Action Affecting Export Privileges; Mahan Airways, Gatewick LLC; Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard and Mahmoud Amini; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges and Also Making That Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Applicable to Related Persons, 12318-12322 [2011-5114]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12318
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
Dated in Washington, DC, on February 28,
2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs
Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011–5013 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: Census Barriers, Attitudes, and
Motivators Survey (CBAMS) II.
OMB Control Number: 0607–0947.
Form Number(s): None. All
information will be collected
electronically.
Type of Request: Reinstatement, with
change, of an expired collection.
Burden Hours: 1,757.
Number of Respondents: 4,200.
Average Hours per Response: 25
minutes.
Needs and Uses: Every ten years, the
U.S. Census Bureau is constitutionally
mandated to count everyone (citizens
and non-citizens) residing in the United
States. An accurate count is critical for
many reasons including but not limited
to:
• Congressional reapportionment,
• Redistricting congressional
boundaries;
• Community planning; and
• Distribution of public funds and
program development.
To facilitate the data collection effort
for the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau
developed an Integrated
Communications Plan (ICP). The role of
the ICP was to increase public
awareness and to motivate people to
respond to the census promptly, saving
millions of taxpayer dollars. The
specific objectives of the ICP were to:
• Increase mail response;
• Improve cooperation with
enumerators; and
• Improve overall accuracy and
reduce differential undercount.
The Census Bureau conducted the
Census Barriers, Attitudes, and
Motivators Survey (CBAMS) in 2008 to
gain an in-depth understanding of the
public’s opinions about the 2010
Census. The results of that survey
revealed that there were distinct
mindsets toward the Census, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
customizing outreach to these
attitudinal mindsets is an important part
of the Census Bureau’s communications
strategy for 2020 and beyond. In
CBAMS II, the Census Bureau will
extend that research to further specify
the segments and to learn about their
stability and structure. The results of
CBAMS II will inform the market
research program and communications
for Census 2020.
The primary purpose of CBAMS II is
to understand Census mindsets. The
data collected will not be used to
produce official Census Bureau
statistics. The purpose of the data
collection is to shape the research and
communications program for Census
2020. Findings from this survey will
determine how often and what kind of
market research is conducted over the
next decade to support communications
for Census 2020. Findings will also be
used to shape messages directly. The
analytic goals of CBAMS II are to:
• Determine the best method for
identifying Census mindsets by
evaluating the reliability of mindset
creation algorithms from CBAMS I and
CBAMS II.
• Understand more about the profiles
of the mindsets, especially addressing
the following questions:
• Is there a qualitative distinction
between people who are unaware of the
Census and those who lack extensive
knowledge of the Census?
• What are the characteristics and
belief profiles of people whose attitude
toward the Census is negative?
• What sub-segments exist within the
large positive segments?
• Measure attitudes toward the
possible use of administrative records to
supplement or replace the Census and
relate those attitudes to Census
mindsets
One of the outcomes from CBAMS II
will be a survey tool to identify the
likely segment of respondents to future
Census market research surveys.
When possible, respondents to
CBAMS II will be matched to the
Census Planning Database (PDB) by tract
number to link to Census 2000 census
participation and hard-to-count data. In
cases where a link to tract can be made,
we will further roll cases back up into
an eight-cluster segmentation scheme
based on the PDB. The sample source
for in person interviews will be the
Delivery Sequence File from the United
States Postal Service, so for these
records, we will have addresses and be
able to determine Census tract. For the
telephone respondents, we will collect
zip codes to facilitate this linkage, but
we will not collect address information.
In fact, we will not collect any
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
personally identifiable information from
any respondent.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Frequency: One time.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.,
Sections 141 and 193.
OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dhynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB
Desk Officer either by fax (202–395–
7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: March 2, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–5065 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Mahan Airways, Gatewick LLC; Pejman
Mahmood Kosarayanifard and
Mahmoud Amini; Order Renewing
Order Temporarily Denying Export
Privileges and Also Making That
Temporary Denial of Export Privileges
Applicable to Related Persons
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21,
Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way,
Tehran, Iran;
Gatewick LLC, a/k/a Gatewick Freight &
Cargo Services, a/k/a/Gatewick Aviation
Services, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone,
P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al
Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a
Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
Mahmoud Amini G#22 Dubai Airport Free
Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al
Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates;
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR Parts 730–774 (2010) (‘‘EAR’’ or the
‘‘Regulations’’), I hereby grant the
request of the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) to renew for 180 days
the September 3, 2010 Order
Temporarily Denying the Export
Privileges of Mahan Airways and
Gatewick LLC (‘‘TDO’’), as I find that
renewal of the TDO is necessary in the
public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR.1 Additionally,
pursuant to Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, including the provision of
notice and an opportunity to respond, I
find it necessary to add the following
persons as related persons in order to
prevent evasion of the TDO:
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a
Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
and
Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport
Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al
Maktoum Street Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates.
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W.
Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement
(‘‘Assistant Secretary’’), signed a TDO
denying Mahan Airways’ export
privileges for a period of 180 days on
the grounds that its issuance was
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
Regulations. The TDO also named as
denied persons Blue Airways, of
Yerevan, Armenia (‘‘Blue Airways of
Armenia’’), as well as the ‘‘Balli Group
Respondents,’’ namely, 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., all
of the United Kingdom. The TDO was
issued ex parte pursuant to Section
766.24(a), and went into effect on March
21, 2008, the date it was published in
the Federal Register.
On July 18, 2008, in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations,
1 The September 3, 2010 Order was published in
the Federal Register on September 15, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Assistant Secretary Jackson issued an
Order adding to the TDO both Blue
Airways FZE, of Dubai, United Arab
Emirates (‘‘the UAE’’), and Blue
Airways, also of Dubai, United Arab
Emirates (‘‘Blue Airways UAE’’), as
persons related to Blue Airways of
Armenia. (Blue Airways of Armenia,
Blue Airways FZE, and Blue Airways
UAE are hereinafter collectively referred
to as the ‘‘Blue Airways Respondents’’).2
On September 17, 2008, Assistant
Secretary Jackson renewed the TDO for
an additional 180 days in accordance
with Section 766.24 of the Regulations,
via an order effective upon issuance,
and on March 16, 2009, the TDO was
similarly renewed by then-Acting
Assistant Secretary Kevin Delli-Colli.3
On September 11, 2009, Acting
Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli renewed
the TDO for an additional 180 days
against Mahan Airways.4 BIS did not
seek renewal of the TDO against the
Blue Airways Respondents, which BIS
believed at that time had ceased
operating, or against the Balli Group
Respondents.
On March 9, 2010,5 and September 3,
2010, I renewed the TDO against Mahan
Airways for an additional 180 days. The
September 3, 2010 Renewal Order
added Gatewick LLC (‘‘Gatewick’’) to the
TDO as a related person in accordance
with Section 766.23, after written notice
to Gatewick and consideration of its
August 26, 2010 response, which was
signed and submitted by Mahmoud
Amini as Gatewick’s General Manager.
As discussed in the September 3, 2010
Renewal Order, that response confirmed
Gatewick’s role as Mahan Airway’s sole
booking agent for cargo and freight
forwarding services in the UAE.
On February 7, 2011, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
filed a written request for renewal of the
TDO against Mahan Airways and
Gatewick. Notice of the renewal request
was provided to Mahan Airways and
Gatewick by delivery of a copy of the
request in accordance with Sections
766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations.
No opposition to any aspect of renewal
of the TDO has been received from
Mahan Airways, while Gatewick has not
at any time appealed the related person
2 The Related Persons Order was published in the
Federal Register on July 24, 2008.
3 The September 17, 2008 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on October 1,
2008. The March 16, 2009 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on March 25,
2009.
4 The September 11, 2009 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on September 18,
2009.
5 The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on March 18,
2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12319
determination I made as part of the
September 3, 2010 Renewal Order.6
Additionally, BIS has requested that I
add both Pejman Mahmood
Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard
(‘‘Kosarian Fard’’) and Mahmoud Amini
as related persons in accordance with
Section 766.23. Both Kosarian Fard and
Mahmoud Amini were provided notice
of BIS’s intent to add them to the TDO
pursuant to Section 766.23(b) of the
Regulations. No opposition was
received from Kosarian Fard, while
Mahmoud Amini submitted a short
e-mail response received on October 17,
2010, opposing his addition to the
TDO.7
II. Renewal of the TDO
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 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. The TDO and BIS’s Request for
Renewal
OEE’s request for renewal is based
upon the facts underlying the issuance
of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals
in this matter and the evidence
developed over the course of this
investigation indicating Mahan
Airways’ clear willingness to continue
to disregard U.S. export controls and the
TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a
result of evidence that showed that
Mahan Airways and other parties
engaged in conduct prohibited by the
6 A party named or added as a related person may
not oppose the issuance or renewal of the
underlying temporary denial order, but may file an
appeal of the related person determination in
accordance with Section 766.23(c).
7 The e-mail response from Amini is dated
October 13, 2010 but was received by BIS on
October 17, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12320
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran
three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically
Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items
subject to the EAR and classified under
Export Control Classification Number
(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.b, without the required
U.S. Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated
that Mahan Airways was involved in the
attempted re-export of three additional
U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’)
to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17,
2008 TDO Renewal Order, evidence
presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft
1–3 continued to be flown on Mahan
Airways’ routes after issuance of the
TDO, in violation of the Regulations and
the TDO itself.8 It also showed that
Aircraft 1–3 had been flown in further
violation of the Regulations and the
TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an
Iranian Government airline. In addition,
as more fully discussed in the March 16,
2009 Renewal Order, in October 2008,
Mahan Airways caused Aircraft 1–3 to
be deregistered from the Armenian civil
aircraft registry and subsequently
registered the aircraft in Iran. The
aircraft were relocated to Iran and were
issued Iranian tail numbers, including
EP–MNA and EP–MNB, and continued
to be operated on Mahan Airways’
routes in violation of the Regulations
and the TDO.
Moreover, as discussed in the
September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010
Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways
continued to operate at least two of
Aircraft 1–3 in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO,9 and also
committed an additional knowing and
willful violation of the Regulations and
the TDO when it negotiated for and
acquired an additional U.S.-origin
aircraft. The additional aircraft was an
MD–82 aircraft, which was
subsequently painted in Mahan Airways
livery and flown on multiple Mahan
Airways’ routes under tail number TC–
TUA.
The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order
also noted that a court in the United
Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’) had found Mahan
Airways in contempt of court on
February 1, 2010, for failing to comply
with that court’s December 21, 2009 and
January 12, 2010 orders compelling
Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing
747s from Iran and ground them in the
Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the
Balli Group Respondents have been
8 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
9 The third Boeing 747 appeared to have
undergone significant service maintenance and may
not have been operational at the time of the March
9, 2010 Renewal Order.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
litigating before the U.K. court
concerning ownership and control of
Aircraft 1–3. Blue Airways LLC also has
been a party to that litigation. In a letter
to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010,
Mahan Airways’ Chairman indicated,
inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes
U.S. Government actions against Iran,
that it continued to operate the aircraft
on its routes in and out of Tehran (and
had 158,000 ‘‘forward bookings’’ for
these aircraft), and that it wished to
continue to do so and would pay
damages if required by that court, rather
than ground the aircraft.
The September 3, 2010 Renewal
Order pointed out that Mahan Airways’
violations of the TDO extended beyond
operating U.S.-origin aircraft in
violation of the TDO and attempting to
acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft.
In February 2009, while subject to the
TDO, Mahan Airways participated in
the export of computer motherboards,
items subject to the Regulations and
designated as EAR99, from the United
States to Iran, via the UAE, in violation
of both the TDO and the Regulations, by
transporting and/or forwarding the
computer motherboards from the UAE
to Iran. Mahan Airways’ violations were
facilitated by Gatewick, which not only
participated in the transaction, but also
has stated to BIS that it is Mahan
Airways’ sole booking agent for cargo
and freight forwarding services in the
UAE.
Additional evidence obtained by OEE
indicates that Aircraft 1–3 remain in
Mahan Airways’ possession, control,
and livery in Tehran, Iran. In a recent
January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K.
Court, Mahan Airways asserted that
Aircraft 1–3 are not being used, but
stated in pertinent part that the aircraft
are being maintained especially ‘‘in an
airworthy condition’’ and that,
depending on the outcome of its U.K.
Court appeal, the aircraft ‘‘could
immediately go back into service * * *
on international routes into and out of
Iran.’’ Mahan Airways’ January 24, 2011
submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at
p. 25, paragraphs 108,110. This clearly
stated intent, both on its own and in
conjunction with Mahan Airways’ prior
misconduct and statements,
demonstrates the need to renew the
TDO in order to prevent imminent
future violations.
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set
forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the record
here, I find that the evidence presented
by BIS convincingly demonstrates that
Mahan Airways has repeatedly violated
the EAR and the TDO, that such
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
knowing violations have been
significant, deliberate and covert, and
that there is a likelihood of future
violations. I find that, as alleged by OEE,
the violations have involved both U.S.origin aircraft and computer
motherboards that are subject to the
Regulations. A renewal of the TDO is
needed to give notice to persons and
companies in the United States and
abroad that they should continue to
cease dealing with Mahan Airways in
export transactions involving items
subject to the EAR. Such a
TDO is consistent with the public
interest to prevent imminent violation
of the EAR.10
Accordingly, I find pursuant to
Section 766.24 that renewal of the TDO
for 180 days against Mahan Airways is
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR.
III. Addition of Related Persons
A. Legal Standard
Section 766.23 of the Regulations
provides that ‘‘[i]n order to prevent
evasion, certain types of orders under
this part may be made applicable not
only to the respondent, but also to other
persons then or thereafter related to the
respondent by ownership, control,
position of responsibility, affiliation, or
other connection in the conduct of trade
or business. Orders that may be made
applicable to related persons include
those that deny or affect export
privileges, including temporary denial
orders * * * ’’ 15 CFR 766.23(a).
B. Analysis and Findings
OEE has requested that Kosarian Fard
and Mahmoud Amini be added as
related persons in order to prevent
evasion of the TDO. As noted above,
both individuals were provided written
notice of OEE’s intent to add them as a
related person to the TDO. Kosarian
Fard did not respond, while Mahmoud
Amini sent only a short e-mail to OEE
received on October 17, 2010. As
discussed in the September 3, 2010
Order, a significant business
relationship or connection exists
between Gatewick and Mahan Airways.
Gatewick had previously told BIS
during a 2009 post shipment
verification that Gatewick acts as Mahan
Airways’ sole booking agent for cargo
and freight forwarding services in the
UAE, a major transshipment hub. In its
10 My findings are made pursuant to Section
766.24 and the Regulations, and are not based on
the contempt finding against Mahan Airways in the
U.K. litigation. I note, however, that Mahan
Airways’ statements and actions in that litigation
are consistent with my findings here.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
August 26, 2010 response, Gatewick
confirmed this relationship and
provided a copy of the General Cargo
Sales Agreement (‘‘GSA’’) between
Gatewick and Mahan Airways, signed
on Gatewick’s behalf by Kosarian Fard,
its owner and managing director. No
challenge or assertion has been made by
Gatewick, or by Kosarian Fard or
Mahmoud Amini, that this relationship
has ceased. Gatewick continues, in
short, to have the ability, with Mahan
Airways’ authorization and agreement,
to use Mahan’s import code to clear
UAE customs and then re-book cargo on
outbound Mahan flights, including to
Iran.
Gatewick’s corporate registration
documents revealed other connections
or relationships between Gatewick,
Kosarian Fard, and Mahan Airways, as
well as the Blue Airways Respondents.
Moreover, as discussed infra, Kosarian
Fard’s extensive connections to Mahan
extend well beyond his ownership
interests and active participation at
Gatewick.
As previously discussed in the
September 3, 2010 Renewal Order,
Kosarian Fard played a prominent role
in Mahan Airways’ acquisition of
Aircraft 1–3 discussed above, as
indicated by evidence obtained by BIS
during its investigation and as
acknowledged by Kosarian Fard in his
testimony in the U.K. litigation
referenced above. Kosarian Fard was a
founder, the majority shareholder, and
the Commercial Director of Blue
Airways of Armenia. In that capacity, he
signed the Boeing 747 lease agreements
with the Balli Group that ultimately led
to Mahan Airways’ acquisition of
Aircraft 1–3 in violation of the
Regulations. As previously cited in the
September 3, 2010 Renewal Order,
Kosarian Fard’s written testimony in the
U.K. litigation included the following
concerning his ‘‘close relationship’’ with
Mahan Airways and some of the acts he
took at its direction:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
As I have said, I was majority shareholder
of Blue [Airways] but in the summer of 2007,
I agreed to sell a 51% stake in Blue to Skyco
(UK) Ltd. I did this at the request of Mahan.
Given my close relationship with Mahan, I
did not ask questions but, again, acted on the
basis of the trust I had in Mr. Arabnejad and
Mr. Mahmoudi [two Mahan Airways’
directors].
Kosarian Fard Written Statement to U.K.
Commercial Court (signed and dated
May 27, 2009 by hand), at page 7,
paragraph 12.
Kosarian Fard’s ties to Mahan not
only established the connection
between Mahan and Gatewick, but
clearly demonstrate his own long
standing and wide reaching business
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
relationship with Mahan. In addition,
Kosarian Fard has not contested BIS’s
related person’s notice. In accordance
with all of the foregoing, I find that
Kosarian Fard is a related person under
Section 766.23 and should be added to
the TDO to prevent evasion of the
Order.
As indicated above, Mahmoud Amini
did make a short response to the related
person’s notice via an e-mail received
on October 17, 2010. In that e-mail,
Amini asserted that his ‘‘position in
Gatewick aviation services is only
domestic, General Manager,’’ and that he
is ‘‘not ‘‘official manager of the
company[.]’’ This effort by Amini to
limit or discount his role at Gatewick is
undermined, however, by the fact that
less than two months earlier, he signed
Gatewick’s August 26, 2010 submission
to BIS as its ‘‘General Manager’’ and in
doing so made no assertion that his
duties were ‘‘only domestic.’’ In
addition, given the nature and
significance of a General Manager,
Amini is positioned to significantly
determine Gatewick’s conduct and
activities, as also evidenced by the
central role he played in Gatewick’s
August 26, 2010 submission to BIS,
hardly what one would expect of an
employee with duties that are ‘‘only
domestic’’ and unrelated to the
significant Gatewick-Mahan Airways
relationship.
Amini also asserted in his e-mail that
the ‘‘only division of Gatewick’’ in
‘‘contact with Mahan’’ is ‘‘Gatewick
freight and cargo[.]’’ Amini provides no
supporting evidence for this assertion.
In addition, he never made such a
distinction in his submission on
Gatewick’s behalf on August 26, 2010,
and no such distinction is made in the
GSA between Mahan Airways and
Gatewick.
Accordingly, I find that based on his
position of authority and responsibility
at Gatewick and Gatewick’s significant
business or trade ties with Mahan
Airways, Mahmoud Amini is related not
only to Gatewick, but also in the
conduct of trade or business to Mahan
Airways. Like Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud
Amini should be added to the TDO as
a related person under Section 766.23 in
order to prevent evasion of that order.
IV. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that Mahan Airways, Mahan
Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A.
Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Gatewick
LLC, A/K/A Gatewick Freight & Cargo
Services, A/K/A Gatewick Aviation
Service, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone,
P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12321
United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed
Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum
Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; Pejman Mahmood
Kosarayanifard A/K/A Kosarian Fard,
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; and Mahmoud Amini, G#22
Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box
393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz
Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and when
acting for or on their behalf, any
successors or assigns, agents, or
employees (each a ‘‘Denied Person’’ and
collectively the ‘‘Denied 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 a Denied Person any item subject to
the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
a Denied Person 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 a 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 a Denied Person of any
item subject to the EAR that has been
exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the
United States any item subject to the
EAR with knowledge or reason to know
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12322
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
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 a Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by a Denied Person 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 a 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 EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of
Sections 766.24(e) and 766.23(c)(2) of
the EAR, Mahan Airways, Gatewick
LLC, Mahmoud Amini and/or Kosarian
Fard 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
21202–4022.11
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. A renewal
request may be opposed by Mahan
Airways as provided in Section
766.24(d), 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 provided
to Mahan Airways and each related
person and shall be published in the
Federal Register. This Order is effective
immediately and shall remain in effect
for 180 days.
11 A party named or added to temporary denial
order as a related person may appeal its inclusion
as a related person, but not the underlying basis for
the issuance of the TDO. See Section 766.23(c).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: February 25, 2011.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
N.A.D (collectively ‘‘the domestic
interested parties’’). These parties
claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.102(b), as domestic manufacturers
[FR Doc. 2011–5114 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
and producers of the domestic like
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
product.
The Department received complete
(collective) substantive responses to the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
notice of initiation from the domestic
International Trade Administration
interested parties within the 30-day
[A–533–817, A–560–805, A–475–826, A–588– deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no
847, A–580–836]
substantive responses from respondent
interested parties with respect to any of
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality
Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, Italy, the orders covered by these sunset
reviews. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR
Japan, and the Republic of Korea;
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department
Final Results of the Expedited Second
conducted expedited (120-day) sunset
Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
reviews of the antidumping duty orders
Duty Orders
on CTL Plate from India, Indonesia,
AGENCY: Import Administration,
Italy, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.
International Trade Administration,
Scope of the Orders
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2010, the
The products covered under the CTL
Department of Commerce (the
Plate antidumping duty orders are
Department) initiated the second sunset certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
reviews of the antidumping duty orders (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled
on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality
products rolled on four faces or in a
steel plate (CTL Plate) from India,
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm,
of Korea, pursuant to section 751(c) of
and of a nominal or actual thickness of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
not less than 4 mm, which are cut-toAct). The Department has conducted
length (not in coils) and without
expedited (120-day) sunset reviews for
patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloythese orders pursuant to 19 CFR
quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of
products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or
these sunset reviews, the Department
actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and
finds that revocation of the antidumping of a width which exceeds 150 mm and
duty orders would be likely to lead to
measures at least twice the thickness,
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
and which are cut-to-length (not in
coils). Steel products to be included in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the scope of the orders are of
David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman,
rectangular, square, circular or other
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
shape and of rectangular or nonAdministration, International Trade
rectangular cross-section where such
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution non-rectangular cross-section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
process (i.e., products which have been
telephone: (202) 482–4136 and (202)
‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example,
482–3773, respectively.
products which have been beveled or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rounded at the edges. Steel products
Background
that meet the noted physical
On December 1, 2010, the Department characteristics that are painted,
varnished or coated with plastic or other
published the notice of initiation of the
non-metallic substances are included
second sunset reviews of the
within the scope. Also, specifically
antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate
included in the scope of the orders are
from India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and
high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels.
the Republic of Korea, pursuant to
HSLA steels are recognized as steels
section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation
with micro-alloying levels of elements
of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR
such as chromium, copper, niobium,
74685 (December 1, 2010).
The Department received notices of
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
Steel products to be included in the
intent to participate from the following
scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff
domestic parties within the deadline
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i):
definitions, are products in which: (1)
ArcelorMittal Steel USA Inc., Evraz
Iron predominates, by weight, over each
Claymont Steel, Evraz Oregon Steel
of the other contained elements, (2) the
Mills, Nucor Corporation, and SSAB
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12318-12322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Mahan Airways, Gatewick LLC;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard and Mahmoud Amini; Order Renewing Order
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges and Also Making That Temporary
Denial of Export Privileges Applicable to Related Persons)
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp.
Way, Tehran, Iran;
Gatewick LLC, a/k/a Gatewick Freight & Cargo Services, a/k/a/
Gatewick Aviation Services, G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone,
P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Mahmoud Amini G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
[[Page 12319]]
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates; )
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2010) (``EAR'' or the
``Regulations''), I hereby grant the request of the Bureau of Industry
and Security (``BIS'') to renew for 180 days the September 3, 2010
Order Temporarily Denying the Export Privileges of Mahan Airways and
Gatewick LLC (``TDO''), as I find that renewal of the TDO is necessary
in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.\1\
Additionally, pursuant to Section 766.23 of the Regulations, including
the provision of notice and an opportunity to respond, I find it
necessary to add the following persons as related persons in order to
prevent evasion of the TDO:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The September 3, 2010 Order was published in the Federal
Register on September 15, 2010.
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
Mahmoud Amini, G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates.
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Export Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary''), signed a
TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days
on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest
to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named
as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (``Blue Airways of
Armenia''), as well as the ``Balli Group Respondents,'' namely, 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., all of
the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section
766.24(a), and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was
published in the Federal Register.
On July 18, 2008, in accordance with Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, Assistant Secretary Jackson issued an Order adding to the
TDO both Blue Airways FZE, of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (``the
UAE''), and Blue Airways, also of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (``Blue
Airways UAE''), as persons related to Blue Airways of Armenia. (Blue
Airways of Armenia, Blue Airways FZE, and Blue Airways UAE are
hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``Blue Airways
Respondents'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Related Persons Order was published in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 17, 2008, Assistant Secretary Jackson renewed the TDO
for an additional 180 days in accordance with Section 766.24 of the
Regulations, via an order effective upon issuance, and on March 16,
2009, the TDO was similarly renewed by then-Acting Assistant Secretary
Kevin Delli-Colli.\3\ On September 11, 2009, Acting Assistant Secretary
Delli-Colli renewed the TDO for an additional 180 days against Mahan
Airways.\4\ BIS did not seek renewal of the TDO against the Blue
Airways Respondents, which BIS believed at that time had ceased
operating, or against the Balli Group Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The September 17, 2008 Renewal Order was published in the
Federal Register on October 1, 2008. The March 16, 2009 Renewal
Order was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2009.
\4\ The September 11, 2009 Renewal Order was published in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2010,\5\ and September 3, 2010, I renewed the TDO
against Mahan Airways for an additional 180 days. The September 3, 2010
Renewal Order added Gatewick LLC (``Gatewick'') to the TDO as a related
person in accordance with Section 766.23, after written notice to
Gatewick and consideration of its August 26, 2010 response, which was
signed and submitted by Mahmoud Amini as Gatewick's General Manager. As
discussed in the September 3, 2010 Renewal Order, that response
confirmed Gatewick's role as Mahan Airway's sole booking agent for
cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order was published in the Federal
Register on March 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2011, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), filed a written request for renewal of the TDO against Mahan
Airways and Gatewick. Notice of the renewal request was provided to
Mahan Airways and Gatewick by delivery of a copy of the request in
accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No
opposition to any aspect of renewal of the TDO has been received from
Mahan Airways, while Gatewick has not at any time appealed the related
person determination I made as part of the September 3, 2010 Renewal
Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A party named or added as a related person may not oppose
the issuance or renewal of the underlying temporary denial order,
but may file an appeal of the related person determination in
accordance with Section 766.23(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, BIS has requested that I add both Pejman Mahmood
Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard (``Kosarian Fard'') and Mahmoud
Amini as related persons in accordance with Section 766.23. Both
Kosarian Fard and Mahmoud Amini were provided notice of BIS's intent to
add them to the TDO pursuant to Section 766.23(b) of the Regulations.
No opposition was received from Kosarian Fard, while Mahmoud Amini
submitted a short e-mail response received on October 17, 2010,
opposing his addition to the TDO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The e-mail response from Amini is dated October 13, 2010 but
was received by BIS on October 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Renewal of the TDO
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
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. The TDO and BIS's Request for Renewal
OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the
issuance of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals in this matter and the
evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating
Mahan Airways' clear willingness to continue to disregard U.S. export
controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of
evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and other parties engaged in
conduct prohibited by the
[[Page 12320]]
EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft,
specifically Boeing 747s (``Aircraft 1-3''), items subject to the EAR
and classified under Export Control Classification Number (``ECCN'')
9A991.b, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in
the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s
(``Aircraft 4-6'') to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17, 2008 TDO Renewal Order, evidence
presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on
Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO itself.\8\ It also showed that Aircraft 1-3 had
been flown in further violation of the Regulations and the TDO on the
routes of Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline. In addition, as more
fully discussed in the March 16, 2009 Renewal Order, in October 2008,
Mahan Airways caused Aircraft 1-3 to be deregistered from the Armenian
civil aircraft registry and subsequently registered the aircraft in
Iran. The aircraft were relocated to Iran and were issued Iranian tail
numbers, including EP-MNA and EP-MNB, and continued to be operated on
Mahan Airways' routes in violation of the Regulations and the TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as discussed in the September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010
Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways continued to operate at least two of
Aircraft 1-3 in violation of the Regulations and the TDO,\9\ and also
committed an additional knowing and willful violation of the
Regulations and the TDO when it negotiated for and acquired an
additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional aircraft was an MD-82
aircraft, which was subsequently painted in Mahan Airways livery and
flown on multiple Mahan Airways' routes under tail number TC-TUA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The third Boeing 747 appeared to have undergone significant
service maintenance and may not have been operational at the time of
the March 9, 2010 Renewal Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the
United Kingdom (``U.K.'') had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court
on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December
21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove
the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan
Airways and the Balli Group Respondents have been litigating before the
U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. Blue
Airways LLC also has been a party to that litigation. In a letter to
the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman
indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S. Government
actions against Iran, that it continued to operate the aircraft on its
routes in and out of Tehran (and had 158,000 ``forward bookings'' for
these aircraft), and that it wished to continue to do so and would pay
damages if required by that court, rather than ground the aircraft.
The September 3, 2010 Renewal Order pointed out that Mahan Airways'
violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft in
violation of the TDO and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin
aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways
participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to
the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to
Iran, via the UAE, in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by
transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE
to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick, which
not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS
that it is Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight
forwarding services in the UAE.
Additional evidence obtained by OEE indicates that Aircraft 1-3
remain in Mahan Airways' possession, control, and livery in Tehran,
Iran. In a recent January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. Court, Mahan
Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 are not being used, but stated in
pertinent part that the aircraft are being maintained especially ``in
an airworthy condition'' and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K.
Court appeal, the aircraft ``could immediately go back into service * *
* on international routes into and out of Iran.'' Mahan Airways'
January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25,
paragraphs 108,110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in
conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements,
demonstrates the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent
future violations.
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the record here, I find that the evidence
presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that Mahan Airways has
repeatedly violated the EAR and the TDO, that such knowing violations
have been significant, deliberate and covert, and that there is a
likelihood of future violations. I find that, as alleged by OEE, the
violations have involved both U.S.-origin aircraft and computer
motherboards that are subject to the Regulations. A renewal of the TDO
is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States
and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan
Airways in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such
a
TDO is consistent with the public interest to prevent imminent
violation of the EAR.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ My findings are made pursuant to Section 766.24 and the
Regulations, and are not based on the contempt finding against Mahan
Airways in the U.K. litigation. I note, however, that Mahan Airways'
statements and actions in that litigation are consistent with my
findings here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find pursuant to Section 766.24 that renewal of the
TDO for 180 days against Mahan Airways is necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.
III. Addition of Related Persons
A. Legal Standard
Section 766.23 of the Regulations provides that ``[i]n order to
prevent evasion, certain types of orders under this part may be made
applicable not only to the respondent, but also to other persons then
or thereafter related to the respondent by ownership, control, position
of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of
trade or business. Orders that may be made applicable to related
persons include those that deny or affect export privileges, including
temporary denial orders * * * '' 15 CFR 766.23(a).
B. Analysis and Findings
OEE has requested that Kosarian Fard and Mahmoud Amini be added as
related persons in order to prevent evasion of the TDO. As noted above,
both individuals were provided written notice of OEE's intent to add
them as a related person to the TDO. Kosarian Fard did not respond,
while Mahmoud Amini sent only a short e-mail to OEE received on October
17, 2010. As discussed in the September 3, 2010 Order, a significant
business relationship or connection exists between Gatewick and Mahan
Airways. Gatewick had previously told BIS during a 2009 post shipment
verification that Gatewick acts as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent
for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE, a major
transshipment hub. In its
[[Page 12321]]
August 26, 2010 response, Gatewick confirmed this relationship and
provided a copy of the General Cargo Sales Agreement (``GSA'') between
Gatewick and Mahan Airways, signed on Gatewick's behalf by Kosarian
Fard, its owner and managing director. No challenge or assertion has
been made by Gatewick, or by Kosarian Fard or Mahmoud Amini, that this
relationship has ceased. Gatewick continues, in short, to have the
ability, with Mahan Airways' authorization and agreement, to use
Mahan's import code to clear UAE customs and then re-book cargo on
outbound Mahan flights, including to Iran.
Gatewick's corporate registration documents revealed other
connections or relationships between Gatewick, Kosarian Fard, and Mahan
Airways, as well as the Blue Airways Respondents. Moreover, as
discussed infra, Kosarian Fard's extensive connections to Mahan extend
well beyond his ownership interests and active participation at
Gatewick.
As previously discussed in the September 3, 2010 Renewal Order,
Kosarian Fard played a prominent role in Mahan Airways' acquisition of
Aircraft 1-3 discussed above, as indicated by evidence obtained by BIS
during its investigation and as acknowledged by Kosarian Fard in his
testimony in the U.K. litigation referenced above. Kosarian Fard was a
founder, the majority shareholder, and the Commercial Director of Blue
Airways of Armenia. In that capacity, he signed the Boeing 747 lease
agreements with the Balli Group that ultimately led to Mahan Airways'
acquisition of Aircraft 1-3 in violation of the Regulations. As
previously cited in the September 3, 2010 Renewal Order, Kosarian
Fard's written testimony in the U.K. litigation included the following
concerning his ``close relationship'' with Mahan Airways and some of
the acts he took at its direction:
As I have said, I was majority shareholder of Blue [Airways] but
in the summer of 2007, I agreed to sell a 51% stake in Blue to Skyco
(UK) Ltd. I did this at the request of Mahan. Given my close
relationship with Mahan, I did not ask questions but, again, acted
on the basis of the trust I had in Mr. Arabnejad and Mr. Mahmoudi
[two Mahan Airways' directors].
Kosarian Fard Written Statement to U.K. Commercial Court (signed and
dated May 27, 2009 by hand), at page 7, paragraph 12.
Kosarian Fard's ties to Mahan not only established the connection
between Mahan and Gatewick, but clearly demonstrate his own long
standing and wide reaching business relationship with Mahan. In
addition, Kosarian Fard has not contested BIS's related person's
notice. In accordance with all of the foregoing, I find that Kosarian
Fard is a related person under Section 766.23 and should be added to
the TDO to prevent evasion of the Order.
As indicated above, Mahmoud Amini did make a short response to the
related person's notice via an e-mail received on October 17, 2010. In
that e-mail, Amini asserted that his ``position in Gatewick aviation
services is only domestic, General Manager,'' and that he is ``not
``official manager of the company[.]'' This effort by Amini to limit or
discount his role at Gatewick is undermined, however, by the fact that
less than two months earlier, he signed Gatewick's August 26, 2010
submission to BIS as its ``General Manager'' and in doing so made no
assertion that his duties were ``only domestic.'' In addition, given
the nature and significance of a General Manager, Amini is positioned
to significantly determine Gatewick's conduct and activities, as also
evidenced by the central role he played in Gatewick's August 26, 2010
submission to BIS, hardly what one would expect of an employee with
duties that are ``only domestic'' and unrelated to the significant
Gatewick-Mahan Airways relationship.
Amini also asserted in his e-mail that the ``only division of
Gatewick'' in ``contact with Mahan'' is ``Gatewick freight and
cargo[.]'' Amini provides no supporting evidence for this assertion. In
addition, he never made such a distinction in his submission on
Gatewick's behalf on August 26, 2010, and no such distinction is made
in the GSA between Mahan Airways and Gatewick.
Accordingly, I find that based on his position of authority and
responsibility at Gatewick and Gatewick's significant business or trade
ties with Mahan Airways, Mahmoud Amini is related not only to Gatewick,
but also in the conduct of trade or business to Mahan Airways. Like
Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini should be added to the TDO as a related
person under Section 766.23 in order to prevent evasion of that order.
IV. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A.
Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Gatewick LLC, A/K/A Gatewick Freight &
Cargo Services, A/K/A Gatewick Aviation Service, G22 Dubai
Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz
Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard A/K/A Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and Mahmoud Amini, G22 Dubai
Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz
Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and
when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents,
or employees (each a ``Denied Person'' and collectively the ``Denied
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 a Denied Person any item
subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by a Denied Person 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 a 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 a Denied Person of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item
subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know
[[Page 12322]]
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 a Denied Person, or service any item,
of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied
Person 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 a 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 EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) and
766.23(c)(2) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Gatewick LLC, Mahmoud Amini
and/or Kosarian Fard 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A party named or added to temporary denial order as a
related person may appeal its inclusion as a related person, but not
the underlying basis for the issuance of the TDO. See Section
766.23(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. A renewal request may be
opposed by Mahan Airways as provided in Section 766.24(d), 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 provided to Mahan Airways and each
related person and shall be published in the Federal Register. This
Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Dated: February 25, 2011.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-5114 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
