Action Affecting Export Privileges; Universal Technology, Inc., 38365-38366 [06-6000]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Universal Technology, Inc.
In the Matter of: Universal Technology,
Inc., 125 Gaither Drive, Mount Laurel, NJ
08054, Respondent.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Order Relating to Universal
Technology, Inc.
The Bureau of Industry and Security,
U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’)
has notified Universal Technology, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘UTI’’), of its
intention to initiate an administrative
proceeding against UTI pursuant to
section 766.3 of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774
(2006)) (‘‘Regulations’’),1 and section
13(c) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app
2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘Act’’),2 by issuing
a proposed charging letter to UTI that
alleged that UTI committed 49
violations of the Regulations.
Specifically, the charges are:
1. 17 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(a)—
Exporting electronic Components to the
People’s Republic of China without the
Required Licenses: On 17 occasions,
between on or about July 21, 2000 and
on or about April 21, 2004, UTI engaged
in conduct prohibited by the
Regulations by exporting or causing to
be exported electronic components
classified under Export Control
Classification Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 3A001
to the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) without the Department of
Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) licenses
required by Section 742.4 of the
Regulations.
2. 17 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(e)—
Exporting Electronic Components to the
People’s Republic of China With
1 The violations charged are alleged to have
occurred from 2000 through 2004. The Regulations
governing the violations at issue are found in the
2000–2004 versions of the Code of Federal
Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2000–2004)).
The 2006 Regulations set forth 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
Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers act (50 U.S.C. 1701–
1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 2000, the
Act was reauthorized and 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 C.F.R.,
2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice
of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273 (August 5, 2005)),
has continued the Regulations in effect under the
IEEPA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:01 Jul 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Knowledge That Violations Would
Occur: In connection with the
transactions described above, UTI
caused the export of electronic
components to the PRC with knowledge
that violations of the Regulations would
occur. Specifically, UTI had knowledge
that Department of Commerce licenses
were required to export the electronic
components from the United States to
the PRC and UTI caused the export of
the items with knowledge that such
licenses would not be obtained.
3. 15 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(e)—
False Statement on Shipper’s Export
Declarations Concerning Authority to
Export: In connection with 15 exports of
electronic components subject to the
Regulations to the PRC described above,
UTI made false statements to the U.S.
Government in connection with the
submission of export control
documents. Specifically UTI filed or
caused to be filed with the U.S.
Government Shipper’s Export
Declarations stating that the exports did
not require Department of Commerce
licenses (‘‘NLR’’ or ‘‘No License
Required’’). These statements were false
because licenses were required to export
these items.
Whereas, BIS and UTI have entered
into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to
Section 766.18(a) of the Regulations
whereby they agreed to settle this matter
in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth therein; and
Whereas, I have approved of the terms
of such Settlement Agreement; It is
therefore ordered:
First, that a civil penalty of $170,000
is assessed against Universal
Technology, Inc., which shall be paid to
the U.S. Department of Commerce upon
entry of this Order. Payment shall be
made in the manner specified in the
attached instructions.
Second that, pursuant to the Debt
Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31
U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil
penalty owed under this Order accrues
interest as more fully described in the
attached Notice, and, if payment is not
made by the due date specified herein,
UTI will be assessed, in addition to the
full amount of the civil penalty and
interest, a penalty charge and an
administrative charge, as more fully
described in the attached Notice.
Third, that failure to make timely
payment of the civil penalty set forth
above shall be deemed to be a breach of
this Order, and the Department of
Commerce preserves its right in the
event of such a breach to pursue
whatever remedies are available to it by
law, including but not limited to its
ability to pursue administrative
sanctions based on the 49 violations set
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38365
forth herein and any other pertinent
violations. The payment of the civil
penalty is guaranteed by Mr. Terry
Tengfang Li (also known as ‘‘Terry Li’’),
in his individual capacity, and Ms. NeiChien CHu (also known as ‘‘Pearl Li’’),
in her individual capacity, and Mr.
Terry Tengfan Li, Ms. Nei-Chien Chu
and UTI are jointly and severally liable
for the payment of the penalty.
Fourth, for a period of 20 years from
the date of entry of the Order, Universal
Technology, Inc., 125 Gaither Drive,
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054, its successors
or assigns, and when acting for or on
behalf of UTI, its representatives, agents,
officers or employees (‘‘Denied Person’’)
may not, directly or indirectly,
participate in any way in any
transaction involving any commodity,
software, technology (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)
exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the
Regulations, or in any other activity
subject to the Regulations, including,
but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, License Exception, or
export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations;
or
C. Benefiting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or in
any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Fifth, that no person may, directly or
indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Person any item subject to
the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States, including financing or other
support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Person
acquires or attempts to acquire such
ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from the Denied Person of
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been exported from the United
States;
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
38366
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 2006 / Notices
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
the United States any item subject to the
Regulations with knowledge or reason
to know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Sixth, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to UTI by
affiliation, ownership, control, or
position of responsibility in the conduct
of trade or related services may also be
made subject to the provisions of the
Order.
Seventh, 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.
Eight, that the proposed charging
letter, the Settlement Agreement, and
this Order shall be made available to the
public.
Ninth, that this Order shall be served
on the Denied Person, and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the
final agency action in this matter, is
effective immediately.
Entered this 23rd day of June 2006.
Darryl Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06–6000 Filed 7–5–06; 8:45 am]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jul 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–827]
Certain Cased Pencils from the
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 28, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results and
intent to rescind in part the 2003–2004
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
cased pencils (pencils) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). See
Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s
Republic of China; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 76755 (December 28, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of
review (POR) is December 1, 2003,
through November 30, 2004. We have
now completed the 2003–2004
administrative review of the order.
Based on comments received, we have
made changes in the dumping margin
calculations. Therefore, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. For
details regarding these changes, see the
section of this notice entitled ‘‘Changes
Since the Preliminary Results.’’ The
final results are listed below in the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4474 and (202)
482–0650, respectively.
AGENCY:
Background
On December 28, 2005, the
Department published the preliminary
results of this review. See Preliminary
Results. The POR is December 1, 2003,
through November 30, 2004. On January
20, 2006, we extended the deadline for
submission of case briefs and rebuttal
briefs to February 24, 2006, and March
1, 2006, respectively. We also extended
the deadline for submission of surrogate
value information until February 14,
2006. On February 14, 2006, Sanford LP,
Rose Moon, Inc., General Pencil
Company, Inc., and Musgrave Pencil
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Company (the domestic interested
parties) submitted surrogate value
information.1 On February 24, 2006, we
received case briefs from respondents
China First Pencil Co., Ltd. (CFP)/Three
Star Stationery Industry Corp. (Three
Star)(CFP/Three Star),2 Orient
International Holding Shanghai Foreign
Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC), and Shandong
Rongxin Import & Export Co. Ltd.
(Rongxin), and from the domestic
interested parties. We received rebuttal
briefs from CFP/Three Star, SFTC,
Rongxin, and the domestic interested
parties on March 1, 2006.
On April 27, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department extended the time limit for
the final results of this review until June
26, 2006. See Certain Cased Pencils
from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 24839
(April 27, 2006).
Due to the unexpected emergency
closure of the main Commerce building
on Monday, June 26, 2006, the
Department is issuing these final results
on June 27, 2006, the next business day.
See Notice of Clarification: Application
of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As
Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by this order are
shipments of certain cased pencils of
any shape or dimension (except as
noted below) which are writing and/or
drawing instruments that feature cores
of graphite or other materials, encased
in wood and/or man–made materials,
whether or not decorated and whether
1 Domestic interested parties submitted a revised
translation of certain documents included in this
submission on February 16, 2006.
2 The Department initiated separate reviews of
China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (CFP) and
Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp.
(Three Star) based on timely requests from
interested parties. In the final results of the 20012002 administrative review the Department
collapsed CFP and Three Star for purposes of its
antidumping analysis. See Certain Cased Pencils
from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 29266 (May 21,
2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department
continued to collapse CFP and Three Star in the
final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review.
See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 42301 (July 22, 2005) (Pencils 02/03),
and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. For this review, the
Department continues to consider CFP and Three
Star (hereinafter referred to as CFP/Three Star) to
be a single entity.
E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM
06JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38365-38366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6000]
[[Page 38365]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Universal Technology, Inc.
In the Matter of: Universal Technology, Inc., 125 Gaither Drive,
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054, Respondent.
Order Relating to Universal Technology, Inc.
The Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce
(``BIS'') has notified Universal Technology, Inc. (hereinafter referred
to as ``UTI''), of its intention to initiate an administrative
proceeding against UTI pursuant to section 766.3 of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774
(2006)) (``Regulations''),\1\ and section 13(c) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app 2401-2420 (2000))
(``Act''),\2\ by issuing a proposed charging letter to UTI that alleged
that UTI committed 49 violations of the Regulations. Specifically, the
charges are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The violations charged are alleged to have occurred from
2000 through 2004. The Regulations governing the violations at issue
are found in the 2000-2004 versions of the Code of Federal
Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2000-2004)). The 2006 Regulations
set forth 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 Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000))
(``IEEPA''). On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and 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 C.F.R., 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as
extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273 (August 5,
2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 17 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(a)--Exporting electronic
Components to the People's Republic of China without the Required
Licenses: On 17 occasions, between on or about July 21, 2000 and on or
about April 21, 2004, UTI engaged in conduct prohibited by the
Regulations by exporting or causing to be exported electronic
components classified under Export Control Classification Number
(``ECCN'') 3A001 to the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') without
the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') licenses required by
Section 742.4 of the Regulations.
2. 17 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(e)--Exporting Electronic
Components to the People's Republic of China With Knowledge That
Violations Would Occur: In connection with the transactions described
above, UTI caused the export of electronic components to the PRC with
knowledge that violations of the Regulations would occur. Specifically,
UTI had knowledge that Department of Commerce licenses were required to
export the electronic components from the United States to the PRC and
UTI caused the export of the items with knowledge that such licenses
would not be obtained.
3. 15 Violations of 15 CFR 764.2(e)--False Statement on Shipper's
Export Declarations Concerning Authority to Export: In connection with
15 exports of electronic components subject to the Regulations to the
PRC described above, UTI made false statements to the U.S. Government
in connection with the submission of export control documents.
Specifically UTI filed or caused to be filed with the U.S. Government
Shipper's Export Declarations stating that the exports did not require
Department of Commerce licenses (``NLR'' or ``No License Required'').
These statements were false because licenses were required to export
these items.
Whereas, BIS and UTI have entered into a Settlement Agreement
pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the Regulations whereby they agreed to
settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth therein; and
Whereas, I have approved of the terms of such Settlement Agreement;
It is therefore ordered:
First, that a civil penalty of $170,000 is assessed against
Universal Technology, Inc., which shall be paid to the U.S. Department
of Commerce upon entry of this Order. Payment shall be made in the
manner specified in the attached instructions.
Second that, pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as
amended (31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E (2000)), the civil penalty owed under
this Order accrues interest as more fully described in the attached
Notice, and, if payment is not made by the due date specified herein,
UTI will be assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil
penalty and interest, a penalty charge and an administrative charge, as
more fully described in the attached Notice.
Third, that failure to make timely payment of the civil penalty set
forth above shall be deemed to be a breach of this Order, and the
Department of Commerce preserves its right in the event of such a
breach to pursue whatever remedies are available to it by law,
including but not limited to its ability to pursue administrative
sanctions based on the 49 violations set forth herein and any other
pertinent violations. The payment of the civil penalty is guaranteed by
Mr. Terry Tengfang Li (also known as ``Terry Li''), in his individual
capacity, and Ms. Nei-Chien CHu (also known as ``Pearl Li''), in her
individual capacity, and Mr. Terry Tengfan Li, Ms. Nei-Chien Chu and
UTI are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the penalty.
Fourth, for a period of 20 years from the date of entry of the
Order, Universal Technology, Inc., 125 Gaither Drive, Mount Laurel, NJ
08054, its successors or assigns, and when acting for or on behalf of
UTI, its representatives, agents, officers or employees (``Denied
Person'') may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in
any transaction involving any commodity, software, technology
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be
exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or
in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not
limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other
activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to
the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Fifth, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item
subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or
control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be
exported from the United States, including financing or other support
activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires
or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition
or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to
the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
[[Page 38366]]
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item
subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States
and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means
installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Sixth, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to UTI by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or
related services may also be made subject to the provisions of the
Order.
Seventh, 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.
Eight, that the proposed charging letter, the Settlement Agreement,
and this Order shall be made available to the public.
Ninth, that this Order shall be served on the Denied Person, and
shall be published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective immediately.
Entered this 23rd day of June 2006.
Darryl Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06-6000 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
