[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6410-6412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2239]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Action Affecting Export Privileges; Wen Enterprises, Ning Wen, 
Hailin Lin, and Beijung Rich Linscience Electronics Company; Order 
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matters of: Wen Enterprises, 402 Wild Oak Drive, 
Manitowoc, WI 54220; and, Ning Wen, 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, 
WI 54220; and, Hailin Lin, 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; 
and, Beijing Rich Linscience Electronics Company, No. 2 Zhong Guan 
Cun South Avenue, Cyber Mode Room 1001, Haidian District, Beijing,

[[Page 6411]]

People's Republic of China 100086; Respondents.

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations 
(``EAR''),\1\ the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS''), U.S. 
Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement 
(``OEE''), has requested that I issue an Order temporarily denying 
export privileges of Wen Enterprises (``WE''), 402 Wild Oak Drive, 
Manitowoc, WI 54220; Ning Wen (``Wen''), 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, 
WI 54220; Hailin Lin (``Lin''), 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 
54220; and Beijing Rich Linscience Electronics Company (``BRLE''), No. 
2 Zhong Guan Cun South Avenue, Cyber Mode Room 1001, Haidian District, 
Beijing, China 100086 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 
``Respondents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EAR, which are currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-
774 (2004), are issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, 
as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420) (2000) (the ``Act''). The EAA 
was in effect from November 13, 2000 through August 20, 2001 but 
lapsed on August 21, 2001. However, the President, through Executive 
Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as 
extended by the Notice of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48763, August 10, 
2004), has continued the EAR in effect under the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BIS has presented evidence that shows that Respondents have 
conspired together and with others, known and unknown, to illegally 
export items subject to the EAR, including national security controlled 
electronic components, to the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
without the Department of Commerce necessary licenses. Specifically, 
the evidence shows that WE's sole business is exporting electronic 
components and semiconductor chips to BRLE in the PRC. WE has two 
employees: (1) Wen, the owner of WE, and (2) Lin, Wen's wife who runs 
WE. WE does not sell domestically and does not sell to any customer 
other than BRLE. The evidence shows that on more than 30 occasions 
during the period of June 7, 2002 through September 17, 2004, WE 
exported national security controlled electronic components to BRLE in 
the PRC with knowledge that export licenses were required for the items 
and that those licenses were neither applied for nor received. The 
evidence also shows that BRLE caused such exports to happen with 
knowledge that a violation of the EAR would subsequently occur. BRLE is 
a distributor and not the end-user of these electronic components.
    I find the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that the 
Respondents conspired to do acts that violate the EAR and did in fact 
commit numerous violations of the EAR by participating in the 
unlicensed export of national security controlled items to the PRC. I 
further find that such violations have been significant, deliberate and 
covert, and are likely to occur again, especially given the nature of 
the structure and relationships of the Respondents. As such, a 
Temporary Denial Order (``TDO'') is needed to give notice to persons in 
the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the 
Respondents in export transactions involving commodities, software or 
technology that are subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with 
the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR.
    Accordingly, I find that a TDO naming WE, Wen, Lin and BRLE as 
Respondents is necessary and in the public interest, to prevent an 
imminent violation of the EAR. This Order is issued on an ex parte 
basis without a hearing based upon BIS's showing of an imminent 
violation.
    It is therefore ordered:
    First, that the Respondents, Wen Enterprises, 402 Wild Oak Drive, 
Manitowoc, WI 54220; Ning Wen, 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; 
Hailin Lin, 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; and Beijing Rich 
Linscience Electronics Company, No. 2 Zhong Guan Cun South Avenue, 
Cyber Mode Room 1001, Haidian District, Beijing, China 100086, and 
their successors and assigns and when or for acting on behalf of any of 
the Respondents, their officers, agents or representatives, (``Denied 
Persons'') may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in 
any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be 
exported from the United States that is subject to the Export 
Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any other activity subject 
to the EAR, including, but not limited to:
    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License 
Exception, or export control document;
    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, 
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, 
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, 
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the 
United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity 
subject to the EAR; or
    C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item 
exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to 
the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the 
following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item 
subject to the EAR;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or 
control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be 
exported from the United States, including financing or other support 
activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires 
or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition 
or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to 
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from the 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 the Denied Person, or service any 
item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the 
Denied Person is 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 any of the Respondents 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 Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, 
the Respondents 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 Section 766.24(d) of the Ear, 
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not 
later than 20 days

[[Page 6412]]

before the expiration date. The Respondents may oppose a request to 
renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant 
Secretary 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 served on the Respondents and shall 
be published in the Federal Register
    This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 
180 days.

    Entered this 31st day of January, 2005.
Wendy L. Wysong,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05-2239 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M