CBP updated its mitigation guidelines for export control seizures to include new mitigating factors, aggravating factors, a new list of remission terms and the elimination of the terms “technical violations” and “substantive violations,” CBP said in its updated July guidelines. In previous years, CBP distinguished between technical and substantive violations but said in its most recent guidelines that the terms were “confusing and misleading” to both CBP officers and the public because they were not used by other licensing agencies.

As the U.S. continues to impose broad sanctions, companies are increasingly turning away from deals, fearing compliance risks, sanctions lawyers and experts said. While the Trump administration has tried to mitigate sanctions impacts on industry through advance notices, guidance and wind-down periods, the experts said, some of the damages have been unavoidable.

Japan officially approved removing South Korea from its so-called whitelist of trusted trading partners, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said Aug. 2, adding that it will begin enforcing the decision Aug. 28. The move was expected after Japan introduced a bill earlier this month as the two countries become embroiled in a trade dispute (see 1907300058).

China is expected to retaliate against President Donald Trump’s announcement on July 31 that the U.S. will be imposing a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods under List 4, according to an Aug. 1 post by Ted Murphy, a Baker McKenzie lawyer. “We expect that China will retaliate … as it has done in the past,” he said.

The broad range of U.S. sanctions are confusing U.S. allies, seem to have no clear goal and could damage future administrations' ability to levy sanctions, several experts on U.S. sanctions said. The U.S. actions are also allowing countries to create sanctions immunities and leading to divisions in Europe, they said, criticizing the Trump administration’s lack of planning for potential consequences.

A top Treasury official acknowledged criticism that the agency is abusing its sanctions powers but stood by the approach, saying the sanctions are necessary and that the Treasury is mitigating impacts on U.S. companies by issuing more compliance guidance.

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 22-26 in case they were missed.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control’s amendments to its reporting, procedures and penalties regulations are unclear and too broad, the Association of University Export Control Officers and The Clearing House Association said in July 22 comments, joining a series of trade associations that have been critical of the regulations' amendments.

The footnote in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that says that the U.S. could change its de minimis level to match Canada's and Mexico's levels was roundly rejected by the Senate Finance Committee on July 30, when the topic was one of the most-discussed aspects of the deal. Paula Barnett, owner of Paula Elaine Barnett jewelry, was the first witness who testified, and she told the committee that she does not want U.S. de minimis levels lowered, because she doesn't have to pay tariffs when goods are returned from outside the country, and because she purchases opals from Mexico, and those purchases are under the $800 threshold.

As the U.S. and the European Union continue to impose diverging sanctions measures, global businesses are being tasked with increasingly challenging compliance dilemmas, several trade experts said during a July 25 KPMG webinar. Companies are facing more strategic decisions about which countries they can and cannot afford to trade with and are reconsidering multiyear contracts because of the constantly changing sanctions landscape, the experts said.