In the Matter of: Super Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 29296-29299 [07-2604]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29296
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices
NPA: Western Idaho Training Company,
Inc., Caldwell, ID.
Contracting Activity: Department of
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service—
CA, San Francisco, CA.
Service Type/Location: Janitorial/
Landscaping Services. U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, 430
West Health Sciences Drive, Davis,
CA.
NPA: PRIDE Industries, Inc., Roseville,
CA.
Contracting Activity: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service—Pacific West Area, Albany,
CA.
Service Type/Location: Postwide
Administrative Support Services, Fort
Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC.
NPA: Employment Source, Inc.,
Fayetteville, NC.
Contracting Activity: Fort Bragg
Directorate of Contracting, Fort Bragg,
NC.
Service Type/Location: Supply/
Warehouse/HAZMAT Services,
Meridian Naval Air Station, 224 Allen
Rd, Meridian, MS.
NPA: South Texas Lighthouse for the
Blind, Corpus Christi, TX.
Contracting Activity: Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center,
Jacksonville, FL.
Deletions
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
I certify that the following action will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The major factors considered for this
certification were:
1. If approved, the action may result
in additional reporting, recordkeeping
or other compliance requirements for
small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result
in authorizing small entities to furnish
the products and services to the
Government.
3. There are no known regulatory
alternatives which would accomplish
the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in
connection with the products and
services proposed for deletion from the
Procurement List.
End of Certification
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
The following products and services
are proposed for deletion from the
Procurement List:
NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1654—Size
XXXLL.
NPA: Southeastern Kentucky
Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin,
KY.
Contracting Activity: U.S. Army
RDECOM Acquisition Center, Natick,
MA.
Services
Service Type/Location: Grounds
Maintenance, Hill Air Force Base, Hill
Air Force Base, UT.
NPA: Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation
Center Davis County School District,
Clearfield, UT.
Contracting Activity: Hill Air Force
Base, UT.
Service Type/Location: Janitorial/
Custodial, Navy Exchange Command
Corporate Accounting (CAC), Norfolk,
VA.
NPA: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA.
Contracting Activity: Navy Exchange
Service Command (NEXCOM),
Virginia Beach, VA.
Service Type/Location: Janitorial/
Custodial, Navy Exchange Command
Uniform Support Center, Bldg 1545,
Chesapeake, VA.
NPA: Portco, Inc., Portsmouth, VA
Contracting Activity: Navy Exchange
Service Command (NEXCOM),
Virginia Beach, VA.
Service Type/Location: Laundry Service
National Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, MD.
NPA: Rappahannock Goodwill
Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA.
Contracting Activity: North Atlantic
Contracting Office, Washington, DC.
Service Type/Location: Microfilming,
Department of Treasury, Financial
Management Services, Hyattsville,
MD.
NPA: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA.
Contracting Activity: Department of the
Treasury, DC.
Kimberly M. Zeich,
Director, Program Operations.
[FR Doc. E7–10145 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353–01–P
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Sunshine Act Notice
United States Commission on
Civil Rights.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
Products
DATE AND TIME:
PCU, Level 7 Loft Jacket—Type 2
NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1647—Size LL.
NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1649—Size XLL.
NSN: 8415–00–NSH–1652—Size XXLL.
a.m.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Friday, June 1, 2007; 9
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540,
Washington, DC 20425.
PLACE:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Meeting Agenda
I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Approval of Minutes of May 11,
Meeting.
III. Announcements.
IV. Staff Director’s Report.
V. State Advisory Committee Issues;
• Virginia SAC.
• Michigan SAC.
VI. Future Agenda Items.
VII. Adjourn.
Briefing Agenda
School Choice, the Blaine Amendments
and Anti-Catholicism;
• Introductory Remarks by Chairman.
• Speakers’ Presentation.
• Questions by Commissioners and
Staff Director.
CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press
and
Communications (202) 376–8582.
Dated: May 22, 2007.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07–2630 Filed 5–22–07; 4:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[06–BIS–16]
In the Matter of: Super Net Computers,
L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa Building,
Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box
43557, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Respondent, Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order of an
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as
further described below.
In a charging letter filed on August 28,
2006, the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that
Respondent, Super Net Computers,
L.L.C. (hereinafter ‘‘Super Net’’),
committed six violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774)
(2007)) (‘‘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
1 The charged violations occurred in 2001
through 2003. The Regulations governing the
violations at issue are found in the 2001 through
2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations
(15 CFR parts 730–774 (2001–2003)). The 2007
Regulations set forth the procedures that apply to
this matter.
2 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 3,
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
charging letter alleged that, on six
occasions from on or about September
25, 2001, through on or about March 25,
2003, Super Net caused, aided and
abetted the doing of an act prohibited by
the Regulations. Specifically, The
Charging Letter alleged that Super Net
ordered super servers (ECCN 3 4A994),
motherboards (ECCNs 4A003 and
4A994), and computer chassis
(EAR99 4), items subject to the
Regulations and the Iranian
Transactions Regulations,5 from a U.S.
company on behalf of Iranian end-users.
The U.S. company then shipped those
super servers and motherboards from
the United States to Super Net in the
United Arab Emirates. Super Net
forwarded the items to end-users in
Iran. Pursuant to Section 560.204 of the
Iranian Transactions Regulations, an
export to a third country intended for
transshipment to Iran is a transaction
subject to the Iranian Transaction
Regulations. Pursuant to Section 746.7
of the Regulations, authorization was
required from the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, U.S. Department of the
Treasury (‘‘OFAC’’) for the shipment of
these super servers and motherboards
from the United States to Iran. No such
U.S. Government authorization was
obtained. By causing, aiding and/or
abetting these exports in this manner,
BIS alleged that Super Net committed
six violations of Section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations.
In accordance with Section
766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on
August 28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice
of issuance of the charging letter by
registered mail to Super Net at its last
known address. The record contains
evidence that the notice of issuance of
a charging letter was received by Super
Net on September 17, 2006. To date,
however, Super Net has not filed an
answer or otherwise responded to the
charging letter with the ALJ, as required
by the Regulations.
On March 16, 2007, BIS filed a
Motion for Default Order in accord with
Section 766.7 of the Regulations. The
Motion for Default Order recommended
that Super Net be denied export
privileges under the Regulations for a
period of five years. Under Section
766.7(a) of the Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of
2006, (71 FR 44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701–17706 (2000)).
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to an Export Control
Classification Number. See Section 772.1 of the
Regulations.
4 Items subject to the Regulations, which are not
listed on the Commerce Control List are designated
as EAR99.
5 31 CFR Part 560.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 has found Super Net
in default.
On May 1, 2007, based on the record
before him, the ALJ issued a
Recommended Decision and Order in
which he found that Super Net
committed six violations of Section
764.2(b) of the Regulations. The ALJ
also recommended the penalty of denial
of Super Net’s export privileges for five
years, as recommended by BIS.
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. I also find that the
penalty recommended by the ALJ is
appropriate, given the nature of the
violations and the facts of this case, and
the importance of preventing future
unauthorized exports.
Based on my review of the entire
record, I affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law recommended by the
ALJ.
Accordingly, it is Therefore Ordered,
First, that for a period of five years
from the date this Order is published in
the Federal Register, Super Net
Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa
Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd.,
P.O. Box 43557, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, its successors and assigns, and
when acting for or on behalf of Super
Net, its representatives, agents and
employees (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the ‘‘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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29297
other activity subject to the Regulations;
or
C. Benefitting 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 now that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transactions 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, or
position or 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.
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
29298
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices
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 in this matter, is effective
upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Mark Foulon,
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security.
REDACTED COPY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND
SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 20230
Docket No: 06–BIS–16
In the matter of: Super Net Computers,
L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa Building, Khalid
Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates. Respondent.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Recommended Decision and Order
On august 28, 2006, the Bureau of Industry
and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging letter initiating
this administrative enforcement proceeding
against Super Net Computers, L.L.C. (‘‘Super
Net’’). The charging letter alleged that Super
Net committed six 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, on six occasions from on or about
September 25, 2001, through on or about
March 25, 2003, Super Net caused, aided and
abetted the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, BIS alleged that
Super Net ordered super servers (EEN 3
4A994), motherboards (ECCNs 4A003 and
4A994), and computer chassis
(EAR99 4), items subject to the Regulations
and the Iranian Transactions Regulations,5
from a U.S. company on behalf of Iranian
1 The charged violations occurred in 2001
through 2003. The Regulations governing the
violations at issue are found in the 2001 through
2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations
(15 CFR parts 730–774 (2001–2003)). The 2006
Regulations establish the procedures that apply to
this matter.
2 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 3, 2006 (71 FR
44,551 (Aug. 7, 2006)), has continued the
regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–
1706 (2000)).
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to an Export Control
Classification Number. See Section 772.1 of the
Regulations.
4 Items subject to the Regulations, which are not
listed on the Commerce Control List are designated
as EAR99.
5 31 CFR part 560.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
end-users. The U.S. company shipped those
super servers and motherboards from the
United States to Super Net in the United
Arab Emirates. Super net then forwarded the
items to end-users in Iran. Pursuant to
Section 560.204 of the Iranian Transactions
Regulations, an export to a third country
intended for transshipment to Iran is a
transaction subject to the Iranian Transaction
Regulations. Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the
Regulations, a license was required for the
shipment of these super servers and
motherboards from the United States to Iran.
No such license was obtained. BIS alleged
that Super Net committed six violations of
the Regulations. (Charges 1–6).
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 August
28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice of issuance
of the charging letter by registered mail to
Super Net at its last known address: Super
Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al Riffa
Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O.
Box 43557, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. BIS
has submitted evidence that establishes that
the charging letter was received by Super Net
on or about September 17, 2006.6
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 Super Net that a
failure to follow this requirement would
result in default. (Charging Letter, at 2). To
date, Super Net has not filed an answer, or
otherwise responded, to the charging letter.
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 determine
that those facts establish that Super Net
committed six violations of Section 764.2(b)
of the Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth
that 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
764.3 (2001–2003). BIS requests that the
undersigned recommend to the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security 7 that Super Net’s export privileges
be denied for five years.
BIS has suggested this sanction because
Super Net’s role in causing, aiding and
abetting the export of super servers,
motherboards and chassis from the United
States to Iran without U.S. Government
authorization evidences a serious disregard
for U.S. export control laws. BIS notes that
the items exported in this case involved
super servers and motherboards controlled
for anti-terrorism reasons. BIS asserts that
Super Net’s role in ordering and forwarding
these items to Iran—a country that the United
States Government has designated a state
sponsor of international terrorism—
represents a significant harm to national
security and to the national interests
protected by U.S. export controls.8
Furthermore, BIS believes that the
recommended denial order is particularly
appropriate in this case, since Super Net
failed to respond to the charging letter filed
by BIS, despite evidence indicating that
Super Net received actual service of the
charging letter. Although the imposition of a
monetary penalty is an option, BIS contends
that such a penalty would not be effective,
given the above reasons and the difficulty of
collecting payment against a party outside
the United States. Based on the foregoing,
BIS believes that the denial of Super Net
export privileges for five years is an
appropriate sanction.
The undersigned concurs with BIS and
recommends that the Under Secretary enter
an Order denying Super Net’s export
privileges for a period of five years. Such a
denial order is consistent with penalties
imposed in similar cases involving
shipments to countries designated as
‘‘Terrorist Supporting Countries’’ 9 in which
a default judgment was issued on BIS’s
motion. See, e.g., In the Matter of Teepad
Electronic General Trading, 71 FR 34,596
(June 15, 2006) (affirming the ALJ’s
recommendation to grant BIS’s motion for a
ten-year denial where a Canadian respondent
knowingly caused the export of
telecommunications devices to Iran, and
where that respondent failed to respond to
BIS’s charging letter); In the Matter of Swiss
Telecom, 71 FR 32,920 (June 7, 2006)
(affirming the ALJ’s recommendation to grant
BIS’s motion for a ten-year denial where a
respondent in the United Arab Emirates
knowingly forwarded telecommunications
devices to Iran, and failed to respond to BIS’s
charging letter); In the Matter of MUTCO
International, 71 FR 38,133 (July 5, 2006)
(affirming the ALJ’s recommendation to grant
BIS’s default motion for a six-year denial to
resolve conspiracy and solicitations charges
6 BIS did not receive a delivery receipt for the
charging letter and requested that the U.S. Postal
Service inquire further about the delivery of the
charging letter. The U.S. Postal Service was advised
by the postal service of the United Arab Emirates
that the charging letter was delivered on or about
September 17, 2006.
7 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 ALJ 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.
8 Cf. 15 CFR part 766, Supp. No. 1, III, A
(discussing the factors that BIS considers in the
context of settling an enforcement action and
stating that ‘‘BIS is more likely to seek a greater
monetary penalty and/or denial or export privileges
* * * in cases involving: (1) Exports or reexports
to countries subject to anti-terrorism controls
* * *.’’). Iran has been designated as a Terrorist
Supporting Country and is subject to such antiterrorism controls. See 15 CFR part 740, Supp. No.
1 Country Group E:1 (2001–2003); 15 CFR 742.8
(2001–2003); 15 CFR 746.7 (2001–2003).
9 The U.S. Government’s List of Terrorist
Supporting Countries is set forth in 15 CFR part
740, Supp. No. 1, Country Group E:1.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices
related to an attempted export to North
Korea).
The terms of the denial of export privileges
against Super Net should be consistent with
the standard language used by BIS in such
orders. The language is:
[REDACTED SECTION]
This Order, which constitutes the final
agency action in this matter, is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
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 1, 2007.
The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 07–2604 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–846
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
May 25, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) received a timely
request to conduct a new shipper review
of the antidumping duty order on brake
rotors from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). In accordance with
751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new
shipper review for Shanghai Tylon
Company Ltd. (‘‘Tylon’’).
Ann
Fornaro or Blanche Ziv, 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) 482–3927 and (202)
482–4207, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 May 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Background
On April 18, 2007, during the
anniversary month of the antidumping
duty order on brake rotors from the PRC,
the Department received a request from
Tylon for a new shipper review of the
order, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c). See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic
of China, 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997).
As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(A) and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Tylon certified that
it did not export the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), and
that since the initiation of the
investigation, the company has never
been affiliated with any exporter or
producer who exported subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Tylon further
certified that its export activities are not
controlled by the central government of
the PRC.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Yantai Hongda Auto
Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yantai
Hongda’’), the producer of subject
merchandise, certified that it did not
export subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI. In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(b)(iii)(B), Yantai Hongda further
certified that since the investigation was
initiated, it has never been affiliated
with any exporter or producer who
exported the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI and that its
export activities are not controlled by
the central government of the PRC.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), Tylon submitted
documentation establishing the
following: (1) the date on which it first
shipped brake rotors for export to the
United States; (2) the volume of its first
shipment and any subsequent
shipments; and (3) the date of its first
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.
Initiation of New Shipper Review
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1), and based on information
on the record, we find that Tylon’s
request meets the threshold
requirements for initiation of a new
shipper review. See Memorandum to
the File through Wendy J. Frankel,
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
and Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, from the
Team, entitled ‘‘Initiation of AD New
Shipper Review: Brake Rotors from the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29299
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated, May
21, 2007. Therefore, we are initiating a
new shipper review for shipments of
brake rotors produced by Yantai Hongda
and exported by Tylon. The Department
will conduct this new shipper review
according to the deadlines set forth in
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
On April 26, 2007, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Tylon, informing the company that the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) stated in its
request did not meet the requirements
articulated in 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), and requested that
Tylon correct and resubmit its new
shipper review request with the
appropriate POR within the time frame
set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(d). On April
27, 2007, in response to the
Department’s request, Tylon
resubmitted its new shipper review
request with the appropriate POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A),
the POR for a new shipper review
initiated in the month immediately
following the anniversary month
normally will cover the 12-month
period immediately preceding the
anniversary month. Therefore, the POR
for this new shipper review will be
April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
In cases involving non–market
economies, the Department requires that
a company seeking to establish
eligibility for an antidumping duty rate
separate from the PRC–wide entity rate
provide evidence of de jure and de facto
absence of government control over the
company’s export activities.
Accordingly, we will issue a
questionnaire to Tylon, including a
separate–rate section. The review will
proceed if the responses provide
sufficient indication that Tylon is not
subject to either de jure or de facto
government control with respect to its
exports of brake rotors. However, if
Tylon does not demonstrate its
eligibility for a separate rate, the
company will be deemed not separate
from other companies that exported
during the POI, and the new shipper
review for Tylon will be rescinded.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was
signed into law by Congress. Section
1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the
authority of the Department to instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
collect a bond or other security in lieu
of a cash deposit in new shipper
reviews. Therefore, the posting of a
bond or other security under section
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a
cash deposit is not available in this case.
Importers of brake rotors exported by
Tylon and produced by Yantai Hongda
must continue to post a cash deposit of
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29296-29299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2604]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[06-BIS-16]
In the Matter of: Super Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al
Riffa Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates
Respondent, Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order of
an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ''), as further described below.
In a charging letter filed on August 28, 2006, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (``BIS'') alleged that Respondent, Super Net
Computers, L.L.C. (hereinafter ``Super Net''), committed six violations
of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR
parts 730-774) (2007)) (``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
[[Page 29297]]
charging letter alleged that, on six occasions from on or about
September 25, 2001, through on or about March 25, 2003, Super Net
caused, aided and abetted the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, The Charging Letter alleged that Super Net
ordered super servers (ECCN \3\ 4A994), motherboards (ECCNs 4A003 and
4A994), and computer chassis (EAR99 \4\), items subject to the
Regulations and the Iranian Transactions Regulations,\5\ from a U.S.
company on behalf of Iranian end-users. The U.S. company then shipped
those super servers and motherboards from the United States to Super
Net in the United Arab Emirates. Super Net forwarded the items to end-
users in Iran. Pursuant to Section 560.204 of the Iranian Transactions
Regulations, an export to a third country intended for transshipment to
Iran is a transaction subject to the Iranian Transaction Regulations.
Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the Regulations, authorization was
required from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of
the Treasury (``OFAC'') for the shipment of these super servers and
motherboards from the United States to Iran. No such U.S. Government
authorization was obtained. By causing, aiding and/or abetting these
exports in this manner, BIS alleged that Super Net committed six
violations of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charged violations occurred in 2001 through 2003. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2001
through 2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR
parts 730-774 (2001-2003)). The 2007 Regulations set forth the
procedures that apply to this matter.
\2\ 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 3, 2006,
(71 FR 44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has continued the Regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701-17706 (2000)).
\3\ The term ``ECCN'' refers to an Export Control Classification
Number. See Section 772.1 of the Regulations.
\4\ Items subject to the Regulations, which are not listed on
the Commerce Control List are designated as EAR99.
\5\ 31 CFR Part 560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on
August 28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the charging
letter by registered mail to Super Net at its last known address. The
record contains evidence that the notice of issuance of a charging
letter was received by Super Net on September 17, 2006. To date,
however, Super Net has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to
the charging letter with the ALJ, as required by the Regulations.
On March 16, 2007, BIS filed a Motion for Default Order in accord
with Section 766.7 of the Regulations. The Motion for Default Order
recommended that Super Net be denied export privileges under the
Regulations for a period of five years. 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 has found
Super Net in default.
On May 1, 2007, based on the record before him, the ALJ issued a
Recommended Decision and Order in which he found that Super Net
committed six violations of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. The
ALJ also recommended the penalty of denial of Super Net's export
privileges for five years, as recommended by BIS.
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. I also find that the
penalty recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of the
violations and the facts of this case, and the importance of preventing
future unauthorized exports.
Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings of
fact and conclusions of law recommended by the ALJ.
Accordingly, it is Therefore Ordered,
First, that for a period of five years from the date this Order is
published in the Federal Register, Super Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505,
Dar Al Riffa Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, its successors and assigns, and when acting for
or on behalf of Super Net, its representatives, agents and employees
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``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. Benefitting 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 now that the
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transactions 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, or position or 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.
[[Page 29298]]
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 in this matter, is
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
Mark Foulon,
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
REDACTED COPY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY,
WASHINGTON, DC 20230
Docket No: 06-BIS-16
In the matter of: Super Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al
Riffa Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates. Respondent.
Recommended Decision and Order
On august 28, 2006, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce (``BIS''), issued a charging letter
initiating this administrative enforcement proceeding against Super
Net Computers, L.L.C. (``Super Net''). The charging letter alleged
that Super Net committed six 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charged violations occurred in 2001 through 2003. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2001
through 2003 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR
parts 730-774 (2001-2003)). The 2006 Regulations establish the
procedures that apply to this matter.
\2\ 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 3, 2006
(71 FR 44,551 (Aug. 7, 2006)), has continued the regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the charging letter alleged that, on six occasions
from on or about September 25, 2001, through on or about March 25,
2003, Super Net caused, aided and abetted the doing of an act
prohibited by the Regulations. Specifically, BIS alleged that Super
Net ordered super servers (EEN \3\ 4A994), motherboards (ECCNs 4A003
and 4A994), and computer chassis (EAR99 \4\), items subject to the
Regulations and the Iranian Transactions Regulations,\5\ from a U.S.
company on behalf of Iranian end-users. The U.S. company shipped
those super servers and motherboards from the United States to Super
Net in the United Arab Emirates. Super net then forwarded the items
to end-users in Iran. Pursuant to Section 560.204 of the Iranian
Transactions Regulations, an export to a third country intended for
transshipment to Iran is a transaction subject to the Iranian
Transaction Regulations. Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the
Regulations, a license was required for the shipment of these super
servers and motherboards from the United States to Iran. No such
license was obtained. BIS alleged that Super Net committed six
violations of the Regulations. (Charges 1-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``ECCN'' refers to an Export Control Classification
Number. See Section 772.1 of the Regulations.
\4\ Items subject to the Regulations, which are not listed on
the Commerce Control List are designated as EAR99.
\5\ 31 CFR part 560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 August 28, 2006, BIS mailed the notice of
issuance of the charging letter by registered mail to Super Net at
its last known address: Super Net Computers, L.L.C., No 505, Dar Al
Riffa Building, Khalid Bin Al Waleed Rd., P.O. Box 43557, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates. BIS has submitted evidence that establishes
that the charging letter was received by Super Net on or about
September 17, 2006.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ BIS did not receive a delivery receipt for the charging
letter and requested that the U.S. Postal Service inquire further
about the delivery of the charging letter. The U.S. Postal Service
was advised by the postal service of the United Arab Emirates that
the charging letter was delivered on or about September 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Super Net that a failure to follow this
requirement would result in default. (Charging Letter, at 2). To
date, Super Net has not filed an answer, or otherwise responded, to
the charging letter.
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 determine that those facts establish
that Super Net committed six violations of Section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth that 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 764.3 (2001-2003). BIS
requests that the undersigned recommend to the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security \7\ that Super Net's export
privileges be denied for five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 ALJ 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 this sanction because Super Net's role in
causing, aiding and abetting the export of super servers,
motherboards and chassis from the United States to Iran without U.S.
Government authorization evidences a serious disregard for U.S.
export control laws. BIS notes that the items exported in this case
involved super servers and motherboards controlled for anti-
terrorism reasons. BIS asserts that Super Net's role in ordering and
forwarding these items to Iran--a country that the United States
Government has designated a state sponsor of international
terrorism--represents a significant harm to national security and to
the national interests protected by U.S. export controls.\8\
Furthermore, BIS believes that the recommended denial order is
particularly appropriate in this case, since Super Net failed to
respond to the charging letter filed by BIS, despite evidence
indicating that Super Net received actual service of the charging
letter. Although the imposition of a monetary penalty is an option,
BIS contends that such a penalty would not be effective, given the
above reasons and the difficulty of collecting payment against a
party outside the United States. Based on the foregoing, BIS
believes that the denial of Super Net export privileges for five
years is an appropriate sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cf. 15 CFR part 766, Supp. No. 1, III, A (discussing the
factors that BIS considers in the context of settling an enforcement
action and stating that ``BIS is more likely to seek a greater
monetary penalty and/or denial or export privileges * * * in cases
involving: (1) Exports or reexports to countries subject to anti-
terrorism controls * * *.''). Iran has been designated as a
Terrorist Supporting Country and is subject to such anti-terrorism
controls. See 15 CFR part 740, Supp. No. 1 Country Group E:1 (2001-
2003); 15 CFR 742.8 (2001-2003); 15 CFR 746.7 (2001-2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The undersigned concurs with BIS and recommends that the Under
Secretary enter an Order denying Super Net's export privileges for a
period of five years. Such a denial order is consistent with
penalties imposed in similar cases involving shipments to countries
designated as ``Terrorist Supporting Countries'' \9\ in which a
default judgment was issued on BIS's motion. See, e.g., In the
Matter of Teepad Electronic General Trading, 71 FR 34,596 (June 15,
2006) (affirming the ALJ's recommendation to grant BIS's motion for
a ten-year denial where a Canadian respondent knowingly caused the
export of telecommunications devices to Iran, and where that
respondent failed to respond to BIS's charging letter); In the
Matter of Swiss Telecom, 71 FR 32,920 (June 7, 2006) (affirming the
ALJ's recommendation to grant BIS's motion for a ten-year denial
where a respondent in the United Arab Emirates knowingly forwarded
telecommunications devices to Iran, and failed to respond to BIS's
charging letter); In the Matter of MUTCO International, 71 FR 38,133
(July 5, 2006) (affirming the ALJ's recommendation to grant BIS's
default motion for a six-year denial to resolve conspiracy and
solicitations charges
[[Page 29299]]
related to an attempted export to North Korea).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The U.S. Government's List of Terrorist Supporting Countries
is set forth in 15 CFR part 740, Supp. No. 1, Country Group E:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the denial of export privileges against Super Net
should be consistent with the standard language used by BIS in such
orders. The language is:
[REDACTED SECTION]
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
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 1, 2007.
The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 07-2604 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
