Public U.S. companies should update their China-related risk disclosures to factor in a range of potential trade restrictions on the horizon, including possible U.S. sanctions against Beijing for aiding Russia and new outbound investment restrictions, said Carl Valenstein, a trade lawyer with Morgan Lewis.
Ian Cohen
Ian Cohen, Deputy Managing Editor, is a reporter with Export Compliance Daily and its sister publications International Trade Today and Trade Law Daily, where he covers export controls, sanctions and international trade issues. He previously worked as a local government reporter in South Florida. Ian graduated with a journalism degree from the University of Florida in 2017 and lives in Washington, D.C. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2019.
The EPA should exempt certain export activities from new proposed reporting requirements under a significant new use rule for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), U.S. trade groups told the agency in recent comments. If EPA doesn’t exempt those activities, the proposed rule could disrupt chemical supply chains and other sectors that use PFAS, including the energy, instrument and machinery manufacturing industries, the groups said.
The U.S. this week announced new Russia-related trade restrictions, adding 28 entities to the Commerce Department’s Entity List and more than 100 entries to the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals List. The measures target people and companies either operating in Russia, aiding the country’s war against Ukraine or helping Moscow evade sanctions.
The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls will soon expand the types of defense articles and services that can be exported to Australia, the U.K. and Canada, including items and activities involving torpedoes, submarine combat control systems, acoustic countermeasure devices and night vision items. The measures were outlined in a final rule, released April 11 and effective May 12, that will also make “clarifying amendments and conforming updates” to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
The White House this week announced a new “whole-of-government approach” to tackle illegal fentanyl trafficking, including plans to impose more sanctions against drug traffickers and prevent them from accessing American raw materials and technology.
The Treasury Department may be prioritizing enforcement of existing Russia sanctions rather than searching for new measures to impose, said Jay Shambaugh, Treasury’s undersecretary for international affairs. Shambaugh, speaking during an April 10 event hosted by the Brookings Institution, also said industry should expect the Biden administration to continue imposing national security-related trade restrictions on China.
The Commerce Department’s proposed guardrails for recipients of Chips Act funding could lead to compliance risks for semiconductor companies, especially as the agency bolsters its enforcement arm, law firms said. They also said companies should carefully review how the proposals intersect with chip export restrictions.
DOJ’s recent emphasis on corporate compliance may cause companies to update how they conduct due diligence on investment transactions, Morgan Lewis said in a new report released this month. The firm said DOJ is increasingly playing a more active role in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which could prompt investors to reassess their procedures for evaluating sensitive deals.
China has asked the World Trade Organization to review semiconductor export controls recently announced by Japan, saying the “harmful” measures violate WTO rules. Beijing also lodged a broader complaint against the reported chip control deal agreed to by the U.S., the Netherlands and Japan, saying it should be made public and scrutinized by WTO members.
The U.S. should be preparing a strategy to make sure it leads in the next generation of advanced semiconductor technologies, said Romesh Wadhwani, founder of investment firm Symphony Technology Group. Wadhwani also said the funding included in the Chips Act is a good start, but likely won’t be enough to remain ahead of China and shield U.S. supply chains from geopolitical risks.