In the Matter of: Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan, Respondent, 63678-63681 [E8-25351]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63678
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 208 / Monday, October 27, 2008 / Notices
Regulations (EAR99 4 and ‘‘ECCN 4A994’’ 5),
from the United States to the Karachi Nuclear
Power Plant (‘‘KANUPP’’) in Karachi,
Pakistan, via the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). NEAZ provided shipping information
representing that the consignee was in the
UAE but omitting the final destination for the
items. BIS alleges the purpose of NEAZ’s
actions was to conceal the end-user,
KANUPP, a Pakistani organization on the
Entity List set forth in Supplement No. 4 to
Part 744 of the Regulations and for which a
Department of Commerce export license was
required by section 744.1 of the Regulations.
D. Penalty Recommendation
[REDACTED SECTION]
E. Conclusion
Accordingly, I am referring this
Recommended Decision and Order to the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security for review and final action for
the agency, without further notice to the
Respondent, as provided in § 766.7 of the
Regulations.
Within 30 days after receipt of this
Recommended Decision and Order, the
Under Secretary shall issue a written order
affirming, modifying, or vacating the
Recommended Decision and Order. See 15
CFR 766.22(c).
Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge, United
States Coast Guard.
Done and dated 16th of September, 2008,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the
foregoing RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND ORDER upon the following party
in this proceeding at the addresses
indicated below by First Class Mail to:
Parvin R. Huda, Senior Counsel,
Attorneys for Bureau of Industry and
Security, Office of Chief Counsel, For
Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room H–
3839, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
(202) 482–5301.
NEAZ Trading Corporation, 612
Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road,
Off 1.1 Chundrigar Road, Karachi,
Pakistan.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Dated on September 18, 2008, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Debra M. Gundy,
Paralegal Specialist, Administrative Law
Judges Office, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8–25353 Filed 10–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
4 EAR 99 is a designation for items subject to the
Regulations that are not listed on the Commerce
Control List.
5 ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to ‘‘Export Control Classification
Number.’’ See Supp. ito 15 CFR 774.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Oct 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05–BIS–24]
In the Matter of: Yasmin Ahmed, 612
Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road,
Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi,
Pakistan, Respondent
Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order
(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law
Judge (‘‘ALJ’’).
In a charging letter issued on
December 15, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged
that Respondent, Yasmin Ahmed,1
committed four violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2008)
(‘‘Regulations’’)),2 issued pursuant to
the Export Administration Act of 1979,
as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420
(2000)) (‘‘Act’’).3
The charging letter included a total of
four charges based on Yasmin Ahmed’s
actions as a sales representative of
Advance Technical System (‘‘ATS’’) of
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’) in
connection with unlawful shipments of
U.S.-origin radar parts made to Pakistan
through the UAE. Specifically, the
charging letter alleged as follows:
Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(b)—Causing
the Filing of a False Statement on
Shipper’s Export Declaration as to the
Ultimate Destination)
On or about December 18, 2000,
Ahmed caused the filing of a false
statement with the U.S. Government in
violation of the Regulations.
Specifically, in connection with the
export of radar parts (‘‘parts’’), items
subject to the Regulations (‘‘EAR99’’) 4,
from the United States to Pakistan via
the UAE, Ahmed submitted an end-user
certificate, DSP Form 83,5 to the
1 Yasmin Ahmed was also known as Fatimah
Mohammad and Yasmin Ahmed Tariq during the
period in which the charged violations occurred.
2 The charged violations occurred during the
2000–2002 period. The Regulations governing the
violations at issue are found in the 2000–2002
versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR
Parts 730–774 (2000–2002)). The 2008 Regulations
establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
3 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 15,
2007 (72 FR 46,137 (August 16, 2007)), has
continued the Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’).
4 EAR 99 is a designation for items subject to the
Regulations that are not listed on the Commerce
Control list.
5 The DSP Form 83, ‘‘Nontransfer and Use
Certificate,’’ is used by the State Department in
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exporter that falsely stated that the
Bangladeshi Air Force was the end-user
of the parts. The exporter relied on the
end-user information submitted by
Ahmed in completing a Shipper’s
Export Declaration (SED) for the export
of the parts which falsely stated that the
country of ultimate destination was
Bangladesh. The actual country of
ultimate destination was Pakistan. By
providing false end-user information to
the exporter, Ahmed committed one
violation of section 764.29([b]) 6 of the
Regulations.
Charge 2 (15 CFR 764.2(c)—
Attempting to Cause a Violation of the
Regulations by Submitting False EndUser Information to Exporter)
On or about April 16, 2002, Ahmed
attempted to cause a violation of the
Regulations by submitting a false enduser certificate to the exporter in
connection with the export of parts,
items subject to the Regulations, from
the United States to Pakistan via the
UAE. The certificate stated that the
Bangladeshi Air Force was the end-user
of the parts. The actual country of
ultimate destination was Pakistan. The
exported relied on the end-user
information submitted by Ahmed in
completing an airway bill listing
Bangladesh as the ultimate destination
of the parts.
In completing the SED for the export
based on a consultation of the airway
bill, however, the freight forwarder
incorrectly listed UAE as the country of
ultimate destination. By providing false
end-user information to the exporter,
Ahmed attempted to cause a violation of
the Regulations. In so doing, Ahmed
committed one violation of section
764.2(c) of the Regulations.
Charge 3 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Actions
Taken with Intent to Evade the
Provisions of the Regulations)
In connection with the export
described in Charge 1 above, Ahmed
took actions with the intent to evade the
provisions of the Regulations.
Specifically, Ahmed took actions,
including but not limited to, obtaining
false signatures from a purported enduser and representative of ATS for
connection with the export of munitions items
subject to the State Department’s export controls.
The Respondent used it here in connection with
items subject to the Regulations.
6 Due to a typographical error, the charging letter
incorrectly referred to section 764.2(g) in the last
sentence of Charge One, rather than section
764.2(b). As indicated by Charge One’s heading and
by its content, the last sentence should have
referred to 764.2(b), the violation provision that
corresponds to the causing language that comprises
the substance of the charge. This typographical
error does not prejudice the Respondent, as it is
clear that the intended reference was to section
764.2(b).
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 208 / Monday, October 27, 2008 / Notices
inclusion on an end-user certificate
submitted to an exporter in connection
with the export of parts, items subject to
the Regulations, from the United States
to Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of
securing the false signatures was to
prepare a false end-user certificate
concealing the actual destination for the
parts, Pakistan. The exporter relied on
the information provided in the enduser certificates in preparing an SED
which falsely stated the country of
ultimate destination. In so doing,
Ahmed committed one violation of
section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.
Charge 4 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Actions
Taken with Intent to Evade the
Provisions of the Regulations)
In connection with the export
described in Charge 2 above, Ahmed
took actions with the intent to evade the
provisions of the Regulations.
Specifically, Ahmed took actions,
including but not limited to, obtaining
false signatures from a purported enduser and representative of ATS for
inclusion on an end-user certificate
submitted to an exporter in connection
with the export of parts, items subject to
the Regulations, from the United States
to Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of
obtaining the false signatures was to
prepare a false end-user certificate
concealing the actual destination for the
parts, Pakistan. The exporter relied on
the information provided in the enduser certificates in preparing an SED
which falsely stated the country of
ultimate destination. In so doing,
Ahmed committed one violation of
section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.
In accordance with section 766.3(b)(1)
of the Regulations, on December 15,
2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance
of the charging letter by registered mail
to Yasmin Ahmed at her last known
address, which is in Pakistan. Although
BIS did not receive a signed return mail
receipt for the letter, the charging letter
was delivered no later than on or about
February 16, 2006. On or about that
date, Yasmin Ahmed telephoned the
BIS attorney named in the charging
letter to discuss that letter, as well as the
charging letter in a related
administrative proceeding also initiated
by BIS on December 15, 2005, In the
Matter of NEAZ Trading Corporation
(Docket No. 05–BIS–23). Ms. Ahmed
had possession of the Yasmin Ahmed
charging letter by the date of that
telephone call; otherwise, she would not
have known the name or direct contact
information for BIS’s attorney or been
able to discuss the charging letter with
BIS. To date, however, Yasmin Ahmed
has not filed an answer to the charging
letter with the AU, as required by the
Regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Oct 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
Under section 766.6(a) of the
Regulations, the ‘‘respondent must
answer the charging letter within 30
days after being served with notice of
issuance’’ of the charging letter. Section
766.7(a) of the Regulations provides that
the ‘‘[f]ailure of the respondent to file an
answer within the time provided
constitutes a waiver of the respondent’s
right to appear and contest the
allegations in the charging letter,’’ and
that ‘‘on BIS’s motion and without
further notice to the respondent, [the
AU] shall find the facts to be as alleged
in the charging letter.’’
In accordance with section 766.7 of
the Regulations, and because more than
thirty days had passed since Ahmed had
been served with the charging letter, BIS
filed a Motion for Default Order that
was received by the AU on July 15,
2008. This Motion for Default Order
recommended that Ahmed be denied
export privileges under the Regulations
for a period of seven years.
On September 16, 2008, based on the
record before him, the AU issued a RDO
in which he found Yasmin Ahmed in
default, found the facts to be as alleged
in the charging letter, and held that
Ahmed had committed the four
violations alleged in the charging letter.
The AU also recommended the penalty
of denial of Yasmin Ahmed’s export
privileges for seven years.
The RDO, together with the entire
record in this case, has been referred to
me for final action under section 766.22
of the Regulations. I find that the record
supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law with one
modification. With respect to Charge
One, I modify the RDO to the extent it
states at one point that Yasmin Ahmed
committed one violation ‘‘of section
764.2(g) of the Regulations’’, RDO at 3,
because the violation set forth in Charge
One, as indicated by its heading and the
content of that charging paragraph, is a
violation under section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations. See note 6, supra. I also
find that the penalty recommended by
the AU is appropriate, given the serious
nature of the violations and the
importance of preventing future
unauthorized exports or similar conduct
in violations of the Regulations.
Based on my review of the entire
record, I affirm the findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the RDO with the
one modification regarding Charge One
that is described above.
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered:
First, that, for a period of seven (7)
years from the date this Order is
published in the Federal Register,
Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre,
Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar
Road, Karachi, Pakistan, and when
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63679
acting for or on behalf of Yasmin
Ahmed, her representatives, agents,
assigns 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 know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and that is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
63680
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 208 / Monday, October 27, 2008 / Notices
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Third, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 766.23 of the Regulations, any
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to the Denied
Person by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in
the conduct of trade or related services
may also be made subject to the
provisions of this Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the Regulations
where the only items involved that are
subject to the Regulations are the
foreign-produced direct product of U.S.origin technology.
Fifth, that this Order shall be served
on the Denied Person and on BIS, and
shall be published in the Federal
Register. In addition, the AU’s
Recommended Decision and Order,
except for the section related to the
Recommended Order, shall be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the
final agency action in this matter, is
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
Mario Mancuso,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security.
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
In the Matter of: Yasmin Ahmed, 612
Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I.
Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan.
Respondent.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Recommended Decision and Order
On December 15, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce (BIS), issued a charging letter
initiating this administrative enforcement
proceeding against Yasmin Ahmed.1 The
charging letter alleged that Yasmin Ahmed
committed four violations of the Export
Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR Parts 730 774 (2008)) (the
Regulations),2 issued under the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50
1 Yasmin Ahmed was also known as Fatimah
Mohammad and Yasmin Ahmed Tariq during the
period in which the charged violations occurred.
2 The charged violations occurred during the
2000–2002 period. The Regulations governing the
violations at issue are found in the 2000–2002
versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR
Parts 730–774 (2000–2002)). The 2008 Regulations
establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Oct 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000)) (the Act).3 In
accordance with § 766.7 of the Regulations,
BIS moved for the issuance of an Order of
Default against Yasmin Ahmed because Ms.
Ahmed failed to file an answer to the
allegations in the charging letter issued by
BIS within the time period required by the
Regulations.
A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order of
Default
Section 766.7 of the Regulations states that
upon motion by BIS, the Court shall enter a
default if a respondent fails to properly file
a timely answer to a charging letter. That
section, entitled Default, provides in
pertinent part as follows:
Failure of the respondent to file an answer
within the time provided constitutes a waiver
of the respondent’s right to appear and
contest the allegations in the charging letter.
In such event, the administrative law judge,
on BIS’s motion and without further notice
to the respondent, shall find the facts to be
as alleged in the charging letter and render
an initial or recommended decision
containing findings of fact and appropriate
conclusions of law and issue or recommend
an order imposing appropriate sanctions.
15 CFR 766.7 (2008).
Pursuant to Section 766.6 of the
Regulations, a respondent must file an
answer to the charging letter ‘‘within 30 days
after being served with notice of the issuance
of the charging letter’’ initiating the
proceeding. 15 CFR 766.6 (2008).
B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of
Charging Letter
In this case, BIS served notice of issuance
of the charging letter in accordance with
§ 766.3(b)(l) of the Regulations by sending a
copy of the charging letter by registered mail
to Yasmin Ahmed at her last known address
on December 15, 2005. BIS did not receive
a return mail receipt for the letter. To date,
Respondent has failed to file an answer to the
charging letter as required by section 766.6
of the Regulations. On or about February 16,
2006, Yasmin Ahmed, telephoned the BIS
attorney named in the charging letter. Since
Ms. Ahmed contacted BIS on February 16,
2006, Ms. Ahmed must have been in
possession of the Charging Letter or she
would not have known the BIS attorney’s
contact information. Clearly 30 days has
passed since Ms. Ahmed received the
charging letter. Accordingly, Yasmin Ahmed
is in default.
3 From August 21, 1994 through November 12,
2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the
President, through Executive Order 12924, which
had been extended by successive Presidential
Notices, the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3
CFR 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the
Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–
1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 2000, the
Act was reauthorized by Public Law No. 106–508
(114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it remained in effect
through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 2001,
the Act has been in lapse and the President, through
Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR
2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended
by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent
being that of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (Aug.
16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations in effect
under IEEPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
C. Summary of Violations Charged
The charging letter filed and served in this
matter included a total of four charges based
on Yasmin Ahmed’s actions as a sales
representative of Advance Technical System
(ATS) of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE),
in connection with shipments of U.S. origin
items to Pakistan. Charge I of the charging
letter alleged that on or about December 18,
2000, Yasmin Ahmed caused the filing of a
false statement with the U.S. Government in
connection with the export of radar parts,
items subject to the Regulations,4 from the
United States to Pakistan via the UAE.
Yasmin Ahmed submitted an end-user
certificate, DSP Form 83,5 to the exporter that
falsely stated that the Bangladesh Air Force
was the end-user of the parts. The exporter
relied on the end-user information submitted
by Yasmin Ahmed in completing a Shipper’s
Export Declaration (SED) for the export of the
parts that falsely stated that the country of
ultimate destination was Bangladesh. The
actual country of ultimate destination was
Pakistan. By providing false end-user
information to the exporter, Yasmin Ahmed
committed one violation of section 764.2(g)
of the Regulations.
Second, the charging letter alleged that on
or about April 16, 2002, Yasmin Ahmed
attempted violate the Regulations by
submitting a false end-user certificate to the
exporter in connection with the export of
radar parts, items subject to the Regulations,
from the United States to Pakistan via the
UAE. The certificate stated that the
Bangladesh Air Force was the end user of the
radar parts. The actual country of ultimate
destination was Pakistan. The exporter relied
on the end-user information submitted by
Yasmin Ahmed in completing an airway bill
listing Bangladesh as the ultimate destination
of the parts. In completing the SED for the
export based on a consultation of the airway
bill, the freight forwarder incorrectly listed
UAE as the country of ultimate destination.
By providing false end-user information to
the exporter, Yasmin Ahmed attempted to
cause a violation of the Regulations, namely,
the filing of a SED with false end-user
information, and thereby violated section
764.2(c) of the Regulations.
Charge 3 of the charging letter alleged that
in connection with the December 18, 2000,
transaction (described in Charge 1 of the
charging letter), Yasmin Ahmed took actions
with the intent to evade the provisions of the
Regulations. Specifically, she took actions,
including but not limited to, obtaining false
signatures from a purported end-user who
was actually a representative of ATS for
inclusion on an end-user certificate
submitted to an exporter in connection with
the export of radar parts, items subject to the
Regulations, from the United States to
Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of
securing the false signatures was to prepare
4 These parts are designated as ‘‘EAR 99,’’ a
designation for items subject to the Regulations that
are not listed on the Commerce Control List.
5 The DSP Form 83, ‘‘Nontransfer and Use
Certificate,’’ is used by the State Department in
connection with the export of munitions items
subject to the State Department’s export controls. In
this instance, the Respondent used it to conceal the
end-user of an item that was subject to the EAR.
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 208 / Monday, October 27, 2008 / Notices
a false end-user certificate concealing the
actual destination for the radar parts,
Pakistan. The exporter relied on the
information provided in the end-user
certificates in preparing a SED that falsely
stated the country of ultimate destination as
Bangladesh. In so doing, Yasmin Ahmed
committed one violation of section 764.2(h)
of the Regulations.
Finally, in connection with the April 16,
2002, transaction described in Charge 2 of the
charging letter, Yasmin Ahmed took actions
with the intent to evade the provisions of the
Regulations. Specifically, Yasmin Ahmed
took actions, including but not limited to,
obtaining false signatures from a purported
end-user who was actually a representative of
ATS for inclusion on an end-user certificate
submitted to an exporter in connection with
the export of radar parts, items subject to the
Regulations, from the United States to
Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of
obtaining the false signatures was to prepare
a false end-user certificate concealing the
actual destination for the radar parts,
Pakistan. The exporter relied on the
information provided in the end-user
certificates in preparing a SED which falsely
stated the country of ultimate destination as
Bangladesh. In so doing, Yasmin Ahmed
committed one violation of section 764.2(h)
of the Regulations.
D. Penalty Recommendation
[REDACTED SECTION]
E. Conclusion
Accordingly, I am referring this
Recommended Decision and Order to the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security for review and final action for
the agency, without further notice to the
Respondent, as provided in § 766.7 of the
Regulations.
Within 30 days after receipt of this
Recommended Decision and Order, the
Under Secretary shall issue a written order
affirming, modifying, or vacating the
Recommended Decision and Order. See 15
CFR 766.22(c).
Hon. Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge, United
States Coast Guard.
Done and Dated 16th September, 2008,
Baltimore, Maryland.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the
foregoing RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND ORDER upon the following party
in this proceeding at the addresses
indicated below by First Class Mail to:
Parvin R. Huda, Senior Counsel,
Attorneys for Bureau of Industry and
Security, Office of Chief Counsel For
Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room H–
3839, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
(202) 482–5301.
Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre,
Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I
Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:13 Oct 24, 2008
Jkt 217001
Dated on September 18, 2008, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Debra M. Gundy,
Paralegal Specialist, Administrative Law
Judges Office, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8–25351 Filed 10–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 0810071328–81331–01]
Impact of Implementation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention on
Commercial Activities Involving
‘‘Schedule 1’’ Chemicals Through
Calendar Year 2008
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) is seeking public
comments on the impact that
implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention, through the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Implementation Act and the Chemical
Weapons Convention Regulations, has
had on commercial activities involving
‘‘Schedule 1’’ chemicals during calendar
year 2008. The purpose of this notice of
inquiry is to collect information to assist
BIS in its preparation of the annual
certification to the Congress, which is
required under Condition 9 of Senate
Resolution 75, April 24, 1997, in which
the Senate gave its advice and consent
to the ratification of the Chemical
Weapons Convention.
DATES: Comments must be received by
November 26, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: wfisher@bis.doc.gov.
Include the phrase ‘‘Schedule 1 Notice
of Inquiry’’ in the subject line;
• Fax: (202) 482–3355 (Attn: Willard
Fisher);
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:
Willard Fisher, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Regulatory Policy Division,
14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC
20230.
For
questions on the Chemical Weapons
Convention requirements for ‘‘Schedule
1’’ chemicals, contact James Truske,
Treaty Compliance Division, Office of
Nonproliferation and Treaty
Compliance, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Phone: (202) 482–1001. For questions
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63681
on the submission of comments, contact
Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy
Division, Office of Exporter Services,
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Phone: (202)
482–2440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In providing its advice and consent to
the ratification of the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling, and Use of
Chemical Weapons and Their
Destruction, commonly called the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
(the Convention), the Senate included,
in Senate Resolution 75 (S. Res. 75,
April 24, 1997), several conditions to its
ratification. Condition 9, titled
‘‘Protection of Advanced
Biotechnology,’’ calls for the President
to certify to Congress on an annual basis
that ‘‘the legitimate commercial
activities and interests of chemical,
biotechnology, and pharmaceutical
firms in the United States are not being
significantly harmed by the limitations
of the Convention on access to, and
production of, those chemicals and
toxins listed in Schedule 1.’’ On July 8,
2004, President Bush, by Executive
Order 13346, delegated his authority to
make the annual certification to the
Secretary of Commerce.
The CWC is an international arms
control treaty that contains certain
verification provisions. In order to
implement these verification provisions,
the CWC established the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW). The CWC imposes
certain obligations on countries that
have ratified the Convention (i.e., States
Parties), among which are the enactment
of legislation to prohibit the production,
storage, and use of chemical weapons,
and the establishment of a National
Authority to serve as the national focal
point for effective liaison with the
OPCW and other States Parties for the
purpose of achieving the object and
purpose of the Convention and the
implementation of its provisions. The
CWC also requires each State Party to
implement a comprehensive data
declaration and inspection regime to
provide transparency and to verify that
both the public and private sectors of
the State Party are not engaged in
activities prohibited under the CWC.
‘‘Schedule 1’’ chemicals consist of
those toxic chemicals and precursors set
forth in the CWC ‘‘Annex on
Chemicals’’ and in Supplement No. 1 to
part 712 of the Chemical Weapons
Convention Regulations (CWCR) (15
CFR parts 710–722). The CWC
identified these toxic chemicals and
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 208 (Monday, October 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63678-63681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25351]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[05-BIS-24]
In the Matter of: Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan
Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan, Respondent
Final Decision and Order
This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order
(``RDO'') of an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'').
In a charging letter issued on December 15, 2005, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (``BIS'') alleged that Respondent, Yasmin
Ahmed,\1\ committed four violations of the Export Administration
Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2008)
(``Regulations'')),\2\ issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``Act'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yasmin Ahmed was also known as Fatimah Mohammad and Yasmin
Ahmed Tariq during the period in which the charged violations
occurred.
\2\ The charged violations occurred during the 2000-2002 period.
The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the
2000-2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts
730-774 (2000-2002)). The 2008 Regulations establish the procedures
that apply to this matter.
\3\ 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 15, 2007
(72 FR 46,137 (August 16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (``IEEPA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charging letter included a total of four charges based on
Yasmin Ahmed's actions as a sales representative of Advance Technical
System (``ATS'') of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (``UAE'') in connection
with unlawful shipments of U.S.-origin radar parts made to Pakistan
through the UAE. Specifically, the charging letter alleged as follows:
Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(b)--Causing the Filing of a False Statement
on Shipper's Export Declaration as to the Ultimate Destination)
On or about December 18, 2000, Ahmed caused the filing of a false
statement with the U.S. Government in violation of the Regulations.
Specifically, in connection with the export of radar parts (``parts''),
items subject to the Regulations (``EAR99'') \4\, from the United
States to Pakistan via the UAE, Ahmed submitted an end-user
certificate, DSP Form 83,\5\ to the exporter that falsely stated that
the Bangladeshi Air Force was the end-user of the parts. The exporter
relied on the end-user information submitted by Ahmed in completing a
Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) for the export of the parts which
falsely stated that the country of ultimate destination was Bangladesh.
The actual country of ultimate destination was Pakistan. By providing
false end-user information to the exporter, Ahmed committed one
violation of section 764.29([b]) \6\ of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EAR 99 is a designation for items subject to the Regulations
that are not listed on the Commerce Control list.
\5\ The DSP Form 83, ``Nontransfer and Use Certificate,'' is
used by the State Department in connection with the export of
munitions items subject to the State Department's export controls.
The Respondent used it here in connection with items subject to the
Regulations.
\6\ Due to a typographical error, the charging letter
incorrectly referred to section 764.2(g) in the last sentence of
Charge One, rather than section 764.2(b). As indicated by Charge
One's heading and by its content, the last sentence should have
referred to 764.2(b), the violation provision that corresponds to
the causing language that comprises the substance of the charge.
This typographical error does not prejudice the Respondent, as it is
clear that the intended reference was to section 764.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge 2 (15 CFR 764.2(c)--Attempting to Cause a Violation of the
Regulations by Submitting False End-User Information to Exporter)
On or about April 16, 2002, Ahmed attempted to cause a violation of
the Regulations by submitting a false end-user certificate to the
exporter in connection with the export of parts, items subject to the
Regulations, from the United States to Pakistan via the UAE. The
certificate stated that the Bangladeshi Air Force was the end-user of
the parts. The actual country of ultimate destination was Pakistan. The
exported relied on the end-user information submitted by Ahmed in
completing an airway bill listing Bangladesh as the ultimate
destination of the parts.
In completing the SED for the export based on a consultation of the
airway bill, however, the freight forwarder incorrectly listed UAE as
the country of ultimate destination. By providing false end-user
information to the exporter, Ahmed attempted to cause a violation of
the Regulations. In so doing, Ahmed committed one violation of section
764.2(c) of the Regulations.
Charge 3 (15 CFR 764.2(h)--Actions Taken with Intent to Evade the
Provisions of the Regulations)
In connection with the export described in Charge 1 above, Ahmed
took actions with the intent to evade the provisions of the
Regulations. Specifically, Ahmed took actions, including but not
limited to, obtaining false signatures from a purported end-user and
representative of ATS for
[[Page 63679]]
inclusion on an end-user certificate submitted to an exporter in
connection with the export of parts, items subject to the Regulations,
from the United States to Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of securing
the false signatures was to prepare a false end-user certificate
concealing the actual destination for the parts, Pakistan. The exporter
relied on the information provided in the end-user certificates in
preparing an SED which falsely stated the country of ultimate
destination. In so doing, Ahmed committed one violation of section
764.2(h) of the Regulations.
Charge 4 (15 CFR 764.2(h)--Actions Taken with Intent to Evade the
Provisions of the Regulations)
In connection with the export described in Charge 2 above, Ahmed
took actions with the intent to evade the provisions of the
Regulations. Specifically, Ahmed took actions, including but not
limited to, obtaining false signatures from a purported end-user and
representative of ATS for inclusion on an end-user certificate
submitted to an exporter in connection with the export of parts, items
subject to the Regulations, from the United States to Pakistan via the
UAE. The purpose of obtaining the false signatures was to prepare a
false end-user certificate concealing the actual destination for the
parts, Pakistan. The exporter relied on the information provided in the
end-user certificates in preparing an SED which falsely stated the
country of ultimate destination. In so doing, Ahmed committed one
violation of section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.
In accordance with section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on
December 15, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the charging
letter by registered mail to Yasmin Ahmed at her last known address,
which is in Pakistan. Although BIS did not receive a signed return mail
receipt for the letter, the charging letter was delivered no later than
on or about February 16, 2006. On or about that date, Yasmin Ahmed
telephoned the BIS attorney named in the charging letter to discuss
that letter, as well as the charging letter in a related administrative
proceeding also initiated by BIS on December 15, 2005, In the Matter of
NEAZ Trading Corporation (Docket No. 05-BIS-23). Ms. Ahmed had
possession of the Yasmin Ahmed charging letter by the date of that
telephone call; otherwise, she would not have known the name or direct
contact information for BIS's attorney or been able to discuss the
charging letter with BIS. To date, however, Yasmin Ahmed has not filed
an answer to the charging letter with the AU, as required by the
Regulations.
Under section 766.6(a) of the Regulations, the ``respondent must
answer the charging letter within 30 days after being served with
notice of issuance'' of the charging letter. Section 766.7(a) of the
Regulations provides that the ``[f]ailure of the respondent to file an
answer within the time provided constitutes a waiver of the
respondent's right to appear and contest the allegations in the
charging letter,'' and that ``on BIS's motion and without further
notice to the respondent, [the AU] shall find the facts to be as
alleged in the charging letter.''
In accordance with section 766.7 of the Regulations, and because
more than thirty days had passed since Ahmed had been served with the
charging letter, BIS filed a Motion for Default Order that was received
by the AU on July 15, 2008. This Motion for Default Order recommended
that Ahmed be denied export privileges under the Regulations for a
period of seven years.
On September 16, 2008, based on the record before him, the AU
issued a RDO in which he found Yasmin Ahmed in default, found the facts
to be as alleged in the charging letter, and held that Ahmed had
committed the four violations alleged in the charging letter. The AU
also recommended the penalty of denial of Yasmin Ahmed's export
privileges for seven years.
The RDO, together with the entire record in this case, has been
referred to me for final action under section 766.22 of the
Regulations. I find that the record supports the ALJ's findings of fact
and conclusions of law with one modification. With respect to Charge
One, I modify the RDO to the extent it states at one point that Yasmin
Ahmed committed one violation ``of section 764.2(g) of the
Regulations'', RDO at 3, because the violation set forth in Charge One,
as indicated by its heading and the content of that charging paragraph,
is a violation under section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. See note 6,
supra. I also find that the penalty recommended by the AU is
appropriate, given the serious nature of the violations and the
importance of preventing future unauthorized exports or similar conduct
in violations of the Regulations.
Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings of
fact and conclusions of law in the RDO with the one modification
regarding Charge One that is described above.
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered:
First, that, for a period of seven (7) years from the date this
Order is published in the Federal Register, Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business
Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan,
and when acting for or on behalf of Yasmin Ahmed, her representatives,
agents, assigns 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 know that the
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States
and that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or
[[Page 63680]]
controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means
installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to the Denied Person by affiliation,
ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of
trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of
this Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or
other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items
involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced
direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
Fifth, that this Order shall be served on the Denied Person and on
BIS, and shall be published in the Federal Register. In addition, the
AU's Recommended Decision and Order, except for the section related to
the Recommended Order, shall be published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
Mario Mancuso,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security
In the Matter of: Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz
Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan. Respondent.
Recommended Decision and Order
On December 15, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce (BIS), issued a charging letter initiating
this administrative enforcement proceeding against Yasmin Ahmed.\1\
The charging letter alleged that Yasmin Ahmed committed four
violations of the Export Administration Regulations (currently
codified at 15 CFR Parts 730 774 (2008)) (the Regulations),\2\
issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50
U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (the Act).\3\ In accordance with Sec.
766.7 of the Regulations, BIS moved for the issuance of an Order of
Default against Yasmin Ahmed because Ms. Ahmed failed to file an
answer to the allegations in the charging letter issued by BIS
within the time period required by the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yasmin Ahmed was also known as Fatimah Mohammad and Yasmin
Ahmed Tariq during the period in which the charged violations
occurred.
\2\ The charged violations occurred during the 2000-2002 period.
The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the
2000-2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts
730-774 (2000-2002)). The 2008 Regulations establish the procedures
that apply to this matter.
\3\ From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 2000, the Act was
in lapse. During that period, the President, through Executive Order
12924, which had been extended by successive Presidential Notices,
the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)),
continued the Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000))
(``IEEPA''). On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized by
Public Law No. 106-508 (114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it remained in
effect through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has
been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been
extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being
that of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (Aug. 16, 2007)), has continued
the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order of Default
Section 766.7 of the Regulations states that upon motion by BIS,
the Court shall enter a default if a respondent fails to properly
file a timely answer to a charging letter. That section, entitled
Default, provides in pertinent part as follows:
Failure of the respondent to file an answer within the time
provided constitutes a waiver of the respondent's right to appear
and contest the allegations in the charging letter. In such event,
the administrative law judge, on BIS's motion and without further
notice to the respondent, shall find the facts to be as alleged in
the charging letter and render an initial or recommended decision
containing findings of fact and appropriate conclusions of law and
issue or recommend an order imposing appropriate sanctions.
15 CFR 766.7 (2008).
Pursuant to Section 766.6 of the Regulations, a respondent must
file an answer to the charging letter ``within 30 days after being
served with notice of the issuance of the charging letter''
initiating the proceeding. 15 CFR 766.6 (2008).
B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of Charging Letter
In this case, BIS served notice of issuance of the charging
letter in accordance with Sec. 766.3(b)(l) of the Regulations by
sending a copy of the charging letter by registered mail to Yasmin
Ahmed at her last known address on December 15, 2005. BIS did not
receive a return mail receipt for the letter. To date, Respondent
has failed to file an answer to the charging letter as required by
section 766.6 of the Regulations. On or about February 16, 2006,
Yasmin Ahmed, telephoned the BIS attorney named in the charging
letter. Since Ms. Ahmed contacted BIS on February 16, 2006, Ms.
Ahmed must have been in possession of the Charging Letter or she
would not have known the BIS attorney's contact information. Clearly
30 days has passed since Ms. Ahmed received the charging letter.
Accordingly, Yasmin Ahmed is in default.
C. Summary of Violations Charged
The charging letter filed and served in this matter included a
total of four charges based on Yasmin Ahmed's actions as a sales
representative of Advance Technical System (ATS) of Dubai, United
Arab Emirates (UAE), in connection with shipments of U.S. origin
items to Pakistan. Charge I of the charging letter alleged that on
or about December 18, 2000, Yasmin Ahmed caused the filing of a
false statement with the U.S. Government in connection with the
export of radar parts, items subject to the Regulations,\4\ from the
United States to Pakistan via the UAE. Yasmin Ahmed submitted an
end-user certificate, DSP Form 83,\5\ to the exporter that falsely
stated that the Bangladesh Air Force was the end-user of the parts.
The exporter relied on the end-user information submitted by Yasmin
Ahmed in completing a Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) for the
export of the parts that falsely stated that the country of ultimate
destination was Bangladesh. The actual country of ultimate
destination was Pakistan. By providing false end-user information to
the exporter, Yasmin Ahmed committed one violation of section
764.2(g) of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These parts are designated as ``EAR 99,'' a designation for
items subject to the Regulations that are not listed on the Commerce
Control List.
\5\ The DSP Form 83, ``Nontransfer and Use Certificate,'' is
used by the State Department in connection with the export of
munitions items subject to the State Department's export controls.
In this instance, the Respondent used it to conceal the end-user of
an item that was subject to the EAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the charging letter alleged that on or about April 16,
2002, Yasmin Ahmed attempted violate the Regulations by submitting a
false end-user certificate to the exporter in connection with the
export of radar parts, items subject to the Regulations, from the
United States to Pakistan via the UAE. The certificate stated that
the Bangladesh Air Force was the end user of the radar parts. The
actual country of ultimate destination was Pakistan. The exporter
relied on the end-user information submitted by Yasmin Ahmed in
completing an airway bill listing Bangladesh as the ultimate
destination of the parts. In completing the SED for the export based
on a consultation of the airway bill, the freight forwarder
incorrectly listed UAE as the country of ultimate destination. By
providing false end-user information to the exporter, Yasmin Ahmed
attempted to cause a violation of the Regulations, namely, the
filing of a SED with false end-user information, and thereby
violated section 764.2(c) of the Regulations.
Charge 3 of the charging letter alleged that in connection with
the December 18, 2000, transaction (described in Charge 1 of the
charging letter), Yasmin Ahmed took actions with the intent to evade
the provisions of the Regulations. Specifically, she took actions,
including but not limited to, obtaining false signatures from a
purported end-user who was actually a representative of ATS for
inclusion on an end-user certificate submitted to an exporter in
connection with the export of radar parts, items subject to the
Regulations, from the United States to Pakistan via the UAE. The
purpose of securing the false signatures was to prepare
[[Page 63681]]
a false end-user certificate concealing the actual destination for
the radar parts, Pakistan. The exporter relied on the information
provided in the end-user certificates in preparing a SED that
falsely stated the country of ultimate destination as Bangladesh. In
so doing, Yasmin Ahmed committed one violation of section 764.2(h)
of the Regulations.
Finally, in connection with the April 16, 2002, transaction
described in Charge 2 of the charging letter, Yasmin Ahmed took
actions with the intent to evade the provisions of the Regulations.
Specifically, Yasmin Ahmed took actions, including but not limited
to, obtaining false signatures from a purported end-user who was
actually a representative of ATS for inclusion on an end-user
certificate submitted to an exporter in connection with the export
of radar parts, items subject to the Regulations, from the United
States to Pakistan via the UAE. The purpose of obtaining the false
signatures was to prepare a false end-user certificate concealing
the actual destination for the radar parts, Pakistan. The exporter
relied on the information provided in the end-user certificates in
preparing a SED which falsely stated the country of ultimate
destination as Bangladesh. In so doing, Yasmin Ahmed committed one
violation of section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.
D. Penalty Recommendation
[REDACTED SECTION]
E. Conclusion
Accordingly, I am referring this Recommended Decision and Order
to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security for
review and final action for the agency, without further notice to
the Respondent, as provided in Sec. 766.7 of the Regulations.
Within 30 days after receipt of this Recommended Decision and
Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming,
modifying, or vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. See 15
CFR 766.22(c).
Hon. Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge, United States Coast Guard.
Done and Dated 16th September, 2008, Baltimore, Maryland.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing RECOMMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER upon the following party in this proceeding at the
addresses indicated below by First Class Mail to:
Parvin R. Huda, Senior Counsel, Attorneys for Bureau of Industry and
Security, Office of Chief Counsel For Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room H-3839, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5301.
Yasmin Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, Off I.I
Chundrigar Road, Karachi, Pakistan.
Dated on September 18, 2008, Baltimore, Maryland.
Debra M. Gundy,
Paralegal Specialist, Administrative Law Judges Office, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-25351 Filed 10-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
