to the government. But the person or company that brought the lawsuit typically referred to as a whistleblower or, more technically, as the “relator”—gets an award that is between 15% and 30% of the amount recovered for the government.

When a qui tam case is first filed, it is put “under seal” by the court, meaning that it is secret and not available to the public. The case stays under seal, often for multiple years, as DOJ investigates the claims made in the case. But once DOJ decides to pursue a case, the seal is lifted, and the case becomes public. Often, this happens almost simultaneously with the announcement of a settlement of the case.

That is what happened with three cases that became public in late 2023. The first announcement came on November 29, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced a $1.9 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel Chinapacificarbide Inc. v. King Kong Tools, LLC. In that case, the whistleblower that had brought the qui tam lawsuit was a competitor company which alleged that King Kong Tools was manufacturing cutting tools in a factory in China, shipping them to Germany, and then importing them from Germany into the United States, claiming falsely that the tools were made in Germany. The whistleblowing company received an award of $286,861.

The second such announcement came on December 5, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas announced a $2.5 million settlement in a case captioned United States ex rel. Reznicek et al. v. Dallco Marketing, Inc. In that case, the whistleblowers were two individuals who alleged that the defendants evaded the Section 301 tariffs by underreporting the value of the products they were importing from China into the United States. The whistleblowers received an award of $500,000.

The third such announcement case on December 13, 2023, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas announced a settlement of $798,334 in a case captioned United States ex rel. Edwards v. Homestar North America LLC. Like the Dallco Marketing case, the Homestar case was also brought by an individual who alleged that the importer had lied to the government about the value of the goods being imported from China into the United States, in order to avoid payment of Section 301 tariffs. The whistleblower received an award of $151,683.

Accordingly, over the course of just two weeks in late 2023, three Section 301 settlements were publicly announced in quick succession. And notably, all three were whistleblower qui tam cases. This demonstrates the key role that whistleblowers play in the enforcement of customs tariffs and duties. No doubt, many other such cases remain under seal, and will start to become public as DOJ concludes its investigations. And because the Section 301 tariffs remain in place to this day, additional qui tam cases will almost certainly continue to be brought by both individual whistleblowers and competing companies seeking to level the playing field. Accordingly, these three settlements are likely just the early signs of a wave of Section 301 cases that will crest in the coming years.

UK Prohibits Certain Investment in Russia

From 19 July 2022,¹ it is a violation of UK financial sanctions for any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that they are carrying out, directly or indirectly, certain investment activity in Russia. These prohibitions follow the UK Government’s 6 April 2022 announcement of its intention to introduce an outright ban on all new outward investment in Russia.

The prohibitions are subject to exceptions and do not impact acts undertaken to satisfy obligations under a contract concluded before 19 July 2022, or an ancillary contract necessary for the satisfaction of that contract, subject to notifying Her Majesty’s Treasury at least five working days before the day on which any related act is carried out. There is also the option to apply for a specific Treasury licence, such as to enable humanitarian assistance activity or if connected with the provision of medical goods or services.

Furthermore, General Licence INT/2022/2002560 has been granted, taking effect from 19 July 2022 and expiring on 26 July 2022, allowing a seven-day wind-down period in respect of the prohibited activities.

What Is Prohibited?

The Regulations prohibit:

Directly or indirectly establishing any joint venture with a person connected with Russia;
Opening representative offices or establishing branches or subsidiaries in Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in Russian land and persons connected with Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a relevant entity or persons (other than an individual) with a place of business in Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia; and
The provision of investment services directly related to all the activities summarised above.

Definitions

A “person connected with Russia” means:

any individual or group of individuals who are ordinarily resident or located in Russia, or an entity which is incorporated or constituted under Russian law or domiciled in Russia;²

and is not:

A Schedule 2 Entity, as detailed in the Regulations;³ or
An entity domiciled outside of Russia or a branch, or subsidiary, of such a non-Russian entity.⁴

A “branch”⁵ means, in relation to a person other than an individual, a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of that person and which carries out all or some of the transactions inherent in the business of that person.

A “relevant entity”⁶ means a person, other than an individual, which has a place of busines located in Russia, but is not a person connected with Russia.

A person directly or indirectly “acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a person or entity”⁷ means:

Acquiring any share in the person or entity;
Acquiring any voting rights in the person or entity;
Acquiring any right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of the person or entity; or
Acquiring any means of ensuring that the affairs of the person or entity are conducted in accordance with the wishes of the person.

Exceptions

The exceptions⁸ introduced enables a person to deal directly or indirectly with:

A transferable security otherwise prohibited by Regulation 16;
A relevant security issued by a person connected with Russia; or
A relevant security issued by a relevant entity.

Full definitions of the terms above are included within Regulation 60ZZA.

What Is Prohibited?

The Regulations prohibit:

Directly or indirectly establishing any joint venture with a person connected with Russia;
Opening representative offices or establishing branches or subsidiaries in Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in Russian land and persons connected with Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a relevant entity or persons (other than an individual) with a place of business in Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia; and
The provision of investment services directly related to all the activities summarised above.

Definitions

A “person connected with Russia” means:

any individual or group of individuals who are ordinarily resident or located in Russia, or an entity which is incorporated or constituted under Russian law or domiciled in Russia;²

and is not:

A Schedule 2 Entity, as detailed in the Regulations;³ or
An entity domiciled outside of Russia or a branch, or subsidiary, of such a non-Russian entity.⁴

A “relevant entity”⁶ means a person, other than an individual, which has a place of busines located in Russia, but is not a person connected with Russia.

A person directly or indirectly “acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a person or entity”⁷ means:

Acquiring any share in the person or entity;
Acquiring any voting rights in the person or entity;
Acquiring any right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of the person or entity; or
Acquiring any means of ensuring that the affairs of the person or entity are conducted in accordance with the wishes of the person.

Exceptions

The exceptions⁸ introduced enables a person to deal directly or indirectly with:

A transferable security otherwise prohibited by Regulation 16;
A relevant security issued by a person connected with Russia; or
A relevant security issued by a relevant entity.

Full definitions of the terms above are included within Regulation 60ZZA.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Regulation 18B introduced via The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 [2022 No. 801], in force as of 19 July 2022.

² Regulation 19A(2), The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 [2019 No. 855] – as amended.

³ See pp. 123-124.

⁴ Regulation 16(4D), Ibid.

⁵ Regulation 18B(8), The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 [2022 No. 801].

⁶ Regulation 18B(8), Ibid.

⁷ Regulation 18B(8), Ibid.

⁸ Regulation 60ZZA, Ibid.

Article By Annabel Thomas, Jo Rickards, Gavin Costelloe, Bethany Histed, Kara M. Bombach, and Erik de Bie of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more global law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The FTC Seemingly Thumbs Its Nose at the Supreme Court

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that regulatory agencies must have “clear congressional authorization” to make rules pertaining to “major questions” that are of “great political significance” and would affect “a significant portion of the American economy,” and the import of that ruling to the area of noncompete regulation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced yesterday that they are teaming up to address certain issues affecting the labor market, including the regulation of noncompetes.

In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issued on July 19, 2022, the FTC and NRLB shared their shared view that:

continued and enhanced coordination and cooperation concerning issues of common regulatory interest will help to protect workers against unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and unfair labor practices. Issues of common regulatory interest include labor market developments relating to the “gig economy” and other alternative work arrangements; claims and disclosures about earnings and costs associated with gig and other work; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as noncompete and nondisclosure provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; the impact of algorithmic decision making on workers; the ability of workers to act collectively; and the classification and treatment of workers. (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the purpose of the MOU is “to facilitate (a) information sharing and cross-agency consultations on an ad hoc basis for official law enforcement purposes, in a manner consistent with and permitted by the laws and regulations that govern the [FTC and NLRB], (b) cross-agency training to educate each [agency] about the laws and regulations enforced by the other [agency], and (c) coordinated outreach and education as appropriate.”

This follows the Biden Administration’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order in which it “encourage[d]” the FTC to “consider” exercising its statutory rulemaking authority under the FTC Act “to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” Nothing concrete has yet come of that Executive Order, although the MOU perhaps represents the next stage of the FTC’s “consider[ation]” of the issue. As we previously reported, FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan recently told the Wall Street Journal that regulating noncompetes “falls squarely in [the FTC’s] wheelhouse,” and she has never been shy about sharing her view that noncompetes should be banned nationwide and that the FTC has the authority to do so. This view does not appear to have changed despite the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA.

Only time will tell what, if any, action the FTC takes with respect to regulating noncompetes, but if it does take steps to ban or otherwise limit noncompetes nationwide under Section 5 of the FTC Act, there will no doubt be litigation challenging those regulations. And you can bet that the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA will be front and center in any such challenge. Indeed, according to Law360, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley said that the MOU shows Chairwoman Khan’s vision for the FTC “goes well beyond what is provided in law and what was envisioned by Congress.” Chairwoman Khan does not seem too perturbed by the prospect of challenges to the FTC’s authority in this regard, however, and seems intent on moving forward despite the Supreme Court’s admonition.

Article By Erik W. Weibust and Stuart M. Gerson of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

States Target Infant Formula Price Gouging

There has been a nationwide shortage of infant formula following a recall and temporary closure of a major infant formula manufacturing facility in February 2022. This facility supplied as much as 40% of the nation’s infant formula. In the wake of these events, state attorneys general are on the lookout for unlawful price gouging of infant formula. Sellers of infant formula should make sure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of state price gouging restrictions.

State price gouging laws prohibit price increases above certain thresholds during a period of emergency. Several state governments have recently issued declarations or proclamations that trigger price increase limitations for infant formula, including in California (CA Exec. Order N-10-22, 6/7/2022), Oregon (OR Exec. Procl., 5/13/2022), Colorado (CO Exec. Order D-2022-021, 5/25/2022), New Jersey (NJ Exec. Order No. 296, 5/17/2022), and Kentucky (KY Exec. Order 2022-321, 6/9/2022). Each of these states has a different price gouging restriction. For instance, infant formula sold in California cannot exceed the February 17, 2022 price by more than 10% except in certain limited circumstances. Other states may have a different price increase threshold or a different benchmark date. Multi-state sellers must take care to comply with the restrictions in each state.

Several states, such as Colorado and Nevada, enacted new price gouging laws in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-730; NRS § 598.09235. Enforcers have not had much experience enforcing these statutes, which may mean greater uncertainty for sellers in those states.

Most, but not all states have a price gouging law. In states that do not have a price gouging law, attorneys general will often seek to enforce their state’s unfair or deceptive trade practices act against reports of price gouging. For example, the attorney general of New Mexico, a state without a price gouging law, issued a press release on May 31, 2022 announcing that he is investigating complaints regarding infant formula price gouging. Similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, the infant formula shortage is triggering a variety of different price gouging restrictions in different states at the same time. Navigating the differences from state-to-state can be challenging, particularly in light of the new laws and amended laws that have been recently enacted. Sellers should review their normal pricing practices and make necessary changes to avoid inadvertently running afoul of the restrictions in a particular state.

Article By Leo Caseria and Thomas L. Tyson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

U.S. Implements President Trump’s Cuba Policy

On Nov. 8, 2017, the U.S. Government announced new regulations in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s policy regarding Cuba.

In June 2017, President Trump published his National Security Presidential Memorandum “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” (NSPM), which announced modification of U.S. policy with respect to Cuba to target the Cuban military, intelligence, and security agencies. In the NSPM, President Trump emphasized the need to promote the flow of economic benefits to the Cuban people, rather than to its military. The NSPM further directed the Commerce, State, and Treasury Departments to take various actions implementing the new policy.

Accordingly, regulations were released this week by the U.S. Department of State, Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to implement the NSPM, and clarify the limitations imposed on U.S. persons wishing to travel to or do business in Cuba.

For more Antitrust legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

Tag: trade regulation

Buy American and Buy European

Like this:

Congress Extends Statute of Limitations for Sanctions Violations

Like this: