Final Decision and Order, 45497-45502 [2013-18078]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
the Commission will convene at 12:00
p.m. (EDT) on Monday, August 12,
2013. The purpose of the meeting is for
orientation and project planning.
Members of the public are entitled to
submit written comments. The
comments must be received in the
regional office by Thursday, September
12, 2013. Comments may be mailed to
the Eastern Regional Office, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150,
Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202)
376–7548, or emailed to ero@usccr.gov.
Persons who desire additional
information may contact the Eastern
Regional Office at 202–376–7533.
To ensure that the Commission
secures an appropriate number of
telephone lines for the public, persons
are asked to contact the Eastern
Regional Office five days before the
meeting date either by email at
ero@usccr.gov, or by phone at 202–376–
7533.
Records generated from this meeting
may be inspected and reproduced at the
Eastern Regional Office, as they become
available, both before and after the
meeting. Persons interested in the work
of this advisory committee are advised
to go to the Commission’s Web site,
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern
Regional Office at the above phone
number, email or street address.
The meetings will be conducted
pursuant to the provisions of the rules
and regulations of the Commission and
FACA.
Dated in Chicago, IL, on July 23, 2013.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs
Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2013–18024 Filed 7–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[10–BIS–0002]
Final Decision and Order
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In the Matter of:
Chan Heep Loong, 95 Havelock Road, #14–
583, Singapore, 160095 SG; Respondent.
This matter is before me upon a
Recommended Decision and Order
(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law
Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described
below.1
1 I received the certified record from the ALJ,
including the original copy of the RDO, for my
review on June 26, 2013. The RDO is dated June 25,
2013. BIS timely submitted a response to the RDO,
while Respondent has not filed a response to the
RDO.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Background
On February 10, 2010, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued a
Charging Letter alleging that
Respondent, Chan Heep Loong, of
Singapore (‘‘Loong’’ or ‘‘Respondent’’),
committed three violations of the Export
Administration Regulations
(‘‘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 the following specific
allegations:
Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(b)—Causing an
Export to Iran Without Authorization
From on or about February 14, 2005,
through on or about February 24, 2005,
Loong caused the doing of an act prohibited
by the Regulations. Specifically, Loong
caused the export from the United States to
Iran, via transshipment through Singapore, of
GPS engines, items subject to the Regulations
and the Iranian Transaction Regulations
(‘‘ITR’’) of the Department of the Treasury’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’),
without the required U.S. Government
authorization. Specifically, Loong, in his
capacity as Owner/Operator of Tysonic
Enterprises (‘‘Tysonic’’), of Singapore,
ordered and/or bought the GPS engines,
items that are classified under Export Control
Classification Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 7A994 and
are controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, from
a U.S. company without informing that
company of the intended final destination of
the items. Loong then instructed the U.S.
company to ship the items from the United
States to Tysonic in Singapore, and,
following arrival in Singapore, the items
were then forwarded to Iran. Pursuant to
Section 734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the
export of an item from the United States to
a second country intended for transshipment
to a third country is deemed to be an export
to that third country. Under Section 746.7 of
the Regulations, a license from either BIS or
2 The Regulations currently are codified at 15 CFR
Parts 730–774 (2013). The charged violations
occurred in 2005 and 2006. The Regulations
governing the violations at issue are found in the
2005 and 2006 versions of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2005–06). The
2013 Regulations establish the procedures that
apply to this matter. All citations herein to
provisions of Part 766 (Administrative Enforcement
Proceedings) are to the 2013 version of the
Regulations. All other citations to the Regulations
are to the 2005 and 2006 versions of the
Regulations, as applicable, unless otherwise
indicated. For ease of reference, I note that the
2005, 2006, and 2013 versions of the Regulations
are the same with respect to the provisions of
Section 764.2 and Part 766 cited herein, while
Section 746.7 remains substantively the same in
pertinent part.
3 Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse
and the President, through Executive Order 13,222
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,
2012 (77 FR 49,699 (Aug. 16, 2012)), has continued
the Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
et seq.) (2006 and Supp. IV 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45497
OFAC is required to export to Iran items
subject to control for anti-terrorism reasons,
including items listed under ECCN 7A994.
Neither BIS nor OFAC authorized the exports
of the items described above to Iran. In
engaging in the activity described herein,
Loong committed one violation of Section
764.2(b) of the Regulations.
Charge 2 15 CFR 764.2(b)—Causing an
Export to Iran Without Authorization
From on or about April 22, 2005, through
on or about May 12, 2005, Loong caused the
doing of an act prohibited by the Regulations.
Specifically, Loong caused the export from
the United States to Iran, via transshipment
through Singapore, of a peak power meter, an
item subject to the Regulations and the
Iranian Transaction Regulations (‘‘ITR’’) of
the Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’), without
the required U.S. Government authorization.
Specifically, Loong, in his capacity as
Owner/Operator of Tysonic, ordered and/or
bought the peak power meter, an item
classified under ECCN 3A992 and is
controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, from a
U.S. company [ ]. Loong then instructed the
U.S. company to ship the items from the
United States to Tysonic in Singapore, and,
following arrival in Singapore, the items
were then forwarded to Iran. Pursuant to
Section 734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the
export of an item from the United States to
a second country intended for transshipment
to a third country is deemed to be an export
to that third country. Under Section 746.7 of
the Regulations, a license from BIS or OFAC
is required to export to Iran items subject to
control for anti-terrorism reasons, including
items listed under ECCN 3A992. Neither BIS
nor OFAC authorized the export of the items
described above to Iran. In engaging in the
activity described herein, Loong committed
one violation of Section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations.
Charge 3 15 CFR 764.2(k)—Violation of
Terms of an Order Temporarily Denying
Export Privileges
On or about August 29, 2006, Loong
engaged in conduct prohibited by an Order
issued by the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement on April
12, 2006 pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Regulations, and effective upon publication
in the Federal Register on April 19, 2006,
temporarily denying the export privileges of
Loong and Tysonic for 180 days (71 FR
20074, April 19, 2006) (the ‘‘TDO’’). Under
the terms of the TDO, Loong was prohibited
from ‘‘directly or indirectly, participat[ing] in
any way in any transaction involving any
[item] exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the
Regulations, or in a[n]y other activity subject
to the Regulations [ ],
including. . . .[c]arrying 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.’’ On or about
August 29, 2006, Loong, acting through
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45498
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Rosen Enterprises, ordered and/or bought 30
inverters, items subject to the EAR and
designated as EAR99, from a company
located in the United States for export from
the United States. Rosen Enterprises is
owned and operated by Loong and co-located
with Tysonic in Singapore. On or about
August 29, 2006, the 30 inverters were
exported from the United States to Singapore.
The TDO continued in force at the time of
the aforementioned actions taken by Loong.
In engaging in the conduct described herein,
Loong committed one violation of Section
764.2(k) of the Regulations.
Charging Letter at 1–3.
In accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the
Regulations, on February 12, 2010, BIS
mailed the notice of issuance of the
Charging Letter to Loong at Loong’s last
known address in Singapore by
registered mail. RDO at 2. BIS received
a letter from Respondent’s legal counsel,
Mr. V. Esvaran, Esq., of the firm Esvaran
& Tan, of Singapore, on March 4, 2010,
indicating that the firm was acting for
Loong, who had forwarded the Charging
Letter from BIS to Mr. Esvaran and his
firm. Id. at 2–3. Mr. Esvaran’s letter also
stated that although the Charging Letter
was dated February 12, 2010, Loong was
served with the Charging Letter on
February 25, 2010. Id. at 3.
In March 2010, BIS counsel received
an informal request from Respondent’s
counsel that BIS stipulate to an
extension until April 15, 2010 to answer
the charges. BIS counsel indicated that
BIS would not object to Loongs’s request
if Loong’s counsel entered a notice of
appearance and filed the stipulation. Id.
at 3. No notice of appearance or
stipulation of extension of time to file
an answer was ever filed. Id.
Respondent thus was obligated to
answer the Charging Letter by no later
than March 27, 2010.
On February 27, 2013, BIS counsel
sent a letter by email and Federal
Express to Respondent’s counsel
indicating that BIS would file a motion
for default order if Respondent did not
file an answer as required by the
Regulations by March 13, 2013. Id.
Respondent’s counsel provided a letter
response by email to BIS counsel on
February 28, 2013, acknowledging that
Respondent ‘‘has to respond in a format
and in compliance with instructions
under the regulations,’’ and asserting
that Respondent would ‘‘revert shortly
on the matter.’’ Id. However,
Respondent did not submit an answer
by March 13, 2013, or at any time
thereafter. Id.
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, in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
turn, 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 ALJ] shall find the facts
to be as alleged in the charging letter[.]’’
On April 15, 2013, BIS filed its
Motion for Default Order in accordance
with Section 766.7(a) of the
Regulations.4 The Motion for Default
Order recommended that Loong be
denied export privileges under the
Regulations for a period of at least ten
years. Id. at 7. In addition to the serious
nature of Loong’s violations, Loong’s
location in Singapore, BIS indicated that
a monetary penalty may be difficult to
collect and may not serve a sufficient
deterrent effect.
On June 25, 2013, based on the record
before him, the ALJ issued the RDO, in
which he found Loong in default, found
the facts to be as alleged in the Charging
Letter, and concluded that Loong had
committed the three violations alleged
in the charging letter, specifically, two
violations of 15 CFR 764.2(b), and one
violation of 15 CFR 764.2(k). Id. at 7.
The RDO contains a detailed review of
the facts and applicable law relating to
both merits and sanctions issues in this
case.
Based on the record, the ALJ
determined, inter alia, that, between
February and April 2005, Loong caused
two exports of items subject to the
Regulations from the United States to
Iran via transshipment through
Singapore without the required U.S.
Government authorization, in violation
of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
Id. at 7–8. Further, the ALJ determined
that after a TDO regarding Loong’s U.S.
export privileges was issued, Loong
used another company he owned and
controlled, Rosen Enterprises, to obtain
other items subject to the Regulations
for export from the United States in
direct violation of the terms of the TDO.
Id.
The ALJ also recommended that the
Under Secretary deny Loong’s export
privileges for a period of ten years,
citing, inter alia, Loong’s ‘‘clear
disregard for the Regulations and U.S.
export control law, including the longstanding U.S. trade embargo against Iran
and the TDO issued against him in April
2006.’’ Id. at 8. The ALJ further noted
that a 10-year denial order was
appropriate in this case ‘‘in light of the
nature of his conduct, his multiple
4 Although not required to do so by Section 766.7
of the Regulations a copy of the Motion for Default
Order was served on Loong.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
violations and his location in
Singapore.’’ Id.
II. Review Under Section 766.22
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. BIS submitted a
timely response to the RDO pursuant to
Section 766.22(b); however,
[Respondent has not submitted a
response to the RDO].
I find that the record supports the
ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law that Respondent never filed an
answer, is in default, and committed the
three violations of the Regulations as
alleged in the Charging Letter and set
forth above.
I also find that the ten-year denial
order recommended by the ALJ upon
his review of the entire record is
appropriate, given, as discussed in
further detail in the RDO, the nature and
number of the violations, the facts of
this case, and the importance of
deterring Respondent and others from
acting to evade the Regulations and
otherwise knowingly violate the
Regulations.
Accordingly, based on my review of
the entire record, I affirm the findings of
fact and conclusions of law in the RDO
without modification.
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered:
First, that for a period of ten (10) years
from the date this Order is published in
the Federal Register, Chan Heep Loong
(‘‘Loong’’), with a last known address of
95 Havelock Road, #140583, Singapore,
160095 SG, and his successors and
assigns, and when acting for or on its
behalf, his employees, representatives,
or agents (hereinafter collectively
referred to as ‘‘Denied Person’’) may not
participate, directly or indirectly, 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 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
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
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 which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
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 ALJ’s
Recommended Decision and Order,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
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: July 21, 2013.
Eric L. Hirschhorn,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 22, 2013,
I caused the foregoing Response of the
Bureau of Industry and Security to the
Administrative Law Judge’s
Recommended Decision and Order to be
sent by Federal Express to:
CHAN HEEP LOONG, 95 HAVELOCK ROAD,
583, SINGAPORE, 160095 SG.
#14–
And Hand-delivered to:
John T. Masterson, Jr., Esq., Joseph Jest,
Esq., Peter Klason, Esq., Attorneys for the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of
Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th &
Constitution Avenue NW, Room H–3839,
Washington, DC 20230.
,
lllllllllllllllllllll
Kirsten Mortimer,
Office of the Under Secretary for Industry
and Security
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Washington, DC 20230
10–BIS–0002
In the Matter of:
Chan Heep Loong, 95 Havelock Road, #14–
583, Singapore, 160095 SG; Respondent.
Order Granting Motion for Default and
Recommended Decision and Order
On February 12, 2010, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS), U.S.
Department of Commerce, issued a
charging letter initiating this
administrative enforcement proceeding
against Chan Heep Loong (Loong or
Respondent).
The charging letter alleged that Chan
Heep Loong, as Owner/Operator of
Tysonic Enterprises (Tysonic)
committed three (3) violations of the
Export Administration Regulations
(Regulations) (See 15 CFR Parts 730–774
(2008)) 5. The Regulations were issued
under the Export Administration Act of
1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–
2420 (2000)) (Act).6 In accordance with
5 The charges are for violations that are alleged to
have occurred during 2005 and 2006. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are
found in the 2005 and 2006 versions of the Code
of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774
(2005–06)). The 2013 Regulations establish the
procedures that apply to this matter.
6 Since August 21, 2001, the Export
Administration Act has been in lapse and the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45499
Section 766.7 of the Regulations, BIS
moved for the issuance of an Order of
Default against Chan Heep Loong in
connection with Charges 1, 2 and 3 in
the charging letter, as Chan Heep Loong
failed to file an Answer to the
allegations contained in the charging
letter within the time period required by
law.
A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order
of Default
Section 766.7 of the Regulations states
upon Motion by BIS, the Court shall
enter a judgment of default if a
respondent fails to file a timely answer
to the 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’ 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 § 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.
B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of
Charging Letter
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations
provides notice of the issuance of a
charging letter shall be served on a
respondent by mailing a copy by
registered or certified mail addressed to
the respondent at the respondent’s last
known address. On February 12, 2010,
BIS mailed the notice of issuance of a
charging letter by registered mail to
Chan Heep Loong at his last known
address in Singapore. See Gov’t Ex. 1.
Pursuant to Section 766.3(c) of the
Regulations, the date of service in this
case is the date of delivery. After
mailing the Charging Letter to Chan
Heep Loong at his last known address,
BIS received a letter from Respondent’s
legal counsel, Mr. V. Esvaran, Esq., of
the firm of Esvaran & Tan, of Singapore,
on March 4, 2010, indicating the firm
was acting for Tysonic Enterprises and
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,
2012 (77 FR 49699 (Aug. 16, 2012)), continues the
Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–
1706 (2006 and Supp. IV 2010)).
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45500
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Respondent Chan Heep Loong who had
forwarded the Charging Letter from the
Agency to Mr. Esvaran and his firm. See
Gov’t Ex. 3. Mr. Esvaran’s letter also
stated that although the Charges are
dated February 12, 2010 his clients were
served with the Charges on February 25,
2010. Id. I find that BIS properly served
the Charging Letter in accordance with
15 CFR 766.3(b).
In March of 2010, BIS counsel
received an informal request from
Respondent’s counsel requesting BIS
stipulate to an extension until April 15,
2010 to answer the charges. Agency
counsel indicated BIS would not object
if Respondent’s counsel entered a notice
of appearance and the necessary
stipulation. See Gov’t Ex. 4. However,
no notice of appearance, motion, or
stipulation for an extension has been
filed. To date, Respondent has not filed
an answer.
On February 27, 2013, BIS counsel
sent a letter by email (and Federal
Express) to Respondent’s counsel
indicating that BIS would file a motion
for a default order if Respondent did not
file an answer as required by the
regulations with the Docketing Center
by March 13, 2013. See Gov’t Ex. 5; 15
CFR 766.5 and 766.6.
Respondent’s counsel provided a
letter response by email to BIS on
February 28, 2013, acknowledging that
Respondent ‘‘has to respond in a format
and in compliance with instructions
under the requisite regulations,’’ and
asserting that Respondent would ‘‘revert
shortly on the matter.’’ See Gov’t Ex. 6.
However, Respondent did not submit an
answer on March 13, 2013 or at any
time thereafter. On April 15, 2013, BIS
filed a Motion for Default Order.
Under Section 766.6(a) of the
Regulations, a respondent must file an
answer to the charging letter within 30
days after being served with notice of
issuance of the charging letter initiating
the administrative enforcement
proceeding. Respondent originally had
30 days from February 25, 2010, to file
an answer to the charging letter. As
noted above, on February 27, 2013 BIS
provided notice to Respondent of
another opportunity to file an answer by
March 13, 2013 and that failure to
answer would result in submission of a
default motion by BIS. To date,
Respondent has not filed an answer.
C. Summary of Violations Charged
The charging letter filed by BIS
included a total of three charged
violations. Two violations concerned
causing unauthorized exports to Iran,
via transshipment through Singapore, of
items controlled under the Regulations
on anti-terrorism grounds; and one
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
charge for violating an Order issued by
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement on April 12, 2006
temporarily denying export privileges
(TDO) of Loong and Tysonic for 180
days. (71 FR 20074, April 19, 2006).
Specifically, Charge 1 alleges from on
or about February 14, 2005, through on
or about February 24, 2005, Loong
violated Section 764.2(b)(Causing,
Aiding or Abetting a Violation) of the
Regulations by causing the export of
GPS engines to Iran, via transshipment
through Singapore, without the required
license. Acting through Tysonic
Enterprises, a Singapore company
Loong owned and operated, Loong
ordered and/or bought the GPS engines,
items classified on the Commerce
Control List under Export Control
Classification Number (ECCN) 7A994
and controlled for anti-terrorism
reasons, from a U.S. company without
informing that company that Iran was
the intended final destination of the
items. 7 Loong instead instructed the
U.S. company to ship the items from the
United States to Tysonic in Singapore,
and following their arrival in Singapore,
the items were forwarded to Iran.
Pursuant to Section 734.2(b)(6) of the
Regulations, the export of an item from
the United States to a second country,
such as Singapore, intended for
transshipment to a third country, such
as Iran, constitutes an export to that
third country. Charge 1 further alleges
that under Section 746.7 of the
Regulations, a license from either BIS or
the Treasury Department’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was
required to export these items to Iran,
and that neither BIS nor OFAC
authorized these exports to Iran. See
Charging Letter; Gov. Ex. 1.
Charge 2 alleges from on or about
April 22, 2005, through on or about May
12, 2005, Loong violated Section
764.2(b)(Causing, Aiding or Abetting a
Violation) of the Regulations by causing
the export of a peak power meter to Iran,
via transshipment through Singapore,
without the license required under
Section 746.7 of the Regulations. Acting
through Tysonic Enterprises, a
Singapore company Loong owned and
operated, Loong ordered and/or bought
the peak power meter, an item classified
on the Commerce Control List under
ECCN 3A992 and controlled for antiterrorism reasons, from a U.S. company
without informing that company that
Iran was the intended final destination
of the item. Loong instead instructed the
U.S. company to ship the item from the
United States to Tysonic in Singapore,
and following their arrival in Singapore,
the items were forwarded to Iran.
Pursuant to Section 734.2(b)(6) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Regulations, the export of an item from
the United States to a second country,
such as Singapore, intended for
transshipment to a third country, such
as Iran, constitutes an export to that
third country. Charge 2 further alleges
that under Section 746.7 of the
Regulations, a license from either BIS or
OFAC was required to export this item
to Iran, and that neither BIS nor OFAC
authorized this export to Iran. See
Charging Letter; Gov. Ex. 1.
Charge 3 alleges from on or about
August 29, 2006, Loong, acting through
Rosen Enterprises, violated Section
764.2(k)(Violation of Terms of an Order
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges)
of the Regulations by purchasing 30
inverters, items subject to the EAR and
designated as EAR99, from a company
located in the United States for export
from the United States. Rosen
Enterprises is owned and operated by
Loong and co-located with Tysonic
Enterprises in Singapore. On or about
August 29, 2006, the 30 inverters were
exported from the United States to
Singapore. The TDO continued in force
at the time of these export actions taken
by Respondent Loong. In engaging in
these actions Loong committed one
violation of Section 764.2(k) of the
Regulations.
D. Penalty Recommendation
Pursuant to the default procedures set
forth in § 766.7 of the Regulations, I find
the allegations contained in the charging
letter to be fact; and hereby determine
that those facts establish Chan Heep
Loong committed two violations of
§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations and one
violation of Section 764.2(k) of the
Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations
establishes the sanctions BIS may seek
for the violations charged in this
proceeding. Sanctions potentially
sought in this case include a civil
monetary penalty, suspension from
practice before the Department of
Commerce, and a denial of export
privileges under the Regulations. See 15
CFR 764.3.
BIS requests I recommend to the
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security that Chan Heep
Loong’s export privileges under the
Regulations be denied for ten (10)
years.8 BIS believes that imposition of a
civil penalty in this case would be
ineffective and argues that a denial is
justified because of the nature of Chan
8 Pursuant to Section 13(c)(1) of the Act and
§ 766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export control
enforcement cases, the Administrative Law Judge
issues a recommended decision and order which is
reviewed by the Under Secretary, who issues the
final agency decision in the case.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
Heep Loong’s multiple violations and
his demonstrated disregard for U.S.
export control laws including the longstanding U.S. trade embargo against Iran
and a TDO issued against him by BIS.
Specifically, between February and
April 2005, Loong caused two exports of
items subject to the Regulations from
the United States to Iran 9 via
transshipment through Singapore
without the required U.S. Government
authorization, in violation of Section
764.2(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR
764.2(b). See Charging Letter, Gov’t Ex.
1, at Charges 1–2. Loong failed to inform
the U.S. exporters that the intended
final destination of the items was Iran,
and instead instructed the exporters to
ship the items from the United States to
Tysonic in Singapore. Following the
arrival of these items in Singapore, the
items were forwarded on to Iran. These
actions by Loong constitute two
violations of Section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations. Id.
BIS further notes Loong’s actions in
August 2006 were a clear violation of
the TDO BIS issued against him (and
Tysonic) on April 12, 2006.
Further, BIS asserts that a denial is
justified in this case because Loong
remains in Singapore, therefore a
monetary penalty may be difficult to
collect and would not serve a sufficient
deterrent effect. In light of these
circumstances, BIS requests the Court to
recommend denial of Loong’s export
privileges for ten years as an appropriate
sanction.
I agree that the facts set forth in the
Charging Letter show that Loong
engaged in conduct that demonstrated a
clear disregard for the Regulations and
U.S. export control laws, including the
long-standing U.S. trade embargo
against Iran and the TDO issued against
him in April 2006. In addition, the facts
show that to facilitate the purchase and
unlawful export of the items at issue in
Charges 1 and 2, Loong failed to inform
the U.S. exporters that Iran, not
Singapore, was the intended final
destination for the anti-terrorism
controlled items at issue. Likewise, after
the TDO regarding Loong and Tysonic’s
U.S. export privileges was issued, Loong
used another company he owned and
controlled, Rosen Enterprises, to obtain
other items subject to the Regulations
for export from the United States in
direct violation of the terms of the TDO.
I agree that Loong’s unlawful conduct
calls for a significant sanction and
recommend as an appropriate sanction
9 Pursuant to 15 CFR 734.2(b)(6) the export of
items from the United States to a second country,
intended for transshipment to a third country is
deemed to be an export to the third country.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
the denial of Loong’s export privileges
for a period of ten (10) years, in light of
the nature of his conduct, his multiple
violations, and his location in
Singapore. The imposition of a 10-year
denial order as a sanction is also
consistent with BIS precedent. See e.g.
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic
General Trading, 71 FR 34596 (June 15,
2006) Ten (10) year denial order
imposed against a defaulting respondent
located in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) for conspiring to export antiterrorism controlled
telecommunications devices without the
required licenses to Iran, via
transshipment through UAE, aiding and
abetting the unlicensed export of such
items to Iran on two occasions, and
committing knowledge violations in
connection with those two exports. See
also In the Matter of: Aqua-Loop Cooling
Towers, Co., 75 FR 16732 (Apr. 2, 2010).
In view of the above facts and analysis
I find Respondent’s misconduct
exhibited a disregard for the Regulations
and U.S. export controls, and that a
monetary penalty is not likely to be an
effective deterrent in this case. Given
the foregoing, and consistent with BIS
precedent, I recommend, pursuant to
Section 766.7(a), that the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security enter an Order denying Chan
Heep Loong’s export privileges for a
period of ten (10) years.
Using provisions from the Standard
Terms of Orders Denying Export
Privileges set forth in Supplement No. 1
to Part 764 of the Regulations (Supp.
No. 1 to 15 CFR Part 764), I recommend
that the Under Secretary issue a Denial
Order against Chan Heep Loong as
follows:
45501
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
REGARDING REVIEW BY UNDER
SECRETARY
TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND FOREIGN
TRADE SUBTITLE B—REGULATIONS
RELATING TO COMMERCE AND
FOREIGN TRADE
CHAPTER VII—BUREAU OF
INDUSTRY AND SECURITY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SUBCHAPTER C—EXPORT
ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
PART 766—ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
15 CFR 766.22
§ 766.22
Review by Under Secretary.
(a) Recommended decision. For
proceedings not involving violations
relating to part 760 of the EAR, the
administrative law judge shall
immediately refer the recommended
decision and order to the Under
Secretary. Because of the time limits
provided under the EAA for review by
the Under Secretary, service of the
recommended decision and order on the
parties, all papers filed by the parties in
response, and the final decision of the
Under Secretary must be by personal
delivery, facsimile, express mail or
other overnight carrier. If the Under
Secretary cannot act on a recommended
decision and order for any reason, the
Under Secretary will designate another
Department of Commerce official to
receive and act on the recommendation.
(b) Submissions by parties. Parties
shall have 12 days from the date of
issuance of the recommended decision
and order in which to submit
simultaneous responses. Parties
[REDACTED SECTION]
thereafter shall have eight days from
receipt of any response(s) in which to
[REDACTED SECTION]
submit replies. Any response or reply
[REDACTED SECTION]
must be received within the time
specified by the Under Secretary.
[REDACTED SECTION]
(c) Final decision. Within 30 days
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of after receipt of the recommended
this Recommended Decision and Order, decision and order, the Under Secretary
the Under Secretary shall issue a written shall issue a written order affirming,
order affirming, modifying, or vacating
modifying or vacating the recommended
this Recommended Decision and Order. decision and order of the administrative
See 15 CFR 766.22(c). A copy of the
law judge. If he/she vacates the
Agency Regulations for Review by the
recommended decision and order, the
Under Secretary can be found as
Under Secretary may refer the case back
Attachment A.
to the administrative law judge for
llllllllllllllllll
l further proceedings. Because of the time
limits, the Under Secretary’s review will
Hon Michael J. Devine,
ordinarily be limited to the written
Administrative Law Judge United States record for decision, including the
Coast Guard
transcript of any hearing, and any
Done and dated this 25th day of June,
submissions by the parties concerning
the recommended decision.
2013, Baltimore, Maryland
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
45502
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2013 / Notices
(d) Delivery. The final decision and
implementing order shall be served on
the parties and will be publicly
available in accordance with § 766.20 of
this part.
[61 FR 12907, Mar. 25, 1996, as
amended at 75 FR 33683, June 15, 2010]
Shane Subler at (202) 482–0189
(Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the
foregoing RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND ORDER as indicated below:
Mr. Eric H. Hirschhorn,
Under Secretary for Industry and
Security, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room H–3838, 14th Street
& Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202)
482–1460
The Petitions
On July 2, 2013, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petitions
concerning imports of certain oil
country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from
India and the Republic of Turkey
(‘‘Turkey’’), filed in proper form on
behalf of United States Steel
Corporation, Vallourec Star L.P., TMK
IPSCO, Energex (division of JMC Steel
Group), Northwest Pipe Company, Tejas
Tubular Products, Welded Tube
Sent by Federal Express courier
Company, Boomerang Tube LLC, and
Chan Heep Loong,
Maverick Tube Corporation
95 Havelock Road, #14–583, Singapore, (collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’). The
160095 SG
CVD petitions were accompanied by
nine antidumping duty (AD) petitions.1
Sent by Federal Express courier
The petitioners are domestic producers
Hearing Docket Clerk,
of OCTG. On July 8, 2013, the
United States Coast Guard, ALJ
Department requested information and
Dockering Center, 40 S. Gay Street,
clarification for certain areas of the
Room 414, Baltimore, MD 21202,
Petitions.2 The petitioners filed
Telephone: (410) 962–51‘00, Fax:
responses to these requests on July 12,
(410) 962–1746
2013,3 July 15, 2013,4 and July 16,
2013.5
Sent by Hand Delivery
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
Peter Klason, Esq.,
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief
(‘‘the Act’’), the petitioners allege that
Counsel for Ind. & Security, U.S. Dept. the Governments of India and Turkey
of Commerce, Room H–3839, 14th
are providing countervailable subsidies
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
(within the meaning of sections 701 and
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202)
771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain
482–5301, Fax: (202) 482–0085
OCTG from India and Turkey, and that
such imports are materially injuring,
Sent by Facsimile
and threaten to further cause material
llllllllllllllllll
l injury to, the domestic industry
Jenny L. Collins,
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Paralegal Specialist for the
Duties on Imports of Certain Oil Country Tubular
Administrative Law Judge
Done and dated this 25th day of June, Goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the
Republic of the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan,
2013 Baltimore, Maryland.
Thailand, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, and the
[FR Doc. 2013–18078 Filed 7–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[C–533–858, C–489–817]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From India and Turkey: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigations
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Carey at (202) 482–3964 (India);
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Jul 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Oil Country Tubular
Goods from India and the Republic of Turkey, dated
July 2, 2013 (Petitions). Neither Maverick Tube
Corporation nor Vallourec Star L.P. is participating
in the petition against Saudi Arabia.
2 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods from India and the
Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand,
Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Supplemental Questions, dated July 8, 2013.
3 See General Issues Supplement to the Petitions,
dated July 12, 2013 (General Issues Supplement)
and Turkey Supplement to the CVD Petition, dated
July 12, 2013.
4 See Turkey Supplement to the CVD Petition,
dated July 15, 2013.
5 See India Supplement to the CVD Petition,
dated July 16, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
producing OCTG in the United States
pursuant to section 701 of the Act. The
Department finds that the petitioners
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because the
petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act,
and that the petitioners have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the initiation of
the investigations the petitioners are
requesting.6
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigations is
January 1, 2012, through December 31,
2012.
Scope of Investigations
The product covered by these CVD
investigations is certain OCTG from
India and Turkey. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see
the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ in
Appendix I to this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief. As
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations,7 we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. EST on August 12, 2013.8 All
comments must be filed on the records
of the India and Turkey CVD
investigations, as well as the concurrent
India, Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia,
Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and
Vietnam AD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date
noted above. Documents excepted from
the electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions’’ below.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
8 Twenty calendar days from the signature date of
this notice is August 11, 2013, which is a Sunday.
Accordingly, we are setting the deadline on the next
business day.
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45497-45502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18078]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[10-BIS-0002]
Final Decision and Order
In the Matter of:
Chan Heep Loong, 95 Havelock Road, 14-583, Singapore,
160095 SG; Respondent.
This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order
(``RDO'') of an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ''), as further
described below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I received the certified record from the ALJ, including the
original copy of the RDO, for my review on June 26, 2013. The RDO is
dated June 25, 2013. BIS timely submitted a response to the RDO,
while Respondent has not filed a response to the RDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
On February 10, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS'')
issued a Charging Letter alleging that Respondent, Chan Heep Loong, of
Singapore (``Loong'' or ``Respondent''), committed three violations of
the Export Administration Regulations (``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 the following specific allegations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Regulations currently are codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-
774 (2013). The charged violations occurred in 2005 and 2006. The
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2005
and 2006 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations. 15 CFR Parts
730-774 (2005-06). The 2013 Regulations establish the procedures
that apply to this matter. All citations herein to provisions of
Part 766 (Administrative Enforcement Proceedings) are to the 2013
version of the Regulations. All other citations to the Regulations
are to the 2005 and 2006 versions of the Regulations, as applicable,
unless otherwise indicated. For ease of reference, I note that the
2005, 2006, and 2013 versions of the Regulations are the same with
respect to the provisions of Section 764.2 and Part 766 cited
herein, while Section 746.7 remains substantively the same in
pertinent part.
\3\ Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the
President, through Executive Order 13,222 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, 2012
(77 FR 49,699 (Aug. 16, 2012)), has continued the Regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2006 and Supp. IV 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(b)--Causing an Export to Iran Without
Authorization
From on or about February 14, 2005, through on or about February
24, 2005, Loong caused the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, Loong caused the export from the United
States to Iran, via transshipment through Singapore, of GPS engines,
items subject to the Regulations and the Iranian Transaction
Regulations (``ITR'') of the Department of the Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''), without the required U.S.
Government authorization. Specifically, Loong, in his capacity as
Owner/Operator of Tysonic Enterprises (``Tysonic''), of Singapore,
ordered and/or bought the GPS engines, items that are classified
under Export Control Classification Number (``ECCN'') 7A994 and are
controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, from a U.S. company without
informing that company of the intended final destination of the
items. Loong then instructed the U.S. company to ship the items from
the United States to Tysonic in Singapore, and, following arrival in
Singapore, the items were then forwarded to Iran. Pursuant to
Section 734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the export of an item from
the United States to a second country intended for transshipment to
a third country is deemed to be an export to that third country.
Under Section 746.7 of the Regulations, a license from either BIS or
OFAC is required to export to Iran items subject to control for
anti-terrorism reasons, including items listed under ECCN 7A994.
Neither BIS nor OFAC authorized the exports of the items described
above to Iran. In engaging in the activity described herein, Loong
committed one violation of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
Charge 2 15 CFR 764.2(b)--Causing an Export to Iran Without
Authorization
From on or about April 22, 2005, through on or about May 12,
2005, Loong caused the doing of an act prohibited by the
Regulations. Specifically, Loong caused the export from the United
States to Iran, via transshipment through Singapore, of a peak power
meter, an item subject to the Regulations and the Iranian
Transaction Regulations (``ITR'') of the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''), without the
required U.S. Government authorization. Specifically, Loong, in his
capacity as Owner/Operator of Tysonic, ordered and/or bought the
peak power meter, an item classified under ECCN 3A992 and is
controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, from a U.S. company [ ].
Loong then instructed the U.S. company to ship the items from the
United States to Tysonic in Singapore, and, following arrival in
Singapore, the items were then forwarded to Iran. Pursuant to
Section 734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the export of an item from
the United States to a second country intended for transshipment to
a third country is deemed to be an export to that third country.
Under Section 746.7 of the Regulations, a license from BIS or OFAC
is required to export to Iran items subject to control for anti-
terrorism reasons, including items listed under ECCN 3A992. Neither
BIS nor OFAC authorized the export of the items described above to
Iran. In engaging in the activity described herein, Loong committed
one violation of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations.
Charge 3 15 CFR 764.2(k)--Violation of Terms of an Order Temporarily
Denying Export Privileges
On or about August 29, 2006, Loong engaged in conduct prohibited
by an Order issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement on April 12, 2006 pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Regulations, and effective upon publication in the Federal Register
on April 19, 2006, temporarily denying the export privileges of
Loong and Tysonic for 180 days (71 FR 20074, April 19, 2006) (the
``TDO''). Under the terms of the TDO, Loong was prohibited from
``directly or indirectly, participat[ing] in any way in any
transaction involving any [item] exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in a[n]y other
activity subject to the Regulations [ ], including. . . .[c]arrying
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.'' On or about
August 29, 2006, Loong, acting through
[[Page 45498]]
Rosen Enterprises, ordered and/or bought 30 inverters, items subject
to the EAR and designated as EAR99, from a company located in the
United States for export from the United States. Rosen Enterprises
is owned and operated by Loong and co-located with Tysonic in
Singapore. On or about August 29, 2006, the 30 inverters were
exported from the United States to Singapore. The TDO continued in
force at the time of the aforementioned actions taken by Loong. In
engaging in the conduct described herein, Loong committed one
violation of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations.
Charging Letter at 1-3.
In accordance with Sec. 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on
February 12, 2010, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the Charging
Letter to Loong at Loong's last known address in Singapore by
registered mail. RDO at 2. BIS received a letter from Respondent's
legal counsel, Mr. V. Esvaran, Esq., of the firm Esvaran & Tan, of
Singapore, on March 4, 2010, indicating that the firm was acting for
Loong, who had forwarded the Charging Letter from BIS to Mr. Esvaran
and his firm. Id. at 2-3. Mr. Esvaran's letter also stated that
although the Charging Letter was dated February 12, 2010, Loong was
served with the Charging Letter on February 25, 2010. Id. at 3.
In March 2010, BIS counsel received an informal request from
Respondent's counsel that BIS stipulate to an extension until April 15,
2010 to answer the charges. BIS counsel indicated that BIS would not
object to Loongs's request if Loong's counsel entered a notice of
appearance and filed the stipulation. Id. at 3. No notice of appearance
or stipulation of extension of time to file an answer was ever filed.
Id. Respondent thus was obligated to answer the Charging Letter by no
later than March 27, 2010.
On February 27, 2013, BIS counsel sent a letter by email and
Federal Express to Respondent's counsel indicating that BIS would file
a motion for default order if Respondent did not file an answer as
required by the Regulations by March 13, 2013. Id. Respondent's counsel
provided a letter response by email to BIS counsel on February 28,
2013, acknowledging that Respondent ``has to respond in a format and in
compliance with instructions under the regulations,'' and asserting
that Respondent would ``revert shortly on the matter.'' Id. However,
Respondent did not submit an answer by March 13, 2013, or at any time
thereafter. Id.
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, in turn, 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 ALJ] shall find the facts to be as
alleged in the charging letter[.]''
On April 15, 2013, BIS filed its Motion for Default Order in
accordance with Section 766.7(a) of the Regulations.\4\ The Motion for
Default Order recommended that Loong be denied export privileges under
the Regulations for a period of at least ten years. Id. at 7. In
addition to the serious nature of Loong's violations, Loong's location
in Singapore, BIS indicated that a monetary penalty may be difficult to
collect and may not serve a sufficient deterrent effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Although not required to do so by Section 766.7 of the
Regulations a copy of the Motion for Default Order was served on
Loong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2013, based on the record before him, the ALJ issued
the RDO, in which he found Loong in default, found the facts to be as
alleged in the Charging Letter, and concluded that Loong had committed
the three violations alleged in the charging letter, specifically, two
violations of 15 CFR 764.2(b), and one violation of 15 CFR 764.2(k).
Id. at 7. The RDO contains a detailed review of the facts and
applicable law relating to both merits and sanctions issues in this
case.
Based on the record, the ALJ determined, inter alia, that, between
February and April 2005, Loong caused two exports of items subject to
the Regulations from the United States to Iran via transshipment
through Singapore without the required U.S. Government authorization,
in violation of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. Id. at 7-8.
Further, the ALJ determined that after a TDO regarding Loong's U.S.
export privileges was issued, Loong used another company he owned and
controlled, Rosen Enterprises, to obtain other items subject to the
Regulations for export from the United States in direct violation of
the terms of the TDO. Id.
The ALJ also recommended that the Under Secretary deny Loong's
export privileges for a period of ten years, citing, inter alia,
Loong's ``clear disregard for the Regulations and U.S. export control
law, including the long-standing U.S. trade embargo against Iran and
the TDO issued against him in April 2006.'' Id. at 8. The ALJ further
noted that a 10-year denial order was appropriate in this case ``in
light of the nature of his conduct, his multiple violations and his
location in Singapore.'' Id.
II. Review Under Section 766.22
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. BIS submitted a timely response to the RDO pursuant to
Section 766.22(b); however, [Respondent has not submitted a response to
the RDO].
I find that the record supports the ALJ's findings of fact and
conclusions of law that Respondent never filed an answer, is in
default, and committed the three violations of the Regulations as
alleged in the Charging Letter and set forth above.
I also find that the ten-year denial order recommended by the ALJ
upon his review of the entire record is appropriate, given, as
discussed in further detail in the RDO, the nature and number of the
violations, the facts of this case, and the importance of deterring
Respondent and others from acting to evade the Regulations and
otherwise knowingly violate the Regulations.
Accordingly, based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the
findings of fact and conclusions of law in the RDO without
modification.
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered:
First, that for a period of ten (10) years from the date this Order
is published in the Federal Register, Chan Heep Loong (``Loong''), with
a last known address of 95 Havelock Road, 140583, Singapore,
160095 SG, and his successors and assigns, and when acting for or on
its behalf, his employees, representatives, or agents (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ``Denied Person'') may not participate,
directly or indirectly, 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 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
[[Page 45499]]
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 which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means
installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
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
ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, except for the section related to
the Recommended Order, shall be published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Dated: July 21, 2013.
Eric L. Hirschhorn,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 22, 2013, I caused the foregoing
Response of the Bureau of Industry and Security to the Administrative
Law Judge's Recommended Decision and Order to be sent by Federal
Express to:
Chan Heep Loong, 95 Havelock Road, 14-583,
Singapore, 160095 SG.
And Hand-delivered to:
John T. Masterson, Jr., Esq., Joseph Jest, Esq., Peter Klason,
Esq., Attorneys for the Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of
Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue NW, Room H-3839, Washington, DC
20230.
,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Mortimer,
Office of the Under Secretary for Industry and Security
United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security
Washington, DC 20230
10-BIS-0002
In the Matter of:
Chan Heep Loong, 95 Havelock Road, 14-583, Singapore,
160095 SG; Respondent.
Order Granting Motion for Default and Recommended Decision and Order
On February 12, 2010, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, issued a charging letter initiating this
administrative enforcement proceeding against Chan Heep Loong (Loong or
Respondent).
The charging letter alleged that Chan Heep Loong, as Owner/Operator
of Tysonic Enterprises (Tysonic) committed three (3) violations of the
Export Administration Regulations (Regulations) (See 15 CFR Parts 730-
774 (2008)) \5\. The Regulations were issued under the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420
(2000)) (Act).\6\ In accordance with Section 766.7 of the Regulations,
BIS moved for the issuance of an Order of Default against Chan Heep
Loong in connection with Charges 1, 2 and 3 in the charging letter, as
Chan Heep Loong failed to file an Answer to the allegations contained
in the charging letter within the time period required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The charges are for violations that are alleged to have
occurred during 2005 and 2006. The Regulations governing the
violations at issue are found in the 2005 and 2006 versions of the
Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2005-06)). The
2013 Regulations establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
\6\ Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration 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, 2012 (77 FR 49699 (Aug. 16, 2012)), continues the
Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2006 and Supp. IV 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order of Default
Section 766.7 of the Regulations states upon Motion by BIS, the
Court shall enter a judgment of default if a respondent fails to file a
timely answer to the 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' 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 Sec. 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.
B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of Charging Letter
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations provides notice of the
issuance of a charging letter shall be served on a respondent by
mailing a copy by registered or certified mail addressed to the
respondent at the respondent's last known address. On February 12,
2010, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of a charging letter by
registered mail to Chan Heep Loong at his last known address in
Singapore. See Gov't Ex. 1. Pursuant to Section 766.3(c) of the
Regulations, the date of service in this case is the date of delivery.
After mailing the Charging Letter to Chan Heep Loong at his last known
address, BIS received a letter from Respondent's legal counsel, Mr. V.
Esvaran, Esq., of the firm of Esvaran & Tan, of Singapore, on March 4,
2010, indicating the firm was acting for Tysonic Enterprises and
[[Page 45500]]
Respondent Chan Heep Loong who had forwarded the Charging Letter from
the Agency to Mr. Esvaran and his firm. See Gov't Ex. 3. Mr. Esvaran's
letter also stated that although the Charges are dated February 12,
2010 his clients were served with the Charges on February 25, 2010. Id.
I find that BIS properly served the Charging Letter in accordance with
15 CFR 766.3(b).
In March of 2010, BIS counsel received an informal request from
Respondent's counsel requesting BIS stipulate to an extension until
April 15, 2010 to answer the charges. Agency counsel indicated BIS
would not object if Respondent's counsel entered a notice of appearance
and the necessary stipulation. See Gov't Ex. 4. However, no notice of
appearance, motion, or stipulation for an extension has been filed. To
date, Respondent has not filed an answer.
On February 27, 2013, BIS counsel sent a letter by email (and
Federal Express) to Respondent's counsel indicating that BIS would file
a motion for a default order if Respondent did not file an answer as
required by the regulations with the Docketing Center by March 13,
2013. See Gov't Ex. 5; 15 CFR 766.5 and 766.6.
Respondent's counsel provided a letter response by email to BIS on
February 28, 2013, acknowledging that Respondent ``has to respond in a
format and in compliance with instructions under the requisite
regulations,'' and asserting that Respondent would ``revert shortly on
the matter.'' See Gov't Ex. 6. However, Respondent did not submit an
answer on March 13, 2013 or at any time thereafter. On April 15, 2013,
BIS filed a Motion for Default Order.
Under Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations, a respondent must file
an answer to the charging letter within 30 days after being served with
notice of issuance of the charging letter initiating the administrative
enforcement proceeding. Respondent originally had 30 days from February
25, 2010, to file an answer to the charging letter. As noted above, on
February 27, 2013 BIS provided notice to Respondent of another
opportunity to file an answer by March 13, 2013 and that failure to
answer would result in submission of a default motion by BIS. To date,
Respondent has not filed an answer.
C. Summary of Violations Charged
The charging letter filed by BIS included a total of three charged
violations. Two violations concerned causing unauthorized exports to
Iran, via transshipment through Singapore, of items controlled under
the Regulations on anti-terrorism grounds; and one charge for violating
an Order issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement on April 12, 2006 temporarily denying export privileges
(TDO) of Loong and Tysonic for 180 days. (71 FR 20074, April 19, 2006).
Specifically, Charge 1 alleges from on or about February 14, 2005,
through on or about February 24, 2005, Loong violated Section
764.2(b)(Causing, Aiding or Abetting a Violation) of the Regulations by
causing the export of GPS engines to Iran, via transshipment through
Singapore, without the required license. Acting through Tysonic
Enterprises, a Singapore company Loong owned and operated, Loong
ordered and/or bought the GPS engines, items classified on the Commerce
Control List under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 7A994
and controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, from a U.S. company without
informing that company that Iran was the intended final destination of
the items. 7 Loong instead instructed the U.S. company to ship the
items from the United States to Tysonic in Singapore, and following
their arrival in Singapore, the items were forwarded to Iran. Pursuant
to Section 734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the export of an item from
the United States to a second country, such as Singapore, intended for
transshipment to a third country, such as Iran, constitutes an export
to that third country. Charge 1 further alleges that under Section
746.7 of the Regulations, a license from either BIS or the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was required to
export these items to Iran, and that neither BIS nor OFAC authorized
these exports to Iran. See Charging Letter; Gov. Ex. 1.
Charge 2 alleges from on or about April 22, 2005, through on or
about May 12, 2005, Loong violated Section 764.2(b)(Causing, Aiding or
Abetting a Violation) of the Regulations by causing the export of a
peak power meter to Iran, via transshipment through Singapore, without
the license required under Section 746.7 of the Regulations. Acting
through Tysonic Enterprises, a Singapore company Loong owned and
operated, Loong ordered and/or bought the peak power meter, an item
classified on the Commerce Control List under ECCN 3A992 and controlled
for anti-terrorism reasons, from a U.S. company without informing that
company that Iran was the intended final destination of the item. Loong
instead instructed the U.S. company to ship the item from the United
States to Tysonic in Singapore, and following their arrival in
Singapore, the items were forwarded to Iran. Pursuant to Section
734.2(b)(6) of the Regulations, the export of an item from the United
States to a second country, such as Singapore, intended for
transshipment to a third country, such as Iran, constitutes an export
to that third country. Charge 2 further alleges that under Section
746.7 of the Regulations, a license from either BIS or OFAC was
required to export this item to Iran, and that neither BIS nor OFAC
authorized this export to Iran. See Charging Letter; Gov. Ex. 1.
Charge 3 alleges from on or about August 29, 2006, Loong, acting
through Rosen Enterprises, violated Section 764.2(k)(Violation of Terms
of an Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges) of the Regulations
by purchasing 30 inverters, items subject to the EAR and designated as
EAR99, from a company located in the United States for export from the
United States. Rosen Enterprises is owned and operated by Loong and co-
located with Tysonic Enterprises in Singapore. On or about August 29,
2006, the 30 inverters were exported from the United States to
Singapore. The TDO continued in force at the time of these export
actions taken by Respondent Loong. In engaging in these actions Loong
committed one violation of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations.
D. Penalty Recommendation
Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Sec. 766.7 of the
Regulations, I find the allegations contained in the charging letter to
be fact; and hereby determine that those facts establish Chan Heep
Loong committed two violations of Sec. 764.2(b) of the Regulations and
one violation of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations.
Section 764.3 of the Regulations establishes the sanctions BIS may
seek for the violations charged in this proceeding. Sanctions
potentially sought in this case include a civil monetary penalty,
suspension from practice before the Department of Commerce, and a
denial of export privileges under the Regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3.
BIS requests I recommend to the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security that Chan Heep Loong's export privileges under
the Regulations be denied for ten (10) years.\8\ BIS believes that
imposition of a civil penalty in this case would be ineffective and
argues that a denial is justified because of the nature of Chan
[[Page 45501]]
Heep Loong's multiple violations and his demonstrated disregard for
U.S. export control laws including the long-standing U.S. trade embargo
against Iran and a TDO issued against him by BIS. Specifically, between
February and April 2005, Loong caused two exports of items subject to
the Regulations from the United States to Iran \9\ via transshipment
through Singapore without the required U.S. Government authorization,
in violation of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 764.2(b).
See Charging Letter, Gov't Ex. 1, at Charges 1-2. Loong failed to
inform the U.S. exporters that the intended final destination of the
items was Iran, and instead instructed the exporters to ship the items
from the United States to Tysonic in Singapore. Following the arrival
of these items in Singapore, the items were forwarded on to Iran. These
actions by Loong constitute two violations of Section 764.2(b) of the
Regulations. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pursuant to Section 13(c)(1) of the Act and Sec.
766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export control enforcement
cases, the Administrative Law Judge issues a recommended decision
and order which is reviewed by the Under Secretary, who issues the
final agency decision in the case.
\9\ Pursuant to 15 CFR 734.2(b)(6) the export of items from the
United States to a second country, intended for transshipment to a
third country is deemed to be an export to the third country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIS further notes Loong's actions in August 2006 were a clear
violation of the TDO BIS issued against him (and Tysonic) on April 12,
2006.
Further, BIS asserts that a denial is justified in this case
because Loong remains in Singapore, therefore a monetary penalty may be
difficult to collect and would not serve a sufficient deterrent effect.
In light of these circumstances, BIS requests the Court to recommend
denial of Loong's export privileges for ten years as an appropriate
sanction.
I agree that the facts set forth in the Charging Letter show that
Loong engaged in conduct that demonstrated a clear disregard for the
Regulations and U.S. export control laws, including the long-standing
U.S. trade embargo against Iran and the TDO issued against him in April
2006. In addition, the facts show that to facilitate the purchase and
unlawful export of the items at issue in Charges 1 and 2, Loong failed
to inform the U.S. exporters that Iran, not Singapore, was the intended
final destination for the anti-terrorism controlled items at issue.
Likewise, after the TDO regarding Loong and Tysonic's U.S. export
privileges was issued, Loong used another company he owned and
controlled, Rosen Enterprises, to obtain other items subject to the
Regulations for export from the United States in direct violation of
the terms of the TDO.
I agree that Loong's unlawful conduct calls for a significant
sanction and recommend as an appropriate sanction the denial of Loong's
export privileges for a period of ten (10) years, in light of the
nature of his conduct, his multiple violations, and his location in
Singapore. The imposition of a 10-year denial order as a sanction is
also consistent with BIS precedent. See e.g. In the Matter of: Teepad
Electronic General Trading, 71 FR 34596 (June 15, 2006) Ten (10) year
denial order imposed against a defaulting respondent located in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) for conspiring to export anti-terrorism
controlled telecommunications devices without the required licenses to
Iran, via transshipment through UAE, aiding and abetting the unlicensed
export of such items to Iran on two occasions, and committing knowledge
violations in connection with those two exports. See also In the Matter
of: Aqua-Loop Cooling Towers, Co., 75 FR 16732 (Apr. 2, 2010). In view
of the above facts and analysis I find Respondent's misconduct
exhibited a disregard for the Regulations and U.S. export controls, and
that a monetary penalty is not likely to be an effective deterrent in
this case. Given the foregoing, and consistent with BIS precedent, I
recommend, pursuant to Section 766.7(a), that the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security enter an Order denying Chan Heep
Loong's export privileges for a period of ten (10) years.
Using provisions from the Standard Terms of Orders Denying Export
Privileges set forth in Supplement No. 1 to Part 764 of the Regulations
(Supp. No. 1 to 15 CFR Part 764), I recommend that the Under Secretary
issue a Denial Order against Chan Heep Loong as follows:
[REDACTED SECTION]
[REDACTED SECTION]
[REDACTED SECTION]
[REDACTED SECTION]
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Recommended Decision
and Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming,
modifying, or vacating this Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 CFR
766.22(c). A copy of the Agency Regulations for Review by the Under
Secretary can be found as Attachment A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon Michael J. Devine,
Administrative Law Judge United States Coast Guard
Done and dated this 25th day of June, 2013, Baltimore, Maryland
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING REVIEW BY UNDER SECRETARY
TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE SUBTITLE B--REGULATIONS RELATING
TO COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE
CHAPTER VII--BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SUBCHAPTER C--EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
PART 766--ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
15 CFR 766.22
Sec. 766.22 Review by Under Secretary.
(a) Recommended decision. For proceedings not involving violations
relating to part 760 of the EAR, the administrative law judge shall
immediately refer the recommended decision and order to the Under
Secretary. Because of the time limits provided under the EAA for review
by the Under Secretary, service of the recommended decision and order
on the parties, all papers filed by the parties in response, and the
final decision of the Under Secretary must be by personal delivery,
facsimile, express mail or other overnight carrier. If the Under
Secretary cannot act on a recommended decision and order for any
reason, the Under Secretary will designate another Department of
Commerce official to receive and act on the recommendation.
(b) Submissions by parties. Parties shall have 12 days from the
date of issuance of the recommended decision and order in which to
submit simultaneous responses. Parties thereafter shall have eight days
from receipt of any response(s) in which to submit replies. Any
response or reply must be received within the time specified by the
Under Secretary.
(c) Final decision. Within 30 days after receipt of the recommended
decision and order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order
affirming, modifying or vacating the recommended decision and order of
the administrative law judge. If he/she vacates the recommended
decision and order, the Under Secretary may refer the case back to the
administrative law judge for further proceedings. Because of the time
limits, the Under Secretary's review will ordinarily be limited to the
written record for decision, including the transcript of any hearing,
and any submissions by the parties concerning the recommended decision.
[[Page 45502]]
(d) Delivery. The final decision and implementing order shall be
served on the parties and will be publicly available in accordance with
Sec. 766.20 of this part.
[61 FR 12907, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 33683, June 15,
2010]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing RECOMMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER as indicated below:
Mr. Eric H. Hirschhorn,
Under Secretary for Industry and Security, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room H-3838, 14th Street &
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202) 482-1460
Sent by Federal Express courier
Chan Heep Loong,
95 Havelock Road, #14-583, Singapore, 160095 SG
Sent by Federal Express courier
Hearing Docket Clerk,
United States Coast Guard, ALJ Dockering Center, 40 S. Gay Street, Room
414, Baltimore, MD 21202, Telephone: (410) 962-51`00, Fax: (410) 962-
1746
Sent by Hand Delivery
Peter Klason, Esq.,
Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel for Ind. & Security, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Room H-3839, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202) 482-5301, Fax: (202) 482-0085
Sent by Facsimile
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny L. Collins,
Paralegal Specialist for the Administrative Law Judge
Done and dated this 25th day of June, 2013 Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2013-18078 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
