26-0908: Tuesday's "Export/Import Daily Bugle"

(Source: Today's Federal Register)

(Source: Future Federal Register)

(Source: DHS/CBP/CSMS)

(Source: CSMS # 69749802, 8 Sep 2026)

Attention all ACE users - the 2026 "ACE User Satisfaction Survey" is now open, and CBP wants to hear from you! Fill out the satisfaction survey and let your voice be heard!

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages all Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) trade community users to take this brief survey.

The survey is voluntary and anonymous. Your response will help CBP understand users' satisfaction with ACE, its capabilities and user experience. A high response rate will ensure more accurate representation across the trade community.

The survey will remain open through 11:59 p.m. ET on September 11, 2026. To access the survey, please click HERE.

(Source: OTR Webinars)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

(Source: State/DDTC, 8 Sep 2026)

     The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations (posted at 91 Fed. Reg. 55966 on 31 Aug 2026). Submit comments up to September 30, 2026.
     Abstract of Proposed Collection: In accordance with part 123 of the ITAR, any person who intends to permanently export, temporarily export, or temporarily import classified defense articles, including classified technical data must first obtain Directorate of Defense Trade Controls authorization.
     The "Application for Permanent/Temporary Export or Temporary Import of Classified Defense Articles and Classified Technical Data" (Form DSP-85) is used to obtain permission for the permanent export, temporary export, or temporary import of classified defense articles, including classified technical data, covered by the U.S. Munitions List (USML).
     This form is an application that, when completed and approved by the Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, is the official record and authorization for all classified commercial defense trade transactions.

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 8 Sep 2026)

     The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is implementing the following actions with regard to its Iran sanctions programs:

Additionally, OFAC has updated the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List HERE.

(Source: The White House)

(Source: Customs & International Trade Law Blog, 7 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

Courts

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)

Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Congress

(Source: Expeditors News, 4 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     Effective October 1, 2026, importers of steel products subject to the European Union (EU) steel safeguard measures will be required to declare the country where the steel was melted and poured as part of the customs import declaration.
     To support this declaration, importers must provide evidence, preferably through a Mill Test Certificate (MTC) that identifies both the country of melt and pour and the relevant heat number. Where an MTC is not available or incomplete, customs authorities may temporarily accept alternative supporting documents such as invoices, delivery notes, supplier declarations, customs documents, or commercial correspondence.
     The new requirement is intended to strengthen the traceability of steel imports and support the EU's efforts to address trade diversion and global steel overcapacity.
     From October 1, 2027, alternative documents will only be accepted as supporting evidence to a Mill Test Certificate, rather than as standalone proof of melt and pour origin.

Link to the EU Commission press release HERE.

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 8 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

     The International Trade Commission has recently announced the following actions in intellectual property rights infringement investigations that could affect imports of covered products. For more information on pursuing or mitigating IPR-related import restrictions, please contact STR.
     Electronic devices --- termination without import restrictions of investigation 337-TA-1448 of video-capable laptop and desktop computers, handheld computers, tablets, televisions, projectors, and components and modules thereof
     Fish tape systems --- final initial determination finding a Section 337 violation in investigation 337-TA-1442 of glow fish tape systems, safety helmets systems, and components thereof
     Mobile devices --- (1) initial determination finding a Section 337 violation in investigation 337-TA-1432 of mobile electronic devices, (2) new IPR infringement complaint filed on mobile electronic devices and components thereof, and (3) institution of patent infringement investigation 337-TA-1520 of mobile devices with hardware and software for exchanging electronic content (complainant GG Technologies; respondent located in the U.S.)

(Source: Author, 3 Sep 2026)

     On September 2, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) seeking input from the trade on implementation of portions of the president's June 3, 2026 Executive Order on strengthening Customs enforcement. These changes, if implemented, could lead to significant new documentation, data, recordkeeping and supply chain tracing requirements for all U.S. importers.
     The Notice poses 64 questions seeking public comment on topics such as submission of foreign export documentation, use of supply chain identifiers and technology, and expanded CTPAT requirements.
     Among the most challenging proposals, CBP is considering requiring importers to obtain foreign export documentation submitted to foreign customs authorities for goods exported to the United States. This could include:

     CBP is seeking comments on whether these documents should be submitted or available for submission. CBP is also asking whether the importer of record should be responsible for obtaining and retaining the documents and whether the importer's reasonable care obligation should extend to assessing their accuracy before submission. CBP is also examining how the authenticity of foreign documents could be verified and how documents written in foreign languages should be handled.
     The Notice also addresses several broader supply chain visibility initiatives, including multiple questions concerning:

     What Importers Should Consider: . . .
     Although the notice does not yet impose new requirements, it provides a strong indication of the types of additional supply chain information CBP may seek in future regulations. . . .
     CBP specifically requests information regarding the compliance costs and operational burdens associated with these proposals and whether requirements should be phased in based on factors such as entry type, commodity, country, mode of transportation, company size, CTPAT participation, or filing volume.
     Comments must be submitted by December 1, 2026, under Docket No. USCBP-2026-1058.

(Source: WSJ.com, 8 Sep 2026) [Excerpts of subscription service.]

     Canadian tariffs on U.S. goods kicked in on Tuesday. These affect $20 billion worth of products, including steel, appliances, dairy and electronics and were in retaliation for duties that President Trump imposed on Canadian products.
     Oil rose after Iran-backed Houthi militants attacked energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday morning. The strikes hit gas- and oil-storage facilities, as well as a major refinery, which was taken offline. Front-month Brent crude futures rose above $99, before settling at $97.92 a barrel.

(Source: Washington Tariff & Trade Letter, 31 Aug 2026) [Excerpts of subscription publication]

     The Ohio State University has agreed to pay $2.1 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that it failed to disclose employees' affiliations, collaborations and financial support connected to the People's Republic of China in applications for NASA and National Science Foundation research funding.
     The allegations cover grants awarded from November 2012 through August 2023. According to DOJ, faculty activity reports submitted internally beginning in 2014 identified relationships with Chinese universities and state-run research organizations, but that information was not communicated to NASA or NSF.
     The university also allegedly learned in 2019 that a principal investigator receiving NASA funding participated in China's Thousand Talents Program, yet did not notify the agencies until 2023.
     For university export control administrators, the settlement underscores a recurring compliance risk: relevant information may exist within the institution without reaching every office that needs it. Faculty disclosures, sponsored-research applications, outside-activity reports, conflict-of-interest reviews, international agreements and export-control screenings often collect overlapping information through separate processes. If those systems are not reconciled, foreign affiliations or support can remain visible internally while being omitted from federal submissions.
     The case also demonstrates that research-security failures can create exposure beyond traditional export-control penalties. DOJ pursued the matter as a civil fraud case involving federal research funds, while NASA's restrictions on certain China-related collaborations added another layer of compliance risk. . . .
     Universities may wish to review whether they have:

     The settlement includes an accompanying compliance agreement, signaling that enforcement resolutions may require institutional reforms in addition to monetary payments. DOJ stated that the resolved claims are allegations only and that there has been no determination of liability.

[Full article]

(Source: 3DPrint.com, 7 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     The US CIA director recently made an unannounced visit to Moscow that has naturally raised much speculation, while the EU and NATO have now officially accused Russia of being behind a drone incursion into Germany that took place at the beginning of August. . . .
     Even if it's solely for deterrence purposes, any such mobilization would have to ultimately fold the EU and NATO into the US defense posture, which is perhaps the most urgent catalyst that explains why the concept of AM-enabled distributed manufacturing is gaining traction.
     Relevantly, at the Armed Forces Air Venture exhibition recently held in Sweden, GKN Aerospace presented a UAV demonstrator --- 'Project Otto' --- that the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) contracted GKN to make in November 2025. . . .
     Looking forward, the potential for distributed production that the project represents may be its most important aspect: GKN states that the demonstrator includes no parts that are subject to American International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controls. Initially, you might be inclined to view this is an affront to US defense contractors, but that possibility quickly loses its validity when you consider that the US Big Five defense primes are among GKN's biggest customers.
     Instead, in light of the fact that so much of what GKN has done in the metal AM space has been in service of the Big Five, Project Otto should be read as an indicator of the emerging model for revamped US-EU-NATO cooperation.
     If Northrop Grumman or RTX or whichever other giant wants products containing its IP to be made on European soil (or wherever else), but doesn't want ITAR standing in the way of the process, it has now been demonstrated that there are potential ITAR-free options that the primes can leverage in collaboration with legitimate subcontractors like GKN. . . .
     Earlier in the summer, software firm 3YOURMIND demonstrated at the EDA's AM Village that interoperability between NATO and EU militaries for distributed AM networks is already a viable option, at least from a technical perspective. GKN has now shown that it may very well be viable from a regulatory perspective, too.
     Again, maybe all this is just deterrence, but given how Russia feels about the West arming Ukraine, it seems certain Russia will interpret this overall stance as provocation. Russia has of course wholly earned such a response from the West, but it remains to be seen how successful a deterrence-via-production strategy will be in actually "deterring" anyone.

(Source: Global Sanctions and Export Controls Blog, 8 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     On September 4, 2026, the Argentine Executive Branch issued Executive Order No. 868/2026 (the "Executive Order"), introducing new measures to strengthen the enforcement of Law No. 26,659 regarding hydrocarbon activities on the Argentine Continental Shelf.
     This law not only prohibits certain hydrocarbon activities carried out without Argentine authorization on the continental shelf, including the area surrounding the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), but also imposes restrictions that may extend to direct, and indirect shareholders, affiliated entities, and certain service providers connected to such activities. ...
     The Executive Order strengthens oversight mechanisms regarding hydrocarbon activities carried out in areas subject to Law No. 26,659, including maritime zones associated with the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands.
     Key features of the measure include:

[Full article]

(Source: Global Investigations Review, 7 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

This chapter discusses the following topics:

     Controlled goods: All goods, software and technology subject to UK export controls are listed in the UK Strategic Export Control Lists, which are regularly updated. The lists compile the items subject to export controls pursuant to various international legislation, including military and dual-use items, as well as torture and radioactive equipment. UK exporters will require a licence from the ECJU to be able to export items subject to UK export controls, as further detailed below.
     Dual-use items: Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom established a domestic export control regime for dual-use items in England, Wales and Scotland (Great Britain). These items, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, are regulated by Council Regulation (EC) No.428/2009 (the Dual-Use Regulation). In Northern Ireland, Regulation (EU) 2021/821 continues to apply directly under the Windsor Framework. . . .
     Military goods: The export of military goods from the United Kingdom is subject to a licence under Export Control Order 2008, with controlled items specified in Schedule 2. As part of routine updates to the UK Strategic Export Control Lists, Schedule 2 was updated in 2025 to reflect technical changes agreed through multilateral export control regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement. Unlike dual-use items, military goods are not subject to the EU dual-use regime under the Windsor Framework and remain governed by UK export control legislation across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
     Military end use control, including under Article 12A of the Export Control Order 2008 (issued under the Export Control Act 2002), may require a licence for non-listed items intended for military-related end use in embargoed destinations. This control operates separately from the regulation of listed military goods.
     Brokering military goods between third countries also needs a licence if conducted by a person carrying out activities in the United Kingdom or by a UK person. In addition, the provision of technical assistance (such as training, consultancy or maintenance) relating to controlled goods may also be subject to licensing requirements under UK export control legislation.
     Other restricted goods: In addition to dual-use items and military goods, the Export Control Order 2008 imposes further controls and licensing requirements in relation to certain destinations, end uses and categories of restricted goods. The following categories of goods are also subject to licensing requirements under the UK export control regime: . . .

[Full article]

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report, 7 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

     U.S. Customs first tried to simplify and standardize country-of-origin determinations in 1991, refined its proposal in 1994 while implementing NAFTA's rules of origin, then ultimately backed away from applying NAFTA's more product-specific rules on a universal basis (except for textiles and apparel) in 1996.
     Nearly 20 years ago, in 2008, Customs (now CBP) tried again. This time it proposed extending tariff shift-based rules to create a uniform origin standard for all imports unless a trade agreement required a different analysis. CBP argued that these rules would be more objective, transparent, and predictable than the existing case-by-case adjudication and would help importers exercise reasonable care.
     The agency also noted that it had been active in World Trade Organization and World Customs Organization efforts to develop standardized non-preferential origin rules. But the trading community was not having it, and CBP withdrew its proposal in 2011.
     Fast forward to 2026 and a new White House paper on transshipment asserts that current origin standards are complex and cumbersome, especially for goods made from components manufactured in multiple countries. The paper also takes aim at the legal foundation for those standards, noting that they rest largely on customs case law rather than a precise statute. That, it argues, can lead to inconsistent application and create an easy mechanism for tariff evasion. In other words, imports may satisfy the letter of the law while missing what this White House views as the spirit of the law.
     The paper calls on Congress to amend and codify these origin standards, which could make the old CBP proposal worth dusting off. It may offer a preview---or at least a starting point---for what could be coming next if lawmakers decide that origin rules need less case-by-case art and more statutory architecture.

(Source: Volkov Law, 8 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     KPMG just released its 2026 Global Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Survey, drawing on responses from 725 CCOs, and the framing KPMG chose for the report tells you most of what you need to know before you even get to the data: "Feeling the pressure: A new reality for compliance leaders." That's not marketing language. It reflects a genuine shift in what the compliance function is now expected to deliver, and the survey results back it up with real numbers worth unpacking.
     Why Operational Resilience Has Moved to the Center. The core finding driving this year's report is that interconnected cyber, third-party, and regulatory risks have made operational resilience a top priority for compliance leaders, not an adjacent concern owned by IT or business continuity teams.
     Three-quarters of CCOs surveyed, 75 percent, identified cybersecurity and data privacy as key areas for additional investment, and 77 percent named data analytics as a primary investment driver going forward. That pairing is telling. Cybersecurity investment without the analytics capability to actually monitor, detect, and respond to emerging risk in real time is incomplete, and compliance leaders appear to understand that these two investment categories function together rather than as separate line items competing for budget.
     Regulatory pressure remains a distinct challenge layered on top of this. A third of respondents, 33 percent, cited new regulatory requirements as their top compliance challenge over the next two years, which tells you that even as compliance functions expand into operational resilience and cyber risk territory, the traditional core mandate, tracking and responding to a shifting regulatory landscape, hasn't gotten any easier. If anything, it's competing for the same limited attention and budget that resilience investment now demands.
     Cross-Functional Collaboration Is the Real Story Underneath the Numbers. What I find most significant in this survey isn't the investment figures on their own. It's what those figures say about how compliance functions now have to operate structurally. Sixty-seven percent of CCOs surveyed reported confidence in assessing compliance synergies across legal, HR, investigations, internal audit, and operations, a genuinely broad set of functions to be coordinating with effectively. . . .
     AI in Compliance: Adoption, Measured Enthusiasm: . . .
     What This Means for Compliance Leaders Building Their 2027 Priorities: . . . [Full article]

(Source: Editor)

23. Bartlett's Unfamiliar Quotations 

(Source: Brainy Quotes)

Today’s “English is a difficult language” observations:

24. Today in History
(Source: History Channel)

1900: Deadly hurricane batters Galveston, Texas. One of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history hits Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900, killing more than 6,000 people. The storm caused so much destruction on the Texas coast that reliable estimates of the number of victims are difficult to make. Some believe that as many as 12,000 people perished, which would make it the deadliest day in American history.

25. Do You Need to Update Your Daily Bugle Profile?

(Source: Editor)

Don't miss an issue of the Daily Bugle if you change your email. Click here to manage your profile.

26. Are Your Copies of Export/Import Regulations Current?

(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) but are updated as amended in the Federal Register. The latest amendments are listed below.