Order Denying Export Privileges, 7839-7840 [2015-02912]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30 day of
January 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–02975 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Order Denying Export Privileges
In the Matter of:
Maple Pacific Corporation, 26671 Sierra
Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292,
Respondent;
Andrew Hsu, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission
Viejo, CA 96292, Related Person.
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Denial of Export Privileges of Maple
Pacific Corporation
On February 6, 2012, in the U.S.
District Court, Central District of
California, Maple Pacific Corporation
(‘‘Maple Pacific’’), was convicted of
violating the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010))
(‘‘IEEPA’’). Specifically, Maple Pacific
willfully exported and transshipped
goods, namely, industrial parts used to
maintain equipment in the steel
manufacturing industry, from the
United States to Iran without first
obtaining from the United States
Department of Commerce, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, a license or
written authorization for such export
and transshipment, knowing such a
license or authorization was required.
Maple Pacific was sentenced to
probation for two years, a $5,000 fine
and $400 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export
Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or
‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent
part, that ‘‘[t]he Director of the Office of
Exporter Services, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Export
Enforcement, may deny the export
privileges of any person who has been
1 The Regulations are currently codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730–
774 (2014). The Regulations are issued pursuant to
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.
app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘the EAA’’ or ‘‘the
Act’’). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA 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 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)),
has continued the Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:54 Feb 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
convicted of a violation of the EAA, the
EAR, of any order, license or
authorization issued thereunder; any
regulation, license, or order issued
under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–
1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section
4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778).’’ 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also
Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app.
§ 2410(h). The denial of export
privileges under this provision may be
for a period of up to ten (10) years from
the date of the conviction. 15 CFR
766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app.
§ 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of
the Regulations states that the Bureau of
Industry and Security’s Office of
Exporter Services may revoke any
Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’)
licenses previously issued in which the
person had an interest in at the time of
his conviction.
BIS received notice of Maple Pacific’s
conviction for violating the IEEPA, and
has provided notice and an opportunity
for Maple Pacific to make a written
submission to BIS, as provided in
Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS
has not received a submission from
Maple Pacific. Based upon my review
and consultations with BIS’s Office of
Export Enforcement, including its
Director, and the facts available to BIS,
I have decided to deny Maple Pacific’s
export privileges under the Regulations
for a period of ten (10) years from the
date of Maple Pacific’s conviction. I
have also decided to revoke all licenses
issued pursuant to the Act or
Regulations in which Maple Pacific had
an interest at the time of its conviction.
B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related
Person Andrew Hsu
Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and
766.23 of the Regulations, the Director
of BIS’s Office of Exporter Services, in
consultation with the Director of BIS’s
Office of Export Enforcement, may, in
order to prevent evasion of a denial
order, make a denial order applicable
not only to the respondent, but also to
other persons related to the respondent
by ownership, control, position of
responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or
business.
As provided in Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, BIS gave notice to Andrew
Hsu (‘‘Hsu’’) that his export privileges
under the Regulations could be denied
for up to ten (10) years due to his
relationship with Maple Pacific and that
BIS believed that naming Hsu as a
person related to Maple Pacific would
be necessary to prevent evasion of a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7839
denial order imposed against Maple
Pacific. In providing such notice, BIS
gave Hsu an opportunity to oppose its
addition to the Maple Pacific Denial
Order as a related party.
Having received no submission from
Hsu, I have decided, following
consultations with BIS’s Office of
Export Enforcement, including its
Director, to include name Hsu as a
Related Person and make this Denial
Order applicable to Hsu, thereby
denying his export privileges for ten
(10) years from the date of Maple
Pacific’s conviction. I have also decided
to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to
the Act or Regulations in which Hsu
had an interest at the time of Maple
Pacific’s conviction. The 10-year denial
period is scheduled to end on February
6, 2022.
Hsu is the sole owner of Maple Pacific
and performed all aspects of Maple
Pacific’s operations. Therefore, Hsu is
related to Maple Pacific within the
meaning of Section 766.23. BIS also has
reason to believe that Hsu should be
added as a related person in order to
prevent evasion of this Denial Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
First, from the date of this Order until
February 6, 2022, Maple Pacific
Corporation, with a last known address
of 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA
96292, and when acting for or on its
behalf, its successors, assigns, directors,
officers, employees, agents, or
representatives, and Andrew Hsu, with
a last known address of 26671 Sierra
Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and
when acting for or on his behalf, his
successors, assigns, employees, agents,
or representatives (each as ‘‘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
Regulations, or in any other activity
subject to the Regulations, including but
not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, License Exception, or
export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations;
or
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7840
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices
C. Benefitting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or in
any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Second, 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 Regulations;
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 Regulations 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 Regulations that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a 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 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 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, in addition to the Related
Person named above, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 766.23 of the Regulations, any
other individual, firm, corporation, or
other association or organization or
other person related to a Denied Person
by ownership, control, position of
responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or
business may also be made subject to
the provisions of this Order if necessary
to prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756
and Section 766.25(g) of the
Regulations, Maple Pacific may file an
appeal of the issuance of this Order
against it with the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security.
The appeal must be filed within 45 days
from the date of this Order and must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:54 Feb 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
comply with the provisions of Part 756
of the Regulations.
Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and
Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations,
Hsu may file an appeal of naming him
as a related person in this Order with
the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security. This appeal must
be filed within 45 days from the date of
this Order and must comply with the
provisions of Part 756 of the
Regulations.
Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be
provided to Maple Pacific and Hsu and
shall be published in the Federal
Register.
Seventh, this Order is effectively
immediately and shall remain in effect
until February 6, 2022.
Issued this 5th day of February, 2015.
Thomas Andrukonis,
Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2015–02912 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice
of Court Decisions Not in Harmony
With Final Results of Administrative
and New Shipper Reviews and Notice
of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
AGENCY:
On December 18, 2014, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final
judgments in Catfish Farmers of
America et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00109 and Catfish
Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00110, sustaining
the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the
Department’’) AR6 Remand final results
which included an aligned new shipper
review.1 On December 19, 2014, the
Court issued final judgment in Catfish
Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00252, sustaining
the Department’s NSR7 Remand final
results.2 In the AR6 Remand, the
SUMMARY:
1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Consol. Court Nos. 11–00109 and
11–00110, Slip Ops. 13–63 and 13–64 (CIT May 23,
2013), dated January 17, 2014, (‘‘AR6 Remand’’)
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/
13-63&64.pdf.
2 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00252, Slip
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for Vinh Hoan
Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) using
revised surrogate values for by-products
(fish waste, broken meat, and fish skin)
and made adjustments for the inventory
changes in the surrogate financial
statements.3 Because Vinh Hoan’s
margin is now above de minimis, it also
becomes the margin for those companies
not individually examined but receiving
a separate rate.4 The margins for the
voluntary respondent Vinh Quang
Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’)
and the new shipper Cuu Long Fish
Joint Stock Company (‘‘CL–Fish’’) did
not change and remain de minimis.
In the NSR 7 Remand, the Department
recalculated the weighted-average
dumping margin for IDI Corporation
(‘‘IDI’’) and Thien Ma Seafood Company
(‘‘THIMACO’’) using revised surrogate
values for by-products (fish waste,
broken meat and fish skin).5 However,
the margins for IDI and THIMACO did
not change and remain de minimis.
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in these cases is not
in harmony with the Department’s final
results of the antidumping duty
administrative and new shipper reviews
of the antidumping duty order on
certain frozen fish fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’) covering the period of
review August 1, 2008, through July 31,
2009 (‘‘AR6 POR’’), and August 1, 2009,
through February 15, 2010 (‘‘NSR7
POR’’). With respect to the AR6 POR,
the Department is amending the final
results with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margins for Vinh
Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC and South
Op. 13–91 (CIT July 22, 2013), dated January 17,
2014, (‘‘NSR7 Remand’’) available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-91.pdf.
3 See AR6 Remand at 41–46. As we explain
below, the Department’s recalculation of these
surrogate values now yields an above de minimis
weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh Hoan.
Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department
has amended the final results with respect to Vinh
Hoan.
4 These companies include: 1) An Giang Fisheries
Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka
Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export);
2) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company
(formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture
Co., Ltd.) (‘‘ESS LLC’’); and 3) Southern Fishery
Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’).
5 See NSR7 Remand at 39–41.
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7839-7840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02912]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Order Denying Export Privileges
In the Matter of:
Maple Pacific Corporation, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA
96292, Respondent;
Andrew Hsu, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, Related
Person.
A. Denial of Export Privileges of Maple Pacific Corporation
On February 6, 2012, in the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, Maple Pacific Corporation (``Maple Pacific''), was
convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (``IEEPA'').
Specifically, Maple Pacific willfully exported and transshipped goods,
namely, industrial parts used to maintain equipment in the steel
manufacturing industry, from the United States to Iran without first
obtaining from the United States Department of Commerce, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, a license or written authorization for such
export and transshipment, knowing such a license or authorization was
required. Maple Pacific was sentenced to probation for two years, a
$5,000 fine and $400 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (``EAR'' or
``Regulations'') \1\ provides, in pertinent part, that ``[t]he Director
of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of
any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA, the EAR,
of any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any
regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798;
section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)),
or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).'' 15 CFR
766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. Sec.
2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be
for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the conviction.
15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2410(h). In addition,
Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and
Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of
Industry and Security (``BIS'') licenses previously issued in which the
person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014). The Regulations
are issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. app. Sec. Sec. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``the EAA'' or ``the
Act''). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA 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 7, 2014
(79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIS received notice of Maple Pacific's conviction for violating the
IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Maple Pacific to
make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the
Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Maple Pacific.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export
Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I
have decided to deny Maple Pacific's export privileges under the
Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Maple
Pacific's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued
pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Maple Pacific had an
interest at the time of its conviction.
B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related Person Andrew Hsu
Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the
Director of BIS's Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the
Director of BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, may, in order to
prevent evasion of a denial order, make a denial order applicable not
only to the respondent, but also to other persons related to the
respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility,
affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business.
As provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, BIS gave notice
to Andrew Hsu (``Hsu'') that his export privileges under the
Regulations could be denied for up to ten (10) years due to his
relationship with Maple Pacific and that BIS believed that naming Hsu
as a person related to Maple Pacific would be necessary to prevent
evasion of a denial order imposed against Maple Pacific. In providing
such notice, BIS gave Hsu an opportunity to oppose its addition to the
Maple Pacific Denial Order as a related party.
Having received no submission from Hsu, I have decided, following
consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its
Director, to include name Hsu as a Related Person and make this Denial
Order applicable to Hsu, thereby denying his export privileges for ten
(10) years from the date of Maple Pacific's conviction. I have also
decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or
Regulations in which Hsu had an interest at the time of Maple Pacific's
conviction. The 10-year denial period is scheduled to end on February
6, 2022.
Hsu is the sole owner of Maple Pacific and performed all aspects of
Maple Pacific's operations. Therefore, Hsu is related to Maple Pacific
within the meaning of Section 766.23. BIS also has reason to believe
that Hsu should be added as a related person in order to prevent
evasion of this Denial Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
First, from the date of this Order until February 6, 2022, Maple
Pacific Corporation, with a last known address of 26671 Sierra Vista,
Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and when acting for or on its behalf, its
successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, or
representatives, and Andrew Hsu, with a last known address of 26671
Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and when acting for or on his
behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents, or representatives
(each as ``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 Regulations, or in any other
activity subject to the Regulations, including but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other
activity subject to the Regulations; or
[[Page 7840]]
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to
the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Second, 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 Regulations;
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 Regulations 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 Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a 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 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 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, in addition to the Related Person named above, after notice
and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the
Regulations, any other individual, firm, corporation, or other
association or organization or other person related to a Denied Person
by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or
other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made
subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion
of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 and Section 766.25(g) of the
Regulations, Maple Pacific may file an appeal of the issuance of this
Order against it with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this
Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the
Regulations.
Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and Section 766.23(c) of the
Regulations, Hsu may file an appeal of naming him as a related person
in this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security. This appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of
this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the
Regulations.
Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be provided to Maple Pacific and
Hsu and shall be published in the Federal Register.
Seventh, this Order is effectively immediately and shall remain in
effect until February 6, 2022.
Issued this 5th day of February, 2015.
Thomas Andrukonis,
Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-02912 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
