More than 25 industry associations are asking the Commerce Department to allow more time for public comments on Commerce’s next advance notice of proposed rulemaking for foundational technologies, which is expected in the coming weeks. The associations asked for a 90-day comment and review period in a June 27 letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

A Commerce Department official allayed concerns from the U.S. industry that new export controls on emerging technologies will be overbroad, saying it will only look to control a "slice" of categories of technologies, not whole classifications.

Trade lawyers talking about changes to NAFTA's rule of origin said they're fairly optimistic the trade deal rewrite will be ratified in Congress in 2019. But aside from the auto sector, which has a multiyear transition period, they're concerned that by the time ratification comes, there won't be time for importers and exporters to adjust by Jan. 1, 2020, when the replacement agreement is supposed to be in force.

There is significant tension and disagreement between the Defense and Commerce departments about the reach of U.S. export controls, said Jamie McCormick, a staffer for House Appropriations Committee Republicans, June 27 at the American Association of Exporters and Importers Annual Conference in Washington. McCormick said the confusion surrounding foundational technologies among U.S. industry leaders may stem from the original passage of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, adding that he believes the executive branch does not agree on a definition for foundational technologies. “I’m not certain that at the time they passed the bill that the executive branch could say with any certainty what they meant by foundational technologies,” McCormick said.

A California man was recently arrested for illegally exporting cesium atomic clocks to Hong Kong without obtaining the required Bureau of Industry and Security License, the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a June 27 press release. Alex Yun Cheong Yue allegedly bought the clock from a U.S. reseller by misrepresenting its end-use, and was attempting to buy another clock when the reseller requested to tour Yue’s non-existent California facility to verify the end-use, causing Yue to abort his plans to export a second clock.

An escalating U.S. trade war with Europe would further accelerate the European Union’s efforts to sign free trade deals with other countries, potentially closing off more market access for U.S. exporters, panelists told a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee June 26.

An internal “review” at Micron Technology found the memory chip supplier could “lawfully resume shipping a subset of current products” to Huawei because they aren't subject to Commerce Department export administration regulations and entity list restrictions, CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said on a fiscal Q3 call. Micron reinstated those shipments about two weeks ago, he said on June 25. Micron suspended all Huawei shipments immediately after release of the May 16 notice from Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security placing the Chinese telecom gear giant and 68 of its non-U.S. affiliates on the Entity List (see 1905240044), Mehrotra said. Micron did so to “ensure compliance” with the restrictions and begin its review, he said.

The European Court of Justice on June 20 issued a ruling clarifying EU customs valuation using the transaction value of similar merchandise and deductive value methods. In its decision, the ECJ laid out the main criteria for deciding what constitutes similar merchandise, and found strict limitations apply to the time frame and allowable deductions for deductive value.

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with some of the top stories for June 17-21 in case they were missed.

FedEx filed a lawsuit against the Commerce Department and the Bureau of Industry and Security for imposing export controls it says are “unconstitutional” and “impossible” to comply with, according to court records. The company also said BIS’s Entity List “imposes an overbroad, disproportionate burden on FedEx,” records show. The suit asks the court to stop Commerce from enforcing certain sections of the Export Administration Regulations on FedEx, to declare the EAR “unlawful” and to award FedEx any additional appropriate relief, including “costs and expenses.”