What Happened: FDA Opens FSVP Portal

On Monday, May 10, 2021, the FDA opened the FSVP Importer Portal for FSVP Records Submission (Portal). The FDA established the portal to provide a streamlined process to electronically submit necessary FSVP records to the FDA if they choose to (it is NOT mandatory to do so). Given the FDA’s increased enforcement in auditing FSVP records, it is highly recommended to do so.

The FDA is tasked with inspecting and verifying the FSVP records. According to the FDA, while it typically inspects the importer’s place of business, if requested in writing by the FDA, the FSVP regulation requires importers to provide FSVP records to the agency electronically, or through another means that delivers the records promptly. The advent of the online portal benefits both industry and FDA by providing each party with an easily accessible portal.

A larger potential benefit of the portal is the potential to be skipped over for a FSVP audit as your records are already accessible to the FDA.

What Can You Do?

According to the FDA, importers with an active FDA Account ID and password can access the Portal on the FDA’s Unified Registration and Listing System (FURLS) page. An importer without an existing account can create one from the FURLS page. FDA even provides the public with an interactive User Guide for the Portal, which is available on the FURLS page.

If you do NOT have your FSVP in place or need assistance in vetting or improving your plan, Diaz Trade Law can assist you.  If FDA’s has audited your FSVP and found it to be inadequate, and issued you a warning letter, Diaz Trade Law can assist you.

Contact Us

Diaz Trade Law provides FDA compliance assistance for all FDA regulated products and assists in mitigating enforcement actions. Pre-Compliance assistance assists in preventing costly and timely delays. If you have any questions regarding the FSVP portal or any other FDA, customs, or trade matter, contact us today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

On April 30, 2021, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) announced that it had fined FLIR Systems, Inc. $307,922 for an egregious violation of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) for misrepresentations made in commodity jurisdiction (“CJ”) requests. A BIS spokesperson said: “BIS will not tolerate exporters that provide inaccurate or incomplete representations related to export regulations and laws.”

This recent announcement is a textbook example of why it is important to obtain counsel and be  both proactive and truthful in regards to your export compliance. Whether you are new to exporting or looking to understand the foundations of export controls, including a discussion of recent penalty cases like FLIR’s (so they do not happen to you), or a seasoned professional looking to understand the latest developments, this one-hour webinar is a must attend. Register today to hear directly from the following expert duo:

• President and Founder of Diaz Trade Law, Jennifer (Jen) Diaz is a Chambers ranked, Board Certified International Attorney specializing in customs and international trade; and
• Associate Attorney of Diaz Trade Law, Sharath Patil, assists U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and importers with a range of export compliance and enforcement matters pertaining to the U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Treasury Department; the U.S. State Department; and more.

This webinar provides an overview of U.S. export controls. Specifically, it discusses what sets of regulations exporters which exporters need to be aware of, presents important recent developments which exporters should be aware of, explains the dangers of noncompliance, and covers how to build a robust export compliance plan.

In This Webinar You Will Learn:

• Exporting is A Privilege not A Right
• Obligations of Exporters
• ITAR, EAR, OFAC, and FCPA
• Relevant Case Studies
• Penalties Associated with Noncompliance
• Best Practices
• Developing an Export Compliance Plan
• The Importance of Export Compliance Training

Who Should Attend:

• Exporters
• Customs Brokers
• Regulatory Affairs Professionals
• In-House Legal Counsel
• Product Development Managers
• Others Interested in Exporting

This webinar is eligible for continuing education credit from the NCBFAA Educational Institute. Space is limited, registration required! Access instructions will be provided after your registration is complete. Don’t just take our word for how awesome Diaz Trade Law webinars are. Click here to see what our past attendees had to say. Be sure to join us on May 12, 2021! To register, click here. 

In CSMS #46607637, CBP also provides guidance for importers, brokers, and other related parties:

• Per 85 FR 85831 Annex A, in addition to reporting the regular Chapters 84, 85, and 90 classifications of the HTS for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTS classification 9903.88.62 (Articles, the product of China related to Tranche 1 – $34B Action, as provided for in U.S. note 20(ooo) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the USTR for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion).
• Per 85 FR 85831 Annex B, in addition to reporting the regular Chapters 39, 84, and 90 classifications of the HTS for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTS classification 9903.88.63 (Articles, the product of China related to Tranche 2 – $16B Action, as provided for in U.S. note 20(ppp) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the USTR for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion).
• Per 85 FR 85831 Annex C, in addition to reporting the regular Chapters 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 48, 56, 65, 84, 85, and 90 classifications of the HTS for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTS classification 9903.88.64 (Articles, the product of China related to Tranche 3 – $200B Action, as provided for in U.S. note 20(qqq) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the USTR for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion).
• Per 85 FR 85831 Annex D, in addition to reporting the regular Chapters 34, 39, 40, 48, 52, 55, 61, 62, 63, and 90 classifications of the HTS for the imported merchandise, importers shall report the HTS classification 9903.88.65 (Articles, the product of China related to Tranche 4A – $300B Action, as provided for in U.S. note 20(rrr) to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the USTR for imported merchandise subject to the exclusion).
• Importers shall not submit the corresponding Chapter 99 HTS number for the Section 301 duties when HTS 9903.88.62, 9903.88.63, 9903.88.64, or 9903.88.65 are submitted.

Further, USTR may make additional modifications to remove Section 301 duties from other medical-care products to address COVID-19. CBP issued guidance on the 301 exclusion extensions and modifications on December 30, 2020, explaining its intentions to modify the 301 duties as appropriate.

Contact Us

For background information on Section 301 China tariffs and numerous ways to mitigate the effect of the China tariffs, check out our previous blogs. Diaz Trade Law has assisted clients in assessing their best options to prepare or mitigate the China tariffs and submitted comments and exclusion requests. If you need assistance understanding the USTR announcement or navigating China 301 tariffs, our Customs and International Law attorneys are available at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

***

Detailed Scope of Extension

Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 1, 2021, and before 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on September 30, 2021, each of the article descriptions of headings 9903.88.62, 9903.88.63, 9903.88.64 and 9903.88.65 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are modified by deleting “March 31, 2021,” and by inserting “September 30, 2021,” in lieu thereof.

ANNEXES A—D:

1. by inserting the following new heading 9903.88.62, 9903.88.63, 9903.88.64, or 9903.88.65, respectively, in numerical sequence, with the new material in the new heading inserted in the columns of the HTSUS labeled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, and “Rates of Duty 1-General”, respectively:

ANNEX A – 9903.88.62: by inserting the following new U.S. note 20(ooo) to subchapter 99 in numerical sequence: “(ooo) The USTR determined to establish a process by which particular products classified in heading 9903.88.01 and provided for in U.S. notes 20(a) and 20(b) to this subchapter could be excluded from the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.88.01. See 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018) and 83 FR 32181 (July 11, 2018). Following its request for public comment in March, USTR determined that, as provided for in heading 9903.88.62, the additional duties provided for in heading 9903.88.01 shall not apply to the following particular products, which are provided for in the enumerated statistical reporting numbers:

The technical amendments to the exclusions to certain Notes to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the HTSUS can be found below:

Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on January 1, 2021, the exclusion for certain inoculator sets of plastics that is provided for in heading 9903.88.06 and U.S. note 20(i)(32) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is deleted.

ANNEX B – 9903.88.63: by inserting the following new U.S. note 20(ppp) to subchapter 99 in numerical sequence: “(ppp) The USTR determined to establish a process by which particular products classified in heading 9903.88.02 and provided for in U.S. notes 20(c) and 20(d) to this subchapter could be excluded from the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.88.02. See 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018) and 83 FR 47326 (September 18, 2018).  Following its request for public comment in March, USTR determined that, as provided for in heading 9903.88.63, the additional duties provided for in heading 9903.88.02 shall not apply to the following particular products, which are provided for in the enumerated statistical reporting numbers:

The technical amendments to the exclusions to certain Notes to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the HTSUS can be found below:

ANNEX C – 9903.88.64: by inserting the following new U.S. note 20(qqq) to subchapter 99 in numerical sequence: “(qqq) The USTR determined to establish a process by which particular products classified in heading 9903.88.03 and provided for in U.S. notes 20(e) and 20(f) to this subchapter could be excluded from the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.88.03, and by which particular products classified in heading 9903.88.04 and provided for in U.S. note 20(g) to this subchapter could be excluded from the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.88.04. See 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018) and 84 FR 29576 (June 24, 2019).  Following its request for public comment in March, USTR determined that, as provided for in heading 9903.88.64, the additional duties provided for in heading 9903.88.03 or in heading 9903.88.04 shall not apply to the following particular products, which are provided for in the enumerated statistical reporting numbers:

The technical amendments to the exclusions to certain Notes to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the HTSUS can be found below:

ANNEX D – 9903.88.65: by inserting the following new U.S. note 20(rrr) to subchapter 99 in numerical sequence: “(rrr) The USTR determined to establish a process by which particular products classified in heading 9903.88.15 and provided for in U.S. notes 20(r) and 20(s) to this subchapter could be excluded from the additional duties imposed by heading 9903.88.15. See 84 FR 43304 (August 20, 2019) and 84 FR 45821 (August 30, 2019); 84 FR 57144 (October 24, 2019) 85 FR 3741 (January 22, 2020). Following its request for public comment in March, USTR determined that, as provided for in heading 9903.88.65, the additional duties provided for in heading 9903.88.15 shall not apply to the following particular products, which are provided for in the enumerated statistical reporting numbers:

The technical amendments to the exclusions to certain Notes to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the HTSUS can be found below:

Table A contains a list of the original exclusions and corresponding Chapter 99 Heading and Note 20 Subdivision for the first extension and the current extension. Additionally, the table indicates which Annex to this notice the extension appears:

Contact Us

For background information on Section 301 China tariffs and numerous ways to mitigate the effect of the China tariffs, check out our previous blogs. Diaz Trade Law has assisted clients in assessing their best options to prepare or mitigate the China tariffs and submitted comments and exclusion requests. If you need assistance understanding the USTR announcement or navigating China 301 tariffs, our Customs and International Law attorneys are available at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

COVID-19’s Impact on the Global Economy

The COVID-19 pandemic has had systemic implications for nearly every facet of our lives and society. The world of international trade is certainly no exception. Businesses and governments alike have had to figure out how to continue import and export operations while accounting for the risks present in the current trading climate. Challenges that importers and exporters have faced include: 1) dramatic demand spikes for certain goods, 2) equally dramatic crashes in demand for other goods, 3) significant back-ups of inflowing shipments at key ports, 4) an increase in trade restrictions and other barriers to trade, and 5) contractions in trade volumes, just to name a few.

Trade Challenges in Florida

Florida has not been immune to these trade disruptions. The U.S. Census Bureau released 2020 annual trade data on February 5, 2021, which included interesting trends about Florida’s trade flows. International trade is big business in the Sunshine State In fact, in 2019, Florida exported $57.3 billion in goods, and ranked as the seventh largest exporting state according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Similarly, Florida imported $83.7 billion in goods in 2019, and ranked the tenth largest importing state. In recent years, Florida’s top three export destinations have been Brazil, Canada, and Mexico, respectively while its top import sources have been China, Mexico, and Canada, respectively. In 2020, these import trade relationships took a hit. Fortunately, however, the state is quickly rebounding.

EXPORTS

In 2020, total Florida export values have crashed relative to recent years. The 2020 annual data, which was released on February 5, 2021, indicates that Florida exports of goods crashed 19.2% ($11.0 billion) in 2020 compared to 2019, and 22.4% ($13.4 billion) in 2020 compared to 2018. In 2019, Florida’s top three export categories were electronics and electric machinery (HS code 85), heavy machinery (HS code 84), and aircraft/spacecraft and parts (HS code 88). These export categories all crashed in 2020 compared to 2019 at a rate of 14.84% ($1.49 billion), 16.5% ($1.52 billion), and 29% ($2.4 billion), respectively. Florida’s exports to its most significant export partner, Brazil, were impacted 22.4% ($1.0 billion) compared to 2019. Interestingly, the majority of Florida’s export crash occurred in the April to September of 2020. Exports are steadily rebounding and total Florida export values in October to December 2020 are more similar to the same months in 2019 or 2018.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

IMPORTS

In 2020, total Florida import values also crashed relative to recent years. The 2020 annual data indicates that Florida imports of goods crashed 7.6% ($6.4 billion) in 2020 compared to 2019, and 7.9% ($6.7 billion) in 2020 compared to 2018. Florida’s top three import categories are electronics and electrical machinery (HS code 85), heavy machinery (HS code 84), and automobiles / automobile parts (HS 87). These export categories all crashed in 2020 compared to 2019 at a rate of 4.6% ($493 million), 12.1% (1.0 billion), and 20.0% ($1.5 billion), respectively. Florida’s imports from its most significant import source, China, decreased 9.2% ($1.2 billion) compared to 2020. The majority of the crash in imports occurred in April to June of 2020. Imports have quickly rebounded and total imports in September to December 2020 are similar to the same period in 2019 or 2018. In fact, Florida imports in December 2020 were 2.3% higher than Florida imports in December 2019.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Promising Months Ahead

Although the State of Florida continues to deal with sky-high COVID-19 figures and there is still much to be done to combat the virus, Florida’s trade outlook appears promising and a return to normal is on the horizon. Florida Secretary of Commerce Jamal Sowell and president & CEO of Enterprise Florida, Inc. stated in a December 2020 press release:

Florida’s economy was blindsided by a sudden recession and prolonged disruptions to supply chains because of COVID-19. But jobs are coming back, commerce is on the uptick and Enterprise Florida is in lockstep with Governor DeSantis’s bold mission to retake the high ground of prosperity for all corners of Florida.

The outlook for Florida’s many seaports is also positive. For example, Moody’s Investors Service forecasted a stable outlook for the Port of Palm Beach. Moody’s Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Director Paul Zielinski stated:

The Port of Palm Beach, like most businesses, was significantly impacted in 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic. While we saw a slight declines in cargo shipments, the no-sail order on our cruise business was and continues to be our greatest challenge. However, we have the financial depth to meet these challenges with a liquidity position exceeding 24 months. We also have the ability to maintain a favorable liquidity position as a result, of both the solid profit margins inherent in our long-term agreements and our continued commitment during this time to control expenses.

Finally, Doug Wheeler, the president and CEO of the Florida Ports Council remarked on the challenges and opportunities ahead:

Recent studies have shown Florida’s ports remain resilient to disasters, from recurring hurricanes to disruptions to the global supply chain. We continue to grow and diversify — in goods and services, trade partners, and innovative technologies — to help us withstand and endure the myriad challenges we face. Although we know the COVID‑19 pandemic will continue to impact our port economies into the unforeseeable future, every single day, Florida’s ports continue to deliver critical goods to individuals, families, and businesses. Our ports are economic engines of our communities, and they will be instrumental in getting the state’s, and the nation’s, economy back on track.

Overall, Florida importers and exporters continue to deal with many challenges including contractions in trade volumes, disruptions in supply chains, and quickly changing federal trade policies. Nevertheless, Florida’s remarkable path to recovery is promising. The Florida’s trade community hopes for the trajectory of the last four months to continue through 2021.

DATA NOTES

All data sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau and adjusted for inflation to base month December 2020. 2020 annual data was released by the U.S. Census Bureau on February 5, 2021. Although U.S. Census Bureau trade data can be helpful, the data has many limitations. For further questions on how COVID-19 may have impacted your particular industry’s trade flows and for assistance on any trade or customs matters, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com. 

On November 12, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13959 (“EO 13959”), Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies. EO 13959 prohibits U.S. investors from purchasing or investing in securities of companies identified by the U.S. government as Communist Chinese military companies (“CCMCs”), a designation determined by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Since former President Trump signed EO 13959, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has issued clarifying guidance and general licenses on this matter.

Key Developments

On January 13, 2021, President Trump strengthened EO 13959 with a directive. The directive broadened the scope of restrictions on U.S. persons. Notably, the amended EO 13959 makes clear that U.S. persons must divest their holdings in such securities within designated wind-down periods, after which it prohibits the “possession” of covered CCMC securities by U.S. persons after the end of the divestment period. The wind-down period will end on November 11, 2021.

Consequently, on January 14, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD“) designated nine further Chinese companies as CCMCs targeted under EO 13959.

Key Points from OFAC’s FAQs

As of January 14, 2021, OFAC has issued a total of 13 FAQs on EO 13959. Some of the most significant are described below:

• FAQ 858 notes that some names of CCMCs previously identified by the Department of Defense (DoD) do not match the names of issuers of publicly traded securities. The FAQ states that the EO applies to securities of CCMCs “with a name that exactly or closely matches the name of an entity” identified in the Annex to EO 13959 or subsequently identified by the DoD or Treasury Department. The newly issued Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies List provides additional identifying information.
• FAQ 860 provides examples of financial instruments covered by this provision include, but are not limited to, derivatives (e.g., futures, options, swaps), warrants, American depositary receipts (“ADRs”), global depositary receipts (“GDRs”), exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), index funds, and mutual funds, to the extent, such instruments also meet the definition of “security” as defined in section 4(d) of E.O. 13959.
• FAQ 861 clarifies that U.S. persons are prohibited from investing in U.S. or foreign funds, such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or other mutual funds, that hold publicly traded securities of a Communist Chinese military company.
• In FAQ 863, OFAC provides guidance on which services are considered permissible under EO 13959. OFAC stated that “support services” such as clearing, execution, settlement, custody, transfer agency, and back-end services, as well as other such support services by or involving a U.S. person, are permissible, to the extent they are not provided to U.S. persons in connection with prohibited transactions.

Export Compliance Obligations

The ultimate responsibility for complying with E.O. 13959 will fall to those U.S. persons transacting or potentially transacting with the listed businesses. U.S. persons may not rely on an exact name match to identify CCMC securities, but rather must exercise due diligence, including identifying similar names, to determine whether securities are subject to the prohibition in E.O. 13959.

It is critical to note that CCMCs are not listed on the Consolidated Screening List. Therefore, U.S. companies must manually screen CCMCs against OFAC’s list or utilize a private screening tool that includes the CCMCs.

If you violate any of the regulations, there are severe penalties

Violations of export and sanctions laws carry hefty civil and criminal penalties.  Many U.S. businesses have paid hefty civil penalties for violating U.S. export control laws. L3Harris Technologies, for example, was fined $13 million for illicitly exporting defense technology and software. For more examples of costly civil and criminal penalties, check out BIS’ latest Don’t Let This Happen to You!

Contact Us

Diaz Trade Law has significant experience in export and sanctions compliance matters. Specifically, Diaz Trade Law has successfully assisted clients in submitting voluntary self-disclosures to mitigate penalties, submitting export license applications, requesting authorizations for sales, vetting proposed transactions, and building corrective action systems to help ensure that your business does not make the same violation again.

Diaz Trade Law offers export compliance training, can develop or improve your export compliance program, and vet proposed transactions to ensure they comply with U.S. export control regulations. If you have questions on export compliance matters, contact us today at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

Biden Signs Executive Order Strengthening Buy American Laws

Buy American laws are a set of statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders that require that the U.S. federal government require or provide preferences for purchasing goods produced in the United States. Buy American laws were created and continue to be amended with the intention of promoting economic and national security, stimulating economic growth, creating good jobs at decent wages, and supporting the U.S. manufacturing and defense industrial bases.

On January 25, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14005 titled Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers. At its core, EO 14005 amends standards to ensure that the federal government invests taxpayer dollars in U.S.-owned businesses. EO 14005 sought to close loopholes that allow companies to offshore production and jobs while still qualifying for domestic preferences.

Specifically, EO 14005 does the following:

• Directs agencies to close current loopholes in how domestic content is measured and increase domestic content requirements
• Appoints a new senior leader in the Executive Office of the President in charge of the government’s Made-in-America policy approach
• Increases oversight of potential waivers to domestic preference laws
• Connects new businesses to contracting opportunities by requiring active use of supplier scouting by agencies
• Reiterates the President’s strong support for the Jones Act, which requires that only U.S.-flag vessels carry cargo between U.S. ports
• Directs a cross-agency review of all domestic preferences

EO 14005 requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”), which coordinates U.S. government procurement activities, to consider amendments to current Buy American Act rules such as:

• Replace the “component test” in Part 25 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations that is used to identify domestic end products and domestic construction materials with a test under which domestic content is measured by the value that is added to the product through U.S.-based production or U.S. job-supporting economic activity
• Increase the numerical threshold for domestic content requirements for end products and construction materials
• Increase the price preferences for domestic end products and domestic construction materials.

EO 14005 has importation implications for the federal procurement process. After all, U.S. federal procurement is big business accounting for $600 billion in federal spending annually. Detailed information on U.S. government procurement activities by fiscal year is available on usaspending.gov. EO 14005 is estimated to apply to a third (or $200 billion worth) of U.S. annual federal procurement activities.

Buy American & U.S. WTO Commitments

Despite the popularity of Buy American laws domestically, the set of laws sometimes violates U.S. commitments under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement, which works to ensure open, fair, and transparent conditions of competition in government procurement markets.

With regards to concerns that strengthened Buy American preferences violate U.S. WTO commitments, a White House press release indicating the Biden administration’s intent to change WTO rules: “The President remains committed to working with partners and allies to modernize international trade rules—including those related to government procurement–to make sure all countries can use their taxpayer dollars to spur investment in their own countries.”

Similarly, when asked if the order would be seen as protectionist, a Biden administration official said that EO 14005 would be fully consistent with U.S. commitments under the WTO and the administration would work with trade partners to modernize global rules.

However, EO 14005 has drawn criticism from foreign leaders. “We are always concerned by ‘Buy American’ … for sure that is going to be an issue very, very high on our agenda in our work with the Biden administration,” Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters.

Contact Us

If you have questions about federal procurement, Buy American waivers, country of origin determinations, Made in USA rules, or other customs and trade matters, contact Diaz Trade Law today at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Co-Authored by

Exporting is a Privilege, Not a Right

Over 95% of the world’s consumers are outside of the United States. Opportunities abound for U.S. companies that export. However, exporting is a privilege and not a right. U.S. exporters have an important responsibility to adhere to U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctions laws, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). Violations of export control laws carry hefty civil and criminal penalties. Exporters can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties, lose export privileges, and even be imprisoned for violations of U.S. export control laws.

The EAR is a set of regulations which governs whether U.S. persons may export or transfer goods, software, and technology outside of the United States or to non-U.S. citizens. The ITAR, on the other hand, is a set of regulations which governs whether defense or military-related technologies may be exported or transferred to non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of both the EAR and the ITAR is to safeguard U.S. national security interests by ensuring that critical technology does not fall into the wrong hands. The EAR is administered by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”) while the ITAR is administered by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”).

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United​ States. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions, directly or indirectly, with individuals or entities (“persons”) on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, other blocked persons, and those covered by comprehensive country or region embargoes (e.g., Cuba, the Crimea region of Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, and Syria).

The FCPA was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.  The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA have applied to all U.S. persons and certain foreign issuers of securities. The anti-bribery provisions also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States.

Developing or Enhancing Your Export Compliance Plan

A key foundation of proactive and effective export compliance requires the development of an export compliance plan which establishes a set of procedures for your organization to ensure that everyone is on the same page about how standard processes work, who is responsible for what, how to identify violations, what to do when violations occur, etc. An export compliance plan helps build consciousness in your organization that compliance is critical – both to avoid costly penalties and also to protect national security. Diaz Trade Law helps exporters create export compliance manuals that help prove you have a process in place to classify your merchandise correctly, vet your customers and ensure you can prove you can take compliance seriously and implement all of the important great weight mitigating factors. Diaz Trade Law has significant experience in developing export compliance plans for organizations without plans.

Why is Developing a Strong Export Compliance Plan Important?

A strong export compliance plan is beneficial to your business because it:

• Ensures that all employees understand the export regulations and reinforces internal policies and procedures. Many businesses don’t realize the export control concerns many of their employees, not just the export department. This is because the scope of the term “export” is broad in the EAR and the ITAR. For example, “deemed exports” refer to the release of controlled technology to a foreign person, including within the territory of the United States. Therefore, employees that have little to do with a business’ export activities (e.g. accountants, information technology, customer service) can inadvertently cause your business to violate U.S. export control laws (e.g. by sharing information to non-U.S. persons, by failing to secure data on a cloud server, etc.).
• Demonstrates to federal government agencies that your business is proactive about export compliance. An effective export compliance plan is a great way to demonstrate to BIS and DDTC that you are on top of your export compliance obligations.
• Avoids your business from being subject to costly penalties and even criminal liability. Many U.S. businesses have paid hefty civil penalties for violating U.S. export control laws. L3Harris Technologies, for example, was fined $13 million for illicitly exporting defense technology and software. For more examples of costly civil and criminal penalties, check out BIS’ latest Don’t Let This Happen to You!

U.S. Government Guidance on Compliance Plans

According to the Bureau of Industry & Security, developing an effective export compliance program is “an invaluable way a company can contribute to U.S. national security and nonproliferation priorities while protecting vital company interests.”

BIS identifies the following key factors of an effective export compliance plan:

• Management commitment
• Risk assessment
• Export authorization
• Recordkeeping
• Training
• Audits
• Handling export violations and taking corrective actions
• Building and maintaining your export compliance manual

Similarly, DDTC identifies the following key factors:

• A clear description of organizational structure
• Corporate commitment
• A methodology for identifying, receiving, and tracking ITAR-controlled items or data
• A procedure for handling re-exports and re-transfers and restricted exports
• Recordkeeping
• Internal monitoring
• Training
• A system for proactively handling violations

The U.S. government has published similar guidance for OFAC and FCPA compliance. While having an export compliance plan is not a guarantee that an export violation will not occur, a coherent export compliance program can minimize the risk of non-compliance.

Contact Us

Diaz Trade Law can assist your business in auditing and improving your current plan so that it is in its best shape or building an effective plan from scratch. To learn more about the services we offer, contact us at info@diaztradelaw.com or call us at 305-456-3830.

Importers not adequately auditing their supply chains for use of forced labor are at risk of administrative and criminal enforcement. Imported merchandise produced with forced labor is subject to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement. Such enforcement includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) right to detain, exclude, and/or seize imported goods and Homeland Security Investigation’s potential criminal investigation. China is not only the United States’ number one trading partner but also happens to be the world’s biggest forced labor violator.

Background

In May 2014, China initiated the campaign  “Strike Hard against Violent Extremism”, claiming to combat the “three evils” of “ethnic separatism, religious extremism, and violent terrorism.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used this justification to impose restrictions on members of the ethnic minority communities of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. These efforts dramatically increased in August 2016, when Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, known as the architect of China’s Muslim camps, assumed leadership of Xinjiang. According to Human Rights Watch:

• Xinjiang authorities conduct a compulsory mass collection of biometric data, such as voice samples and DNA, and use artificial intelligence and big data to identify, profile, and track everyone in Xinjiang. The authorities have envisioned these systems as a series of “filters,” picking out people with certain behavior or characteristics that they believe indicate a threat to the Communist Party’s rule in Xinjiang.

This dystopian system has progressed into the rapid establishment of “re-education” camps. In these camps, guards force the Muslim detainees to break Halal, mandating they drink alcohol, and only serving pork at meals. China reportedly takes DNA samples from Uighur camp prisoners and uses them as human test subjects in gang rapes and medical experiments.

Since 2014, the situation in Xinjiang, China has progressed from the simple collecting of Biometric data from a subsect of the population, to full-blown extrajudicial internment, re-education camps, forced sterilization, and organ harvesting. According to a 2015 report, China’s illegal organ transplant industry is valued at over $1 billion each year. The labor from these camps is the life-blood of the campaign. The interred individuals are essentially paying for their treatment in that they generate revenue that the government subsequently pumps back into the system of abuse.

Dr. Adrian Zenz, a Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington has authored various books regarding China’s policies towards ethnic minorities, and has played a leading role in the analysis of leaked Chinese government documents, including the “China Cables” and the “Karakax List.” Dr. Zenz has been integral in enlightening the world on the situation in China. In a recent Washington International Trade Association (WITA) webinar regarding the scope and scale of forced labor in Xinjiang, Dr. Zenz stated that the current crisis is worse than anything we have witnessed since the Holocaust. According to Dr. Zenz, whereas the Nazis sent Jews to concentration camps and death camps; the Chinese send Uighurs to concentration camps, re-education camps, or demoralization camps, instead. Despite the differences, the systematic nature and end goal of the Chinese government’s policy towards the Uighurs is emblematic of the Nazi’s policy towards the Jew’s: forced assimilation and or eradication of the culture and prevention of its proliferation.

• “[T]he Chinese government has placed vast numbers of Turkic minorities into internment camps, which it refers to as “reeducation camps,”… it claimed that these supposed students would gradually be released into work placements. Data such as this supports this claim, but not in the way that the government is trying to sell it. Rather, it is part of a rapidly growing set of evidence for how Beijing’s long-term strategy to subdue its northwestern minorities is predicated upon a perverse and intrusive combination of coercive labor, intergenerational separation, and complete social control.” Dr. Zenz, Xinjiang’s New Slavery

Dr. Zenz explicitly stated that while the Chinese are not (yet) committing mass extermination, the abuses against its Uighur population definitively constitutes a genocide. From religious oppression, to forced sterilization, to internment, to forced labor or slavery, to re-education — the CCP has been deliberate in its attempt to eliminate the Uighur ethnicity. Dr. Zenz articulated that the Chinese are engaging in a slow-rolling genocide, also known as an “ethnocide”.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting claims of systematic abuses such as coercive population control through forced abortion, forced sterilization, and involuntary implantation of birth control;  Chinese officials continue to defend the supposedly legitimate purpose of these camps.

Combating Chinese Concentration Camps – Forced labor Angle

In its 2019 Annual Report, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China found that products reportedly produced with forced labor by current and former mass internment camp detainees included textiles, electronics, food products, shoes, tea, and handicrafts.

Since the publication of the September 2018 Human Rights Watch report, news of these concentration camps started garnering international recognition. Congress began introducing bills, like the UIGHUR Act of 2019, which aimed at addressing the “human rights violations and abuses, including gross violations of human rights, by the People’s Republic of China’s mass surveillance and internment of [Millions of] Uighurs and other predominantly Turkic Muslim ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.”.

These efforts increased when President Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 into law on June 17, 2020. Under the UHRA, the President may impose property-blocking or visa-blocking sanctions on the identified foreign individuals and entities responsible for human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The UHRPA also requires the Executive branch to periodically report to Congress a list identifying foreign individuals and entities responsible for such human rights abuses. Furthermore, although it has not yet been signed into law, bills such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was introduced on March 12, 2020, signify that Congress understands the gravity of the situation. Some of the key findings included in the Bill are as follows:

• There is a very high risk that many factories and other suppliers in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are exploiting forced labor, according to reports from researchers, media, and civil society groups. Audits to vet products and supply chains in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are not possible because of the extent to which forced labor has contaminated the regional economy, the mixing of involuntary labor with voluntary labor, the inability of witnesses to speak freely about working conditions given heavy government surveillance and coercion, and the strong incentive of government officials to conceal government-sponsored forced labor.
• In its June 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report, the Department of State found, Authorities offer subsidies incentivizing Chinese companies to open factories in close proximity to the internment camps, and local governments receive additional funds for each inmate forced to work in these sites at a fraction of minimum wage or without any compensation.
• According to public reports, companies that are or have been suspected of directly employing forced labor or sourcing from suppliers that are suspected of using forced labor include (among others):
  • Adidas,
  • Calvin Klein,
  • the Campbell Soup Company,
  • the Coca-Cola Company,
  • Costco,
  • Esprit,
  • H&M,
  • the Kraft Heinz Company,
  • Nike, Inc.,
  • Patagonia, Inc.,
  • Tommy Hilfiger.

Whether out of ignorance or neglect, American and European dollars have helped facilitate the use of forced labor, if not slavery; which pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1307 is prohibited.

Active Measures

In line with sanctioning individuals and entities is the strategic use of Withhold Release Orders (WROs). A WRO directs CBP Officers at all ports of entry to withhold release of goods originating from a listed company or country.  These targeted sanctions have been especially effective at identifying certain nations, industries, and companies that employ forced labor in any way. CBP provides the public with a list of all WROs and the findings of the investigations. Right now, the majority of active WROs are focused on items produced in China. In fact, the majority of WROs the USTR implemented since 2016, are directed at China.  Below is a list of each WRO implemented against China since 2016:

Following the imposition of a WRO on hair products originating from the Lop County Meixin hair product company on June 17, 2020, CBP has implemented additional WROs on other industries in the region. The impositions of WROs against China saw a recent uptick on July 1, 2020 as a result of another seizure of hair products made in China. Following this seizure, CBP issued a Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory, which highlights that the Federal Government recognizes the harsh repression and illicit practices of the Chinese regime, and cautions US stakeholders– businesses, individuals, academic institutions, research service providers, and investors – that continue to operate business with entities in Xinjiang.

Specifically, the advisory states that these companies

should be aware of reputational, economic, and, in certain instances, legal, risks associated with certain types of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses, which could include Withhold Release Orders (WROs), civil or criminal investigations, and export controls.

Xinjiang Cotton Ban

During the last week of the Trump Administration, on January 13, 2021, the United states issued a Region-Wide Withhold Release Order on Products Made by Slave Labor in Xinjiang Specifically, CBP imposed a WRO on all Cotton, Tomatoes and Downstream Products originating in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). CBP issued the WRO after identifying various forced labor indicators including debt bondage, restriction of movement, isolation, intimidation and threats, withholding of wages, and abusive living and working conditions.

According to CBP, on December 2, 2020, CBP announced the issuance of a WRO on cotton and cotton products originating from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, an economic and paramilitary organization subordinate to the Chinese Communist Party. The region-wide WRO is the fourth WRO that CBP has issued since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2021, and the second on products originating in Xinjiang. All WROs are publicly available and listed by country on CBP’s Forced Labor WROs and Findings webpage.

The decision to ban cotton products marks the most substantial action. Out of the estimated three million detained Uighurs, over 500,000 have been forced to work in cotton fields. Moreover, cotton from the Xinjiang region accounts for 85% of China’s cotton production, and more than 20% of the world’s cotton.

Biden on Forced Labor

The Biden Administration has committed to maintaining a strident approach towards China. On January 20, 2021 upon being sworn in as Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken stated:

On the Uighurs I think we’re very much in agreement. And the forcing of men, women and children into concentration camps, trying to, in effect, re-educate them to be adherents to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.

Practitioner Tips

According to CBP, importers must exercise reasonable care and due diligence to ensure that forced labor is not included in any aspect of their supply chain. In order to effectively mitigate their risk, importers must understand the timely and costly detention process and know the importance of using CBP’s reasonable care checklist and implementing best practices. Additionally, importers should conduct a robust internal risk assessment, and audit their supply chain and import history. Further, importers should be aware of their ability to contest a WRO or argue for the release of detained shipments.

For more information regarding CBP’s current enforcement environment in targeting and combatting the use of forced labor, as well as top tips on how to avoid forced labor to in your supply chain— reference our Bloomberg Law article titled “U.S. Customs Targets Forced Labor” co-authored by Jennifer Diaz, and Denise Calle of Diaz Trade Law with support from Zachary Kaufman.

Conclusion

For assistance with importer due diligence in relation to forced labor requirements; or for assistance re-exporting your detained merchandise, in submitting documents to dispute the use of forced labor, or for assistance with the revocation request process, contact our Customs and International Law attorneys at info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Chemence Inc., a glue maker, is once again in a sticky situation with The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly making deceptive claims that its products are made in the United States. In a proposed Consent Order, Chemence agreed to pay $1.2 million for its violation of the FTC Act for violating a 2016 federal court order to cease deceptive marketing tactics, as well as mandated an annual compliance report. The FTC now seeks Public Comment on the proposed consent agreement. The comment period closes on February 8, 2021. Thereafter, FTC will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make it final and force Chemence to pay the $1.2 million penalty.

Case Summary

The FTC filed suit against Chemence, Inc., and company president James Cooke (individually and as an officer), for deceptively advertising, labeling, selling, and distributing superglue products as made in the United States. FTC’s complaint against the company contends that the products were manufactured and supplied to trade customers as “all or virtually all” made in the United States, even though significant proportions of the chemical inputs, and overall costs are attributable to foreign materials. FTC alleges that in various instances, foreign materials accounted for more than 80% of materials costs and more than 50% of overall manufacturing costs. FTC maintains that, by distributing promotional materials containing misrepresentations regarding the U.S. origin of their products, the company and officer provided trade customers the “means and instrumentalities” to commit deceptive acts or practices.

Lessons Learned from the Consent Order Under Public Comment

The Consent Order is a learning point for other companies that are assessing their own Origin Statement and whether it is products are qualified to use the “Made in USA” claim. The Consent Order has provisions that are meant to prevent the company and officer in this case from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future based on FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims. The following is a summary of the Consent Order and lessons learned:

Part I prohibits the violators from making U.S. origin claims for their products unless the product meets the “all or virtually all” standard or uses qualifying U.S. origin claims or has been substantially transformed.

• (1) The final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States;
• (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; or
• (3) for a claim that a product is assembled in the United States, the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, the product’s principal assembly takes place in the United States, and United States assembly operations are substantial.

• Lessons Learned: Ensure you comply with the “Made in the USA”  Use this previously published blog on the Made in the USA standard for tips on how to compliantly label product with “Made in the USA” claims.

Part II prohibits the violators from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and violators have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

• Lessons Learned:Ensure you have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation being made. Products bearing unqualified “Made in USA” claims should contain only a de minimis, or negligible, amount of foreign content. There is no single “bright line” to establish when a product is or is not “all or virtually all” made in the United States. The Commission turns to factors such as:
  • Whether the final assembly or processing of the product took place in the United States.
  • The portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs that are attributable to U.S. parts and processing; and
  • How far removed from the finished product any foreign content is.

Part III prohibits violators from providing third parties with the means and instrumentalities to make the claims prohibited in Parts I or II.

• Lessons Learned: In this case, the FTC’s heavily relied on the means and instrumentalities provided to third parties and manufacturers used to market the product as Made in the USA as these marketing tools were direct evidence of the deceptive acts or practices undertaken. Companies should verify that its product meet the FTC “Made in the USA” standard prior to providing third parties with marketing material. All product labels are available on the FTC’s proceedings webpage. An example of Chemence’s packaging, including both unqualified Made in the USA claims and use of the American Flag, is below:

Parts IV through VI are monetary provisions. Part IV imposes a judgment of $1,200,000. Part V includes additional monetary provisions relating to collections. Part VI requires the violators to provide sufficient customer information to enable the Commission to administer consumer redress, if appropriate. Part VII requires violators to identify and notify certain third-party trade customers of the FTC’s action and submit reports to the FTC regarding their notification program.

• Lessons Learned: Not only will this company be forced to potentially pay the largest settlement amount in the history of FTC judgements; also the company’s tarnished reputation may result in a negative impact on its resources, business, long-term profitability; especially when the tarnished reputation must be shown to customers.

Parts VIII through XI are reporting and compliance provisions, requiring violators to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees. Part IX requires annual compliance reports be filed with the FTC.

• Take Away: This order goes beyond a monetary sanction as the FTC is clearly acting against this repeat offender to set an example and discourage other company employees from engaging in similar unlawful acts; especially by charging an officer individually. For twenty years, the company will have to provide the order to all future employees etc.

FTC enforcement for Made in the USA violations is on the uptick with steep penalties on the table for small and large business. The FTC has launched the Made in USA fraud program and is targeting large companies. While for decades, there was bipartisan consensus at the FTC that Made in USA fraud should not be penalized; in 1994, Congress authorized the FTC to impose penalties and damages for Made in USA fraud. In 2020, Williams-Sonoma was required to pay $1 million to the FTC for Made in USA deceptive practices and now Chemence is facing a 1.2 million penalty. Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement describing the recent FTC actions as “real consequences” and “another step forward in protecting the Made in USA brand and restoring the Commission’s law enforcement credibility.”

Diaz Trade Law assists small and large companies assess whether their product complies with the “Made in the USA” standard. Companies are encouraged to use the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims for guidance and confirm their product’s foreign parts are adequately assessed to avoid potential FTC “Made in USA” enforcement actions. Our attorneys are available to assist you and can be contacted at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com

According to the Federal Register Notice, the proposed rule would not require anything new from salad dressing manufacturers. Rather, by providing the flexibility for innovation, the amendment to French Dressing’s SOI presents an opportunity for social benefits at no cost to the industry or consumer.

The SOI for French dressing was originally established in 1950 (15 FR 5227), re-designated in 1977 (42 FR 14481), and amended in 1993 (58 FR 2886). 21 CFR 169.115  lays out the requirements for specific standardized food dressings and flavorings. The regulation describes the specific ingredients and requirements for labeling to state “French dressing” including being prepared from vegetable oil(s) and one or both of the acidifying ingredients (vinegar or diluted vinegar mixture), or one or more of the alternative ingredients, such as salt, tomato paste, tomato puree, catsup, sherry wine, eggs, and ingredients derived from eggs and containing not less than 35 percent by weight of vegetable oil.

Over two decades later on January 13, 1998, the Association for Dressings and Sauces (ADS) submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA to propose a rule to revoke the SOI for French dressing. The petition argued that since the latest redesignation for French Dressing’s SOI in 1977, the proliferation of the dressing market, more specifically, the growth and the variation in both the composition and types of dressings, posed significant burdens on manufacturers. The burdens stemmed from the fact that the SOI essentially covered different products; variations of salad dressing. The archaic SOI not only poorly classified certain dressings but was also so narrow as to impose unnecessary restrictions on producers and other industry actors.

After considering the contents of the citizen petition and running a cost-benefit-analysis, FDA found that the proposed rule would aid manufacturers. The proposal detailed in the Federal Register Notice is in direct response to ADS’ 1998 citizen petition. Specifically, FDA states that:

[T]he standard of identity for French dressing no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers consistent with section 401 of the FD&C Act… In addition, our proposal to revoke the standard of identity for French dressing is consistent with Executive Order (EO) 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (January 30, 2017), and Executive Order (EO) 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda’’ (February 24, 2017). [EO]13771 and [EO] 13777, taken together, direct agencies to offset the number and cost of new regulations by identifying prior regulations that can be eliminated because, for example, they are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. The proposed revocation also is consistent with section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (January 18, 2011), which requires agencies to periodically conduct retrospective analyses of existing regulations to identify those ‘‘that might be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them’’ accordingly.

The proposal has already garnered public support. In fact, the ADS published an official statement of support of the proposed rule to revoke the French dressing SOI, highlighting that:

Since the standard was adopted, there has been a proliferation of a wide variety of nonstandardized pourable salad dressings with different flavors (e.g., Italian, Blue cheese, Vinaigrette, Ranch, Caesar) and composition (including reduced fat, “light” and fat-free dressings).  Further, French is the only pourable salad dressing with a standard of identity. The French dressing standard does not serve as a benchmark for these pourable salad dressings, due to the variation in composition to meet changing consumer needs.  The need for flavor identity standards within a market with a proliferation of flavors is obsolete, and could restrict innovation. There are a wide variety of French-style dressings on the market, and these will continue to be available based on consumer demand.

FDA has requested that actors in the industry, as well as consumers and the public, submit electronic or written comments regarding the proposal. FDA explicitly states that it is “… interested in any information, including data and studies, on consumer expectations regarding French dressing and whether the specifications in § 169.115 are necessary to ensure that French dressing meets these expectations”.

Comments are to be submitted on or before March 22, 2021. If submitted electronically, comments must be submitted to the electronic filing system by 11:59 pm Eastern Time. If submitted by mail, the submission must be postmarked on or before March 21, 2020.

Diaz Trade Law has extensive expertise on FDA food labeling and nutrition guidelines and regulations, as well as in preparing and submitting comments for rulemaking. Please reach out to us if you would like to submit comments to FDA regarding the proposed rule to revoke the Standard of Identity (SOI) for French (salad) dressing. Comments are due March 22, 2021. Diaz Trade Law can be reached at info@diaztradelaw.com and 305-456-3830.