In the Matter of: Kabba & Amir Investments, Inc., d.b.a. International Freight Forwarders, 286 Attwell Drive #16, Toronto, ON M9W 5B2, Canada, Respondent; Final Decision and Order, 25648-25649 [E8-9980]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25648
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices
notification procedure requires
exporters to complete a form BIS–748P
(approved under OMB Control No.
0694–0088) and after eleven days if no
U.S. Government agency objects, the
exporter is free to export the items.
II. Method of Collection
Paper format.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0694–0123.
Form Number(s): BIS–748P.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; not-for-profit
institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
215.
Estimated Time Per Response: 58
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 208.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: May 2, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–10083 Filed 5–6–08; 8:45 am]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:00 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05–BIS–08]
In the Matter of: Kabba & Amir
Investments, Inc., d.b.a. International
Freight Forwarders, 286 Attwell Drive
#16, Toronto, ON M9W 5B2, Canada,
Respondent; Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order
(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law
Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described
below.
In a charging letter filed on June 28,
2005, the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that
Respondent Kabba & Amir Investments,
Inc., d/b/a International Freight
Forwarders (‘‘IFF’’), committed two
violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (currently codified at 15
CFR Parts 730–774 (2008)
(‘‘Regulations’’)), issued pursuant to the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420
(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’), 1 stemming from its
involvement in an attempted unlicensed
export of items subject to the
Regulations from the United States to
Cuba. Charge One of the charging letter
alleged as follows:
Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(b)—Aiding and
abetting an attempted violation of the
Regulations.
On or about June 29, 2000, IFF aided and
abetted the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations when it took possession of a
shipment of X–Ray Film Processors, items
subject to the Regulations, in the United
States for export to Cuba via Canada. Under
section 746.2 of the Regulations, a BIS export
license was required for this shipment, but
no such license was obtained. In aiding and
abetting the attempted export, IFF committed
one violation of section 764.2([b])2 of the
Regulations.
June 28, 2005 Charging Letter, at 1.
On November 6, 2007, BIS filed a
motion for summary decision against
IFF as to Charge One. During the
briefing of this motion, BIS withdrew
the only other charged violation, Charge
Two, which alleged that IFF had
conspired to violate the Regulations. See
§ 7663(a) of the Regulations (‘‘BIS may
unilaterally withdraw charging letters at
any time, by notifying the respondent
and the administrative law judge.’’). The
ALJ entered an order of dismissal as to
Charge Two on January 29, 2008,
consistent with BIS’s notice of
withdrawal of that charge.
On April 2, 2008, based on the record
before him, the ALJ issued an RDO in
which he determined that BIS was
entitled to summary decision as to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Charge One, finding that IFF had
committed one violation of § 764.2(b)
when it aided and abetted an attempted
unlicensed export of items subject to the
Regulations to Cuba, via Canada. The
ALJ also recommended, following
consideration of the record, that IFF be
assessed a monetary penalty of
$6,000.00 and a denial of export
privileges for three years. The ALJ
further recommended that the denial of
export privileges be suspended for a
period of three years as long as IFF pays
the monetary penalty of $6,000.00
within thirty days of the final Decision
and Order and does not commit any
further violations of the Act or
Regulations within three years of the
issuance of the final Decision and
Order.
The RDO, together with the entire
record in this case, has been referred to
me for final action under § 766.22 of the
Regulations. I find that the record
supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In making this
finding, I have determined that the ALJ
made at least an implied finding that
IFF took constructive possession of the
items in question when it had the items
transported by truck to Canada,
arranged for them to then be transported
to Cuba by plane, and took other actions
to effect their forwarding and the
completion of their unlicensed export to
Cuba. Such a finding is entirely
consistent with Charge One of the
charging letter and the RDO. See, e.g.,
RDO at 5–6 (making finding based on
uncontroverted documentary exhibits
submitted by BIS in support of its
Motion for Summary Decision,
including Respondent’s Answer, that
IFF had, inter alia, agreed to forward the
items from the United States to Cuba,
had the items trucked to Canada, and
arranged for their further transport by
plane to Cuba prior to the items being
seized by Canada Customs); RDO at 13
(‘‘BIS established by documentary
evidence and IFF’s admissions that
there exists no genuine issues of
material fact that Respondent violated
15 CFR 764.2(b) by aiding and abetting
in the attempted export of X–Ray film
Processors (classified as EAR 99) from
the United States to Cuba, via Canada
on or about June 29, 2000.’’)
I also find that the penalty
recommended by the ALJ based upon
his review of the entire record is
appropriate, given the nature of the
violations, the facts of this case, and the
importance of deterring future
unauthorized exports or attempted
exports.
Based on my review of the entire
record, I affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the RDO.
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 7, 2008 / Notices
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered,
First, that a civil penalty of $6,000.00
is assessed against Kabba & Amir
Investments, Inc., d/b/a International
Freight Forwarders, which shall be paid
to the U.S. Department of Commerce
within (30) thirty days from the date of
entry of this Order.
Second, pursuant to the Debt
Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31
U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil
penalty owed under this Order accrues
interest as more fully described in the
attached Notice, and, if payment is not
made by the due date specified herein,
Kabba & Amir Investments, Inc., d/b/a
International Freight Forwarders, will
be assessed, in addition to the full
amount of the civil penalty and interest,
a penalty charge and administrative
charge.
Third, for a period of three (3) years
from the date that this Order is
published in the Federal Register,
Kabba & Amir Investments, Inc., d/b/a
International Freight Forwarders, 286
Attwell Drive #16, Toronto, ON M9W
5B2, Canada (‘‘IFF’’), its successors or
assigns, and when acting for or on
behalf of IFF, its representatives, agents,
officers or employees (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘Denied
Person’’) may not participate, directly or
indirectly, in any way in any transaction
involving any commodity, software or
technology (hereinafter collectively
referred to as ‘‘item’’) exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations,
including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, License Exception, or
export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations;
or
C. Benefiting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or in
any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Fourth, that no person may, directly
or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Person any item subject to
the Regulations; B. Take any action that
facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Denied Person of the
ownership, possession, or control of any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:00 May 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
item subject to the Regulations that has
been or will be exported from the
United States, including financing or
other support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Person
acquires or attempts to acquire such
ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from the Denied Person of
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been exported from the United
States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
the United States any item subject to the
Regulations with knowledge or reason
to know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Fifth, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
§ 766.23 of the Regulations, any person,
firm, corporation, or business
organization related to the Denied
Person by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in
the conduct of trade or related services
may also be made subject to the
provisions of the Order.
Sixth, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the Regulations
where the only items involved that are
subject to the Regulations are the
foreign-produced direct product of U.S.origin technology.
Seventh, that, as authorized by
§ 766.17(c) of the Regulations, the denial
period set forth above shall be
suspended in its entirety, and shall
thereafter be waived, provided that: (1)
Within thirty days of the effective date
of the Decision and Order, IFF pays the
monetary penalty of $6,000.00 in full,
and (2) during the period of the
suspension IFF commits no further
violations of the Act or Regulations.
Eighth, that the final Decision and
Order shall be served on IFF and on BIS
and shall be published in the Federal
Register. In addition, the ALJ’s
Recommended Decision and Order,
except for the section related to the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25649
Recommended Order, shall also be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the
final agency action in this matter, is
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Dated: April 30, 2008.
Mario Mancuso,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security.
1. From August 21, 1994 through
November 12, 2000, the Act was in
lapse. During that period, the President,
through Executive Order 12924, which
had been extended by successive
Presidential Notices, the last of which
was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000 Comp.
397 (2001)), continued the Regulations
in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On
November 13, 2000, the Act was
reauthorized and remained in effect
through August 20, 2001. Since August
21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and
the President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001
Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been
extended by successive Presidential
Notices, the most recent being that of
August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (August
16, 2007)), has continued the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
2. Due to a typographical error, BIS
referred to section 764.2(d) in the last
sentence of the original Charge One.
This typographical error was later
corrected by BIS, as noted by the ALJ in
fn. 4 of the RDO.
3. The sanction recommended by the
ALJ also is consistent with the sanction
proposed by BIS, which based its
request on the facts and circumstances
of the case as a whole.
[FR Doc. E8–9980 Filed 5–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05–BIS–08]
Recommended Decision and Order; In
the Matter of: Kabba & Amir
Investments, Inc., d.b.a. International
Freight Forwarders, 286 Attwell Drive
#16, Toronto, ON M9W 5B2, Canada;
Respondent(s)
Issued: April 2, 2008
Issued By: Hon. Michael J. Devine
Presiding.
Appearances: For the Bureau of Industry
and Security: Charles G. Wall, Esq., Joseph V.
Jest, Esq., John T. Masterson, Office of Chief
Counsel for Industry & Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room H–3839,
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25648-25649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9980]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05-BIS-08]
In the Matter of: Kabba & Amir Investments, Inc., d.b.a.
International Freight Forwarders, 286 Attwell Drive 16,
Toronto, ON M9W 5B2, Canada, Respondent; Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order
(``RDO'') of an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ''), as further
described below.
In a charging letter filed on June 28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry
and Security (``BIS'') alleged that Respondent Kabba & Amir
Investments, Inc., d/b/a International Freight Forwarders (``IFF''),
committed two violations of the Export Administration Regulations
(currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2008) (``Regulations'')),
issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended
(50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (the ``Act''), 1 stemming from its
involvement in an attempted unlicensed export of items subject to the
Regulations from the United States to Cuba. Charge One of the charging
letter alleged as follows:
Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(b)--Aiding and abetting an attempted
violation of the Regulations.
On or about June 29, 2000, IFF aided and abetted the doing of an
act prohibited by the Regulations when it took possession of a
shipment of X-Ray Film Processors, items subject to the Regulations,
in the United States for export to Cuba via Canada. Under section
746.2 of the Regulations, a BIS export license was required for this
shipment, but no such license was obtained. In aiding and abetting
the attempted export, IFF committed one violation of section
764.2([b])2 of the Regulations.
June 28, 2005 Charging Letter, at 1.
On November 6, 2007, BIS filed a motion for summary decision
against IFF as to Charge One. During the briefing of this motion, BIS
withdrew the only other charged violation, Charge Two, which alleged
that IFF had conspired to violate the Regulations. See Sec. 7663(a) of
the Regulations (``BIS may unilaterally withdraw charging letters at
any time, by notifying the respondent and the administrative law
judge.''). The ALJ entered an order of dismissal as to Charge Two on
January 29, 2008, consistent with BIS's notice of withdrawal of that
charge.
On April 2, 2008, based on the record before him, the ALJ issued an
RDO in which he determined that BIS was entitled to summary decision as
to Charge One, finding that IFF had committed one violation of Sec.
764.2(b) when it aided and abetted an attempted unlicensed export of
items subject to the Regulations to Cuba, via Canada. The ALJ also
recommended, following consideration of the record, that IFF be
assessed a monetary penalty of $6,000.00 and a denial of export
privileges for three years. The ALJ further recommended that the denial
of export privileges be suspended for a period of three years as long
as IFF pays the monetary penalty of $6,000.00 within thirty days of the
final Decision and Order and does not commit any further violations of
the Act or Regulations within three years of the issuance of the final
Decision and Order.
The RDO, together with the entire record in this case, has been
referred to me for final action under Sec. 766.22 of the Regulations.
I find that the record supports the ALJ's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In making this finding, I have determined that the
ALJ made at least an implied finding that IFF took constructive
possession of the items in question when it had the items transported
by truck to Canada, arranged for them to then be transported to Cuba by
plane, and took other actions to effect their forwarding and the
completion of their unlicensed export to Cuba. Such a finding is
entirely consistent with Charge One of the charging letter and the RDO.
See, e.g., RDO at 5-6 (making finding based on uncontroverted
documentary exhibits submitted by BIS in support of its Motion for
Summary Decision, including Respondent's Answer, that IFF had, inter
alia, agreed to forward the items from the United States to Cuba, had
the items trucked to Canada, and arranged for their further transport
by plane to Cuba prior to the items being seized by Canada Customs);
RDO at 13 (``BIS established by documentary evidence and IFF's
admissions that there exists no genuine issues of material fact that
Respondent violated 15 CFR 764.2(b) by aiding and abetting in the
attempted export of X-Ray film Processors (classified as EAR 99) from
the United States to Cuba, via Canada on or about June 29, 2000.'')
I also find that the penalty recommended by the ALJ based upon his
review of the entire record is appropriate, given the nature of the
violations, the facts of this case, and the importance of deterring
future unauthorized exports or attempted exports.
Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings of
fact and conclusions of law in the RDO.
[[Page 25649]]
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered,
First, that a civil penalty of $6,000.00 is assessed against Kabba
& Amir Investments, Inc., d/b/a International Freight Forwarders, which
shall be paid to the U.S. Department of Commerce within (30) thirty
days from the date of entry of this Order.
Second, pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31
U.S.C. 3701-3720E (2000)), the civil penalty owed under this Order
accrues interest as more fully described in the attached Notice, and,
if payment is not made by the due date specified herein, Kabba & Amir
Investments, Inc., d/b/a International Freight Forwarders, will be
assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil penalty and
interest, a penalty charge and administrative charge.
Third, for a period of three (3) years from the date that this
Order is published in the Federal Register, Kabba & Amir Investments,
Inc., d/b/a International Freight Forwarders, 286 Attwell Drive
16, Toronto, ON M9W 5B2, Canada (``IFF''), its successors or
assigns, and when acting for or on behalf of IFF, its representatives,
agents, officers or employees (hereinafter collectively referred to as
``Denied Person'') may not participate, directly or indirectly, in any
way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be
exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or
in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not
limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other
activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to
the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Fourth, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item
subject to the Regulations; B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the
ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States,
including financing or other support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire
such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition
or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to
the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item
subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States
and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means
installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Fifth, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in Sec. 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to the Denied Person by affiliation,
ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of
trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of
the Order.
Sixth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or
other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items
involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced
direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
Seventh, that, as authorized by Sec. 766.17(c) of the Regulations,
the denial period set forth above shall be suspended in its entirety,
and shall thereafter be waived, provided that: (1) Within thirty days
of the effective date of the Decision and Order, IFF pays the monetary
penalty of $6,000.00 in full, and (2) during the period of the
suspension IFF commits no further violations of the Act or Regulations.
Eighth, that the final Decision and Order shall be served on IFF
and on BIS and shall be published in the Federal Register. In addition,
the ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, except for the section
related to the Recommended Order, shall also be published in the
Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Dated: April 30, 2008.
Mario Mancuso,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
1. From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 2000, the Act was in
lapse. During that period, the President, through Executive Order
12924, which had been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the
last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)),
continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (``IEEPA''). On
November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and remained in effect
through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in
lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by
successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August
15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations
in effect under IEEPA.
2. Due to a typographical error, BIS referred to section 764.2(d)
in the last sentence of the original Charge One. This typographical
error was later corrected by BIS, as noted by the ALJ in fn. 4 of the
RDO.
3. The sanction recommended by the ALJ also is consistent with the
sanction proposed by BIS, which based its request on the facts and
circumstances of the case as a whole.
[FR Doc. E8-9980 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
