In the Matter of: Swiss Telecom, 777 Bay the Wicket, P.O. Box 46070, Toronto, ON M5G 2P6, Respondent; Decision and Order, 32920-32923 [06-5142]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
32920
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Notices
important part of the framework for the
national income and product accounts,
input-output tables, economic indices,
and other composite measures that serve
as the factual basis for economic policymaking, planning, and program
administration. Further, the census
provides sampling frames and
benchmarks for current surveys of
business which track short-term
economic trends, serve as economic
indicators, and contribute critical source
data for current estimates of gross
domestic product. State and local
governments rely on the economic
census as a unique source of
comprehensive economic statistics for
small geographic areas for use in policymaking, planning, and program
administration. Finally, industry,
business, academia, and the general
public use information from the
economic census for evaluating markets,
preparing business plans, making
business decisions, developing
economic models and forecasts,
conducting economic research, and
establishing benchmarks for their own
sample surveys.
If the economic census were not
conducted, the Federal Government
would lose vital source data and
benchmarks for the national accounts,
input-output tables, and other
composite measures of economic
activity, causing a substantial
degradation in the quality of these
important statistics. Further, the
government would lose critical
benchmarks for current sample-based
economic surveys and an essential
source of detailed, comprehensive
economic information for use in policymaking, planning, and program
administration.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Individuals or households; Notfor-profit institutions; State, local, or
Tribal governments.
Frequency: One time.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.,
sections 131 and 224.
OMB Desk Officer: Susan Schechter,
(202) 395–5103.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dhynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Officer either by fax (202–395–7245) or
e-mail (susan_schechter@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: June 1, 2006.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–8781 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05–BIS–18]
In the Matter of: Swiss Telecom, 777
Bay the Wicket, P.O. Box 46070,
Toronto, ON M5G 2P6, Respondent;
Decision and Order
On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’ issued a
charging letter alleging that Respondent,
Swiss Telecom, committed nine
violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (Regulations).1 The
Regulations were issued pursuant to the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420
(2000)) (the Act).2
Specifically, the charging letter
alleged that Swiss Telecom conspired
and acted in concert with others, known
and unknown, to bring about an act that
constitutes a violation of the
Regulations, namely the export of
telecommunications devices to Iran
without the required licenses. BIS
alleged that the goal of the conspiracy
was to obtain telecommunications
devices, including devices
manufactured by a U.S. company,
including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports
(ECCN 5A991),3 items subject to both
1 The Regulations are currently codified at 15
C.F.R. Parts 730–774 (2006). The charged violations
occurred in 2001 and 2002. The Regulations
governing the violations at issue are found in the
2001 and 20002 versions of the Code of Federal
Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2001–2002)).
The 2006 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
C.F.R., 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the
Regulation 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 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 (August
5, 2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect
under IEEPA.
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to Export Control
Classification Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Regulations and the Iranian
Transactions Regulations 4 of the
Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC), on behalf of an
Iranian end-user and to export those
telecommunications devices to Iran. In
doing so, BIS charged that Swiss
Telecom committed a violation of
§ 764.2(d) of the Regulations.
The charging letter filed by BIS also
alleged that, on or about December 17,
2001, and on or about March 7, 2002,
Swiss Telecom caused, aided or abetted
the doing of an act that was prohibited
by the Regulations. Specifically, BIS
alleged that Swiss Telecom ordered the
aforementioned telecommunications
devices from a U.S. company for a
project in Iran and told the U.S.
company to export the items through
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Iran.
The U.S. company then exported the
devices through the UAE to Iran. These
transactions were subject to the Iranian
Transactions Regulations, and were
done without authorization from OFAC
as required by § 746.7 of the
Regulations. BIS charged that Swiss
Telecom committed two violations of
§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
In addition, the BIS charging letter
alleged that in connection with the two
aforementioned transactions, Swiss
Telecom ordered the
telecommunications devices for a
project in Iran with knowledge that they
would be exported from the United
States to Iran, via the UAE, without
authorization from OFAC. In doing so,
BIS charges that two violations of
§ 764.2(e) of the Regulations were
committed.
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged
that on four occasions between on or
about September 14, 2001, and on or
about March 19, 2002, Swiss Telecom
caused the doing of an act prohibited by
the Regulations by causing the export of
technical information subject to the
Regulations (ECCN 5E991) from a U.S.
company to Iran. Specifically, BIS
alleged that a Swiss Telecom employee
caused a U.S. company to provide Swiss
Telecom with technical data and
customer support assistance for
equipment in Iran, via telephone, e-mail
and telnet. These transactions were
subject to the Iranian Transactions
Regulations, and were done without
authorization from OFAC as required by
§ 746.7 of the Regulations. This activity
was the basis for four charges under
§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
In accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of the
charging letter by registered mail to
4 31
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
CFR Part 560 (2006).
07JNN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Notices
Swiss Telecom at its last known
address. BIS has established that this
charging letter was received by Swiss
Telecom on or about December 9, 2005.
In addition, BIS mailed notice of
issuance of a charging letter by
registered mail to counsel for Swiss
Telecom. BIS has also established that
this charging letter was received by
counsel for Swiss Telecom on or about
December 8, 2005.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations
provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he
respondent must answer the charging
letter within 30 days after being served
with notice of issuance of the charging
letter’’ initiating the administrative
enforcement proceeding. To date, Swiss
Telecom has not filed an answer to the
charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in § 766.7 of the Regulations, BIS
filed a Motion for Default Order on
April 7, 2006. Under § 766.7(a) of the
Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of the respondent
to file an answer within the time
provided constitutes a waiver of the
respondent’s right to appear,’’ and ‘‘on
BIS’s motion and without further notice
to the respondent, [the ALJ] shall find
the facts to be as alleged in the charging
letter.’’ Based upon the record before
him, the ALJ held Swiss Telecom in
default.
Accordingly, on May 12, 2006, the
ALJ issued a Recommended Decision
and Order in which he found the facts
to be as alleged in the charging letter,
and determined that those facts
established that Swiss Telecom
committed one violation of § 764.2(d),
six violations of § 764.2(b) and two
violations of § 764.2(e) of the
Regulations. The ALJ recommended a
penalty of denial of Swiss Telecom’s
export privileges for 10 years.
The ALJ’s Recommended Decision
and Order, 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 with respect to each
of the above-referenced charges brought
against Swiss Telecom. I also find that
the penalty recommended by the ALJ is
appropriate, given the nature of the
violations, the importance of preventing
future unauthorized exports, and the
lack of any mitigating factors. Although
the imposition of monetary penalties is
an appropriate option, I agree with the
ALJ that in this case such a penalty may
not be effective, given the difficulty of
collecting payment against a party
outside the United States.
Based on my review of the entire
record, I affirm the findings of fact and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
conclusions of law in the ALJ’s
Recommended Decision and Order.
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered,
First, that, for a period of ten years
from the date this Order is published in
the Federal Register, Swiss Telecom,
777 Bay the Wicket, P.O. Box 46070,
Toronto, ON M5G 2P6, and all of its
successors and assigns, and, when
acting for or on behalf of Swiss
Telecom, 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.
Second, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32921
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.
Third, 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 this Order.
Fourth, 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.
Fifth, that this Order shall be served
on the Denied Person and on BIS, and
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: June 1, 2006.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security.
Recommended Decision and Order
On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security, U.S. Department
of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging
letter initiating this administrative
enforcement proceeding against Swiss
Telecom. The charging letter alleged
that Swiss Telecom committed nine
violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (currently codified at 15
CFR Parts 730–774 (2006)) (the
‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
1 The charged violations occurred in 2001 and
2002. The Regulations governing the violations at
issue are found in the 2001 and 2002 versions of
the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–
774 (2001–2002)). The 2006 Regulations establish
the procedures that apply to this matter.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
32922
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
amended (50 U.S.C. App 2401–2420
(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2
Specifically, the charging letter
alleged that Swiss Telecom conspired
and acted in concert with others, known
and unknown, to bring about an act that
constitutes a violation of the
Regulations, namely the export of
telecommunications devices to Iran
without the required licenses. BIS
alleged that the goal of the conspiracy
was to obtain telecommunications
devices, including devices
manufactured by a U.S. company,
including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports
(ECCN 5A9913), items subject to both
the Regulations and the Iranian
Transactions Regulations 4 of the
Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC), on behalf of an
Iranian end-user and to export those
telecommunications devices to Iran.
(Charge 1).
The charging letter filed by BIS also
alleged that, on or about December 17,
2001, and on or about March 7, 2002,
Swiss Telecom caused, aided or abetted
the doing of an act that was prohibited
by the Regulations. Specifically, BIS
alleged that Swiss Telecom ordered the
aforementioned telecommunications
devices from a U.S. company for a
project in Iran and told the U.S.
company to export the items through
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Iran.
The U.S. company then exported the
devices through the UAE to Iran. These
transactions were subject to the Iranian
Transactions Regulations, and were
done without authorization from OFAC
as required by Section 746.7 of the
Regulations. (Charges 2 and 3).
In addition, the BIS charging letter
alleged that in connection with the two
aforementioned transactions, Swiss
Telecom ordered the
telecommunications devices for a
project in Iran with knowledge that they
would be exported from the United
States to Iran, via the UAE without
2 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)) (‘‘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 (34 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783
(2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005
(70 FR 45273 (Aug. 5, 2005)), has continued the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to Export Control
Classification Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
4 31 CFR Part 560 (2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
authorization from OFAC. (Charges 4
and 5).
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged
that on four occasions between on or
about September 14, 2001, and or about
March 19, 2002, Swiss Telecom caused
the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations by causing the export of
technical information subject to the
Regulations (ECCN 5E991) from a U.S.
company to Iran. Specifically, BIS
alleged that a Swiss Telecom employee
caused a U.S. company to provide Swiss
Telecom with technical data and
customer support assistance for
equipment in Iran, via telephone, email
and telnet. These transactions were
subject to the Iranian Transactions
Regulations, and were done without
authorization from OFAC as required by
§ 746.7 of the Regulations. (Charges 6, 7,
8, and 9).
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations
provides that notice of the 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 respondent’s last
address. In accordance with the
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to
Swiss Telecom at its last known
address: Swiss Telecom, 777 Bay The
Wicket, P.O. Box 46070, Toronto,
Ontario M5G 2P6. In addition, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to
counsel for Swiss Telecom, Mr. Kenneth
H. Page, Page Arnold LLP, Suite 2200,
439 University Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario, M5G 1Y8. BIS has submitted
evidence that establishes that this
charging letter was received by Swiss
Telecom on or about December 9, 2005.
BIS has also submitted evidence that
establishes that this charging letter was
received by Mr. Arnold Page on or about
December 8, 2005.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations
provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he
respondent must answer the charging
letter within 30 days after being served
with notice of issuance of the charging
letter’’ initiating the administrative
enforcement proceeding. To date, Swiss
Telecom has not filed an answer to the
charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in § 766.7 of the Regulations, I find
the facts to be as alleged in the charging
letter, and hereby determine that those
facts establish that Swiss Telecom
committed one violation of § 764.2(d),
six violations of § 764.2(b), and two
violations of § 764.2(e) of the
Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets
forth the sanctions BIS may seek for
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
violations of the Regulations. The
applicable sanctions are: (i) A monetary
penalty, (ii) suspension from practice
before the Bureau of Industry and
Security, and (iii) a denial of export
privileges under the Regulations. See 15
CFR § 764.3 (2001–2002). Because Swiss
Telecom knowingly violated the
Regulations by causing the export of
technical information subject to the
Regulations and by ordering
telecommunications devices for delivery
to Iran, with knowledge that a violation
of the Regulations would occur, BIS
requests that I recommend to the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security 5 that Swiss Telecom’s export
privileges be denied for ten years.
BIS has suggested these sanctions
because Swiss Telecom’s knowing
violation in causing the export of
controlled technical information and
telecommunications devices for delivery
to Iran without prior authorization
evidences a serious disregard for U.S.
export control laws. Furthermore, BIS
has noted that Iran is a country that the
United States has designated as a statesponsor of international terrorism. In
addition, BIS believes that the
imposition of a civil penalty in this case
may be ineffective, given the difficulty
of collecting payment against a party
outside of the United States. In light of
these circumstances, BIS believes that
the denial of Swiss Telecom’s export
privileges for ten years is an appropriate
sanction.
On this basis, I concur with BIS and
recommend that the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security
enter an Order denying Swiss Telecom’s
export privileges for a period of ten
years. Such a denial order is consistent
with penalties imposed in past cases
under the Regulations involving
shipments to Iran. See In the Matter of
Petrom GmBH International Trade, 70
FR 32743 (June 6, 2005) (affirming the
recommendations of the Administrative
Law Judge that a twenty year denial
order and a civil monetary sanction of
$143,000 were appropriate where
knowing violations involved a shipment
of EAR99 items to Iran); In the Matter
of Arian Transportvermittlungs, GmbH,
69 FR 28120 (May 18, 2004) (affirming
the recommendation of the
Administrative Law Judge that a ten
year denial order was appropriate where
knowing violations involved a shipment
5 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.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Notices
of a controlled item to Iran); In the
Matter of Jabal Damavand General
Trading Company, 67 FR 32009 (May
13, 2002) (affirming the
recommendation of the Administrative
Law Judge that a ten year denial order
was appropriate where knowing
violations involved shipments of EAR99
items to Iran); In the Matter of
Adbulamir Mahdi, 68 FR 57406 (Oct. 3,
2003) (affirming the recommendation of
the Administrative Law Judge that a
twenty year denial order was
appropriate where knowing violations
involved shipments of EAR99 items to
Iran as a part of a conspiracy to ship
such items through Canada to Iran). A
ten year denial of Swiss Telecom’s
export privileges is warranted because
Swiss Telecom’s violations, like those of
the defendants in the above-cited case,
were deliberate acts done in violation of
U.S. export control laws.
The terms of the denial of export
privileges against Swiss Telecom should
be consistent with the standard
language used by BIS in such orders.
The language is:
Recommended Order—[Redacted]
This Order, which constitutes the final
agency action in this matter, is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
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 § 766.7 of the
Regulations.
Within 30 days after receipt of this
Recommended Decision and Order, the
Under Secretary shall issue a written order
affirming, modifying, and vacating the
Recommended Decision and Order. See 15
CFR 766.22(c).
Dated; May 12, 2006.
The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 06–5142 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Intent to Rescind and
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting new shipper reviews of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in
response to requests from Shanghai
Taiside Trading Co., Ltd. (Taiside) and
Wuhan Shino–Food Trade Co., Ltd.
(Shino–Food). The period of review
(POR) is December 1, 2004, through May
31, 2005. We have preliminarily
determined that the new shipper review
for Shino–Food should be rescinded
because the sale made by Shino–Food
was not bona fide, and we have
preliminarily determined that the sale
made by Taiside is bona fide and that
the sale has been made below normal
value. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–8173 or (202) 482–
0409, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 20 and June 24, 2005,
respectively, the Department received
properly filed requests for a new
shipper review, in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR
351.214(b) and (c), from Taiside and
Shino–Food under the antidumping
duty order on honey from the PRC. The
Department determined that the
requests met the requirements
stipulated in 19 CFR 351.214, and on
August 5, 2005, published its initiation
of these new shipper reviews. Honey
from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping
Duty Review, 70 FR 45367 (August 5,
2005). On August 5, 2005, the
Department issued antidumping duty
new shipper questionnaires to Taiside
and Shino–Food. Between September
2005 and February 2006, the
Department received timely filed
original and supplemental questionnaire
responses from Taiside and Shino–
Food.
On October 14, 2005, we invited
interested parties to comment on the
Department’s surrogate country
selection and/or significant production
in the potential surrogate countries and
to submit publicly available information
to value the factors of production. On
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32923
January 10, 2006, we extended the
deadline on which to submit publicly
available information to value the
factors of production. On February 17,
2006, the American Honey Producers
Association and the Sioux Honey
Association (collectively, petitioners)
submitted comments on surrogate
information with which to value the
factors of production in this proceeding.
On January 13, 2006, the Department
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results to March 31, 2006.
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of 2004/2005 New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 2182 (January 13,
2006). On March 9, 2006, the
Department further extended the
deadline for the preliminary results to
May 22, 2006. Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of 2004/
2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 12178
(March 9, 2006). On May 19, 2006, the
Department fully extended the deadline
for the preliminary results to May 30,
2006. See Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of 2004/
2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 29123
(May 19, 2006).
From February 27 through March 1,
2006, the Department conducted
verification of Taiside’s questionnaire
responses at the company’s facilities in
Shanghai, PRC. From March 17 through
19, 2006, the Department conducted
verification of Shino–Food’s
questionnaire responses at the
company’s facilities in Wuhan, PRC.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The products covered by this order
are natural honey, artificial honey
containing more than 50 percent natural
honey by weight, preparations of natural
honey containing more than 50 percent
natural honey by weight, and flavored
honey. The subject merchandise
includes all grades and colors of honey
whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut
comb, or chunk form, and whether
packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under
subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90,
and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department’s written
description of the merchandise under
order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we
conducted verification of the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32920-32923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5142]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05-BIS-18]
In the Matter of: Swiss Telecom, 777 Bay the Wicket, P.O. Box
46070, Toronto, ON M5G 2P6, Respondent; Decision and Order
On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS''
issued a charging letter alleging that Respondent, Swiss Telecom,
committed nine violations of the Export Administration Regulations
(Regulations).\1\ The Regulations were issued pursuant to the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420
(2000)) (the Act).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Regulations are currently codified at 15 C.F.R. Parts
730-774 (2006). The charged violations occurred in 2001 and 2002.
The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the
2001 and 20002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR
Parts 730-774 (2001-2002)). The 2006 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 C.F.R., 2000 Comp. 397
(2001)), continued the Regulation 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 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 (August 5, 2005)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the charging letter alleged that Swiss Telecom
conspired and acted in concert with others, known and unknown, to bring
about an act that constitutes a violation of the Regulations, namely
the export of telecommunications devices to Iran without the required
licenses. BIS alleged that the goal of the conspiracy was to obtain
telecommunications devices, including devices manufactured by a U.S.
company, including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO Channel Cards, and ABI FXO
Ports (ECCN 5A991),\3\ items subject to both the Regulations and the
Iranian Transactions Regulations \4\ of the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), on behalf of an Iranian end-
user and to export those telecommunications devices to Iran. In doing
so, BIS charged that Swiss Telecom committed a violation of Sec.
764.2(d) of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``ECCN'' refers to Export Control Classification
Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
\4\ 31 CFR Part 560 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charging letter filed by BIS also alleged that, on or about
December 17, 2001, and on or about March 7, 2002, Swiss Telecom caused,
aided or abetted the doing of an act that was prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, BIS alleged that Swiss Telecom ordered the
aforementioned telecommunications devices from a U.S. company for a
project in Iran and told the U.S. company to export the items through
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Iran. The U.S. company then exported
the devices through the UAE to Iran. These transactions were subject to
the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and were done without
authorization from OFAC as required by Sec. 746.7 of the Regulations.
BIS charged that Swiss Telecom committed two violations of Sec.
764.2(b) of the Regulations.
In addition, the BIS charging letter alleged that in connection
with the two aforementioned transactions, Swiss Telecom ordered the
telecommunications devices for a project in Iran with knowledge that
they would be exported from the United States to Iran, via the UAE,
without authorization from OFAC. In doing so, BIS charges that two
violations of Sec. 764.2(e) of the Regulations were committed.
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged that on four occasions
between on or about September 14, 2001, and on or about March 19, 2002,
Swiss Telecom caused the doing of an act prohibited by the Regulations
by causing the export of technical information subject to the
Regulations (ECCN 5E991) from a U.S. company to Iran. Specifically, BIS
alleged that a Swiss Telecom employee caused a U.S. company to provide
Swiss Telecom with technical data and customer support assistance for
equipment in Iran, via telephone, e-mail and telnet. These transactions
were subject to the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and were done
without authorization from OFAC as required by Sec. 746.7 of the
Regulations. This activity was the basis for four charges under Sec.
764.2(b) of the Regulations.
In accordance with Sec. 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on
November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the charging
letter by registered mail to
[[Page 32921]]
Swiss Telecom at its last known address. BIS has established that this
charging letter was received by Swiss Telecom on or about December 9,
2005. In addition, BIS mailed notice of issuance of a charging letter
by registered mail to counsel for Swiss Telecom. BIS has also
established that this charging letter was received by counsel for Swiss
Telecom on or about December 8, 2005.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part,
that ``[t]he respondent must answer the charging letter within 30 days
after being served with notice of issuance of the charging letter''
initiating the administrative enforcement proceeding. To date, Swiss
Telecom has not filed an answer to the charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Sec. 766.7 of the
Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for Default Order on April 7, 2006.
Under Sec. 766.7(a) of the Regulations, ``[f]ailure of the respondent
to file an answer within the time provided constitutes a waiver of the
respondent's right to appear,'' and ``on BIS's motion and without
further notice to the respondent, [the ALJ] shall find the facts to be
as alleged in the charging letter.'' Based upon the record before him,
the ALJ held Swiss Telecom in default.
Accordingly, on May 12, 2006, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision
and Order in which he found the facts to be as alleged in the charging
letter, and determined that those facts established that Swiss Telecom
committed one violation of Sec. 764.2(d), six violations of Sec.
764.2(b) and two violations of Sec. 764.2(e) of the Regulations. The
ALJ recommended a penalty of denial of Swiss Telecom's export
privileges for 10 years.
The ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, 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 with respect to each of
the above-referenced charges brought against Swiss Telecom. I also find
that the penalty recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, given the
nature of the violations, the importance of preventing future
unauthorized exports, and the lack of any mitigating factors. Although
the imposition of monetary penalties is an appropriate option, I agree
with the ALJ that in this case such a penalty may not be effective,
given the difficulty of collecting payment against a party outside the
United States.
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, for a period of ten years from the date this Order is
published in the Federal Register, Swiss Telecom, 777 Bay the Wicket,
P.O. Box 46070, Toronto, ON M5G 2P6, and all of its successors and
assigns, and, when acting for or on behalf of Swiss Telecom, 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.
Second, 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.
Third, 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
this Order.
Fourth, 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.
Fifth, that this Order shall be served on the Denied Person and on
BIS, and 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: June 1, 2006.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
Recommended Decision and Order
On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce (``BIS''), issued a charging letter initiating
this administrative enforcement proceeding against Swiss Telecom. The
charging letter alleged that Swiss Telecom committed nine violations of
the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR
Parts 730-774 (2006)) (the ``Regulations''),\1\ issued under the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as
[[Page 32922]]
amended (50 U.S.C. App 2401-2420 (2000)) (the ``Act'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charged violations occurred in 2001 and 2002. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2001
and 2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts
730-774 (2001-2002)). The 2006 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 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))
(``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 (34 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as
extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273 (Aug. 5,
2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the charging letter alleged that Swiss Telecom
conspired and acted in concert with others, known and unknown, to bring
about an act that constitutes a violation of the Regulations, namely
the export of telecommunications devices to Iran without the required
licenses. BIS alleged that the goal of the conspiracy was to obtain
telecommunications devices, including devices manufactured by a U.S.
company, including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO Channel Cards, and ABI FXO
Ports (ECCN 5A991\3\), items subject to both the Regulations and the
Iranian Transactions Regulations \4\ of the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), on behalf of an Iranian end-
user and to export those telecommunications devices to Iran. (Charge
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``ECCN'' refers to Export Control Classification
Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
\4\ 31 CFR Part 560 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charging letter filed by BIS also alleged that, on or about
December 17, 2001, and on or about March 7, 2002, Swiss Telecom caused,
aided or abetted the doing of an act that was prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, BIS alleged that Swiss Telecom ordered the
aforementioned telecommunications devices from a U.S. company for a
project in Iran and told the U.S. company to export the items through
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Iran. The U.S. company then exported
the devices through the UAE to Iran. These transactions were subject to
the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and were done without
authorization from OFAC as required by Section 746.7 of the
Regulations. (Charges 2 and 3).
In addition, the BIS charging letter alleged that in connection
with the two aforementioned transactions, Swiss Telecom ordered the
telecommunications devices for a project in Iran with knowledge that
they would be exported from the United States to Iran, via the UAE
without authorization from OFAC. (Charges 4 and 5).
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged that on four occasions
between on or about September 14, 2001, and or about March 19, 2002,
Swiss Telecom caused the doing of an act prohibited by the Regulations
by causing the export of technical information subject to the
Regulations (ECCN 5E991) from a U.S. company to Iran. Specifically, BIS
alleged that a Swiss Telecom employee caused a U.S. company to provide
Swiss Telecom with technical data and customer support assistance for
equipment in Iran, via telephone, email and telnet. These transactions
were subject to the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and were done
without authorization from OFAC as required by Sec. 746.7 of the
Regulations. (Charges 6, 7, 8, and 9).
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations provides that notice of the
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 respondent's last address. In accordance with the
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of
a charging letter by registered mail to Swiss Telecom at its last known
address: Swiss Telecom, 777 Bay The Wicket, P.O. Box 46070, Toronto,
Ontario M5G 2P6. In addition, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to counsel for Swiss Telecom, Mr.
Kenneth H. Page, Page Arnold LLP, Suite 2200, 439 University Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1Y8. BIS has submitted evidence that establishes
that this charging letter was received by Swiss Telecom on or about
December 9, 2005. BIS has also submitted evidence that establishes that
this charging letter was received by Mr. Arnold Page on or about
December 8, 2005.
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part,
that ``[t]he respondent must answer the charging letter within 30 days
after being served with notice of issuance of the charging letter''
initiating the administrative enforcement proceeding. To date, Swiss
Telecom has not filed an answer to the charging letter.
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Sec. 766.7 of the
Regulations, I find the facts to be as alleged in the charging letter,
and hereby determine that those facts establish that Swiss Telecom
committed one violation of Sec. 764.2(d), six violations of Sec.
764.2(b), and two violations of Sec. 764.2(e) 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:
(i) A monetary penalty, (ii) suspension from practice before the Bureau
of Industry and Security, and (iii) a denial of export privileges under
the Regulations. See 15 CFR Sec. 764.3 (2001-2002). Because Swiss
Telecom knowingly violated the Regulations by causing the export of
technical information subject to the Regulations and by ordering
telecommunications devices for delivery to Iran, with knowledge that a
violation of the Regulations would occur, BIS requests that I recommend
to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security \5\ that
Swiss Telecom's export privileges be denied for ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 Swiss Telecom's knowing
violation in causing the export of controlled technical information and
telecommunications devices for delivery to Iran without prior
authorization evidences a serious disregard for U.S. export control
laws. Furthermore, BIS has noted that Iran is a country that the United
States has designated as a state-sponsor of international terrorism. In
addition, BIS believes that the imposition of a civil penalty in this
case may be ineffective, given the difficulty of collecting payment
against a party outside of the United States. In light of these
circumstances, BIS believes that the denial of Swiss Telecom's export
privileges for ten years is an appropriate sanction.
On this basis, I concur with BIS and recommend that the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security enter an Order denying
Swiss Telecom's export privileges for a period of ten years. Such a
denial order is consistent with penalties imposed in past cases under
the Regulations involving shipments to Iran. See In the Matter of
Petrom GmBH International Trade, 70 FR 32743 (June 6, 2005) (affirming
the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge that a twenty year
denial order and a civil monetary sanction of $143,000 were appropriate
where knowing violations involved a shipment of EAR99 items to Iran);
In the Matter of Arian Transportvermittlungs, GmbH, 69 FR 28120 (May
18, 2004) (affirming the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge
that a ten year denial order was appropriate where knowing violations
involved a shipment
[[Page 32923]]
of a controlled item to Iran); In the Matter of Jabal Damavand General
Trading Company, 67 FR 32009 (May 13, 2002) (affirming the
recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that a ten year denial
order was appropriate where knowing violations involved shipments of
EAR99 items to Iran); In the Matter of Adbulamir Mahdi, 68 FR 57406
(Oct. 3, 2003) (affirming the recommendation of the Administrative Law
Judge that a twenty year denial order was appropriate where knowing
violations involved shipments of EAR99 items to Iran as a part of a
conspiracy to ship such items through Canada to Iran). A ten year
denial of Swiss Telecom's export privileges is warranted because Swiss
Telecom's violations, like those of the defendants in the above-cited
case, were deliberate acts done in violation of U.S. export control
laws.
The terms of the denial of export privileges against Swiss Telecom
should be consistent with the standard language used by BIS in such
orders. The language is:
Recommended Order--[Redacted]
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
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 Sec. 766.7 of the Regulations.
Within 30 days after receipt of this Recommended Decision and
Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming,
modifying, and vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. See 15
CFR 766.22(c).
Dated; May 12, 2006.
The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 06-5142 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
