Action Affecting Export Privileges; Balli Group PLC; Balli Aviation; Balli Holdings; Vahid Alaghband; Hassan Alaghband; Blue Sky One Ltd.; Blue Sky Two Ltd.; Blue Sky Three Ltd.; Blue Sky Four Ltd.; Blue Sky Five Ltd.; Blue Sky Six Ltd.; Blue Airways; Mahan Airways; Blue Airways Fze, 57051-57055 [E8-23089]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices
Economic Development Administration,
Austin Regional Office, 504 Lavaca,
Suite 1100, Austin, Texas 78701–2858,
Telephone: (512) 381–8144, Fax: (512)
381–8177.
Applicants in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
and Muscatine and Scott counties, Iowa,
may submit hard copy applications to:
Economic Development Administration,
Chicago Regional Office, 111 North
Canal Street, Suite 855, Chicago, Illinois
60606.
Telephone: (312) 353–7706, Fax: (312)
353–8575.
Applicants in Colorado, Iowa
(excluding Muscatine and Scott
counties), Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah and Wyoming, may submit hard
copy applications to: Economic
Development Administration, 410 17th
Street, Suite 250, Denver, CO 80202.
Telephone: (303) 844–4714, Fax: (303)
844–3968.
Applicants in Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, U.S.
Virgin Islands, Virginia and West
Virginia, may submit hard copy
applications to: Economic Development
Administration, Philadelphia Regional
Office, Curtis Center, 601 Walnut Street,
Suite 140 South, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
Telephone: (215) 597–4603, Fax: (215)
597–1063.
Applicants in Alaska, American
Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam,
Hawaii, Idaho, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nevada, Northern Mariana
Islands, Oregon, Republic of Palau and
Washington, may submit hard copy
applications to: Economic Development
Administration, Seattle Regional Office,
Jackson Federal Building, Room 1890,
915 Second Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98174.
Telephone: (206) 220–7660, Fax: (206)
220–7669.
Paper Submissions: Applicants
choosing this option must submit one
original and two copies of the
completed application via postal mail,
shipped overnight or hand-delivered to
the applicable regional office, unless
otherwise directed by EDA staff.
Department of Commerce mail security
measures may delay receipt of United
States Postal Service mail for up to two
weeks. Therefore, applicants who wish
to submit paper applications are advised
to use guaranteed overnight delivery
services.
Electronic Submissions: Applicants
choosing this option should submit
applications in accordance with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
instructions provided at https://
www.grants.gov. Please visit https://
www.grants.gov/assets/
FindApplyUserGuide.pdf for detailed
instructions on electronic submissions.
You may access the application
packages for EDA’s two current funding
announcements, Economic
Development Assistance Programs
(Funding Opportunity Number
EDA021908) and Supplemental
Appropriations Disaster Relief
Opportunity (Funding Number
EDA08112008) at https://
www.grants.gov/applicants/
apply_for_grants.jsp. The preferred file
format for electronic attachments to the
new Form ED–900 (e.g., the project
description and letters of commitment
for construction projects) is portable
document format (PDF); however, EDA
will accept electronic files in Microsoft
Word, Microsoft Excel, or WordPerfect
formats.
Applicants should access the
following link for assistance in
navigating www.grants.gov and for a list
of useful resources: https://
www.grants.gov/applicants/
applicant_help.jsp. If you do not find an
answer to your question under
Frequently Asked Questions, try
consulting the Applicant’s User Guide.
If you still cannot find an answer to
your question, contact https://
www.grants.gov via e-mail at
support@grants.gov or telephone at
1.800.518.4726. The hours of operation
for https://www.grants.gov are Monday–
Friday, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (Eastern Time)
(except for federal holidays).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information or for a paper
copy of the applicable FFO
announcement, contact the appropriate
EDA regional office listed above. EDA’s
Internet Web site at https://www.eda.gov
also contains additional information on
EDA and its programs.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This
document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The
use of Form ED–900 (Application for
Investment Assistance) has been
approved by OMB under the control
number 0610–0094. The use of Forms
SF–424 (Application for Financial
Assistance), SF–424A (Budget
Information—Non-Construction
Programs), SF–424B (Assurances—NonConstruction Programs), SF–424C
Budget Information—Construction
Programs, SF–424D (Assurances—
Construction Programs), and SF–LLL
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF–
LLL) has been approved under OMB
control numbers 4040–0004, 4040–0006,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57051
4040–0007, 4040–0008, 4040–0009, and
0348–0046, respectively. The use of
Form CD–346 has been approved under
OMB control number 0605–0001.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person is required to respond to,
nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This notice has
been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):
It has been determined that this notice
does not contain policies with
Federalism implications as that term is
defined in Executive Order 13132.
Administrative Procedure Act/
Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice
and an opportunity for public comments
are not required by the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other law for rules
concerning grants, benefits, and
contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because
notice and opportunity for comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or
any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are
inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis has not been
prepared.
Dated: September 25, 2008.
Benjamin Erulkar,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development and Chief Operating
Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–23116 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–24–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Balli Group PLC; Balli Aviation; Balli
Holdings; Vahid Alaghband; Hassan
Alaghband; Blue Sky One Ltd.; Blue
Sky Two Ltd.; Blue Sky Three Ltd.;
Blue Sky Four Ltd.; Blue Sky Five Ltd.;
Blue Sky Six Ltd.; Blue Airways;
Mahan Airways; Blue Airways Fze
In the matter of:
Balli Group PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Balli Aviation, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK,
W1K 1AH;
Balli Holdings, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Vahid Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Hassan Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
57052
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices
Blue Sky One Ltd. 5 Stanhope Gate London,
UK W1K 1AH
Blue Sky Two Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Three Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Four Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Five Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Six Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Airways, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009
Yerevan, Armenia;
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21,
Azadegan St,. M.A. Jenah Exp. Way,
Tehran, Iran, Respondents;
and
Blue Airways FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways, #G22
Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754
DAFZA, Dubai, UAE;
Blue Airways, Riqa Road, Dubai 52404, UAE,
Related Persons
Order Renewing Order Temporarily
Denying Export Privileges
2008, unless renewed in accordance
with Section 766.24 of the Regulations.
On August 28, 2008, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
filed a written request for renewal of the
TDO against the Respondents for 180
days and served a copy of its request on
the Respondents in accordance with
Section 766.5 of the Regulations. On
September 10, 2008, Balli Group PLC,
Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid
Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue
Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue
Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue
Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd.
(collectively, ‘‘Balli’’ or the ‘‘Balli
Respondents’’) filed a written
opposition to the request for renewal of
the TDO. No opposition to renewal of
the TDO was received by Respondents
Blue Airways of Armenia or Mahan Air
of Iran.
II. Discussion
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR Parts 730–774 (2008) (‘‘EAR’’ or the
‘‘Regulations’’), I hereby grant the
request of the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) to renew for 180 days
the Order Temporarily Denying the
Export Privileges of Respondents Balli
Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli
Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan
Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky
Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky
Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky
Six Ltd., Blue Airways and Mahan Air
(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) and Blue
Airways FZE and Blue Airways
(collectively, the ‘‘Related Persons’’), as
I find that renewal of the TDO is
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, I signed an Order
Temporarily Denying the Export
Privileges of the Respondents for 180
days on the grounds that its issuance
was necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
Regulations (‘‘TDO’’). Pursuant to
Section 766.24(a), the TDO was issued
ex parte and went into effect on March
21, 2008, the date it was published in
the Federal Register. On July 18, 2008,
I issued an Order adding Blue Airways
FZE and Blue Airways, both of Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, as Related
Persons to the TDO in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations.1 The
TDO would expire on September 17,
1 The
Related Persons Order was issued in
accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations,
15 CFR 766.23, and was published in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the
EAR, the sole issue to be considered in
determining whether to continue a TDO
is whether the TDO should be renewed
to prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR as the term ‘‘imminent’’ violation
is defined in Section 766.24. ‘‘A
violation may be ‘imminent’ either in
time or in degree of likelihood.’’ 15 CFR
766.24(b)(3). BIS may show ‘‘either that
a violation is about to occur, or that the
general circumstances of the matter
under investigation or case under
criminal or administrative charges
demonstrate a likelihood of future
violations.’’ Id. As to the likelihood of
future violations, BIS may show that
‘‘the violation under investigation or
charges is significant, deliberate, covert
and/or likely to occur again, rather than
technical and negligent[.]’’ Id. A ‘‘lack of
information establishing the precise
time a violation may occur does not
preclude a finding that a violation is
imminent, so long as there is sufficient
reason to believe the likelihood of a
violation.’’ Id.
B. Arguments
BIS’s request for renewal of the TDO
was based upon the facts underlying the
issuance of the initial TDO, as well as
evidence of continued actions by the
Respondents that demonstrate a
willingness to disregard U.S. export
controls. The initial TDO was issued as
a result of evidence that showed the
Respondents engaged in conduct
prohibited by the EAR by knowingly reexporting to Iran three U.S.-origin
aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s
(‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items subject to the
EAR, without the required U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated
that Respondents were attempting to reexport an additional three U.S.-origin
Boeing 747s to Iran (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’), and
had ignored a re-delivery order for
Aircraft 4–6 issued by BIS in accordance
with Section 758.8(b) of the Regulation.
In addition, as evidenced in BIS’s
renewal request and the Balli Group’s
opposition and ‘‘supplemental
disclosure’’ dated September 10, 2008,
the record before me also indicates that
Aircraft 1–3 continue to be flown on
Mahan Air routes in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO. It also shows
that Aircraft 1–3 have been and
continue to be flown in further violation
of the Regulations and the TDO on the
routes of Iran Air, an Iranian
Government airline.2
In its opposition to the request for
renewal of the TDO, the Balli Group
Respondents assert that OEE’s request
for renewal does not meet the legal
requirements and that further violations
are not imminent. The Balli
Respondents also assert that any
violations of the Regulations involving
Aircraft 1–3, and any false or misleading
statements by the Balli Respondents,
were not done or made with knowledge
and were instead based on a
misunderstanding of the Regulations,
including the term ‘‘re-export’’; that
they have been fully cooperating with
BIS and are making concerted efforts to
recover Aircraft 1–3 from Blue Airways
of Armenia; and that the resume of
[REDACTED], upon which OEE relied in
part in its renewal request, is
uncorroborated.3 The Balli Respondents
also assert that if BIS’s goal is to prevent
imminent or on-going violations of the
EAR, BIS should limit renewal of the
TDO to Respondents Blue Airways and
Mahan Air only, and state that they do
not contest that BIS has grounds to
renew the TDO against Blue Airways
and Mahan Air.
C. Findings
In determining whether to renew the
TDO in order to prevent imminent
violations of the Regulations, I have
reviewed the entire record including
BIS’s original request for a TDO filed in
March 2008, BIS’s request to renew the
TDO submitted on August 28, 2008, and
the September 10, 2008 opposition
submission filed by the Balli
Respondent and its related
supplemental disclosure that was filed
2 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
3 None of the Respondents appealed the initial
TDO.
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
under separate cover and also is dated
September 10, 2008.
I find that violations of the
Regulations have occurred involving the
unlicensed re-export to Iran of Aircraft
1–3. While the Balli Respondents have
asserted that they did not understand
the restrictions on the re-export to Iran
of U.S.-origin aircraft, their submission
and related evidence are more probative
of what violations have occurred, rather
than calling into question BIS’s
evidence or its renewal request.
Monthly Aircraft Reports, in the
possession of the Balli Respondents per
the stated lease agreements with
Respondent Blue Airways, provide
ample evidence that Aircraft 1–3 have
been regularly being flown on Mahan
Air routes, both before the Balli-Blue
Airways lease agreements were
extended in November 2007 and well
into the TDO period.4 Moreover, these
reports, as acknowledged in Balli’s
submission, also show Aircraft 1–3
regularly being flown on Iran Air routes.
Rather than undercutting BIS’s requests,
as Balli suggests, this evidence shows
that the scope of violations is greater
and even more significant than
indicated in BIS’s initial and renewal
requests.
I also find that the July 2007 letters to
Balli from Boeing explicitly alerted Balli
that Boeing would not be able to service
Aircraft 1–3 based on evidence that the
aircraft were being operated contrary to
U.S. export control laws and thus put
the Balli Respondents on notice
regarding potential violations involving
the lease of Aircraft 1–3 to Blue
Airways. Similarly, by letter dated
October 10, 2007, BIS warned the Balli
Group, via its English counsel, that ‘‘[i]t
has come to BIS’s attention there is
evidence that during this lease
agreement Blue Airways operated the
three 747s aircraft by or for the benefit
of an Iranian entity, specifically Mahan
Air.’’
In spite of these warnings, the Balli
Respondents contend that they
remained without knowledge of any
potential unlawfulness regarding their
conduct—maintaining what they term
their ‘‘fundamental misunderstanding’’
of U.S. trade prohibitions. Balli’s
Opposition, at 9. They assert that they
‘‘failed to focus on the underlying
substantive legal concerns associated
with Boeing and BIS communications’’
because they believed they were part of
a ‘‘disinformation campaign’’
4 The Monthly Aircraft Reports that were
referenced by Balli in its September 10, 2008
submission do not appear to include such reports
post-dating June 2008. The record indicates,
however, that Aircraft 1–3 are still being operated
in violation of the Regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
orchestrated by ‘‘Iranian expatriate
groups that have a long history of
hostility to Balli interests and the
Alaghband family[,]’’ including
‘‘militant opposition groups hostile to
Iran, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.’’
Balli’s Supplemental Disclosure, at 15,
attached to and referenced in Balli’s
Opposition; see also Balli’s Opposition,
at 9.
I find this assertion to be entirely
unsubstantiated and unpersuasive. As
appears to occur throughout Balli’s
opposition, this assertion is not
supported by any citation to any witness
statement, whether sworn or unsworn,
whether from one of the Balli
Respondents or a third party. Moreover,
evidence of or a finding of knowledge
can be based not only on affirmative or
positive knowledge, but also ‘‘is inferred
from evidence of the conscious
disregard of facts known to a person and
is also inferred from a person’s willful
avoidance of facts.’’ Section 772.1, at
definition of ‘‘Knowledge.’’ In sum,
Balli’s asserted explanation as to its
claimed lack of knowledge is not
credible or substantiated, and even if it
were, knowledge would be established
on the record here at least by a
conscious disregard or willful
ignorance.
Similarly, to the extent that the Balli
Respondents’ rely on a lack of
knowledge or lack of understanding
‘‘defense,’’ those efforts are unavailing.
BIS has alleged that false statement
violations have occurred concerning the
destination and end-user of Aircraft 1–
3. The record supports the conclusion
that false or misleading statements were
made, whether affirmatively or through
concealment or omission of material
facts. See Section 764.2(g)
(Misrepresentation and Concealment of
Facts). As noted above, at no point
before last week did the Balli
Respondents disclose Mahan Air’s
involvement (or Iran Air’s). Moreover,
after being warned by BIS (and Boeing),
the Balli Respondents represented to
BIS (through their English counsel) by
letter dated November 16, 2007, that
they ‘‘ha[d] tightened contractual
representations required from Blue
Airways to make more explicit that a
breach of U.S. export laws would
constitute a breach of the leases * * *.’’
The extension of the lease agreements
signed by the Balli Respondents and
Blue Airways in November 2007 (again
shortly after BIS expressed its concern
that the planes were being operated in
violation of the Regulations) contains no
such provision. In fact, the Balli
Respondents now assert that such
language was somehow covertly
removed from the draft lease agreements
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57053
by Blue Airways and that they, while
being represented by a large Londonbased law firm signed the agreements
anyway. At all relevant times, Balli
knew that the aircraft were regularly
being operated in and out of Iran.
I also find that although the Balli
Respondents have now turned over a
number of documents to BIS regarding
Aircraft 1–3 and Aircraft 4–6, including
in conjunction with a supplemental
disclosure dated September 10, 2008
(the same day its opposition to renewing
the TDO was filed), they have failed to
produce any documents regarding lease
payments by Blue Airways that are
required under the terms of the lease
agreements. The failure to produce to
BIS, six months after the TDO issued
and three months after the documents
were specifically requested by BIS, what
should be readily available information
in any legitimate, arms length
commercial transaction raises a
significant concern on BIS’s part. Parties
that describe themselves, as the Balli
Respondents do in relation to Aircraft
1–3, as ‘‘passive investors’’ with no
operational role or interest, but focused
instead on cash flow and opportunities
to sell the aircraft should market
conditions improve, could be expected
to be particularly focused on such
payment issues and documents.
While BIS supports legitimate efforts
to bring the violations to a halt, and has
under consideration Balli’s recent
request to engage in certain negotiations
with Blue Airways that Balli has
indicated will be designed to accelerate
recovery of Aircraft 1–3 from Blue
Airways, such stated intentions are not
a sufficient basis to sustain Balli’s
position that the TDO need not and
should not be renewed. Moreover,
according to Balli’s own submissions, it
was not until June 27, 2008, over three
months after the TDO was issued, that
Balli served Blue Airways with notices
of breach or termination under the
leases. This appears to be the only legal
step taken to date by the Balli against
Blue Airways, a step which Balli states
Blue Airways has contested under the
terms of the lease agreements. Similarly,
the request for permission to negotiate
an ‘‘accelerated’’ recovery of the aircraft
was not taken until September 4, 2008,
just two weeks before the TDO was set
to expire. Neither the extent nor pace of
these actions has stemmed or appears
likely to stem the ongoing violations,
nor does either contradict BIS’s case or
demonstrate that Balli’s dealings with
Blue Airways have been arms-length or
that its only tie to Blue Airways is a
contractual one.
Finally with regard to Aircraft 1–3,
the Balli respondents argue that there is
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
57054
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
no ‘‘substantive corroborating evidence’’
concerning the resume of [REDACTED]
referenced in BIS’s renewal request.
However, the record here clearly
demonstrates, inter alia, that violations
of the Regulations have occurred, that
those violations involved Mahan Air,
and that the Balli Respondents knew or
had reason to know of those violations.
The Balli Respondents nonetheless
renewed the lease agreements with Blue
Airways, misrepresented or concealed
material facts during BIS’s investigation,
and have failed to take significant or
diligent action against Blue Airways.
The fact that the violations have also
involved Iran Air, an Iranian
Government airline, does not
undermine the evidence relating to
Mahan Air, given the evidence
referenced by BIS that the Iranian
Government is engaged in concerted
covert efforts to acquire U.S.-origin
aircraft. The evidence relating to Iran
Air underscores, rather than
undermines, the need for renewal of the
TDO.
Moreover, regardless of the weight
accorded the [REDACTED] resume, the
record demonstrates that violations are
imminent; indeed, that they are
ongoing. In short, in many ways, the
Balli Respondents’ arguments amount to
a bald assertion that BIS should ‘‘trust
us,’’ but the record here indicates the
contrary.
I have considered all of Balli’s
arguments regarding Aircraft 1–3 and
found them unpersuasive. With regard
to Aircraft 4–6, absent additional or
supplemental evidence showing that the
planes have in fact been repossessed by
the lender and that the Balli
Respondents no longer have or claim
any interest in those aircraft, I find it
premature to remove Blue Sky Four
Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., or Blue Sky Six
Ltd. from the TDO. BIS will consider
appropriate supplemental submissions
by the Balli Respondents regarding
Aircraft 4–6.5
I find that the evidence presented by
BIS demonstrates that the Respondents
have violated the EAR and the TDO
involving re-exports to Iran of Aircraft
1–3, that such violations have been
significant, deliberate and covert, and
that there is a likelihood of future
5 The Balli Respondents state in their submission
that they were compelled to default on the loan
financing for Aircraft 4–6, because BIS denied their
request to re-negotiate or extend that financing.
This assertion is unsubstantiated and without merit.
I note, inter alia, that as with other actions taken
relating Aircraft 1–3, the Balli Respondents filed
their request at the eleventh hour, that the lender
itself never sought permission to enter into
negotiations with the Balli Respondents, and that
the Balli Respondents do not address the option of
self-financing the aircraft through the Balli Group.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
violations. As such, a Temporary Denial
Order (‘‘TDO’’) is needed to give notice
to persons and companies in the United
States and abroad that they should
continue to cease dealing with the
Respondents in export transactions
involving items subject to the EAR.
Such a TDO is consistent with the
public interest to prevent or preclude
violations of the EAR.
Accordingly, I find pursuant to
Section 766.24, that renewal of the TDO
for 180 days is necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR.
III. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that the Respondents, BALLI
GROUP PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH; BALLI AVIATION, 5
Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
BALLI HOLDINGS, 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; VAHID
ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; HASSAN
ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY
ONE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London,
UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY TWO LTD.,
5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K
1AH; BLUE SKY THREE LTD., 5
Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
BLUE SKY FOUR LTD., 5 Stanhope
Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE
SKY FIVE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY SIX
LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK,
W1K 1AH; BLUE AIRWAYS, 8/3 D
Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan,
Armenia; and MAHAN AIRWAYS,
Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St.,
M.A. Jenah Exp.Way, Tehran, Iran (each
a ‘‘Denied Person’’ and collectively the
‘‘Denied Persons’’), and BLUE
AIRWAYS FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways,
#G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box
393754 DAFZA, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates and BLUE AIRWAYS, Riqa
Road, Dubai 52404, United Arab
Emirates (each a ‘‘Related Person’’ and
collectively the ‘‘Related Persons’’) 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
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR 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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the EAR, or in any other
activity subject to the EAR; 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 EAR, or in any
other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly
or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Persons or Related
Persons any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Persons or Related Persons
of the ownership, possession, or control
of any item subject to the EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States, including financing or
other support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Persons
or Related Persons 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 Persons or
Related Persons of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the
United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons or
Related Persons in the United States any
item subject to the EAR 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 EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Persons or Related Persons, or service
any item, of whatever origin, that is
owned, possessed or controlled by the
Denied Persons or Related Persons if
such service involves the use of any
item subject to the EAR 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 EAR, any other
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to any of the
Denied Persons 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 EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
57055
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the
Respondents may, at any time, appeal
this Order by filing a full written
statement in support of the appeal with
the Office of the Administrative Law
Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing
Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may
seek renewal of this Order by filing a
written request not later than 20 days
before the expiration date. The
Respondents may oppose a request to
renew this Order by filing a written
submission with the Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Export Enforcement,
which must be received not later than
seven days before the expiration date of
the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served
on the Respondents and the Related
Persons and shall be published in the
Federal Register.
This Order is effective immediately
and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Entered this 17th day of September, 2008.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8–23089 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For
information from the Commission
contact Mary Messer, Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission at (202) 205–3193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
automatically initiating a five-year
review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the
antidumping duty order listed below.
The International Trade Commission
(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing
concurrently with this notice its notice
of Institution of Five-Year Review which
covers the same order.
DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Department official identified in the
Initiation of Review section below at
AGENCY:
The Department’s procedures for the
conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth
in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)
and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005).
Guidance on methodological or
analytical issues relevant to the
Department’s conduct of Sunset
Reviews is set forth in the Department’s
Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding
the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy
Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998).
Initiation of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset
Review of the following antidumping
duty order:
DOC case No.
ITC case No.
Country
Product
Department
contact
A–570–882 .................
731–TA–1022 ............
PRC ....................
Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide .....
Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Filing Information
As a courtesy, we are making
information related to Sunset
proceedings, including copies of the
pertinent statute and Department’s
regulations, the Department schedule
for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past
revocations and continuations, and
current service lists, available to the
public on the Department’s sunset
Internet Web site at the following
address: ‘‘https://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’
All submissions in these Sunset
Reviews must be filed in accordance
with the Department’s regulations
regarding format, translation, service,
and certification of documents. These
rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the
Department will maintain and make
available a service list for these
proceedings. To facilitate the timely
preparation of the service list(s), it is
requested that those seeking recognition
as interested parties to a proceeding
contact the Department in writing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
within 10 days of the publication of the
Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews
can be very short, we urge interested
parties to apply for access to proprietary
information under administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately
following publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation by
filing a notice of intent to participate.
The Department’s regulations on
submission of proprietary information
and eligibility to receive access to
business proprietary information under
APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–
306.
Information Required From Interested
Parties
Domestic interested parties defined in
section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing
to participate in a Sunset Review must
respond not later than 15 days after the
date of publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation by
filing a notice of intent to participate.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The required contents of the notice of
intent to participate are set forth at 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance
with the Department’s regulations, if we
do not receive a notice of intent to
participate from at least one domestic
interested party by the 15-day deadline,
the Department will automatically
revoke the order without further review.
See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).
If we receive an order-specific notice
of intent to participate from a domestic
interested party, the Department’s
regulations provide that all parties
wishing to participate in the Sunset
Review must file complete substantive
responses not later than 30 days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation. The
required contents of a substantive
response, on an order-specific basis, are
set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note
that certain information requirements
differ for respondent and domestic
parties. Also, note that the Department’s
information requirements are distinct
from the Commission’s information
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57051-57055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Balli Group PLC; Balli
Aviation; Balli Holdings; Vahid Alaghband; Hassan Alaghband; Blue Sky
One Ltd.; Blue Sky Two Ltd.; Blue Sky Three Ltd.; Blue Sky Four Ltd.;
Blue Sky Five Ltd.; Blue Sky Six Ltd.; Blue Airways; Mahan Airways;
Blue Airways Fze
In the matter of:
Balli Group PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Balli Aviation, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Balli Holdings, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Vahid Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Hassan Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
[[Page 57052]]
Blue Sky One Ltd. 5 Stanhope Gate London, UK W1K 1AH
Blue Sky Two Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Three Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Four Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Five Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Sky Six Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
Blue Airways, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan, Armenia;
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St,. M.A. Jenah Exp.
Way, Tehran, Iran, Respondents;
and
Blue Airways FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways, G22 Dubai Airport
Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754 DAFZA, Dubai, UAE;
Blue Airways, Riqa Road, Dubai 52404, UAE, Related Persons
Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2008) (``EAR'' or the
``Regulations''), I hereby grant the request of the Bureau of Industry
and Security (``BIS'') to renew for 180 days the Order Temporarily
Denying the Export Privileges of Respondents Balli Group PLC, Balli
Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky
One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd.,
Blue Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky Six Ltd., Blue Airways and Mahan Air
(collectively, ``Respondents'') and Blue Airways FZE and Blue Airways
(collectively, the ``Related Persons''), as I find that renewal of the
TDO is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR.
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, I signed an Order Temporarily Denying the Export
Privileges of the Respondents for 180 days on the grounds that its
issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the Regulations (``TDO''). Pursuant to Section 766.24(a),
the TDO was issued ex parte and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the
date it was published in the Federal Register. On July 18, 2008, I
issued an Order adding Blue Airways FZE and Blue Airways, both of
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as Related Persons to the TDO in
accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations.\1\ The TDO would
expire on September 17, 2008, unless renewed in accordance with Section
766.24 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Related Persons Order was issued in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 766.23, and was published
in the Federal Register on July 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 28, 2008, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), filed a written request for renewal of the TDO against the
Respondents for 180 days and served a copy of its request on the
Respondents in accordance with Section 766.5 of the Regulations. On
September 10, 2008, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings,
Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two
Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and
Blue Sky Six Ltd. (collectively, ``Balli'' or the ``Balli
Respondents'') filed a written opposition to the request for renewal of
the TDO. No opposition to renewal of the TDO was received by
Respondents Blue Airways of Armenia or Mahan Air of Iran.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the EAR, the sole issue to be
considered in determining whether to continue a TDO is whether the TDO
should be renewed to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR as the
term ``imminent'' violation is defined in Section 766.24. ``A violation
may be `imminent' either in time or in degree of likelihood.'' 15 CFR
766.24(b)(3). BIS may show ``either that a violation is about to occur,
or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or
case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood
of future violations.'' Id. As to the likelihood of future violations,
BIS may show that ``the violation under investigation or charges is
significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather
than technical and negligent[.]'' Id. A ``lack of information
establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a
finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient
reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.'' Id.
B. Arguments
BIS's request for renewal of the TDO was based upon the facts
underlying the issuance of the initial TDO, as well as evidence of
continued actions by the Respondents that demonstrate a willingness to
disregard U.S. export controls. The initial TDO was issued as a result
of evidence that showed the Respondents engaged in conduct prohibited
by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin
aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (``Aircraft 1-3''), items subject to
the EAR, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Respondents were attempting to
re-export an additional three U.S.-origin Boeing 747s to Iran
(``Aircraft 4-6''), and had ignored a re-delivery order for Aircraft 4-
6 issued by BIS in accordance with Section 758.8(b) of the Regulation.
In addition, as evidenced in BIS's renewal request and the Balli
Group's opposition and ``supplemental disclosure'' dated September 10,
2008, the record before me also indicates that Aircraft 1-3 continue to
be flown on Mahan Air routes in violation of the Regulations and the
TDO. It also shows that Aircraft 1-3 have been and continue to be flown
in further violation of the Regulations and the TDO on the routes of
Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its opposition to the request for renewal of the TDO, the Balli
Group Respondents assert that OEE's request for renewal does not meet
the legal requirements and that further violations are not imminent.
The Balli Respondents also assert that any violations of the
Regulations involving Aircraft 1-3, and any false or misleading
statements by the Balli Respondents, were not done or made with
knowledge and were instead based on a misunderstanding of the
Regulations, including the term ``re-export''; that they have been
fully cooperating with BIS and are making concerted efforts to recover
Aircraft 1-3 from Blue Airways of Armenia; and that the resume of
[REDACTED], upon which OEE relied in part in its renewal request, is
uncorroborated.\3\ The Balli Respondents also assert that if BIS's goal
is to prevent imminent or on-going violations of the EAR, BIS should
limit renewal of the TDO to Respondents Blue Airways and Mahan Air
only, and state that they do not contest that BIS has grounds to renew
the TDO against Blue Airways and Mahan Air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ None of the Respondents appealed the initial TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Findings
In determining whether to renew the TDO in order to prevent
imminent violations of the Regulations, I have reviewed the entire
record including BIS's original request for a TDO filed in March 2008,
BIS's request to renew the TDO submitted on August 28, 2008, and the
September 10, 2008 opposition submission filed by the Balli Respondent
and its related supplemental disclosure that was filed
[[Page 57053]]
under separate cover and also is dated September 10, 2008.
I find that violations of the Regulations have occurred involving
the unlicensed re-export to Iran of Aircraft 1-3. While the Balli
Respondents have asserted that they did not understand the restrictions
on the re-export to Iran of U.S.-origin aircraft, their submission and
related evidence are more probative of what violations have occurred,
rather than calling into question BIS's evidence or its renewal
request. Monthly Aircraft Reports, in the possession of the Balli
Respondents per the stated lease agreements with Respondent Blue
Airways, provide ample evidence that Aircraft 1-3 have been regularly
being flown on Mahan Air routes, both before the Balli-Blue Airways
lease agreements were extended in November 2007 and well into the TDO
period.\4\ Moreover, these reports, as acknowledged in Balli's
submission, also show Aircraft 1-3 regularly being flown on Iran Air
routes. Rather than undercutting BIS's requests, as Balli suggests,
this evidence shows that the scope of violations is greater and even
more significant than indicated in BIS's initial and renewal requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Monthly Aircraft Reports that were referenced by Balli
in its September 10, 2008 submission do not appear to include such
reports post-dating June 2008. The record indicates, however, that
Aircraft 1-3 are still being operated in violation of the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also find that the July 2007 letters to Balli from Boeing
explicitly alerted Balli that Boeing would not be able to service
Aircraft 1-3 based on evidence that the aircraft were being operated
contrary to U.S. export control laws and thus put the Balli Respondents
on notice regarding potential violations involving the lease of
Aircraft 1-3 to Blue Airways. Similarly, by letter dated October 10,
2007, BIS warned the Balli Group, via its English counsel, that ``[i]t
has come to BIS's attention there is evidence that during this lease
agreement Blue Airways operated the three 747s aircraft by or for the
benefit of an Iranian entity, specifically Mahan Air.''
In spite of these warnings, the Balli Respondents contend that they
remained without knowledge of any potential unlawfulness regarding
their conduct--maintaining what they term their ``fundamental
misunderstanding'' of U.S. trade prohibitions. Balli's Opposition, at
9. They assert that they ``failed to focus on the underlying
substantive legal concerns associated with Boeing and BIS
communications'' because they believed they were part of a
``disinformation campaign'' orchestrated by ``Iranian expatriate groups
that have a long history of hostility to Balli interests and the
Alaghband family[,]'' including ``militant opposition groups hostile to
Iran, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.'' Balli's Supplemental
Disclosure, at 15, attached to and referenced in Balli's Opposition;
see also Balli's Opposition, at 9.
I find this assertion to be entirely unsubstantiated and
unpersuasive. As appears to occur throughout Balli's opposition, this
assertion is not supported by any citation to any witness statement,
whether sworn or unsworn, whether from one of the Balli Respondents or
a third party. Moreover, evidence of or a finding of knowledge can be
based not only on affirmative or positive knowledge, but also ``is
inferred from evidence of the conscious disregard of facts known to a
person and is also inferred from a person's willful avoidance of
facts.'' Section 772.1, at definition of ``Knowledge.'' In sum, Balli's
asserted explanation as to its claimed lack of knowledge is not
credible or substantiated, and even if it were, knowledge would be
established on the record here at least by a conscious disregard or
willful ignorance.
Similarly, to the extent that the Balli Respondents' rely on a lack
of knowledge or lack of understanding ``defense,'' those efforts are
unavailing. BIS has alleged that false statement violations have
occurred concerning the destination and end-user of Aircraft 1-3. The
record supports the conclusion that false or misleading statements were
made, whether affirmatively or through concealment or omission of
material facts. See Section 764.2(g) (Misrepresentation and Concealment
of Facts). As noted above, at no point before last week did the Balli
Respondents disclose Mahan Air's involvement (or Iran Air's). Moreover,
after being warned by BIS (and Boeing), the Balli Respondents
represented to BIS (through their English counsel) by letter dated
November 16, 2007, that they ``ha[d] tightened contractual
representations required from Blue Airways to make more explicit that a
breach of U.S. export laws would constitute a breach of the leases * *
*.'' The extension of the lease agreements signed by the Balli
Respondents and Blue Airways in November 2007 (again shortly after BIS
expressed its concern that the planes were being operated in violation
of the Regulations) contains no such provision. In fact, the Balli
Respondents now assert that such language was somehow covertly removed
from the draft lease agreements by Blue Airways and that they, while
being represented by a large London-based law firm signed the
agreements anyway. At all relevant times, Balli knew that the aircraft
were regularly being operated in and out of Iran.
I also find that although the Balli Respondents have now turned
over a number of documents to BIS regarding Aircraft 1-3 and Aircraft
4-6, including in conjunction with a supplemental disclosure dated
September 10, 2008 (the same day its opposition to renewing the TDO was
filed), they have failed to produce any documents regarding lease
payments by Blue Airways that are required under the terms of the lease
agreements. The failure to produce to BIS, six months after the TDO
issued and three months after the documents were specifically requested
by BIS, what should be readily available information in any legitimate,
arms length commercial transaction raises a significant concern on
BIS's part. Parties that describe themselves, as the Balli Respondents
do in relation to Aircraft 1-3, as ``passive investors'' with no
operational role or interest, but focused instead on cash flow and
opportunities to sell the aircraft should market conditions improve,
could be expected to be particularly focused on such payment issues and
documents.
While BIS supports legitimate efforts to bring the violations to a
halt, and has under consideration Balli's recent request to engage in
certain negotiations with Blue Airways that Balli has indicated will be
designed to accelerate recovery of Aircraft 1-3 from Blue Airways, such
stated intentions are not a sufficient basis to sustain Balli's
position that the TDO need not and should not be renewed. Moreover,
according to Balli's own submissions, it was not until June 27, 2008,
over three months after the TDO was issued, that Balli served Blue
Airways with notices of breach or termination under the leases. This
appears to be the only legal step taken to date by the Balli against
Blue Airways, a step which Balli states Blue Airways has contested
under the terms of the lease agreements. Similarly, the request for
permission to negotiate an ``accelerated'' recovery of the aircraft was
not taken until September 4, 2008, just two weeks before the TDO was
set to expire. Neither the extent nor pace of these actions has stemmed
or appears likely to stem the ongoing violations, nor does either
contradict BIS's case or demonstrate that Balli's dealings with Blue
Airways have been arms-length or that its only tie to Blue Airways is a
contractual one.
Finally with regard to Aircraft 1-3, the Balli respondents argue
that there is
[[Page 57054]]
no ``substantive corroborating evidence'' concerning the resume of
[REDACTED] referenced in BIS's renewal request. However, the record
here clearly demonstrates, inter alia, that violations of the
Regulations have occurred, that those violations involved Mahan Air,
and that the Balli Respondents knew or had reason to know of those
violations. The Balli Respondents nonetheless renewed the lease
agreements with Blue Airways, misrepresented or concealed material
facts during BIS's investigation, and have failed to take significant
or diligent action against Blue Airways. The fact that the violations
have also involved Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline, does not
undermine the evidence relating to Mahan Air, given the evidence
referenced by BIS that the Iranian Government is engaged in concerted
covert efforts to acquire U.S.-origin aircraft. The evidence relating
to Iran Air underscores, rather than undermines, the need for renewal
of the TDO.
Moreover, regardless of the weight accorded the [REDACTED] resume,
the record demonstrates that violations are imminent; indeed, that they
are ongoing. In short, in many ways, the Balli Respondents' arguments
amount to a bald assertion that BIS should ``trust us,'' but the record
here indicates the contrary.
I have considered all of Balli's arguments regarding Aircraft 1-3
and found them unpersuasive. With regard to Aircraft 4-6, absent
additional or supplemental evidence showing that the planes have in
fact been repossessed by the lender and that the Balli Respondents no
longer have or claim any interest in those aircraft, I find it
premature to remove Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., or Blue Sky
Six Ltd. from the TDO. BIS will consider appropriate supplemental
submissions by the Balli Respondents regarding Aircraft 4-6.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Balli Respondents state in their submission that they
were compelled to default on the loan financing for Aircraft 4-6,
because BIS denied their request to re-negotiate or extend that
financing. This assertion is unsubstantiated and without merit. I
note, inter alia, that as with other actions taken relating Aircraft
1-3, the Balli Respondents filed their request at the eleventh hour,
that the lender itself never sought permission to enter into
negotiations with the Balli Respondents, and that the Balli
Respondents do not address the option of self-financing the aircraft
through the Balli Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that the
Respondents have violated the EAR and the TDO involving re-exports to
Iran of Aircraft 1-3, that such violations have been significant,
deliberate and covert, and that there is a likelihood of future
violations. As such, a Temporary Denial Order (``TDO'') is needed to
give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad
that they should continue to cease dealing with the Respondents in
export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is
consistent with the public interest to prevent or preclude violations
of the EAR.
Accordingly, I find pursuant to Section 766.24, that renewal of the
TDO for 180 days is necessary in the public interest to prevent an
imminent violation of the EAR.
III. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that the Respondents, BALLI GROUP PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; BALLI AVIATION, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K
1AH; BALLI HOLDINGS, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; VAHID
ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; HASSAN ALAGHBAND, 5
Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY ONE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate,
London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY TWO LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK,
W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY THREE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH;
BLUE SKY FOUR LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY FIVE
LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY SIX LTD., 5
Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE AIRWAYS, 8/3 D Angaght Street,
376009 Yerevan, Armenia; and MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21,
Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp.Way, Tehran, Iran (each a ``Denied
Person'' and collectively the ``Denied Persons''), and BLUE AIRWAYS
FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways, G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box
393754 DAFZA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and BLUE AIRWAYS, Riqa Road,
Dubai 52404, United Arab Emirates (each a ``Related Person'' and
collectively the ``Related Persons'') 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 Export Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any
other activity subject to the EAR 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 EAR, or in any other activity
subject to the EAR; 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 EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Persons or
Related Persons any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Denied Persons or Related Persons of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or
will be exported from the United States, including financing or other
support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Persons
or Related Persons 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 Persons or Related Persons of
any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United
States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons or Related Persons in the United
States any item subject to the EAR 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 EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is
owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Persons or Related
Persons, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied Persons or Related Persons if
such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR 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 EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to any of the Denied Persons 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 EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to
[[Page 57055]]
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin
technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR,
the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full
written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR,
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not
later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may
oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission
with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which
must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date
of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and the
Related Persons and shall be published in the Federal Register.
This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for
180 days.
Entered this 17th day of September, 2008.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8-23089 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
