Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 61745-61751 [2017-28113]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
objection, the Forest Service will
attempt to verify the identity of the
objector to confirm objection eligibility;
(2) Signature or other verification of
authorship upon request (a scanned
signature for electronic mail may be
filed with the objection);
(3) Identification of the lead objector,
when multiple names are listed on an
objection. The Forest Service will
communicate to all parties to an
objection through the lead objector.
Verification of the identity of the lead
objector must also be provided if
requested;
(4) The name of the forest plan
amendment being objected to, and the
name and title of the Responsible
Official;
(5) A statement of the issues and/or
parts of the forest plan amendment to
which the objection applies;
(6) A concise statement explaining the
objection and suggesting how the
proposed plan decision may be
improved. If the objector believes that
the forest plan amendment is
inconsistent with law, regulation, or
policy, an explanation should be
included;
(7) A statement that demonstrates the
link between the objector’s prior
substantive formal comments and the
content of the objection, unless the
objection concerns an issue that arose
after the opportunities for formal
comment; and
(8) All documents referenced in the
objection (a bibliography is not
sufficient), except that the following
need not be provided:
a. All or any part of a Federal law or
regulation,
b. Forest Service Directive System
documents and land management plans
or other published Forest Service
documents,
c. Documents referenced by the Forest
Service in the planning documentation
related to the proposal subject to
objection, and
d. Formal comments previously
provided to the Forest Service by the
objector during the plan amendment
comment period.
Responsible Official
The responsible official for the Santa
Fe’s Forest Plan Amendment for
Geothermal Leasing on the Santa Fe
National Forest is James Melonas, Forest
Supervisor, Santa Fe National Forest, 11
Forest Lane, Santa Fe, NM, 87508.
Dated: December 15, 2017.
Glenn P. Casamassa,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System.
[FR Doc. 2017–28134 Filed 12–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Order Renewing Order Temporarily
Denying Export Privileges
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21,
Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way,
Tehran, Iran;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a
Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free
Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al
Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates;
Kerman Aviation, a/k/a GIE Kerman
Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008,
Paris, France;
Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor
Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road,
Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates;
Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways—Istanbul
Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101
D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey;
Al Naser Airlines, a/k/a al-Naser Airlines, a/
k/a Al Naser Wings Airline, a/k/a Alnaser
Airlines and Air Freight Ltd., Home 46, AlKarrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21
Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq; and
Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20 Al
Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq; and
P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; and
P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan;
Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a
Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay, Home 46, AlKarrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21,
Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq; and
Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177;
Bahar Safwa General Trading, PO Box
113212 Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office
#504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; and
PO Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Sky Blue Bird Group, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird
Aviation, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Ltd, a/k/a
Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al
Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab
Emirates;
Issam Shammout, a/k/a Muhammad Isam
Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout, a/k/a
Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor,
Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria; and
Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515; and
17–18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London,
W1W 8RP, United Kingdom; and
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad.
Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri, Istanbul,
Turkey
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61745
Order Renewing Order Temporarily
Denying Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR parts 730–774 (2016) (‘‘EAR’’ or
‘‘the Regulations’’),1 I hereby grant the
request of the Office of Export
Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) to renew the
temporary denial order issued in this
matter on June 27, 2017, as recently
modified on November 16, 2017. I find
that renewal of this order, as recently
modified, is necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR. I also find it
necessary in connection with this
renewal to add ‘‘Al Naser Wings
Airline’’ as an alias being used by
respondent Al Naser Airlines.
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W.
Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement
(‘‘Assistant Secretary’’), signed an order
denying Mahan Airways’ export
privileges for a period of 180 days on
the ground that issuance of the order
was necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
Regulations. The order also named as
denied persons Blue Airways, of
Yerevan, Armenia (‘‘Blue Airways of
Armenia’’), as well as the ‘‘Balli Group
Respondents,’’ namely, Balli Group
PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings,
Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband,
Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd.,
Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd.,
Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six
Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The
order was issued ex parte pursuant to
Section 766.24(a) of the Regulations,
and went into effect on March 21, 2008,
the date it was published in the Federal
Register.
This temporary denial order (‘‘TDO’’)
was renewed in accordance with
Section 766.24(d) of the Regulations.2
1 The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR
parts 730–774 (2017), originally issued pursuant to
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (‘‘EAA’’ or
‘‘the Act’’). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been
in lapse and the President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783
(2002)), which has been extended by successive
Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of
August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (Aug. 16, 2017)) has
continued the Regulations in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).
2 Section 766.24(d) provides that BIS may seek
renewal of a temporary denial order for additional
180-day renewal periods, if it believes that renewal
is necessary in the public interest to prevent an
imminent violation. Renewal requests are to be
made in writing no later than 20 days before the
scheduled expiration date of a temporary denial
order. Renewal requests may include discussion of
any additional or changed circumstances, and may
seek appropriate modifications to the order,
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
Continued
29DEN1
61746
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Subsequent renewals also have issued
pursuant to Section 766.24(d), including
most recently on June 27, 2017.3 Some
of the renewal orders and the
modification orders that have issued
between renewals have added certain
parties as respondents or as related
persons, or effected the removal of
certain parties.4
The September 11, 2009 renewal
order continued the denial order as to
Mahan Airways, but not as to the Balli
Group Respondents or Blue Airways of
Armenia.5 As part of the February 25,
2011 renewal order, Pejman Mahmood
Kosarayanifard (a/k/a Kosarian Fard),
Mahmoud Amini, and Gatewick LLC (a/
k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo
Services, a/k/a Gatewick Aviation
Services) were added as related persons
to prevent evasion of the TDO.6 A
including the addition of parties as respondents or
related persons, or the removal of parties previously
added as respondents or related persons. BIS is not
required to seek renewal as to all parties, and a
removal of a party can be effected if, without more,
BIS does not seek renewal as to that party. Any
party included or added to a temporary denial order
as a respondent may oppose a renewal request as
set forth in Section 766.24(d). Parties included or
added as related persons can at any time appeal
their inclusion as a related person, but cannot
challenge the underlying temporary denial order,
either as initially issued or subsequently renewed,
and cannot oppose a renewal request. See also note
4, infra.
3 The June 27, 2017 renewal order was effective
upon issuance and published in the Federal
Register on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30,823). Prior
renewal orders issued on September 17, 2008,
March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009, March 9,
2010, September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August
24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9, 2012,
February 4, 2013, July 31, 2013, January 24, 2014,
July 22, 2014, January 16, 2015, July 13, 2015,
January 7, 2016, July 7, 2016, and December 30,
2016, respectively. The August 24, 2011 renewal
followed the issuance of a modification order that
issued on July 1, 2011, to add Zarand Aviation as
a respondent. The July 13, 2015 renewal followed
a modification order that issued May 21, 2015, and
added Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and
Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Each
of the renewal orders and each of the modification
orders referenced in this footnote or elsewhere in
this order has been published in the Federal
Register.
4 Pursuant to Sections 766.23 and 766.24(c) of the
Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to a denied person by
affiliation, ownership, control, or position of
responsibility in the conduct of trade or related
services may be added as a ‘‘related person’’ to a
temporary denial order to prevent evasion of the
order.
5 Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation settled
proposed BIS administrative charges as part of a
settlement agreement that was approved by a
settlement order issued on February 5, 2010. The
sanctions imposed pursuant to that settlement and
order included, inter alia, a $15 million civil
penalty and a requirement to conduct five external
audits and submit related audit reports. The Balli
Group Respondents also settled related charges
with the Department of Justice and the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.
6 See note 4, supra, concerning the addition of
related persons to a temporary denial order.
Kosarian Fard and Mahmoud Amini remain parties
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
modification order issued on July 1,
2011, adding Zarand Aviation as a
respondent in order to prevent an
imminent violation.7
As part of the August 24, 2011
renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were
added as related persons. Mahan Air
General Trading LLC, Equipco (UK)
Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. were added as
related persons by a modification order
issued on April 9, 2012. Mehdi Bahrami
was added as a related person as part of
the February 4, 2013 renewal order.
On May 21, 2015, a modification
order issued adding Al Naser Airlines,
Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading as respondents. As
detailed in that order and discussed
further infra, these respondents were
added to the TDO based upon evidence
that they were acting together to, inter
alia, obtain aircraft subject to the
Regulations for export or reexport to
Mahan in violation of the Regulations
and the TDO. Sky Blue Bird Group and
its chief executive officer, Issam
Shammout, were added as related
persons as part of the July 13, 2015
renewal order.8
The June 27, 2017 renewal order
continued the denial of the export
privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman
Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud
Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, Mahan Air General
Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar
Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird
Group, and Issam Shammout, as well as
Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and
Skyco (UK) Ltd. On November 16, 2017,
a modification order issued to remove
to the TDO. On August 13, 2014, BIS and Gatewick
resolved administrative charges against Gatewick,
including a charge for acting contrary to the terms
of a BIS denial order (15 CFR 764.2(k)). In addition
to the payment of a civil penalty, the settlement
includes a seven-year denial order. The first two
years of the denial period were active, with the
remaining five years suspended conditioned upon
Gatewick’s full and timely payment of the civil
penalty and its compliance with the Regulations
during the seven-year denial order period. This
denial order, in effect, superseded the TDO as to
Gatewick, which was not included as part of the
January 16, 2015 renewal order. The Gatewick LLC
Final Order was published in the Federal Register
on August 20, 2014. See 79 FR 49283 (Aug. 20,
2014).
7 Zarand Aviation’s export privileges remained
denied until July 22, 2014, when it was not
included as part of the renewal order issued on that
date.
8 The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) designated Sky
Blue Bird and Issam Shammout as Specially
Designated Global Terrorists (‘‘SDGTs’’) on May 21,
2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324, for
‘‘providing support to Iran’s Mahan Air.’’ See 80 FR
30762 (May 29, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Eslamian, Equipco, and Skyco following
a request by OEE for their removal.9
On November 28, 2017, BIS, through
OEE, submitted a written request for
renewal of the TDO that issued on June
27, 2017, as modified on November 16,
2017. The written request was made
more than 20 days before the TDO’s
scheduled expiration. Notice of the
renewal request was provided to Mahan
Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading in accordance with
Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the
Regulations. No opposition to the
renewal of the TDO has been received.
Furthermore, no appeal of the related
person determinations made as part of
the September 3, 2010, February 25,
2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012,
February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015
renewal or modification orders has been
made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud
Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, Mahan Air General
Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue
Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.10
II. Renewal of the TDO
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may
issue or renew an order temporarily
denying a respondent’s export privileges
upon a showing that the order is
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an ‘‘imminent violation’’ of the
Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and
766.24(d). ‘‘A violation may be
‘imminent’ either in time or degree of
likelihood.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS
may show ‘‘either that a violation is
about to occur, or that the general
circumstances of the matter under
investigation or case under criminal or
administrative charges demonstrate a
likelihood of future violations.’’ Id. As
to the likelihood of future violations,
BIS may show that the violation under
investigation or charge ‘‘is significant,
9 The November 16, 2017 modification was
published in the Federal Register on December 4,
2017. See 82 FR 57,203 (Dec. 4, 2017). On
September 28, 2017, BIS and Ali Eslamian resolved
an administrative charge for acting contrary to the
terms of the denial order (15 CFR 764.2(k)) that was
based upon Eslamian’s violation of the TDO after
his addition to the TDO on August 24, 2011.
Equipco (UK) Ltd. and Skyco (UK) Ltd., two
companies owned and operated by Eslamian, also
were parties to settlement agreement and were
added to the settlement order as related persons. In
addition to other sanctions, the settlement provides
that Eslamian, Equipco, and Skyco shall be subject
to a conditionally-suspended denial order for a
period of four years from the date of the settlement
order.
10 A party named or added as a related person
may not oppose the issuance or renewal of the
underlying temporary denial order, but may file an
appeal of the related person determination in
accordance with Section 766.23(c). See also note 2,
supra.
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur
again, rather than technical or negligent
[.]’’ Id. A ‘‘lack of information
establishing the precise time a violation
may occur does not preclude a finding
that a violation is imminent, so long as
there is sufficient reason to believe the
likelihood of a violation.’’ Id.
B. The TDO and BIS’s Request for
Renewal
OEE’s request for renewal is based
upon the facts underlying the issuance
of the initial TDO, and the renewal and
modification orders subsequently issued
in this matter, including the May 21,
2015 modification order and the
renewal order issued on June 27, 2017,
and the evidence developed over the
course of this investigation, which
indicate a blatant disregard of U.S.
export controls and the TDO. The initial
TDO was issued as a result of evidence
that showed that Mahan Airways and
other parties engaged in conduct
prohibited by the EAR by knowingly reexporting to Iran three U.S.-origin
aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s
(‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items subject to the
EAR and classified under Export
Control Classification Number
(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.b, without the required
U.S. Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated
that Mahan Airways was involved in the
attempted re-export of three additional
U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’)
to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17,
2008 renewal order, evidence presented
by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1–3
continued to be flown on Mahan
Airways’ routes after issuance of the
TDO, in violation of the Regulations and
the TDO itself.11 It also showed that
Aircraft 1–3 had been flown in further
violation of the Regulations and the
TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an
Iranian Government airline. Moreover,
as discussed in the March 16, 2009,
September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010
renewal orders, Mahan Airways
registered Aircraft 1–3 in Iran, obtained
Iranian tail numbers for them (EP–MNA,
EP–MNB, and EP–MNE, respectively),
and continued to operate at least two of
them in violation of the Regulations and
the TDO,12 while also committing an
additional knowing and willful
violation when it negotiated for and
acquired an additional U.S.-origin
aircraft. The additional acquired aircraft
11 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
12 The third Boeing 747 appeared to have
undergone significant service maintenance and may
not have been operational at the time of the March
9, 2010 renewal order.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
was an MD–82 aircraft, which
subsequently was painted in Mahan
Airways’ livery and flown on multiple
Mahan Airways’ routes under tail
number TC–TUA.
The March 9, 2010 renewal order also
noted that a court in the United
Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’) had found Mahan
Airways in contempt of court on
February 1, 2010, for failing to comply
with that court’s December 21, 2009 and
January 12, 2010 orders compelling
Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing
747s from Iran and ground them in the
Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the
Balli Group Respondents had been
litigating before the U.K. court
concerning ownership and control of
Aircraft 1–3. In a letter to the U.K. court
dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways’
Chairman indicated, inter alia, that
Mahan Airways opposes U.S.
Government actions against Iran, that it
continued to operate the aircraft on its
routes in and out of Tehran (and had
158,000 ‘‘forward bookings’’ for these
aircraft), and that it wished to continue
to do so and would pay damages if
required by that court, rather than
ground the aircraft.
The September 3, 2010 renewal order
discussed the fact that Mahan Airways’
violations of the TDO extended beyond
operating U.S.-origin aircraft and
attempting to acquire additional U.S.origin aircraft. In February 2009, while
subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways
participated in the export of computer
motherboards, items subject to the
Regulations and designated as EAR99,
from the United States to Iran, via the
United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’), in
violation of both the TDO and the
Regulations, by transporting and/or
forwarding the computer motherboards
from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways’
violations were facilitated by Gatewick
LLC, which not only participated in the
transaction, but also has stated to BIS
that it acted as Mahan Airways’ sole
booking agent for cargo and freight
forwarding services in the UAE.
Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing
in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways
asserted that Aircraft 1–3 were not being
used, but stated in pertinent part that
the aircraft were being maintained in
Iran especially ‘‘in an airworthy
condition’’ and that, depending on the
outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the
aircraft ‘‘could immediately go back into
service . . . on international routes into
and out of Iran.’’ Mahan Airways’
January 24, 2011 submission to U.K.
Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110.
This clearly stated intent, both on its
own and in conjunction with Mahan
Airways’ prior misconduct and
statements, demonstrated the need to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61747
renew the TDO in order to prevent
imminent future violations. Two of
these three 747s subsequently were
removed from Iran and are no longer in
Mahan Airways’ possession. The third
of these 747s, with Manufacturer’s
Serial Number (‘‘MSN’’) 23480 and
Iranian tail number EP–MNE, remained
in Iran under Mahan’s control. Pursuant
to Executive Order 13324, it was
designated a Specially Designated
Global Terrorist (‘‘SDGT’’) by the U.S.
Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) on
September 19, 2012.13 Furthermore, as
discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order,
open source information indicated that
this 747, painted in the livery and logo
of Mahan Airways, had been flown
between Iran and Syria, and was
suspected of ferrying weapons and/or
other equipment to the Syrian
Government from Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open
source information showed that this
aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as
recently as June 30, 2013, and continues
to show that it remains in active
operation in Mahan Airways’ fleet.
In addition, as first detailed in the
July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders,
and discussed in subsequent renewal
orders in this matter, Mahan Airways
also continued to evade U.S. export
control laws by operating two Airbus
A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways’
livery and logo, on flights into and out
of Iran.14 At the time of the July 1, 2011
and August 24, 2011 orders, these
Airbus A310s were registered in France,
with tail numbers F–OJHH and F–OJHI,
respectively.15
The August 2012 renewal order also
found that Mahan Airways had acquired
another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to
the Regulations, with MSN 499 and
13 See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/
20120919.aspx.
14 The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin
engines. The engines are subject to the EAR and
classified under Export Control Classification
(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain
controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10
percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result are subject to the EAR. They are classified
under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or reexport of
these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government
authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
15 OEE subsequently presented evidence that after
the August 24, 2011 renewal, Mahan Airways
worked along with Kerman Aviation and others to
de-register the two Airbus A310 aircraft in France
and to register both aircraft in Iran (with,
respectively, Iranian tail numbers EP–MHH and
EP–MHI). It was determined subsequent to the
February 15, 2012 renewal order that the
registration switch for these A310s was cancelled
and that Mahan Airways then continued to fly the
aircraft under the original French tail numbers (F–
OJHH and F–OJHI, respectively). Both aircraft
apparently remain in Mahan Airways’ possession.
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
61748
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
Iranian tail number EP–VIP, in violation
of the TDO and the Regulations.16 On
September 19, 2012, all three Airbus
A310 aircraft (tail numbers F–OJHH, F–
OJHI, and EP–VIP) were designated as
SDGTs.17
The February 4, 2013 renewal order
laid out further evidence of continued
and additional efforts by Mahan
Airways and other persons acting in
concert with Mahan, including Kral
Aviation and another Turkish company,
to procure U.S.-origin engines—two GE
CF6–50C2 engines, with MSNs 517621
and 517738, respectively—and other
aircraft parts in violation of the TDO
and the Regulations.18 The February 4,
2013 order also added Mehdi Bahrami
as a related person in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations.
Bahrami, a Mahan Vice-President and
the head of Mahan’s Istanbul Office,
also was involved in Mahan’s
acquisition of the original three Boeing
747s (Aircraft 1–3) that resulted in the
original TDO, and has had a business
relationship with Mahan dating back to
1997.
The July 31, 2013 renewal order
detailed additional evidence obtained
by OEE showing efforts by Mahan
Airways to obtain another GE CF6–50C2
aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the
United States via Turkey. Multiple
Mahan employees, including Mehdi
Bahrami, were involved in or aware of
matters related to the engine’s arrival in
Turkey from the United States, plans to
visually inspect the engine, and prepare
it for shipment from Turkey.
Mahan Airways sought to obtain this
U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer
16 See
note 14, supra.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/
20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously
designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18,
2011. 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011).
18 Kral Aviation was referenced in the February
4, 2013 renewal order as ‘‘Turkish Company No. 1.’’
Kral Aviation purchased a GE CF6–50C2 aircraft
engine (MSN 517621) from the United States in July
2012, on behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able
to prevent this engine from reaching Mahan by
issuing a redelivery order to the freight forwarder
in accordance with Section 758.8 of the
Regulations. OEE also issued Kral Aviation a
redelivery order for the second CF6–50C2 engine
(MSN 517738) on July 30, 2012. The owner of the
second engine subsequently cancelled the item’s
sale to Kral Aviation. In September 2012, OEE was
alerted by a U.S. exporter that another Turkish
company (‘‘Turkish Company No. 2’’) was
attempting to purchase aircraft spare parts intended
for re-export by Turkish Company No. 2 to Mahan
Airways. See February 4, 2013 renewal order.
On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added
to BIS’s Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744
of the Regulations. See 78 FR75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
Companies and individuals are added to the Entity
List for engaging in activities contrary to the
national security or foreign policy interests of the
United States. See 15 CFR 744.11.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
17 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim
Danismanlik (‘‘Pioneer Logistics’’), an
aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey,
and its director/operator, Gulnihal
Yegane, a Turkish national who
previously had conducted Mahan
related business with Mehdi Bahrami
and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as
referenced in the July 31, 2013 renewal
order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol
Surinanda, also known as Kosol
Surinandha, Managing Director of
Mahan’s General Sales Agent in
Thailand, stated that the shares of
Pioneer Logistics for which he was the
listed owner were ‘‘actually the property
of and owned by Mahan.’’ He further
stated that he held ‘‘legal title to the
shares until otherwise required by
Mahan’’ but would ‘‘exercise the rights
granted to [him] exactly and only as
instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/
or decisions [would] only and
exclusively reflect the wills and
demands of Mahan[.]’’ 19
The January 24, 2014 renewal order
outlined OEE’s continued investigation
of Mahan Airways’ activities and
detailed an attempt by Mahan, which
OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an
Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two
U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF–502R–5
aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and
LF5325), items subject to the
Regulations, from a U.S. company
located in Texas. An invoice of the
Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated
March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways
as the purchaser of the engines and
included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE
also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated
March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.origin aircraft parts subject to the
Regulations—including, among other
items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a
transmitter, and a power control unit—
being transported by Mahan from
Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO.
The July 22, 2014 renewal order
discussed open source evidence from
the March-June 2014 time period
regarding two BAE regional jets, items
subject to the Regulations, that were
painted in the livery and logo of Mahan
Airways and operating under Iranian
tail numbers EP–MOK and EP–MOI,
respectively.20 In addition, aviation
19 Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol
Surinanda also were added to the Entity List on
December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12,
2013).
20 The BAE regional jets are powered with U.S.origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR
and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. These aircraft
contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more
than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and
as a result are subject to the EAR. They are
classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or
reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
industry resources indicated that these
aircraft were obtained by Mahan
Airways in late November 2013 and
June 2014, from Ukrainian
Mediterranean Airline, a Ukrainian
airline that was added to BIS’s Entity
List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of
the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for
acting contrary to the national security
and foreign policy interests of the
United States.21 Open source
information indicates that at least EP–
MOI remains active in Mahan’s fleet,
and that the aircraft was being operated
on multiple flights within the last week.
The January 16, 2015 renewal order
detailed evidence of additional attempts
by Mahan Airways to acquire items
subject the Regulations in further
violation of the TDO. Specifically, in
March 2014, OEE became aware of an
inertial reference unit bearing serial
number 1231 (‘‘the IRU’’) that had been
sent to the United States for repair. The
IRU is subject to the Regulations,
classified under ECCN 7A103, and
controlled for missile technology
reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was
determined that IRU came from or had
been installed on an Airbus A340
aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further
investigation revealed that as of
approximately February 2014, this
aircraft was registered under Iranian tail
number EP–MMB and had been painted
in the livery and logo of Mahan
Airways.
The January 16, 2015 renewal order
also described related efforts by the
Departments of Justice and Treasury to
further thwart Mahan’s illicit
procurement efforts. Specifically, on
August 14, 2014, the United States
Attorney’s Office for the District of
Maryland filed a civil forfeiture
complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 401(b) that resulted in the court
issuing an Order of Forfeiture on
December 2, 2014. EP–MMB remains
listed as active in Mahan Airways’ fleet
and has been used on flights into and
out of Iran as recently as December 19,
2017.
Government authorization pursuant to Sections
742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
21 See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22,
2014 renewal order also referenced two Airbus
A320 aircraft painted in the livery and logo of
Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail
numbers EP–MMK and EP–MML, respectively.
OEE’s investigation also showed that Mahan
obtained these aircraft in November 2013, from
Khors Air Company, another Ukrainian airline that,
like Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines, was added
to BIS’s Entity List on August 15, 2011. Open
source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320
aircraft may be been transferred by Mahan Airways
to another Iranian airline in October 2014, and
issued Iranian tail numbers EP–APE and EP–APF,
respectively.
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Additionally, on August 29, 2014,
OFAC blocked the property and
interests in property of Asian Aviation
Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways
affiliate or front company, pursuant to
Executive Order 13224. In doing so,
OFAC described Mahan Airways’ use of
Asian Aviation Logistics to evade
sanctions by making payments on behalf
of Mahan for the purchase of engines
and other equipment.22
The May 21, 2015 modification order
detailed the acquisition of two aircraft,
specifically an Airbus A340 bearing
MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing
MSN 550, that were purchased by Al
Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015
and are currently located in Iran under
the possession, control, and/or
ownership of Mahan Airways.23 The
sales agreements for these two aircraft
were signed by Ali Abdullah Alhay for
Al Naser Airlines.24 Payment
information reveals that multiple
electronic funds transfers (‘‘EFT’’) were
made by Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar
Safwa General Trading in order to
acquire MSNs 164 and 550. The May 21,
2015 modification order also laid out
evidence showing the respondents’
attempts to obtain other controlled
aircraft, including aircraft physically
located in the United States in similarlypatterned transactions during the same
recent time period. Transactional
documents involving two Airbus A320s
bearing MSNs 82 and 99, respectively,
again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay
signing sales agreements for Al Naser
Airlines.25 A review of the payment
22 See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/
20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014).
OFAC also blocked the property and property
interests of Pioneer Logistics of Turkey on August
29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways’ use of Pioneer
Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the
Regulations was discussed in a prior renewal order,
as summarized, supra, at 13–14. BIS added both
Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to
the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR
75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
23 Both of these aircraft are powered by U.S.origin engines that are subject to the Regulations
and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. Both aircraft
contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more
than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and
as a result are subject to the EAR regardless of their
location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
24 The evidence obtained by OEE showed Ali
Abdullah Alhay as a 25% owner of Al Naser
Airlines.
25 Both aircraft were physically located in the
United States and therefore are subject to the
Regulations pursuant to Section 734.3(a)(1).
Moreover, these Airbus A320s are powered by U.S.origin engines that are subject to the Regulations
and classified under Export Control Classification
Number ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A320s contain
controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
information for these aircraft similarly
revealed EFTs from Ali Abdullah Alhay
and Bahar Safwa General Trading that
follow the pattern described for MSNs
164 and 550, supra. MSNs 82 and 99
were detained by OEE Special Agents
prior to their planned export from the
United States.
The July 13, 2015 renewal order
outlined evidence showing that Al
Naser Airlines’ attempts to acquire
aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways
extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to
include a total of nine aircraft.26 Four of
the aircraft, all of which are subject to
the Regulations and were obtained by
Mahan from Al Naser Airlines, had been
issued the following Iranian tail
numbers: EP–MMD (MSN 164), EP–
MMG (MSN 383), EP–MMH (MSN 391)
and EP–MMR (MSN 416),
respectively.27 Publicly available flight
tracking information provided evidence
that at the time of the July 13, 2015
renewal, both EP–MMH and EP–MMR
were being actively flown on routes into
and out of Iran in violation of the TDO
and Regulations.28 The January 7, 2016
renewal order discussed evidence that
Mahan Airways had begun actively
flying EP–MMD on international routes
percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result are subject to the EAR regardless of their
location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
26 This evidence included a press release dated
May 9, 2015, that appeared on Mahan Airways’
website and stated that Mahan ‘‘added 9 modern
aircraft to its air fleet [,]’’ and that the newly
acquired aircraft included eight Airbus A340s and
one Airbus A321. See https://www.mahan.aero/en/
mahan-air/press-room/44. The press release was
subsequently removed from Mahan Airways’
website. Publicly available aviation databases
similarly showed that Mahan had obtained nine
additional aircraft from Al Naser Airlines in May
2015, including MSNs 164 and 550. As also
discussed in the July 13, 2015 renewal order, Sky
Blue Bird Group, via Issam Shammout, was actively
involved in Al Naser Airlines’ acquisition of MSNs
164 and 550, and the attempted acquisition of
MSNs 82 and 99 (which were detained by OEE).
27 The Airbus A340s are powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and
classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A340s
contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more
than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and
as a result are subject to the EAR regardless of their
location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
28 There is some publicly available information
indicating that the aircraft Mahan Airways is flying
under Iranian tail number EP–MMR is now MSN
615, rather than MSN 416. Both aircraft are Airbus
A340 aircraft that Mahan acquired from Al Naser
Airlines in violation of the TDO and the
Regulations. Moreover, both aircraft were
designated as SDGTs by OFAC on May 21, 2015,
pursuant to Executive Order 13324. See 80 FR
30762 (May 29, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61749
into and out of Iran, including from/to
Bangkok, Thailand. Additionally, the
January 7, 2016 order described publicly
available aviation database and flight
tracking information indicating that
Mahan Airways continued efforts to
acquire Iranian tail numbers and press
into active service under Mahan’s livery
and logo at least two more of the Airbus
A340 aircraft it had obtained from or
through Al Naser Airlines: EP–MME
(MSN 371) and EP–MMF (MSN 376),
respectively. Since January 2016, EP–
MME has logged flights to and from
Tehran, Iran involving various
destinations, including Guangzhou,
China and Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
in further violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.
The July 7, 2016 renewal order
described Mahan Airways’ acquisition
of a BAE Avro RJ–85 aircraft (MSN
E2392) in violation of the TDO and its
subsequent registration under Iranian
tail number EP–MOR.29 This
information was corroborated by
publicly available information on the
website of Iran’s civil aviation authority.
The July 7, 2016 order also outlined
Mahan’s continued operation of EP–
MMF in violation of the TDO on routes
from Tehran, Iran to Beijing, China and
Shanghai, China, respectively.
The December 30, 2016 renewal order
outlined Mahan’s continued operation
of multiple Airbus aircraft, including
EP–MMD (MSN 164), EP–MMF (MSN
376), and EP–MMH (MSN 391), which
were acquired from or through Al Naser
Airlines in violation of the TDO, as
previously detailed in pertinent part in
the July 13, 2015 and January 7, 2016
renewal orders. Publicly available flight
tracking information showed that the
aircraft were operated on flights into
and out of Iran, including from/to
Beijing, China, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
and Istanbul, Turkey.30
The June 27, 2017 renewal order
included similar evidence regarding
Mahan Airways’ violation of the TDO by
operating multiple Airbus aircraft
29 The BAE Avro RJ–85 is powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and
classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The BAE Avro RJ–
85 contains controlled U.S.-origin items valued at
more than 10 percent of the total value of the
aircraft and as a result is subject to the EAR
regardless of its location. The aircraft is classified
under ECCN 9A991.b, and its export or re-export to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
30 Specifically, on December 22, 2016, EP–MMD
(MSN 164) flew from Dubai, UAE to Tehran, Iran.
Between December 20 and December 22, 2016, EP–
MMF (MSN 376) flew on routes from Tehran, Iran
to Beijing, China and Istanbul, Turkey, respectively.
Between December 26 and December 28, 2016, EP–
MMH (MSN 391) flew on routes from Tehran, Iran
to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
61750
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
subject to the Regulations, including,
but not limited to, aircraft procured
from or through Al Naser Airlines, on
flights into and out of Iran, including
from/to Moscow, Russia, Shanghai,
China and Kabul, Afghanistan.31 The
June 27, 2017 order also detailed
evidence concerning a suspected
planned or attempted diversion to
Mahan of an Airbus A340 subject to the
Regulations that had first been
mentioned in OEE’s December 13, 2016
renewal request.
OEE’s November 28, 2017 renewal
request presented evidence that a
Mahan employee attempted to initiate
negotiations with a U.S. company for
the purchase of an aircraft subject to the
Regulations and classified under ECCN
9A610. The request also includes
evidence indicating that Mahan Airways
continues to operate a number of aircraft
subject to the Regulations, including
aircraft originally procured from or
through Al Naser Airlines, on flights
into and out of Iran from/to Lahore,
Pakistan, Shanghai, China, Ankara,
Turkey, Kabul, Afghanistan, and
Baghdad, Iraq, in violation of the TDO.32
Additionally, multiple open sources
indicate that Al Naser Airlines recently
acquired, via lease, at least possession
and/or control of a Boeing 737 (MSN
25361), bearing tail number YR–SEB,
and an Airbus A320 (MSN 357), bearing
tail number YR–SEA, from a Romanian
company.33 Publicly available flight
tracking data shows, furthermore, that
in November 2017, YR–SEA was
operated on international flights
between Baghdad and destinations
including Beirut, Lebanon and Istanbul,
31 Publicly available flight tracking information
shows that on June 22, 2017, EP–MME (MSN 371)
flew from Moscow, Russia to Tehran, Iran.
Additionally, between June 19, 2017, and June 20,
2017, EP–MMQ (MSN 449), an Airbus A430 also
obtained from or through Al Naser Airlines, flew on
routes between Shanghai, China and Tehran, Iran.
Similar flight tracking information shows that on
June 20, 2017, EP–MNK (MSN 618), an Airbus A300
originally acquired by Mahan via a Ukrainian
company, flew between Kabul, Afghanistan and
Mashhad, Iran.
32 For example, publicly available flight tracking
information shows that on December 17, 2017, EP–
MNV (MSN 567) flew from Lahore, Pakistan to
Tehran, Iran. On December 18–19, 2017, EP–MMQ
(MSN 449) flew on routes between Istanbul, Turkey
and Tehran, Iran. Additionally, on December 17,
2017, EP–MNK (MSN 618), an Airbus A300
originally acquired by Mahan via a Ukrainian
company, flew on routes between Baghdad, Iraq
and Mashhad, Iran.
33 The Airbus A320 is powered with U.S.-origin
engines, which are subject to the EAR and classified
under Export Control Classification (‘‘ECCN’’)
9A991.d. The engines are valued at more than 10
percent of the total value of the aircraft, which
consequently is subject to the EAR. The aircraft is
classified under ECCN 9A991.b., and its export or
reexport to Iran would require U.S. Government
authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
Turkey under the International Air
Transport Association (‘‘IATA’’)
designator for Al Naser Airlines. These
transactions thus violate the TDO.
OEE’s investigation also shows that Al
Naser Airlines is using the additional
alias ‘‘Al Naser Wings Airline.’’
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set
forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the entire
record, I find that the evidence
presented by BIS convincingly
demonstrates that the denied persons
have acted in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO; that such
violations have been significant,
deliberate and covert; and that given the
foregoing and the nature of the matters
under investigation, there is a likelihood
of future violations. Therefore, renewal
of the TDO is necessary in the public
interest to prevent imminent violation
of the Regulations and to give notice to
companies and individuals in the
United States and abroad that they
should continue to cease dealing with
Mahan Airways and Al Naser Airlines
and the other denied persons in
connection with export and reexport
transactions involving items subject to
the Regulations and in connection with
any other activity subject to the
Regulations. I also find it necessary to
add ‘‘Al Naser Wings Airline’’ as an
alias for Al Naser Airlines.
IV. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan
Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A.
Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN
MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/
A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai
Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O.
Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz
Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates; KERMAN
AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN
AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne
75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO
TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates; MAHAN AIR
GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al
Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road,
Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates;
MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan AirwaysIstanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil
Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey; AL NASER AIRLINES
A/K/A AL–NASER AIRLINES A/K/A
AL NASER WINGS AIRLINE A/K/A
ALNASER AIRLINES AND AIR
FREIGHT LTD., Home 46, Al-Karrada,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside
Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad,
Iraq, and Al Amirat Street, Section 309,
St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq,
and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and P.O. Box 911399, Amman
11191, Jordan; ALI ABDULLAH ALHAY
A/K/A ALI ALHAY A/K/A ALI
ABDULLAH AHMED ALHAY, Home
46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District
929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private
Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Anak
Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177;
BAHAR SAFWA GENERAL TRADING,
P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box
8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates; SKY
BLUE BIRD GROUP A/K/A SKY BLUE
BIRD AVIATION A/K/A SKY BLUE
BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD FZC,
P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade
Zone, United Arab Emirates; and ISSAM
SHAMMOUT A/K/A MUHAMMAD
ISAM MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR
SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR,
Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous
Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa,
Beirut, Lebanon 151515, and 17–18
Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London,
W1W 8RP, United Kingdom, and
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya,
Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri,
Istanbul, Turkey, and when acting for or
on their behalf, any successors or
assigns, agents, or employees (each a
‘‘Denied Person’’ and collectively the
‘‘Denied Persons’’) may not, directly or
indirectly, participate in any way in any
transaction involving any commodity,
software or technology (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)
exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, License Exception, or
export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the EAR, or in any other
activity subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the EAR, or in any
other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly
or indirectly, do any of the following:
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 249 / Friday, December 29, 2017 / Notices
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of a Denied Person any item subject to
the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
a Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the EAR that has been or will
be exported from the United States,
including financing or other support
activities related to a transaction
whereby a Denied Person acquires or
attempts to acquire such ownership,
possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from a Denied Person of any
item subject to the EAR that has been
exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the
United States any item subject to the
EAR with knowledge or reason to know
that the item will be, or is intended to
be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by a Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by a Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the EAR that has been or will
be exported from the United States. For
purposes of this paragraph, servicing
means installation, maintenance, repair,
modification or testing.
Third, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 766.23 of the EAR, any other
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to a Denied Person
by affiliation, ownership, control, or
position of responsibility in the conduct
of trade or related services may also be
made subject to the provisions of this
Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of
Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan
Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa
General Trading may, at any time,
appeal this Order by filing a full written
statement in support of the appeal with
the Office of the Administrative Law
Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing
Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022. In accordance
with the provisions of Sections
766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR,
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard,
Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Dec 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air
General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami,
Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam
Shammout may, at any time, appeal
their inclusion as a related person by
filing a full written statement in support
of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast
Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South
Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202–
4022.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may
seek renewal of this Order by filing a
written request not later than 20 days
before the expiration date. A renewal
request may be opposed by Mahan
Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa
General Trading as provided in Section
766.24(d), by filing a written submission
with the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement,
which must be received not later than
seven days before the expiration date of
the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided
to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines,
Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading and each related
person, and shall be published in the
Federal Register. This Order is effective
immediately and shall remain in effect
for 180 days.
Dated: December 20, 2017.
Richard R. Majauskas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement performing the nonexclusive duties and functions of the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017–28113 Filed 12–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–475–828, A–557–809, A–565–801]
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
From Italy, Malaysia, and the
Philippines: Continuation of
Antidumping Duty Orders
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) and the International Trade
Commission (the ITC) have determined
that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings (butt-weld fittings) from Italy,
Malaysia, and the Philippines would
likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States. Therefore, Commerce is
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61751
publishing a notice of continuation of
these orders.
DATES: Effective December 29, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–9179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 2, 2017, the Department
initiated five-year (sunset) reviews of
the Orders 1 on butt-weld fittings
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On
June 1, 2017, the ITC instituted its
review of the Orders.3 Commerce
conducted an expedited sunset review
of the Orders. As a result of these sunset
reviews, Commerce determined that
revocation of the Orders would likely
lead to a continuation or recurrence of
dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC
of the magnitude of the dumping
margins likely to prevail should the
orders be revoked, pursuant to sections
751(c)(1) and 752(c)(3) of the Act.4
On December 20, 2017, the ITC
published its determination, pursuant to
section 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that
revocation of the Orders would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the
United Sates within a reasonably
foreseeable time.5
Scope of the Orders
For purposes of these Orders, the
product covered is certain stainless steel
butt-weld pipe fittings (butt-weld
fittings). Butt-weld fittings are under 14
inches in outside diameter (based on
nominal pipe size), whether finished or
unfinished. The product encompasses
all grades of stainless steel and
‘‘commodity’’ and ‘‘specialty’’ fittings.
Specifically excluded from the
1 See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and
the Philippines, 66 FR 11257 (February 23, 2001)
(Orders).
2 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 82
FR 25599 (June 2, 2017) (Sunset Initiation).
3 See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from
Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines; Institution of
Five-Year Reviews, 82 FR 25324 (June 1, 2017).
4 Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines: Final
Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 46763 (October 6,
2017), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
5 See Investigation No. 731–TA–865–867 (Third
Review), 82 FR 60419 (December 20, 2017), and
USITC Publication 4751 (January 2018), entitled
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy,
Malaysia, and the Philippines: Investigation Nos.
731–TA–865–867 (Third Review).
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61745-61751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28113]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp.
Way, Tehran, Iran;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
and
P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates;
Kerman Aviation, a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne
75008, Paris, France;
Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik
Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates;
Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways--Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil
Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey;
Al Naser Airlines, a/k/a al-Naser Airlines, a/k/a Al Naser Wings
Airline, a/k/a Alnaser Airlines and Air Freight Ltd., Home 46, Al-
Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21 Beside Al Jadirya Private
Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq; and
Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20 Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq;
and
P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and
P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan;
Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay,
Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al
Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq; and
Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177;
Bahar Safwa General Trading, PO Box 113212 Citadel Tower, Floor-5,
Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and
PO Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
Sky Blue Bird Group, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Aviation, a/k/a Sky Blue
Bird Ltd, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah
Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates;
Issam Shammout, a/k/a Muhammad Isam Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout, a/
k/a Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street,
Damascus, Syria; and
Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515; and
17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom;
and
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A
Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey
Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016) (``EAR'' or ``the
Regulations''),\1\ I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export
Enforcement (``OEE'') to renew the temporary denial order issued in
this matter on June 27, 2017, as recently modified on November 16,
2017. I find that renewal of this order, as recently modified, is
necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of
the EAR. I also find it necessary in connection with this renewal to
add ``Al Naser Wings Airline'' as an alias being used by respondent Al
Naser Airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774
(2017), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act
of 1979 (``EAA'' or ``the Act''). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has
been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been
extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being
that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (Aug. 16, 2017)) has continued
the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Procedural History
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Export Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary''), signed an
order denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days
on the ground that issuance of the order was necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The order
also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (``Blue
Airways of Armenia''), as well as the ``Balli Group Respondents,''
namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid
Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue
Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky
Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The order was issued ex parte
pursuant to Section 766.24(a) of the Regulations, and went into effect
on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal Register.
This temporary denial order (``TDO'') was renewed in accordance
with Section 766.24(d) of the Regulations.\2\
[[Page 61746]]
Subsequent renewals also have issued pursuant to Section 766.24(d),
including most recently on June 27, 2017.\3\ Some of the renewal orders
and the modification orders that have issued between renewals have
added certain parties as respondents or as related persons, or effected
the removal of certain parties.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 766.24(d) provides that BIS may seek renewal of a
temporary denial order for additional 180-day renewal periods, if it
believes that renewal is necessary in the public interest to prevent
an imminent violation. Renewal requests are to be made in writing no
later than 20 days before the scheduled expiration date of a
temporary denial order. Renewal requests may include discussion of
any additional or changed circumstances, and may seek appropriate
modifications to the order, including the addition of parties as
respondents or related persons, or the removal of parties previously
added as respondents or related persons. BIS is not required to seek
renewal as to all parties, and a removal of a party can be effected
if, without more, BIS does not seek renewal as to that party. Any
party included or added to a temporary denial order as a respondent
may oppose a renewal request as set forth in Section 766.24(d).
Parties included or added as related persons can at any time appeal
their inclusion as a related person, but cannot challenge the
underlying temporary denial order, either as initially issued or
subsequently renewed, and cannot oppose a renewal request. See also
note 4, infra.
\3\ The June 27, 2017 renewal order was effective upon issuance
and published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2017 (82 FR
30,823). Prior renewal orders issued on September 17, 2008, March
16, 2009, September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010,
February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9,
2012, February 4, 2013, July 31, 2013, January 24, 2014, July 22,
2014, January 16, 2015, July 13, 2015, January 7, 2016, July 7,
2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively. The August 24, 2011
renewal followed the issuance of a modification order that issued on
July 1, 2011, to add Zarand Aviation as a respondent. The July 13,
2015 renewal followed a modification order that issued May 21, 2015,
and added Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading as respondents. Each of the renewal orders and each
of the modification orders referenced in this footnote or elsewhere
in this order has been published in the Federal Register.
\4\ Pursuant to Sections 766.23 and 766.24(c) of the
Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization
related to a denied person by affiliation, ownership, control, or
position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related
services may be added as a ``related person'' to a temporary denial
order to prevent evasion of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 11, 2009 renewal order continued the denial order as
to Mahan Airways, but not as to the Balli Group Respondents or Blue
Airways of Armenia.\5\ As part of the February 25, 2011 renewal order,
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard (a/k/a Kosarian Fard), Mahmoud Amini, and
Gatewick LLC (a/k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/k/a Gatewick
Aviation Services) were added as related persons to prevent evasion of
the TDO.\6\ A modification order issued on July 1, 2011, adding Zarand
Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent an imminent violation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation settled proposed BIS
administrative charges as part of a settlement agreement that was
approved by a settlement order issued on February 5, 2010. The
sanctions imposed pursuant to that settlement and order included,
inter alia, a $15 million civil penalty and a requirement to conduct
five external audits and submit related audit reports. The Balli
Group Respondents also settled related charges with the Department
of Justice and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets
Control.
\6\ See note 4, supra, concerning the addition of related
persons to a temporary denial order. Kosarian Fard and Mahmoud Amini
remain parties to the TDO. On August 13, 2014, BIS and Gatewick
resolved administrative charges against Gatewick, including a charge
for acting contrary to the terms of a BIS denial order (15 CFR
764.2(k)). In addition to the payment of a civil penalty, the
settlement includes a seven-year denial order. The first two years
of the denial period were active, with the remaining five years
suspended conditioned upon Gatewick's full and timely payment of the
civil penalty and its compliance with the Regulations during the
seven-year denial order period. This denial order, in effect,
superseded the TDO as to Gatewick, which was not included as part of
the January 16, 2015 renewal order. The Gatewick LLC Final Order was
published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2014. See 79 FR
49283 (Aug. 20, 2014).
\7\ Zarand Aviation's export privileges remained denied until
July 22, 2014, when it was not included as part of the renewal order
issued on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added as related persons. Mahan Air
General Trading LLC, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. were added
as related persons by a modification order issued on April 9, 2012.
Mehdi Bahrami was added as a related person as part of the February 4,
2013 renewal order.
On May 21, 2015, a modification order issued adding Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as
respondents. As detailed in that order and discussed further infra,
these respondents were added to the TDO based upon evidence that they
were acting together to, inter alia, obtain aircraft subject to the
Regulations for export or reexport to Mahan in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO. Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive
officer, Issam Shammout, were added as related persons as part of the
July 13, 2015 renewal order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (``OFAC'') designated Sky Blue Bird and Issam
Shammout as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (``SDGTs'') on
May 21, 2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324, for ``providing
support to Iran's Mahan Air.'' See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 27, 2017 renewal order continued the denial of the export
privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud
Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading
LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa
General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout, as well as
Ali Eslamian, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. On November 16,
2017, a modification order issued to remove Eslamian, Equipco, and
Skyco following a request by OEE for their removal.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The November 16, 2017 modification was published in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2017. See 82 FR 57,203 (Dec. 4,
2017). On September 28, 2017, BIS and Ali Eslamian resolved an
administrative charge for acting contrary to the terms of the denial
order (15 CFR 764.2(k)) that was based upon Eslamian's violation of
the TDO after his addition to the TDO on August 24, 2011. Equipco
(UK) Ltd. and Skyco (UK) Ltd., two companies owned and operated by
Eslamian, also were parties to settlement agreement and were added
to the settlement order as related persons. In addition to other
sanctions, the settlement provides that Eslamian, Equipco, and Skyco
shall be subject to a conditionally-suspended denial order for a
period of four years from the date of the settlement order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 28, 2017, BIS, through OEE, submitted a written request
for renewal of the TDO that issued on June 27, 2017, as modified on
November 16, 2017. The written request was made more than 20 days
before the TDO's scheduled expiration. Notice of the renewal request
was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay,
and Bahar Safwa General Trading in accordance with Sections 766.5 and
766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO
has been received. Furthermore, no appeal of the related person
determinations made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25,
2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, and July 13,
2015 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard,
Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General
Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A party named or added as a related person may not oppose
the issuance or renewal of the underlying temporary denial order,
but may file an appeal of the related person determination in
accordance with Section 766.23(c). See also note 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Renewal of the TDO
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order
temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing
that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an
``imminent violation'' of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and
766.24(d). ``A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of
likelihood.'' 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show ``either that a
violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the
matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative
charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.'' Id. As to the
likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under
investigation or charge ``is significant,
[[Page 61747]]
deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical
or negligent [.]'' Id. A ``lack of information establishing the precise
time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation
is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the
likelihood of a violation.'' Id.
B. The TDO and BIS's Request for Renewal
OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the
issuance of the initial TDO, and the renewal and modification orders
subsequently issued in this matter, including the May 21, 2015
modification order and the renewal order issued on June 27, 2017, and
the evidence developed over the course of this investigation, which
indicate a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The
initial TDO was issued as a result of evidence that showed that Mahan
Airways and other parties engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by
knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically
Boeing 747s (``Aircraft 1-3''), items subject to the EAR and classified
under Export Control Classification Number (``ECCN'') 9A991.b, without
the required U.S. Government authorization. Further evidence submitted
by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-
export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (``Aircraft 4-6'')
to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence
presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on
Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO itself.\11\ It also showed that Aircraft 1-3
had been flown in further violation of the Regulations and the TDO on
the routes of Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline. Moreover, as
discussed in the March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010
renewal orders, Mahan Airways registered Aircraft 1-3 in Iran, obtained
Iranian tail numbers for them (EP-MNA, EP-MNB, and EP-MNE,
respectively), and continued to operate at least two of them in
violation of the Regulations and the TDO,\12\ while also committing an
additional knowing and willful violation when it negotiated for and
acquired an additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional acquired
aircraft was an MD-82 aircraft, which subsequently was painted in Mahan
Airways' livery and flown on multiple Mahan Airways' routes under tail
number TC-TUA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
\12\ The third Boeing 747 appeared to have undergone significant
service maintenance and may not have been operational at the time of
the March 9, 2010 renewal order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The March 9, 2010 renewal order also noted that a court in the
United Kingdom (``U.K.'') had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court
on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December
21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove
the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan
Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the
U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a
letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways'
Chairman indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S.
Government actions against Iran, that it continued to operate the
aircraft on its routes in and out of Tehran (and had 158,000 ``forward
bookings'' for these aircraft), and that it wished to continue to do so
and would pay damages if required by that court, rather than ground the
aircraft.
The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan
Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin
aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In
February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in
the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations
and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United
Arab Emirates (``UAE''), in violation of both the TDO and the
Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer
motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were
facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the
transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways'
sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the
UAE.
Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan
Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in
pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran
especially ``in an airworthy condition'' and that, depending on the
outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft ``could immediately go
back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.''
Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at
p. 25, ]] 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in
conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements,
demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent
future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed
from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airways' possession. The third of
these 747s, with Manufacturer's Serial Number (``MSN'') 23480 and
Iranian tail number EP-MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan's control.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially
Designated Global Terrorist (``SDGT'') by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') on September 19,
2012.\13\ Furthermore, as discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, open
source information indicated that this 747, painted in the livery and
logo of Mahan Airways, had been flown between Iran and Syria, and was
suspected of ferrying weapons and/or other equipment to the Syrian
Government from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open source
information showed that this aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as
recently as June 30, 2013, and continues to show that it remains in
active operation in Mahan Airways' fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24,
2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter,
Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by
operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and
logo, on flights into and out of Iran.\14\ At the time of the July 1,
2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, these Airbus A310s were registered in
France, with tail numbers F-OJHH and F-OJHI, respectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin engines. The
engines are subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control
Classification (``ECCN'') 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain
controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the
total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR.
They are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or reexport of
these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\15\ OEE subsequently presented evidence that after the August
24, 2011 renewal, Mahan Airways worked along with Kerman Aviation
and others to de-register the two Airbus A310 aircraft in France and
to register both aircraft in Iran (with, respectively, Iranian tail
numbers EP-MHH and EP-MHI). It was determined subsequent to the
February 15, 2012 renewal order that the registration switch for
these A310s was cancelled and that Mahan Airways then continued to
fly the aircraft under the original French tail numbers (F-OJHH and
F-OJHI, respectively). Both aircraft apparently remain in Mahan
Airways' possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had
acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations, with
MSN 499 and
[[Page 61748]]
Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.\16\ On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 aircraft
(tail numbers F-OJHH, F-OJHI, and EP-VIP) were designated as SDGTs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See note 14, supra.
\17\ See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously
designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18, 2011. 77 FR 64,427
(October 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The February 4, 2013 renewal order laid out further evidence of
continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons
acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another
Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines--two GE CF6-50C2
engines, with MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively--and other aircraft
parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.\18\ The February 4,
2013 order also added Mehdi Bahrami as a related person in accordance
with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. Bahrami, a Mahan Vice-President
and the head of Mahan's Istanbul Office, also was involved in Mahan's
acquisition of the original three Boeing 747s (Aircraft 1-3) that
resulted in the original TDO, and has had a business relationship with
Mahan dating back to 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Kral Aviation was referenced in the February 4, 2013
renewal order as ``Turkish Company No. 1.'' Kral Aviation purchased
a GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 517621) from the United States in
July 2012, on behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able to prevent this
engine from reaching Mahan by issuing a redelivery order to the
freight forwarder in accordance with Section 758.8 of the
Regulations. OEE also issued Kral Aviation a redelivery order for
the second CF6-50C2 engine (MSN 517738) on July 30, 2012. The owner
of the second engine subsequently cancelled the item's sale to Kral
Aviation. In September 2012, OEE was alerted by a U.S. exporter that
another Turkish company (``Turkish Company No. 2'') was attempting
to purchase aircraft spare parts intended for re-export by Turkish
Company No. 2 to Mahan Airways. See February 4, 2013 renewal order.
On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity
List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations. See 78
FR75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). Companies and individuals are added to the
Entity List for engaging in activities contrary to the national
security or foreign policy interests of the United States. See 15
CFR 744.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 31, 2013 renewal order detailed additional evidence
obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE
CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via
Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were
involved in or aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in
Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine,
and prepare it for shipment from Turkey.
Mahan Airways sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through
Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (``Pioneer
Logistics''), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its
director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously
had conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali
Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 renewal order, a
sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha,
Managing Director of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated
that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner
were ``actually the property of and owned by Mahan.'' He further stated
that he held ``legal title to the shares until otherwise required by
Mahan'' but would ``exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and
only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would]
only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol Surinanda
also were added to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR
75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 24, 2014 renewal order outlined OEE's continued
investigation of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by
Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts
supplier, two U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF-502R-5 aircraft engines (MSNs
LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S.
company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts
supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of
the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a
Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin
aircraft parts subject to the Regulations--including, among other
items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power
control unit--being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in
violation of the TDO.
The July 22, 2014 renewal order discussed open source evidence from
the March-June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items
subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of
Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MOK and EP-
MOI, respectively.\20\ In addition, aviation industry resources
indicated that these aircraft were obtained by Mahan Airways in late
November 2013 and June 2014, from Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a
Ukrainian airline that was added to BIS's Entity List (Supplement No. 4
to Part 744 of the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for acting contrary
to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States.\21\ Open source information indicates that at least EP-MOI
remains active in Mahan's fleet, and that the aircraft was being
operated on multiple flights within the last week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The BAE regional jets are powered with U.S.-origin engines.
The engines are subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN
9A991.d. These aircraft contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued
at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result are subject to the EAR. They are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires
U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
\21\ See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22, 2014 renewal
order also referenced two Airbus A320 aircraft painted in the livery
and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers
EP-MMK and EP-MML, respectively. OEE's investigation also showed
that Mahan obtained these aircraft in November 2013, from Khors Air
Company, another Ukrainian airline that, like Ukrainian
Mediterranean Airlines, was added to BIS's Entity List on August 15,
2011. Open source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320 aircraft
may be been transferred by Mahan Airways to another Iranian airline
in October 2014, and issued Iranian tail numbers EP-APE and EP-APF,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 16, 2015 renewal order detailed evidence of additional
attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in
further violation of the TDO. Specifically, in March 2014, OEE became
aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (``the
IRU'') that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is
subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled
for missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was
determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340
aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation revealed that as of
approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian
tail number EP-MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan
Airways.
The January 16, 2015 renewal order also described related efforts
by the Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's
illicit procurement efforts. Specifically, on August 14, 2014, the
United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland filed a
civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b)
that resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December
2, 2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet and
has been used on flights into and out of Iran as recently as December
19, 2017.
[[Page 61749]]
Additionally, on August 29, 2014, OFAC blocked the property and
interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan
Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airways' use of Asian Aviation
Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan for
the purchase of engines and other equipment.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014).
OFAC also blocked the property and property interests of Pioneer
Logistics of Turkey on August 29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways' use of
Pioneer Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the Regulations
was discussed in a prior renewal order, as summarized, supra, at 13-
14. BIS added both Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to
the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two
aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus
A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late
2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession,
control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.\23\ The sales agreements
for these two aircraft were signed by Ali Abdullah Alhay for Al Naser
Airlines.\24\ Payment information reveals that multiple electronic
funds transfers (``EFT'') were made by Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar
Safwa General Trading in order to acquire MSNs 164 and 550. The May 21,
2015 modification order also laid out evidence showing the respondents'
attempts to obtain other controlled aircraft, including aircraft
physically located in the United States in similarly-patterned
transactions during the same recent time period. Transactional
documents involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99,
respectively, again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay signing sales agreements
for Al Naser Airlines.\25\ A review of the payment information for
these aircraft similarly revealed EFTs from Ali Abdullah Alhay and
Bahar Safwa General Trading that follow the pattern described for MSNs
164 and 550, supra. MSNs 82 and 99 were detained by OEE Special Agents
prior to their planned export from the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Both of these aircraft are powered by U.S.-origin engines
that are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN
9A991.d. Both aircraft contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued
at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result are subject to the EAR regardless of their location. The
aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export
of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\24\ The evidence obtained by OEE showed Ali Abdullah Alhay as a
25% owner of Al Naser Airlines.
\25\ Both aircraft were physically located in the United States
and therefore are subject to the Regulations pursuant to Section
734.3(a)(1). Moreover, these Airbus A320s are powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under
Export Control Classification Number ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A320s
contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent
of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to
the EAR regardless of their location. The aircraft are classified
under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections
742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 13, 2015 renewal order outlined evidence showing that Al
Naser Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways
extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a total of nine
aircraft.\26\ Four of the aircraft, all of which are subject to the
Regulations and were obtained by Mahan from Al Naser Airlines, had been
issued the following Iranian tail numbers: EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-MMG
(MSN 383), EP-MMH (MSN 391) and EP-MMR (MSN 416), respectively.\27\
Publicly available flight tracking information provided evidence that
at the time of the July 13, 2015 renewal, both EP-MMH and EP-MMR were
being actively flown on routes into and out of Iran in violation of the
TDO and Regulations.\28\ The January 7, 2016 renewal order discussed
evidence that Mahan Airways had begun actively flying EP-MMD on
international routes into and out of Iran, including from/to Bangkok,
Thailand. Additionally, the January 7, 2016 order described publicly
available aviation database and flight tracking information indicating
that Mahan Airways continued efforts to acquire Iranian tail numbers
and press into active service under Mahan's livery and logo at least
two more of the Airbus A340 aircraft it had obtained from or through Al
Naser Airlines: EP-MME (MSN 371) and EP-MMF (MSN 376), respectively.
Since January 2016, EP-MME has logged flights to and from Tehran, Iran
involving various destinations, including Guangzhou, China and Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, in further violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ This evidence included a press release dated May 9, 2015,
that appeared on Mahan Airways' website and stated that Mahan
``added 9 modern aircraft to its air fleet [,]'' and that the newly
acquired aircraft included eight Airbus A340s and one Airbus A321.
See https://www.mahan.aero/en/mahan-air/press-room/44. The press
release was subsequently removed from Mahan Airways' website.
Publicly available aviation databases similarly showed that Mahan
had obtained nine additional aircraft from Al Naser Airlines in May
2015, including MSNs 164 and 550. As also discussed in the July 13,
2015 renewal order, Sky Blue Bird Group, via Issam Shammout, was
actively involved in Al Naser Airlines' acquisition of MSNs 164 and
550, and the attempted acquisition of MSNs 82 and 99 (which were
detained by OEE).
\27\ The Airbus A340s are powered by U.S.-origin engines that
are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d.
The Airbus A340s contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more
than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result
are subject to the EAR regardless of their location. The aircraft
are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these
aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to
Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\28\ There is some publicly available information indicating
that the aircraft Mahan Airways is flying under Iranian tail number
EP-MMR is now MSN 615, rather than MSN 416. Both aircraft are Airbus
A340 aircraft that Mahan acquired from Al Naser Airlines in
violation of the TDO and the Regulations. Moreover, both aircraft
were designated as SDGTs by OFAC on May 21, 2015, pursuant to
Executive Order 13324. See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 7, 2016 renewal order described Mahan Airways' acquisition
of a BAE Avro RJ-85 aircraft (MSN E2392) in violation of the TDO and
its subsequent registration under Iranian tail number EP-MOR.\29\ This
information was corroborated by publicly available information on the
website of Iran's civil aviation authority. The July 7, 2016 order also
outlined Mahan's continued operation of EP-MMF in violation of the TDO
on routes from Tehran, Iran to Beijing, China and Shanghai, China,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The BAE Avro RJ-85 is powered by U.S.-origin engines that
are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d.
The BAE Avro RJ-85 contains controlled U.S.-origin items valued at
more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result is subject to the EAR regardless of its location. The
aircraft is classified under ECCN 9A991.b, and its export or re-
export to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to
Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 30, 2016 renewal order outlined Mahan's continued
operation of multiple Airbus aircraft, including EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-
MMF (MSN 376), and EP-MMH (MSN 391), which were acquired from or
through Al Naser Airlines in violation of the TDO, as previously
detailed in pertinent part in the July 13, 2015 and January 7, 2016
renewal orders. Publicly available flight tracking information showed
that the aircraft were operated on flights into and out of Iran,
including from/to Beijing, China, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Istanbul,
Turkey.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Specifically, on December 22, 2016, EP-MMD (MSN 164) flew
from Dubai, UAE to Tehran, Iran. Between December 20 and December
22, 2016, EP-MMF (MSN 376) flew on routes from Tehran, Iran to
Beijing, China and Istanbul, Turkey, respectively. Between December
26 and December 28, 2016, EP-MMH (MSN 391) flew on routes from
Tehran, Iran to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 27, 2017 renewal order included similar evidence regarding
Mahan Airways' violation of the TDO by operating multiple Airbus
aircraft
[[Page 61750]]
subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to, aircraft
procured from or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of
Iran, including from/to Moscow, Russia, Shanghai, China and Kabul,
Afghanistan.\31\ The June 27, 2017 order also detailed evidence
concerning a suspected planned or attempted diversion to Mahan of an
Airbus A340 subject to the Regulations that had first been mentioned in
OEE's December 13, 2016 renewal request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Publicly available flight tracking information shows that
on June 22, 2017, EP-MME (MSN 371) flew from Moscow, Russia to
Tehran, Iran. Additionally, between June 19, 2017, and June 20,
2017, EP-MMQ (MSN 449), an Airbus A430 also obtained from or through
Al Naser Airlines, flew on routes between Shanghai, China and
Tehran, Iran. Similar flight tracking information shows that on June
20, 2017, EP-MNK (MSN 618), an Airbus A300 originally acquired by
Mahan via a Ukrainian company, flew between Kabul, Afghanistan and
Mashhad, Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEE's November 28, 2017 renewal request presented evidence that a
Mahan employee attempted to initiate negotiations with a U.S. company
for the purchase of an aircraft subject to the Regulations and
classified under ECCN 9A610. The request also includes evidence
indicating that Mahan Airways continues to operate a number of aircraft
subject to the Regulations, including aircraft originally procured from
or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of Iran from/to
Lahore, Pakistan, Shanghai, China, Ankara, Turkey, Kabul, Afghanistan,
and Baghdad, Iraq, in violation of the TDO.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For example, publicly available flight tracking information
shows that on December 17, 2017, EP-MNV (MSN 567) flew from Lahore,
Pakistan to Tehran, Iran. On December 18-19, 2017, EP-MMQ (MSN 449)
flew on routes between Istanbul, Turkey and Tehran, Iran.
Additionally, on December 17, 2017, EP-MNK (MSN 618), an Airbus A300
originally acquired by Mahan via a Ukrainian company, flew on routes
between Baghdad, Iraq and Mashhad, Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, multiple open sources indicate that Al Naser Airlines
recently acquired, via lease, at least possession and/or control of a
Boeing 737 (MSN 25361), bearing tail number YR-SEB, and an Airbus A320
(MSN 357), bearing tail number YR-SEA, from a Romanian company.\33\
Publicly available flight tracking data shows, furthermore, that in
November 2017, YR-SEA was operated on international flights between
Baghdad and destinations including Beirut, Lebanon and Istanbul, Turkey
under the International Air Transport Association (``IATA'') designator
for Al Naser Airlines. These transactions thus violate the TDO.
OEE's investigation also shows that Al Naser Airlines is using the
additional alias ``Al Naser Wings Airline.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Airbus A320 is powered with U.S.-origin engines, which
are subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control
Classification (``ECCN'') 9A991.d. The engines are valued at more
than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft, which
consequently is subject to the EAR. The aircraft is classified under
ECCN 9A991.b., and its export or reexport to Iran would require U.S.
Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the
evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that the denied
persons have acted in violation of the Regulations and the TDO; that
such violations have been significant, deliberate and covert; and that
given the foregoing and the nature of the matters under investigation,
there is a likelihood of future violations. Therefore, renewal of the
TDO is necessary in the public interest to prevent imminent violation
of the Regulations and to give notice to companies and individuals in
the United States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing
with Mahan Airways and Al Naser Airlines and the other denied persons
in connection with export and reexport transactions involving items
subject to the Regulations and in connection with any other activity
subject to the Regulations. I also find it necessary to add ``Al Naser
Wings Airline'' as an alias for Al Naser Airlines.
IV. Order
It is therefore ordered:
First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A.
Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/A
KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD
AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates; KERMAN AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN AVIATION, 42
Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO TRADING LLC, P.O. Box
8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHAN AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th
Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab
Emirates; MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan Airways- Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad.
Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; AL NASER
AIRLINES A/K/A AL-NASER AIRLINES A/K/A AL NASER WINGS AIRLINE A/K/A
ALNASER AIRLINES AND AIR FREIGHT LTD., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil
Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq, and Al Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al
Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan; ALI ABDULLAH ALHAY
A/K/A ALI ALHAY A/K/A ALI ABDULLAH AHMED ALHAY, Home 46, Al-Karrada,
Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq, and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia 61177; BAHAR SAFWA
GENERAL TRADING, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504,
Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel
Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; SKY BLUE BIRD GROUP
A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD AVIATION A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY BLUE
BIRD FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab
Emirates; and ISSAM SHAMMOUT A/K/A MUHAMMAD ISAM MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR
SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous
Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515, and 17-
18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdom, and
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri,
Istanbul, Turkey, and when acting for or on their behalf, any
successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a ``Denied Person''
and collectively the ``Denied Persons'') may not, directly or
indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any
commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ``item'') exported or to be exported from the United States that is
subject to the Export Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any
other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity
subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to
the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
[[Page 61751]]
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item
subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control
of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from
the United States, including financing or other support activities
related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts
to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition
or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item
subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will
be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is
owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item,
of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied
Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes
of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair,
modification or testing.
Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation,
ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of
trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of
this Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or
other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR,
Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar
Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a
full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with
the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR,
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue
Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their
inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in
support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR,
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not
later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be
opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or
Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing
a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days
before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each
related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register. This
Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Dated: December 20, 2017.
Richard R. Majauskas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement
performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017-28113 Filed 12-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P