In the Matter of: Phaedon Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos) Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South Africa; Respondent, 69311-69314 [05-22608]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
in the United States. These data will be
a vital source for accurately measuring
the sales, commissions, sales arranged
for others, e-commerce, and operating
expenses of these types of companies.
The BEA has made repeated requests for
this information. The expanded ATS
will cover all sales from the wholesale
sector compared to about 90 percent of
sales in the present ATS sample.
Beginning with the survey year 2005,
the goal will be to maximize industry
coverage within our available resources.
In order to establish reporting
arrangements and reduce respondent
burden, we will mail report forms to a
sample of firms on a company basis and
contact them in person, as well as by
phone and mail. We will mail firms in
the survey an introduction letter, report
forms, and a flyer instructing them how
to reply electronically. We request that
forms be completed and returned 30
days after receipt. The report forms will
request similar data items, but different
forms will be used to accommodate
wholesale distributors, MSBO, and
AGBR companies, as well as both large
and small firms. Later, if necessary,
additional mail follow-ups and
telephone follow-ups will be conducted.
The primary users of these data are
federal, state, and local government
agencies, including the Census Bureau,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and BEA.
Other users include business firms,
academics, trade associations, and
research and consulting organizations.
On September 20, 2005 (70 FR 55104),
the Census Bureau published in the
Federal Register a notice and request for
comments on the expansion of the ATS.
We received two comments that were
not responsive to the solicitation.
Accordingly, the Census Bureau is
adopting, without change, its proposal
to include agents, broker, and electronic
markets in the 2005 Annual Trade
Survey.
result, no final regulatory flexibility
analysis was prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) unless that
collection of information displays a
current valid Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number. This
notice contains a collection of
information subject to the requirements
of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). In
accordance with the PRA, OMB
approved on September 21, 2005, with
control number 0607–0195, the
collection of all information associated
with this notice. We estimate the
number of additional respondents to be
390 and estimate an additional 677
annual burden hours with this
expanded data collection. Also, we
estimate that the time for the additional
responses associated with this data
collection will be approximately 28
minutes. We will furnish report forms to
organizations included in the survey,
and additional copies will be available
upon written request to the Director,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC
20233–0101.
Dated: November 9, 2005.
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 05–22598 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05–BIS–01]
This notice has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
In the Matter of: Phaedon Nicholas
Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred
Tatos) Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 119
Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead
7800, Cape Town, South Africa;
Respondent
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Decision and Order
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
notice would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual
basis for this certification was published
in the earlier notice and request for
comment (09/20/05; 70 FR 55104). No
comments were received regarding the
economic impact of that notice. As a
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order of an
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as
further described below.
In a Charging Letter filed on January
28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that respondent
Phaedon Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos
a.k.a. Fred Tatos (‘‘Tatos’’) committed
five violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (the
Executive Order 12866
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69311
‘‘Regulations’’) 1, issued under the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401–
2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically,
BIS alleged that Tatos committed two
violations of section 764.2(a), two
violations of section 764.2(e), and one
violation of section 764.2(k) of the
Regulations. The Charging Letter alleged
that, in violation of a denial of export
privileges imposed against Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd. (‘‘Suburban Guns’’) by
BIS on April 1, 1998,3 Tatos twice
facilitated the acquisition by Suburban
Guns of shotgun screw chokes, choke
tubes, and barrels, which are classified
under Export Control Classification
Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 0A984, and of other
shotgun accessories, which are
designated as EAR99 items, from U.S.
companies.4 The Charging Letter further
alleged that Tatos committed these acts
in violation of the Denial Order imposed
against Suburban Guns with knowledge
that violations of an Order issued under
the Act and the Regulations would
occur. Finally, the Charging Letter
alleged that Tatos made a false
representation to an official of BIS
during BIS’s investigation of this case
when he stated in an e-mail
communication to a BIS Office of Export
Enforcement Special Agent that
Suburban Guns had not imported any
items from the United States since the
imposition of the Denial Order against
it.
BIS’s Charging Letter was served by
certified mail on Tatos on January 28,
2005, and received on or about February
11, 2005. Tatos did not file an answer
to BIS’s Charging Letter with the ALJ.
On August 4, 2005, BIS filed a Motion
for Default with the ALJ, recommending
1 The charged violations occurred in 2000. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are
found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000). The 2005
Regulations establish the procedures that apply to
this matter.
2 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 by Pub. L. No. 106–508 (114
Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it 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 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, Aug. 5,
2005), has continued the Regulations in effect under
IEEPA.
3 Action Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63 FR 15,828 (Apr. 1, 1998).
4 EAR99 is a designation for items subject to the
Regulations but not listed on the Commerce Control
List.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
69312
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
that Tatos be denied export privileges
for a period of five years and that Tatos
be required to pay a $55,000 penalty.
Thereafter, on September 21, 2005,
based on the record before it, the ALJ
issued a Recommended Decision and
Order in which he found that Tatos
committed five violations of the
Regulations and recommended the
penalty proposed by BIS—denial of
Tatos’ export privileges for five years
and imposition of a $55,000 penalty
against Tatos.
The ALJ’s Recommended Decision
and Order, together with the entire
record in this case, has been referred to
me for final action under section 766.22
of the Regulations. I find that the record
supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding the
liability of Tatos for the abovereferenced charges. I also find that the
penalty recommended by the ALJ is
appropriate, given the nature of the
violations and the importance of
preventing future unauthorized exports.
Based on my review of the entire record,
I affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the ALJ’s
Recommended Decision and Order.
Accordingly, It Is Therefore Ordered,
First, that a civil penalty of $55,000 is
assessed against Phaedon Nicholas
Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. Fred Tatos
(‘‘Tatos’’), which shall be paid to the
U.S. Department of Commerce within 30
days from the date of entry of this
Order. Payment shall be made in the
manner specified in the attached
instructions.
Second, that, 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,
Tatos will be assessed, in addition to the
full amount of the civil penalty and
interest, a penalty charge and an
administrative charge, as more fully
described in the attached Notice.
Third, that the timely payment of the
civil penalty set forth above is hereby
made a condition to the granting,
restoration, or continuing validity of any
export license, license exception,
permission, or privilege granted, or to be
granted, to Tatos. Accordingly, if Tatos
should fail to pay the civil penalty in a
timely manner, the undersigned may
enter an Order denying all of Tatos’
export privileges for a period of one year
from the date of entry of this Order.
Fourth, that, for a period of five years
from the date of this Order, Phaedon
Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a.
Fred Tatos 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30,
Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:37 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
Africa, and when acting for or on behalf
of Tatos, his representatives, agents,
assigns, and employees (‘‘Denied
Person’’), may not, directly or indirectly,
participate 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.
Fifth, 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 that 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Sixth, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 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 this Order.
Seventh, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, re-export 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.
Eighth, that this Order shall be served
on the Respondent 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 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: October 20, 2005.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary for Industry and Security.
Recommended Decision and Order
On January 28, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security, U.S. Department
of Commerce (hereinafter, ‘‘BIS’’),
issued a charging letter initiating this
administrative enforcement proceeding
against Phaedon Nicholas Criton
Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos)
(hereinafter, ‘‘Tatos’’ ). The charging
letter alleged that Tatos committed five
(5) violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR parts 730–74 (2005))
(‘‘the Regulations’’),1 issued under the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended.2
1 The charged violations occurred in 2000. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are
found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–74 (2000)). The 2005
Regulations establish the procedures that apply to
this matter.
2 Sections 50 U.S.C. 2401–2420 (2000)
(hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’). From August 21, 1994
through November 12, 2000, the Act was in lapse.
During that period, the President, through
Executive Order 12924, which was 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
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
Specifically, the charging letter
alleged that Tatos violated the Denial
Order imposed against Suburban Guns
(Pty) Ltd. by placing an order on or
about February 2, 2000, with a U.S.
company for shotgun screw chokes,
choke tubes, and other accessories,
which were exported to Suburban Guns
(Pty) Ltd. on or about March 1, 2000
(Charge 1). The charging letter also
alleged that Tatos violated Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s Denial Order by
placing an additional order on or about
March 29, 2000, with a U.S. company
for shotgun barrels and screw chokes,
which were exported to Suburban Guns
(Pty) Ltd. on or about March 30, 2000
(Charge 3). Pursuant to the Denial Order
imposed against Suburban Guns (Pty)
Ltd., Tatos was prohibited from
facilitating the acquisition of any item
subject to the Regulations that was
exported or to be exported from the
United States. See Action Affecting
Export Privileges; Suburban Guns (Pty)
Ltd., 63 FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 1998). The
BIS charging letter also alleged that, in
both exports described above, Tatos
ordered and purchased the items with
knowledge that violations of an Order
issued under the Act and the
Regulations would occur (Charges 2 and
4). Finally, the BIS charging letter
alleged that, on or about October 28,
2004, Tatos made a false representation
to an official of BIS in the course of a
BIS investigation (Charge 5).
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations
provides that notice of issuance of a
charging letter shall be served on a
respondent by mailing a copy by
registered or certified mail addressed to
the respondent at the resondent’s last
known address. In accordance with the
Regulations, on January 28, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by certified mail to Tatos
at: Phaedon Nicholas Criton ConstanTatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos), Suburban Guns
(Pty) Ltd., 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30,
Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South
Africa. BIS has submitted evidence that
establishes that this charging letter was
received by Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. on
or about February 11, 2005. These
actions constitute service under the
Regulations.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations
provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he
respondent must answer the charging
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(50 U.S.C. 1701–06 (2000)) (hereinafter, ‘‘IEEPA’’).
On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized
and it 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)),
as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR
45273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
letter within thirty (30) days after being
served with notice of issuance of the
charging letter’’ initiating the
administrative enforcement proceeding.
To date, Tatos has not filed an answer
to the charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in section 766.7 of the Regulations,
I find the facts to be as alleged in the
charging letter, and hereby determine
that those facts establish Tatos
committed two violations of section
764.2(e), one violation of section
764.2(g), and two violations of section
764.2(k) of the Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets
forth the sanctions BIS may seek for
violations of the Regulations. The
applicable sanctions are: (1) A monetary
penalty; (2) suspension from practice
before the Department of Commerce;
and (3) denial of export privileges under
the Regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3
(2005). Because Tatos knowingly
violated the Regulations by violating the
Denial Order imposed against Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd. and made a false
representation to an official of BIS in the
course of the investigation of these
circumstances, BIS requests that I
recommend to the Undersecretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security 3
that Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s export
privileges be denied for five (5) years,
and that I impose a civil penalty of fiftyfive thousand dollars ($55,000).
BIS has suggested these sanctions
because Tatos’ actions, in twice
violating a Denial Order imposed
against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., doing
so with knowledge that a violation of
the Regulations was occurring, and
making a false representation to an
official of BIS investigating these
circumstances evidence a blatant
disregard for U.S. export control laws.
Further, BIS believes that denying
Tatos’ export privileges in this case is
not a sufficient deterrent to Tatos, as
evidenced by his willingness to violate
the denial order in effect against
Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. In light of
these circumstances, BIS believes that
appropriate action is the denial of Tatos’
export privileges for five (5) years and
a civil penalty of fifty-five thousand
dollars ($55,000).
On this basis, I concur with BIS and
recommend that the Under Secretary
enter an Order denying Tatos’ export
privileges for a period of five (5) years
3 Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Export
Administration Act and section 766.17(b)(2) of the
Regulations, in export control enforcement cases,
the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended
findings of fact and conclusions of law that the
Under Secretary must affirm, modify or vacate. The
Under Secretary’s action is the final decision for the
U.S. Commerce Department.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69313
and requiring Tatos to pay a civil
penalty in the amount of fifty-five
thousand dollars ($55,000). These
penalties are consistent with penalties
imposed in recent cases under the
Regulations involving violations of
denial orders. In the Matters of Yaudat
Mustafa Talyi a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa
a.k.a. Joseph Talyi, 41 Chamale Cove
East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460,
Respondents; Decision and Order, 69 FR
77.177 (Dec. 27, 2004) (affirming the
ALJ’s recommendations that a twenty
year denial and maximum civil penalty
of $11,000 per violation was appropriate
where an individual exported oil field
parts to Libya without authorization, in
violation of the terms and conditions of
a BIS order temporarily denying his
export privileges and with knowledge
that a violation would occur; and
solicited a violation of the Regulations
by ordering oil field parts from an
equipment manufacturer located in the
United States without authorization and
with knowledge that a violation would
occur). A five (5) year denial of Tatos’
export privileges is warranted because
Tatos’ violations, like those of the
defendants in the above-cited case, were
deliberate acts in violation of an order
denying export privileges.
Recommended Order—[Redacted]
Accordingly, I am referring this
Recommended Decision and Order to
the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security for review and
final action for the agency, without
further notice to the respondent, as
provided in section 766.7 of the
Regulations.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of
this Recommended Decision and Order,
the Under Secretary will issue a written
order affirming, modifying or vacating
the Recommended Decision and Order.
See 15 CFR 766.22(c).
Done and dated this 21st day of
September 2005, New York, NY.
Walter J. Brudzinski,
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast
Guard.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the
foregoing Recommended Decision and
Order by Federal Express to the
following persons:
Under Secretary for Export
Administration, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room H–3839, 14th & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Phone: 202–482–5301.
ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, 40
S. Gay Street, Room 412, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022. Phone: 410–
962–7434.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
69314
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
Done and dated this 21st day of
September, 2005 at New York, NY.
Regina V. Thompson,
Paralegal Specialist, Assistant to the
Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 05–22608 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05–BIS–02]
In the Matter of: Suburban Guns (Pty)
Ltd., 119 Main Road, Plumstead 7800,
Cape Town, South Africa, Respondent
Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order of an
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as
further described below.
In a charging letter filed on January
28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that respondent
Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. (‘‘Suburban
Guns’’) committed four violations of the
Export Administration Regulations (the
‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420
(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically, BIS
alleged that Suburban Guns committed
two violations of section 764.2(a) and
two violations of section 764.2(e) of the
Regulations. The charging letter alleged
that, in violation of a denial of export
privileges imposed against it by BIS on
April 1, 1998,3 Suburban Guns placed
two orders with U.S. companies for
shotgun screw chokes, choke tubes, and
barrels, which are classified under
Export Control Classification Number
(‘‘ECCN’’) 0A984, and for other shotgun
1 The charged violations occurred in 2000. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are
found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000). The 2005
Regulations establish the procedures that apply to
this matter.
2 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 by Public Law No. 106–508
(114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it 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 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, Aug. 5,
2005), has continued the Regulations in effect under
IEEPA.
3 Action Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63 FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 1998).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
accessories, which are designated as
EAR99 items.4 The charging letter
further alleged that Suburban Guns
committed these acts in violation of the
Denial Order imposed against it with
knowledge that a violation of an Order
issued under the Act and the
Regulations would occur.
BIS’s charging letter was served by
certified mail on Suburban Guns on
January 28, 2005, and received on or
about February 10, 2005. Suburban
Guns did not file an answer to BIS’s
charging letter with the ALJ.
On August 4, 2005, BIS filed a Motion
for Default with the ALJ, recommending
that Suburban Guns be denied export
privileges for a period of five years,
beginning on July 25, 2007 when its
current Denial Order expires, and that
Suburban Guns be required to pay a
$44,000 penalty. Thereafter, on
September 21, 2005, based on the record
before it, the ALJ issued a
Recommended Decision and Order in
which he found that Suburban Guns
committed four violations of the
Regulations and recommended the
penalty proposed by BIS—denial of
Suburban Guns’ export privileges for
five years, beginning on July 25, 2007,
and imposition of a $44,000 penalty
against Suburban Guns.
The ALJ’s Recommended Decision
and Order, together with the entire
record in this case, has been referred to
me for final action under section 766.22
of the Regulations. I find that the record
supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding the
liability of Suburban Guns for the
above-referenced charges. I also find
that the penalty recommended by the
ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of
the violations and the importance of
preventing future unauthorized exports.
Based on my review of the entire record,
I affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the ALJ’s
Recommended Decision and Order.
Accordingly, it is Therefore Order,
First, that a civil penalty of $44,000 is
assessed against Suburban Guns, which
shall be paid to the U.S. Department of
Commerce within 30 days from the date
of entry of this Order. Payment shall be
made in the manner specified in the
attached instructions.
Second, that, pursuant to the Debt
Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31
U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil
penalty owned 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,
4 EAR99 is a designation for items subject to the
Regulations but not listed on the Commerce Control
List.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Suburban Guns will be assessed, in
addition to the full amount of the civil
penalty and interest, a penalty charge
and an administrative charge, as more
fully described in the attached Notice.
Third, that the timely payment of the
civil penalty set forth above is hereby
made a condition to the granting,
restoration, or continuing validity of any
export license, license exception,
permission, or privileged granted, or to
be granted, to Suburban Guns.
Accordingly, if Suburban Guns should
fail to pay the civil penalty in a timely
manner, the undersigned may enter an
Order denying all of Suburban Guns’
export privileges for a period of one year
from the date of entry of this Order.
Fourth, that, for a period of five years
from July 25, 2007, the date of
expiration of the Denial Order imposed
against Suburban Guns in Action
Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63, FR 15828 (Apr. 1,
1998), Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. 119
Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead
7800, Cape Town, South Africa, and all
of its successors or assigns, and, when
acting for or on behalf of Suburban
Guns, its officers, representatives,
agents, and employees (‘‘Denied
Person’’), may not, directly or indirectly,
participate 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.
Fifth, 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,
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69311-69314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22608]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05-BIS-01]
In the Matter of: Phaedon Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a.
Fred Tatos) Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30,
Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South Africa; Respondent
Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order of
an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ''), as further described below.
In a Charging Letter filed on January 28, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (``BIS'') alleged that respondent Phaedon
Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. Fred Tatos (``Tatos'') committed
five violations of the Export Administration Regulations (the
``Regulations'') \1\, issued under the Export Administration Act of
1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401-2420 (2000)) (the
``Act'').\2\ Specifically, BIS alleged that Tatos committed two
violations of section 764.2(a), two violations of section 764.2(e), and
one violation of section 764.2(k) of the Regulations. The Charging
Letter alleged that, in violation of a denial of export privileges
imposed against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. (``Suburban Guns'') by BIS on
April 1, 1998,\3\ Tatos twice facilitated the acquisition by Suburban
Guns of shotgun screw chokes, choke tubes, and barrels, which are
classified under Export Control Classification Number (``ECCN'') 0A984,
and of other shotgun accessories, which are designated as EAR99 items,
from U.S. companies.\4\ The Charging Letter further alleged that Tatos
committed these acts in violation of the Denial Order imposed against
Suburban Guns with knowledge that violations of an Order issued under
the Act and the Regulations would occur. Finally, the Charging Letter
alleged that Tatos made a false representation to an official of BIS
during BIS's investigation of this case when he stated in an e-mail
communication to a BIS Office of Export Enforcement Special Agent that
Suburban Guns had not imported any items from the United States since
the imposition of the Denial Order against it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charged violations occurred in 2000. The Regulations
governing the violations at issue are found in the 2000 version of
the Code of Federal Regulations. 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2000). The
2005 Regulations establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
\2\ 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 by Pub.
L. No. 106-508 (114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it 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 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, Aug. 5, 2005), has continued the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
\3\ Action Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban Guns (Pty)
Ltd., 63 FR 15,828 (Apr. 1, 1998).
\4\ EAR99 is a designation for items subject to the Regulations
but not listed on the Commerce Control List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIS's Charging Letter was served by certified mail on Tatos on
January 28, 2005, and received on or about February 11, 2005. Tatos did
not file an answer to BIS's Charging Letter with the ALJ.
On August 4, 2005, BIS filed a Motion for Default with the ALJ,
recommending
[[Page 69312]]
that Tatos be denied export privileges for a period of five years and
that Tatos be required to pay a $55,000 penalty. Thereafter, on
September 21, 2005, based on the record before it, the ALJ issued a
Recommended Decision and Order in which he found that Tatos committed
five violations of the Regulations and recommended the penalty proposed
by BIS--denial of Tatos' export privileges for five years and
imposition of a $55,000 penalty against Tatos.
The ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, together with the entire
record in this case, has been referred to me for final action under
section 766.22 of the Regulations. I find that the record supports the
ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the liability
of Tatos for the above-referenced charges. I also find that the penalty
recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of the
violations and the importance of preventing future unauthorized
exports. Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings
of fact and conclusions of law in the ALJ's Recommended Decision and
Order.
Accordingly, It Is Therefore Ordered,
First, that a civil penalty of $55,000 is assessed against Phaedon
Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. Fred Tatos (``Tatos''), which
shall be paid to the U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days from
the date of entry of this Order. Payment shall be made in the manner
specified in the attached instructions.
Second, that, 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,
Tatos will be assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil
penalty and interest, a penalty charge and an administrative charge, as
more fully described in the attached Notice.
Third, that the timely payment of the civil penalty set forth above
is hereby made a condition to the granting, restoration, or continuing
validity of any export license, license exception, permission, or
privilege granted, or to be granted, to Tatos. Accordingly, if Tatos
should fail to pay the civil penalty in a timely manner, the
undersigned may enter an Order denying all of Tatos' export privileges
for a period of one year from the date of entry of this Order.
Fourth, that, for a period of five years from the date of this
Order, Phaedon Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. Fred Tatos 119 Main
Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South Africa, and when
acting for or on behalf of Tatos, his representatives, agents, assigns,
and employees (``Denied Person''), may not, directly or indirectly,
participate 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.
Fifth, 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 that 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.
Sixth, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in section 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
this Order.
Seventh, that this Order does not prohibit any export, re-export 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.
Eighth, that this Order shall be served on the Respondent 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 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: October 20, 2005.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary for Industry and Security.
Recommended Decision and Order
On January 28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce (hereinafter, ``BIS''), issued a charging letter
initiating this administrative enforcement proceeding against Phaedon
Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos) (hereinafter,
``Tatos'' ). The charging letter alleged that Tatos committed five (5)
violations of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified
at 15 CFR parts 730-74 (2005)) (``the Regulations''),\1\ issued under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charged violations occurred in 2000. The Regulations
governing the violations at issue are found in the 2000 version of
the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-74 (2000)). The
2005 Regulations establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
\2\ Sections 50 U.S.C. 2401-2420 (2000) (hereinafter, ``the
Act''). From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 2000, the Act was
in lapse. During that period, the President, through Executive Order
12924, which was 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. 1701-06 (2000))
(hereinafter, ``IEEPA''). On November 13, 2000, the Act was
reauthorized and it 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)), as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR
45273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect
under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69313]]
Specifically, the charging letter alleged that Tatos violated the
Denial Order imposed against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. by placing an
order on or about February 2, 2000, with a U.S. company for shotgun
screw chokes, choke tubes, and other accessories, which were exported
to Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. on or about March 1, 2000 (Charge 1). The
charging letter also alleged that Tatos violated Suburban Guns (Pty)
Ltd.'s Denial Order by placing an additional order on or about March
29, 2000, with a U.S. company for shotgun barrels and screw chokes,
which were exported to Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. on or about March 30,
2000 (Charge 3). Pursuant to the Denial Order imposed against Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd., Tatos was prohibited from facilitating the acquisition
of any item subject to the Regulations that was exported or to be
exported from the United States. See Action Affecting Export
Privileges; Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63 FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 1998). The
BIS charging letter also alleged that, in both exports described above,
Tatos ordered and purchased the items with knowledge that violations of
an Order issued under the Act and the Regulations would occur (Charges
2 and 4). Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged that, on or about
October 28, 2004, Tatos made a false representation to an official of
BIS in the course of a BIS investigation (Charge 5).
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations provides that notice of
issuance of a charging letter shall be served on a respondent by
mailing a copy by registered or certified mail addressed to the
respondent at the resondent's last known address. In accordance with
the Regulations, on January 28, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance
of a charging letter by certified mail to Tatos at: Phaedon Nicholas
Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos), Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 119
Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South Africa. BIS
has submitted evidence that establishes that this charging letter was
received by Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. on or about February 11, 2005.
These actions constitute service under the Regulations.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part,
that ``[t]he respondent must answer the charging letter within thirty
(30) days after being served with notice of issuance of the charging
letter'' initiating the administrative enforcement proceeding. To date,
Tatos has not filed an answer to the charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in section 766.7 of
the Regulations, I find the facts to be as alleged in the charging
letter, and hereby determine that those facts establish Tatos committed
two violations of section 764.2(e), one violation of section 764.2(g),
and two violations of section 764.2(k) of the Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth the sanctions BIS may
seek for violations of the Regulations. The applicable sanctions are:
(1) A monetary penalty; (2) suspension from practice before the
Department of Commerce; and (3) denial of export privileges under the
Regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3 (2005). Because Tatos knowingly violated
the Regulations by violating the Denial Order imposed against Suburban
Guns (Pty) Ltd. and made a false representation to an official of BIS
in the course of the investigation of these circumstances, BIS requests
that I recommend to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security \3\ that Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.'s export privileges be
denied for five (5) years, and that I impose a civil penalty of fifty-
five thousand dollars ($55,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Export Administration
Act and section 766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export control
enforcement cases, the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended
findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Under Secretary
must affirm, modify or vacate. The Under Secretary's action is the
final decision for the U.S. Commerce Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIS has suggested these sanctions because Tatos' actions, in twice
violating a Denial Order imposed against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.,
doing so with knowledge that a violation of the Regulations was
occurring, and making a false representation to an official of BIS
investigating these circumstances evidence a blatant disregard for U.S.
export control laws. Further, BIS believes that denying Tatos' export
privileges in this case is not a sufficient deterrent to Tatos, as
evidenced by his willingness to violate the denial order in effect
against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. In light of these circumstances, BIS
believes that appropriate action is the denial of Tatos' export
privileges for five (5) years and a civil penalty of fifty-five
thousand dollars ($55,000).
On this basis, I concur with BIS and recommend that the Under
Secretary enter an Order denying Tatos' export privileges for a period
of five (5) years and requiring Tatos to pay a civil penalty in the
amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000). These penalties are
consistent with penalties imposed in recent cases under the Regulations
involving violations of denial orders. In the Matters of Yaudat Mustafa
Talyi a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa a.k.a. Joseph Talyi, 41 Chamale Cove East,
Slidell, Louisiana 70460, Respondents; Decision and Order, 69 FR 77.177
(Dec. 27, 2004) (affirming the ALJ's recommendations that a twenty year
denial and maximum civil penalty of $11,000 per violation was
appropriate where an individual exported oil field parts to Libya
without authorization, in violation of the terms and conditions of a
BIS order temporarily denying his export privileges and with knowledge
that a violation would occur; and solicited a violation of the
Regulations by ordering oil field parts from an equipment manufacturer
located in the United States without authorization and with knowledge
that a violation would occur). A five (5) year denial of Tatos' export
privileges is warranted because Tatos' violations, like those of the
defendants in the above-cited case, were deliberate acts in violation
of an order denying export privileges.
Recommended Order--[Redacted]
Accordingly, I am referring this Recommended Decision and Order to
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security for review
and final action for the agency, without further notice to the
respondent, as provided in section 766.7 of the Regulations.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Recommended Decision
and Order, the Under Secretary will issue a written order affirming,
modifying or vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 CFR
766.22(c).
Done and dated this 21st day of September 2005, New York, NY.
Walter J. Brudzinski,
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Recommended
Decision and Order by Federal Express to the following persons:
Under Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room H-3839, 14th & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Phone: 202-482-5301.
ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, 40 S. Gay Street, Room 412,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. Phone: 410-962-7434.
[[Page 69314]]
Done and dated this 21st day of September, 2005 at New York, NY.
Regina V. Thompson,
Paralegal Specialist, Assistant to the Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 05-22608 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
