In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O. Box #13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE, Respondent; Decision and Order, 34596-34599 [06-5435]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices
Dated: May 24, 2006.
Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 06–5434 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05–BIS–19]
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708,
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE,
Respondent; Decision and Order
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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 Teepad
Electronic General Trading (‘‘Teepad’’).
The charging letter alleged that Teepad
committed five violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774
(2006)) (the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2401–2420
(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2
The charging letter alleged that
Teepad 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), on behalf of an Iranian
end-user and to export those
telecommunications devices to Iran, by
way of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
These items were subject to both the
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)).
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 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)),
as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR
45,273 (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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:47 Jun 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Regulations and the Iranian
Transactions Regulations 4 of the
Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC).
The charging letter also alleged that,
on or about December 17, 2001, on or
about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided and/
or abetted the doing of an act that was
prohibited by the Regulations.
Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad
forwarded telecommunications devices
manufactured by a U.S. company that
were subject to both the Regulations and
the Iranian Transactions Regulations of
OFAC through the UAE to Iran without
authorization from OFAC as required by
Section 746.7 of the Regulations.
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged
that in connection with the transactions
occurring on or about December 17,
2001, and on or about March 7, 2002,
Teepad transferred items exported from
the United States with knowledge, or
reason to know, that a violation of the
Regulations would occur. Specifically,
BIS alleged that Teepad transferred the
telecommunications devices described
above to Iran when Teepad knew or had
reason to know that they had been
exported from the United States without
proper export authorization.
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
known address. In accordance with the
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to
Teepad. BIS submitted evidence that
establishes the charging letter was
received by Teepad on or about
December 7, 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. Furthermore,
the charging letter informed Teepad that
a failure to follow this requirement
would result in default.
On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a
letter to BIS’s Director of the Office of
Export Enforcement in which Teepad
stated that it believed it was in
compliance with international law.
Teepad did not file this letter with the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Docketing Center in accordance with
Section 766.6(a). I note that charging
letter informed Teepad that, in
accordance with the Regulations, the
answer must be filed with the ALJ
4 31
PO 00000
CFR part 560 (2006).
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Docketing Center, and the letter
provided the address of the Docketing
Center. On March 9, 2006, Counsel for
BIS notified Teepad by letter and by
facsimile to the facsimile number
provided by Teepad that Teepad was
required to file a formal answer to the
charging letter with the ALJ. In the same
letter, BIS notified Teepad that it must
contact the Office of Chief Counsel for
Industry and Security, by March 22,
2006, if Teepad wished to enter into
settlement negotiations. Teepad did not
file an answer with the ALJ and did not
contact the Office of Chief Counsel to
discuss settlement. In the
Recommended Decision and Order, the
ALJ found that Teepad did not answer
the charging letter in the manner
required by Sections 766.5(a) and 766.6
of the Regulations.
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in Section 766.7 of the
Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for
Default Order on April 11, 2006. Under
Section 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 Teepad in default.
On May 22, 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 establish that Teepad
committed one violation of Section
764.2(d), two violations of Section
764.2(b), and two violations of Section
764.2(e) of the Regulations. The ALJ
recommended that Teepad be denied
export privileges for a period of ten
years.
On May 30, 2006, Teepad submitted
an e-mail to the Office of Chief Counsel
for Industry and Security that Counsel
for BIS has supplied to me. In that email, Teepad denies all wrongdoing. For
reasons stated previously in this
Decision, this e-mail does not constitute
a properly filed or timely response to
the charges against Teepad (See,
Sections 766.5–6 of the Regulations).
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 with respect to each
of the above-referenced charges brought
against Teepad. I also find that the
penalty recommended by the ALJ is
appropriate, given the nature of the
violations, the importance of preventing
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices
future unauthorized exports, and the
lack of any mitigating factors. I note that
Iran is a country against which the
United States maintains an economic
embargo because of its support for
international terrorism. 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, Teepad Electronic
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708,
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and all of its successors and
assigns, and, when acting for or on
behalf of Teepad, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:47 Jun 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
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.
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. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34597
Dated: June 9, 2006.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security.
Department of Commerce—Bureau of
Industry and Security
[Docket No.: OS–BIS–19]
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708,
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE,
Respondent; 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 Teepad
Electronic General Trading (‘‘Teepad’’).
The Charging Letter alleged that Teepad
committee five 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 amended (50 U.S.C. App.
§§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2
Specifically, the Charging Letter
alleged that Teepad 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
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 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)),
as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR
45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to Export Classification
Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
4 31 CFR part 560 (2006).
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
34598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices
Iranian end-user and to export those
telecommunications devices to Iran.
(Charge 1).
The Charging Letter also alleged that,
on or about December 17, 2001, and on
or about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided
and/or abetted the doing of an act that
was prohibited by the Regulations.
Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad
forwarded telecommunications devices
manufactured by a U.S. company,
including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports,
items subject to both the Regulations
(ECCN 5A991) and the Iranian
Transactions Regulations of Treasury
Department’s OFAC, that had been
exported from the United States,
through the United Arab Emirates to
Iran without authorization from OFAC
as required by Section 746.7 of the
Regulations. (Charges 2 and 3).
Finally, the BIS Charging Letter
alleged that in connection with the
transactions occurring on or about
December 17, 2001, and on or about
March 7, 2002, Teepad transferred items
exported from the United States with
knowledge that a violation of the
Regulations would occur. Specifically,
BIS alleged that Teepad transferred the
telecommunications devices described
above to Iran when Teepad knew or had
reason to know that they had been
exported from the United States,
without authorization from OFAC.
(Charges 4 and 5).
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
known address. In accordance with the
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to
Teepad at its last known address:
Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O.
Box #13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai,
UAE. BIS submitted evidence that
establishes the Charging Letter was
received by Teepad on or about
December 7, 2005.5 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 30 days after being served
with notice of issuance of the charging
letter’’ initiating the administrative
enforcement proceeding. Furthermore,
BIS informed Teepad that a failure to
follow this requirement would result in
default. (Charging Letter, at 3).
5 Government Exhibit A of the January 5, 2006
Certificate Regarding Service.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:47 Jun 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a
letter to BIS’s Director of the Office of
Export Enforcement. Teepad did not file
this letter with the ALJ Docketing Center
in accordance with Section 766.6(a).6 In
the letter, Teepad provided factual
information and stated, inter alia, that
Teepad believed it was in compliance
with international law. (Gov’t Ex. 2). On
March 9, 2006, BIS notified Teepad via
letter and facsimile 7 that Teepad was
required to file a formal answer to the
Charging Letter with the ALJ. In that
same letter, BIS notified Teepad that it
must contact the Office of Chief Counsel
for Industry and Security, by March 22,
2006, in the event that Teepad wished
to discuss settlement of this matter.
(Gov’t Ex. 3). To date, Teepad has not
filed an answer with the ALJ and has
not contacted the Office of Chief
Counsel to discuss settlement.
Accordingly, Teepad has not answered
the Charging Letter in the manner
required by Sections 766.5(a) and 766.6
of the Regulations.
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in Section 766.7 of the
Regulations, the undersigned finds the
facts to be as alleged in the Charging
Letter, and hereby determines that those
facts establish that Teepad committed
one violation of Section 764.2(d), two
violations of Section 764.2(b), and two
violations of Section 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
CFR 764.3 (2001–2002). Because Teepad
knowingly violated the Regulations by
transferring items that were subject to
the Regulations with knowledge that a
violation of the Regulations would
occur, BIS requests that the undersigned
recommends to the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security 8
that Teepad’s export privileges be
denied for ten years.
6 The Charging Letter provided the address of the
ALJ Docketing Center and specified that the answer
must be filed in accordance with 15 CFR 766.5(a)
to the ALJ Docketing Center.
7 BIS’s letter of March 9, 2006 was successfully
sent to the facsimile number provided by Teepad.
(Gov’t Ex. 4).
8 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 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BIS suggested these sanctions because
Teepad’s knowing violation in
transferring controlled
telecommunications devices to Iran
without prior authorization evidences a
serious disregard for U.S. export control
laws. Furthermore, BIS noted that Iran
is a country against which the United
States maintains an economic embargo
because of Iran’s support of
international terrorism. BIS believes that
the imposition of a civil monetary
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 Teepad’s export privileges for
ten years is an appropriate sanction.
On this basis, the undersigned
concurs with BIS and recommends that
the Under Secretary enter an Order
denying Teepad’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 shipment to Iran. See In the
Matter of Petrom GmbH International
Trade, 70 FR 32,743 (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 28,120 (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
of a controlled item to Iran); In the
Matter of Jabal Damavand General
Trading Company, 67 FR 32,009 (May
13, 2002) (affirming the
recommendation of the Administrative
Law Judge that a ten year denial order
was appropriate where knowing
violations involved shipment of EAR99
items to Iran); In the Matter of
Adbulamire Mahdi, 68 FR 57,406
(October 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 Teepad’s
export privileges is warranted because
Teepad’s violations, like those of the
defendants in the above-cited case, were
deliberate acts done is violation of U.S.
export control laws.
The terms of the denial of export
privileges against Teepad should be
consistent with the standard language
used by BIS in such orders. The
language is:
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices
34599
We did not receive a notice of intent
to participate from domestic interested
parties in any of these sunset reviews by
the deadline date. As a result, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the Department
determined that no domestic interested
party intends to participate in the sunset
reviews, and on April 24, 2006, we
notified the International Trade
Commission, in writing, that we
intended to issue final determinations
revoking these antidumping duty
orders. See 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2).
subject merchandise prior to the
effective date of revocation will
continue to be subject to suspension of
liquidation and antidumping duty
deposit requirements. The Department
will complete any pending
administrative reviews of these orders
and will conduct administrative reviews
of subject merchandise entered prior to
the effective date of revocation in
response to appropriately filed requests
for review.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and
notice are in accordance with sections
751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 9, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–9367 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am]
Stainless Steel Angle From Japan, the
Republic of Korea, and Spain: Final
Results of Sunset Reviews and
Revocation of Orders
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these orders, the term
‘‘stainless steel angle’’ includes hot–
rolled, whether or not annealed or
descaled, stainless steel products of
equal leg length angled at 90 degrees,
that are not otherwise advanced. The
stainless steel angle subject to these
orders is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.40.30.20 and
7222.40.30.60 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Specifically excluded from the scope of
these orders is stainless steel angle of
unequal leg length. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of these
orders is dispositive.
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 3, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (Department)
initiated the sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on stainless
steel angle from Japan, the Republic of
Korea (Korea), and Spain (71 FR 16551).
Because the domestic interested parties
did not participate in these sunset
reviews, the Department is revoking
these antidumping duty orders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill
Pollack or Brandon Farlander, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4593 or (202) 482–
0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Determination to Revoke
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no
domestic interested party files a notice
of intent to participate, the Department
shall, within 90 days after the initiation
of the review, issue a final
determination revoking the order.
Because the domestic interested parties
did not file a notice of intent to
participate in these sunset reviews, the
Department finds that no domestic
interested party is participating in these
sunset reviews. Therefore, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section
751(c)(3) of the Act, we are revoking
these antidumping duty orders. The
effective date of revocation is May 18,
2006, the fifth anniversary of the date
the Department published these
antidumping duty orders. See 19 CFR
351.222(i)(2)(i).
Background
On May 18, 2001, the Department
issued antidumping duty orders on
stainless steel angle from Japan, Korea,
and Spain (66 FR 27628). On April 3,
2006, the Department initiated sunset
reviews of these orders. See Initiation of
Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 71 FR 16551
(Apr. 3, 2006).
Effective Date of Revocation
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to terminate the
suspension of liquidation of the
merchandise subject to these orders
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
on or after May 18, 2006. Entries of
[Redacted Section]
[Redacted Section]
[Redacted Section]
Accordingly, the undersigned refers
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 30 days after receipt of this
Recommended Decision and Order, the
Under Secretary shall issue a written
order affirming, modifying, or vacating
the Recommended Decision and Order.
See 15 CFR 766.22(c).
Dated: May 22, 2006.
Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 06–5435 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–856, A–580–846, A–469–810]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:47 Jun 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–428–830]
Notice of Extension of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey,
at (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482–1698,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On February 3, 2006, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping order on stainless steel bar
from Germany for the period March 1,
2004, through February 28, 2005 (See
Stainless Steel Bar from Germany:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5811
(February 3, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’)). On May 11, 2006, the
Department published its first extension
of the time limit for the final results of
this administrative review (See Notice
of Extension of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany, 71 FR 27465 (May 11, 2006)).
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34596-34599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 05-BIS-19]
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O. Box
13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE, Respondent; 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 Teepad Electronic
General Trading (``Teepad''). The charging letter alleged that Teepad
committed five violations of the Export Administration Regulations
(currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2006)) (the
``Regulations''),\1\ issued the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. Sec. 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)).
\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 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended
by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charging letter alleged that Teepad 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\), on behalf of an Iranian end-user and to export
those telecommunications devices to Iran, by way of the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). These items were subject to both the Regulations and
the Iranian Transactions Regulations \4\ of the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 also alleged that, on or about December 17,
2001, on or about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided and/or abetted the doing
of an act that was prohibited by the Regulations. Specifically, BIS
alleged that Teepad forwarded telecommunications devices manufactured
by a U.S. company that were subject to both the Regulations and the
Iranian Transactions Regulations of OFAC through the UAE to Iran
without authorization from OFAC as required by Section 746.7 of the
Regulations.
Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged that in connection with
the transactions occurring on or about December 17, 2001, and on or
about March 7, 2002, Teepad transferred items exported from the United
States with knowledge, or reason to know, that a violation of the
Regulations would occur. Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad
transferred the telecommunications devices described above to Iran when
Teepad knew or had reason to know that they had been exported from the
United States without proper export authorization.
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 known address. In accordance with
the Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of
issuance of a charging letter by registered mail to Teepad. BIS
submitted evidence that establishes the charging letter was received by
Teepad on or about December 7, 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. Furthermore, the
charging letter informed Teepad that a failure to follow this
requirement would result in default.
On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a letter to BIS's Director of the
Office of Export Enforcement in which Teepad stated that it believed it
was in compliance with international law. Teepad did not file this
letter with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Docketing Center in
accordance with Section 766.6(a). I note that charging letter informed
Teepad that, in accordance with the Regulations, the answer must be
filed with the ALJ Docketing Center, and the letter provided the
address of the Docketing Center. On March 9, 2006, Counsel for BIS
notified Teepad by letter and by facsimile to the facsimile number
provided by Teepad that Teepad was required to file a formal answer to
the charging letter with the ALJ. In the same letter, BIS notified
Teepad that it must contact the Office of Chief Counsel for Industry
and Security, by March 22, 2006, if Teepad wished to enter into
settlement negotiations. Teepad did not file an answer with the ALJ and
did not contact the Office of Chief Counsel to discuss settlement. In
the Recommended Decision and Order, the ALJ found that Teepad did not
answer the charging letter in the manner required by Sections 766.5(a)
and 766.6 of the Regulations.
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Section 766.7 of
the Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for Default Order on April 11,
2006. Under Section 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 Teepad in default.
On May 22, 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 establish that Teepad committed one
violation of Section 764.2(d), two violations of Section 764.2(b), and
two violations of Section 764.2(e) of the Regulations. The ALJ
recommended that Teepad be denied export privileges for a period of ten
years.
On May 30, 2006, Teepad submitted an e-mail to the Office of Chief
Counsel for Industry and Security that Counsel for BIS has supplied to
me. In that e-mail, Teepad denies all wrongdoing. For reasons stated
previously in this Decision, this e-mail does not constitute a properly
filed or timely response to the charges against Teepad (See, Sections
766.5-6 of the Regulations).
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 with respect to each of
the above-referenced charges brought against Teepad. I also find that
the penalty recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of
the violations, the importance of preventing
[[Page 34597]]
future unauthorized exports, and the lack of any mitigating factors. I
note that Iran is a country against which the United States maintains
an economic embargo because of its support for international terrorism.
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, Teepad Electronic General Trading,
P.O. Box 13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
and all of its successors and assigns, and, when acting for or on
behalf of Teepad, 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 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.
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. 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: June 9, 2006.
David H. McCormick,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
Department of Commerce--Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No.: OS-BIS-19]
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O. Box
13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE, Respondent; 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 Teepad Electronic
General Trading (``Teepad''). The Charging Letter alleged that Teepad
committee five 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 amended (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. Sec. 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 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended
by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Charging Letter alleged that Teepad 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
[[Page 34598]]
Iranian end-user and to export those telecommunications devices to
Iran. (Charge 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``ECCN'' refers to Export Classification Number.
See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
\4\ 31 CFR part 560 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Charging Letter also alleged that, on or about December 17,
2001, and on or about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided and/or abetted the
doing of an act that was prohibited by the Regulations. Specifically,
BIS alleged that Teepad forwarded telecommunications devices
manufactured by a U.S. company, including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports, items subject to both the Regulations
(ECCN 5A991) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations of Treasury
Department's OFAC, that had been exported from the United States,
through the United Arab Emirates to Iran without authorization from
OFAC as required by Section 746.7 of the Regulations. (Charges 2 and
3).
Finally, the BIS Charging Letter alleged that in connection with
the transactions occurring on or about December 17, 2001, and on or
about March 7, 2002, Teepad transferred items exported from the United
States with knowledge that a violation of the Regulations would occur.
Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad transferred the
telecommunications devices described above to Iran when Teepad knew or
had reason to know that they had been exported from the United States,
without authorization from OFAC. (Charges 4 and 5).
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 known address. In accordance with
the Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of
issuance of a charging letter by registered mail to Teepad at its last
known address: Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O. Box
13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE. BIS submitted evidence that
establishes the Charging Letter was received by Teepad on or about
December 7, 2005.\5\ These actions constitute service under the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Government Exhibit A of the January 5, 2006 Certificate
Regarding Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Furthermore, BIS
informed Teepad that a failure to follow this requirement would result
in default. (Charging Letter, at 3).
On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a letter to BIS's Director of the
Office of Export Enforcement. Teepad did not file this letter with the
ALJ Docketing Center in accordance with Section 766.6(a).\6\ In the
letter, Teepad provided factual information and stated, inter alia,
that Teepad believed it was in compliance with international law.
(Gov't Ex. 2). On March 9, 2006, BIS notified Teepad via letter and
facsimile \7\ that Teepad was required to file a formal answer to the
Charging Letter with the ALJ. In that same letter, BIS notified Teepad
that it must contact the Office of Chief Counsel for Industry and
Security, by March 22, 2006, in the event that Teepad wished to discuss
settlement of this matter. (Gov't Ex. 3). To date, Teepad has not filed
an answer with the ALJ and has not contacted the Office of Chief
Counsel to discuss settlement. Accordingly, Teepad has not answered the
Charging Letter in the manner required by Sections 766.5(a) and 766.6
of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Charging Letter provided the address of the ALJ
Docketing Center and specified that the answer must be filed in
accordance with 15 CFR 766.5(a) to the ALJ Docketing Center.
\7\ BIS's letter of March 9, 2006 was successfully sent to the
facsimile number provided by Teepad. (Gov't Ex. 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Section 766.7 of
the Regulations, the undersigned finds the facts to be as alleged in
the Charging Letter, and hereby determines that those facts establish
that Teepad committed one violation of Section 764.2(d), two violations
of Section 764.2(b), and two violations of Section 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 CFR 764.3 (2001-2002). Because Teepad knowingly
violated the Regulations by transferring items that were subject to the
Regulations with knowledge that a violation of the Regulations would
occur, BIS requests that the undersigned recommends to the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security \8\ that Teepad's
export privileges be denied for ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 suggested these sanctions because Teepad's knowing violation in
transferring controlled telecommunications devices to Iran without
prior authorization evidences a serious disregard for U.S. export
control laws. Furthermore, BIS noted that Iran is a country against
which the United States maintains an economic embargo because of Iran's
support of international terrorism. BIS believes that the imposition of
a civil monetary 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 Teepad's export privileges for ten years is an appropriate sanction.
On this basis, the undersigned concurs with BIS and recommends that
the Under Secretary enter an Order denying Teepad'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
shipment to Iran. See In the Matter of Petrom GmbH International Trade,
70 FR 32,743 (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 28,120 (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 of a
controlled item to Iran); In the Matter of Jabal Damavand General
Trading Company, 67 FR 32,009 (May 13, 2002) (affirming the
recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that a ten year denial
order was appropriate where knowing violations involved shipment of
EAR99 items to Iran); In the Matter of Adbulamire Mahdi, 68 FR 57,406
(October 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 Teepad's export privileges is warranted because Teepad's
violations, like those of the defendants in the above-cited case, were
deliberate acts done is violation of U.S. export control laws.
The terms of the denial of export privileges against Teepad should
be consistent with the standard language used by BIS in such orders.
The language is:
[[Page 34599]]
[Redacted Section]
[Redacted Section]
[Redacted Section]
Accordingly, the undersigned refers 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 30 days after receipt of this Recommended Decision and
Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming,
modifying, or vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 CFR
766.22(c).
Dated: May 22, 2006.
Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 06-5435 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-M
