[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23983-23987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9118]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

[Docket No. 04-BIS-10]


In the Matter of: Petrochemical Commercial Co. Ltd., NIOC House, 
4 Victoria Street, London, UK SW1H One, Respondent; Decision and Order

    On March 31, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS'') 
filed a charging letter against the respondent, Petrochemical 
Commercial Co. (UK) Ltd. (``PCC''), that alleged one violation of 
Section 764.2(b) of the Export Administration Regulations 
(Regulations),\1\ which were issued under the Export Administration Act 
of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``Act'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The violation charged occurred in 2002. The Regulations 
governing the violations at issue are found in the 2002 version of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2002)). The 
2005 Regulations establish the procedures that apply to this matter.
    \2\ From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 2000, the Act was 
in lapse. During that period, the President, through Executive Order 
12924, which had been extended by successive Presidential Notices, 
the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), 
continued the Regulations in effect under the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (IEEPA). 
On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized by Pub. L. 106-508 
(114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) and it remained in effect through August 20, 
2001. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., 
p. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential 
Notices, the most recent being that of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48763, 
August 10, 2004), continues the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the charging letter alleged that on or about August 
28, 2002, PCC, a British company, forwarded a bid by Chemical 
Industries Consolidated b.v. (``CIC''), of the Netherlands, for gas 
compression spare parts (``compressor parts'') to be exported from the 
United States to Tabriz Petrochemical Company in Iran (``Tabriz''). CIC 
was attempting to arrange for the export of the items from the United 
States to Iran without authorization from the U.S. Department of 
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') as required by 
Sec.  746.7 of the Regulations. The compressor parts are items subject 
both to the Regulations and the Iranian Transactions Regulations 
administered by OFAC. In forwarding the bid, BIS charged that PCC aided 
the solicitation of that attempted export to Tabriz in violation of the 
Regulations, thereby committing one violation of Section 746.2(b) of 
the Regulations.
    On May 3, 2004, PCC filed a Statement of Answer (``Answer'') 
denying the formal charge. As ordered by the Administrative Law Judge 
(``ALJ''), on November 8, 2004, BIS filed a Memorandum and Submission 
of Evidence to Supplement the Record and, on January 18, 2005, it filed 
a Memorandum of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. PCC 
did not submit any further filings to the ALJ.
    Based on the record before it, on March 30, 2005, the ALJ issued a 
Recommended Decision and Order in which he found that PCC committed the 
violation described above. First, based on uncontested evidence, the 
ALJ determined that CIC solicited certain compressor parts for export 
to Tabriz in Iran in violation of the Regulations. On July 15, 2002, 
CIC faxed a request for bid for the compressor parts to a company in 
the United States, and subsequently indicated to the U.S. company that 
the items were destined for Iran. A CIC representative was eventually 
arrested and pled guilty to a violation of IEEPA for his attempt to 
export the compressor parts to Iran in violation of the U.S. embargo on 
that country. Second, also based on uncontested evidence, the ALJ 
determined that PCC assisted in CIC's solicitation of the spare 
compressor parts. On or about July 11, 2002, PCC originated the 
transaction at issue by forwarding a request from Tabriz to CIC seeking 
quotations for space parts associated with certain ``Joy compressors.'' 
By letter dated August 27, 2002, CIC provided PCC with price quotations 
for the requested parts, indicating that the parts were of U.S.-origin. 
On August 28, PCC forwarded the quotations to Tabriz, which 
subsequently confirmed the transaction with PCC by facsimile. PCC 
stated during the underlying administrative proceeding that it was 
fully aware of the U.S. embargo on trade with Iran and also knew that 
the U.S. Government had not authorized the export of the space parts in 
question. In light of these facts, the ALJ held that PCC committed one 
violation of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. He also recommended 
the penalty proposed by BIS--denial of PCC's export privileges for 
three years.
    Pursuant to Sec.  766.22 of the Regulations, the ALJ's Recommended 
Decision and Order has been referred to me for final action. Based on 
my review of the entire record, I find that the record supports the 
ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the above-
referenced charge. I also find that the penalty recommended by the ALJ 
is appropriate give the nature of the violation and the importance of 
preventing future unauthorized exports to Iran, a country against which 
the United States maintains an economic embargo because of its support 
for international terrorism. In light of these circumstances, I affirm 
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the ALJ's Recommended 
Decision and Order.
    It is hereby ordered,
    First, that, for a period of three years from the date on which 
this Order takes effect, Petrochemical Commercial Company (UK) Ltd. 
(``PCC''), NIOC House, 4 Victoria Street, London, UK SW1H One, and all 
of its successors or

[[Page 23984]]

assigns, and when acting for or on behalf of PCC, its officers, 
representatives, agents, and employees (individually referred to as ``a 
Denied Person''), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any 
way in any transaction involving any commodity, software, or technology 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be 
exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or 
in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but no 
limited to:
    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License 
Exception, or export control document;
    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, 
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, 
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, 
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the 
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other 
activity subject to the Regulations; or
    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 Regulations, or in connection with any other activity subject to 
the Regulations.
    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the 
following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item 
subject to the Regulations:
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control 
of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be 
exported from the United States, including financing or other support 
activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or 
attempts to acquire such ownership, possession, or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition 
or attempted acquisition form a Denied Person of any item subject to 
the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item 
subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the 
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the 
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States 
and that is owned, possessed, or controlled by a Denied Person, or 
service any item, or whatever origin, that is owned, possessed, or 
controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any 
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from 
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, ``servicing'' means 
installation, maintenance, repair, modification, or testing.
    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided 
in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or 
business organization related to a Denied Persons 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 shall be served on the Denied Person and on 
BIS, and shall be published in the Federal Register. In addition, the 
ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, except for the section related to 
the Recommended Order, shall be published in the Federal Register.
    This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this 
matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 2, 2005.
Peter Liehtenbaum,
Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.

Recommended Decision and Order

    Before:

Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski
Administrative Law Judge
United States Coast Guard

Appearances:

For the Bureau of Industry and Security

Philip K. Ankel, Esq.
Office of Chief Counsel
Bureau of Industry and Security

For the Respondent

Petrochemical Commercial Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: Mr. M. Beirami
Pro se

Preliminary Statement

    On March 31, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS'' 
or ``Agency'') filed a formal Complaint against Petrochemical 
Commercial Co., Ltd., (``Petrochemical'' or ``Respondent'') charging 
one count of violation of the Export Administration Regulations 
(``EAR'') under 15 CFR 764.2(b). The Charging Letter asserts that on 
or about August 28, 2002, Petrochemical forwarded a bid for Chemical 
Industries Consolidated, b.v. (``CIC'') for the unauthorized 
procurement of gas compressor parts that are subject to the EAR 
concerning exports from the United States to the Islamic Republic of 
Iran (``Iran''). In so doing, Petrochemical aided or abetted in the 
solicitation of an unauthorized export in violation of the Export 
Administration Act of 1979 (``EAA'') and the Export Administration 
Regulations.\1\ See 50 U.S.C. App. 2401-20 (1991), amended by Pub. 
L. 106-508, 114 Stat. 2360 (Supp. 2002); 15 CFR parts 730-774. the 
EAA and its underlying regulations were created to establish a 
``system of controlling exports by balancing national security, 
foreign policy and domestic supply needs with the interest of 
encouraging export to enhance * * * the economic well being'' of the 
United States. See Times Publ'g Co. v. United States Dep't of 
Commerce, 236 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir. 2001); see also 50 U.S.C. 
App. 2401-02.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Due to the nature of this transaction, the items in question 
are also subject to the Iranian Transactions Regulations under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign 
Assets Control (OFAC).
    \2\ The EAA and all regulations under it expired on August 20, 
2001. See 50 U.S.C. App. 2419. Three (3) days before its expiration, 
the President declared that the lapse of the EAA constitutes a 
national emergency. See Exec. Order No. 13222, reprinted in 3 CFR at 
783-784, (2002). Exercising authority under the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1701-06 (2002), the 
President maintained the effectiveness of the EAA and its underlying 
regulations throughout the expiration period by issuing Exec. Order 
No. 13222 (Aug. 17, 2001). The effectiveness of the export control 
laws and regulations were further extended by Notice issued by the 
President on August 14, 2002 and August 7, 2003. See Notice of 
August 14, 2002: Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control 
Regulations, reprinted in 3 CFR at Part 306 (2003) and 68 FR 47833, 
August 11, 2003. Courts have held that the continued operation and 
effectiveness of the EAA and its regulations through the issuance of 
Executive Orders by the President constitutes a valid exercise of 
authority. See Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. United 
States Dep't of Commerce, 317 F.3d 275, 278-79 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 2004, Petrochemical filed a Statement of Answer 
(``Answer'') with documentation denying the formal charge. In its 
Answer, Petrochemical did not formally demand a hearing. Therefore, 
this matter was assigned to the Undersigned to render a decision on 
the record pursuant to 15 CFR 766.15. BIS regulations provide that a 
written demand for hearing must be expressly provided. As in this 
case, Respondent's failure to formally demand a hearing is deemed a 
waiver of Respondent's right to a hearing and this Recommended 
Decision and Order is hereby issued on the basis of the submitted 
record.\3\ See id. and Sec.  766.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ No witness testimony was received in this proceeding. The 
case Index of the official record provides the exclusive listing of 
documents received in this matter. A copy of the Index is provided 
as Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2004, the undersigned issued an Order to File Briefs 
directing the parties to file the necessary, ``Affidavits or 
declarations, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories 
and stipulations.'' Following the grant of several procedural stays, 
the time period to file the necessary briefs was extended up to and 
including, November 8, 2004. In keeping with the original time frame 
associated with the June 3, 2004 Order, the parties were provided 
with an opportunity to file rebuttal evidence to be due by the close 
of business November 30, 2004. On November 8, 2004, BIS filed its 
Memorandum and Submission of Evidence to Supplement the Record 
(``BIS Memorandum'').

[[Page 23985]]

    On January 3, 2005, an Order to File Pre-decisional Briefs was 
issued to provide the parties with an opportunity to file any:
    1. Exceptions to any ruling made by this Administrative Law 
Judge or to the admissibility of evidence proffered in this matter;
    2. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;
    3. Supporting legal arguments for the exceptions and proposed 
findings and conclusions submitted; and
    4. A proposed order.
    On January 18, 2005, BIS filed its Memorandum of Proposed 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (``Pre-decisional 
Memorandum'') which also included a proposed Recommended Decision 
and Order. The Pre-decisional memorandum and proposed Recommended 
Decision and Order are made part of this Recommended Decision and 
Order and are included by reference.\4\ As of this date, Respondent 
has not filed any other documentation in this matter other than the 
original Statement of Answer that was received on May 3, 2004. Given 
that the parties have been provided an ample amount of time and 
opportunity to supplement the record, and in keeping with the 
procedures set forth in 15 CFR part 766, I find that this matter is 
now ripe for decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 
Law are ACCEPTED and INCORPORATED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons that follow, I hereby find that the Bureau of 
Industry and Security has met its burden as shown in the written 
record by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative 
evidence in that Petrochemical Commercial Co., Ltd. aided and 
abetted in the solicitation of an unlicensed export to the Islamic 
Republic of Iran in violation of 49 CFR 764.2(b).

Findings of Fact

The Underlying Solicitation \5\

    1. On July 15, 2005, Chemical Industries Consolidated, b.v. 
(``CIC'') a company registered and located in the Dutch Netherlands 
made an inquiry addressed to ``Joy Compressor'' for a quotation of 
compressor spare parts. (Exhibit D, BIS Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The citations provided hereunder reference the exhibit 
numbers associated with the Agency's Memorandum and Submission of 
Evidence to Supplement the Record (``BIS Memorandum'') and 
Respondent's Statement of Answer (``Answer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The company listed in the inquiry as ``Joy Compressor'' and 
as referenced by the facsimile number and subsequent documentation 
was Cooper Turbocompressor, Inc. (``Cooper''), a United States 
company located in Buffalo, New York. (Exhibit D & F, BIS 
Memorandum).
    3. Upon receipt of the request, Cooper then requested further 
information from CIC and specifically, sought the serial numbers of 
the affected compressors. On July 23, 2002, CIC forwarded this 
information by facsimile to Cooper. (Exhibit E, BIS Memorandum).
    4. Cooper verified that the serial numbers were registered to 
compressors; model TAQ-70M4C/30 that are located in Iran at Tabriz 
Petrochemical. (Exhibit E & G BIS Memorandum, Answer Appendix 2).
    5. The spare parts and specifically the rotors listed in the 
inquiry request are classified under the title of ``EAR99,'' which 
in turn are subject to review under the Export Administration 
Regulations for both, the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign 
Assets Control (``OFAC'') and the Bureau of Industry and Security. 
(Exhibit A, BIS Memorandum).
    6. The Export and Anti-boycott Coordinator from Cooper notified 
the Office of Export Enforcement regarding CIC's inquiry for the 
compressor parts. The destination for the listed parts was the 
Islamic Republic of Iran. (Exhibit F, BIS Memorandum).
    7. Based on this information, an undercover company, IMC Global 
(``IMC'') sent a facsimile to CIC dated July 24, 2002. The facsimile 
stated that Cooper had forwarded CIC's bid request to IMC for 
further action. (Exhibit G, BIS Memorandum).
    8. The facsimile provided that the spare parts concerned two 
compressors, serial numbers X0-0484, and 85, located in the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. IMC stated, ``Unfortunately, Cooper cannot sell 
these items directly to you once they know that they are destined 
for Iran'' but ``we can offer you these items as a domestic US sale 
* * * and will only ship to a company in the United States.'' 
(Exhibit G, BIS Memorandum).
    9. As represented by BIS, the potential sale of the spare 
compressor parts was ``aggressively pursued'' by CIC, which 
eventually led to the arrest and subsequent conviction of a CIC 
representative in connection with this matter. (Exhibit B, BIS 
Memorandum).
    10. No authorization was obtained from the United States 
Government to allow the export of the spare parts to Iran. (Exhibit 
K, BIS Memorandum).

The Relation Between Petrochemical, CIC, and the Islamic Republic 
of Iran

    11. Petrochemical Commercial Company, Ltd. is registered and 
domiciled in the United Kingdom and ``provide procurement and 
shipping services to all NPC [National Petrochemical Company] 
organization, namely, Iranian petrochemical companies and complexes 
* * *'' (Exhibit L, BIS Memorandum, Answer at 4).
    12. Petrochemical is a ``subsidiary'' of the National 
Petrochemical Company which itself is a subsidiary of the Iranian 
Petroleum Ministry owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Exhibit 
C, L, & M, BIS Memorandum).
    13. Tabriz Petrochemical Company of Iran (``Tabriz'') is a 
``producing company'' that is also a subsidiary of the NPC. (Exhibit 
C, BIS Memorandum).
    14. On or about July 11, 2002, Petrochemical originated the 
transaction at issue by forwarding a request from Tabriz to CIC 
seeking quotations for spare parts (bull gear and shaft, and rotor 
assemblies) associated with ``Joy compressors.'' (Exhibit H & K, BIS 
Memorandum, Answer Appendix 2).
    15. By letter dated August 27, 2002, CIC provided Petrochemical 
with price quotations for the requested parts. In that letter, the 
stated country of origin for the listed spare parts was the ``USA.'' 
(Exhibit I, BIS Memorandum).
    16. By facsimile dated September 26, 2002, Petrochemical 
received confirmation from Tabriz regarding Petrochemical's offer 
for CIC's procurement of the spare compressor parts. (Exhibit J, BIS 
Memorandum).
    17. Petrochemical was fully aware of the United States embargo 
on trade with Iran and also knew that the United States Government 
had not authorized the export of parts in question.\6\ (Exhibit K, 
BIS Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ No OFAC license was obtained for the proposed export as the 
purported buyer was apprehended before any license could be applied 
for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    1. Petrochemical Commercial Company, Ltd. and the subject matter 
of this case are properly within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
Industry and Security in accordance with the Export Administration 
Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401-20) and the Export Administration 
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774).
    2. The Bureau of Industry and Security has established by 
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated 15 CFR 
764.2(b) by aiding and abetting in the solicitation of an unlicensed 
export to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
    3. The Bureau of Industry and Security proposed civil penalty 
assessment for the denial of export privileges against Petrochemical 
Commercial Company, Ltd. for the period of three (3) years is 
justified and reasonable.

Discussion

    The Export Administration Act and supporting Export 
Administration Regulations provide extensive and broad authority for 
the control of exports from the United States to foreign countries. 
See In the Matter of: Abdulamir Madhi, et al., 68 FR 57406, (October 
3, 2003); see also 50 U.S.C. App. 2402(92)(A), 2404(a)(1) and 
2405(a)(1). Also, the President of the United States provides 
additional authority and explicit controls with regard to exports to 
Islamic Republic of Iran. In 1987, the President invoked import 
sanctions against Iran by issuance of an Executive Order which in 
general prohibits the export of any goods, technology, or services 
from the United States to Iran without express authorization. See 
Exec. Order No. 12613, reprinted in 52 FR 41940 (Oct. 30, 1987); see 
also Exec. Order No. 12959, reprinted in 60 FR 24757 (May 6, 1995) 
(expanding sanctions imposed against Iran); Exec. Order No, 12957, 
reprinted in 60 FR 14615 (Mar. 15, 1995) (declaring actions and 
policies with respect to the Iranian Government to be a national 
emergency); see also 31 CFR 560.204, 560.501.
    The burden in this Administrative Proceeding lies with the 
Bureau of Industry and Security to prove the charged violation by 
the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of evidence 
standard is demonstrated by reliable, probative, and substantial 
evidence. See Steadman v. S.E.C., 450 U.S. 91, 102 (1981). The 
Agency, in

[[Page 23986]]

simple terms, must demonstrate ``that the existence of a fact is 
more probable than it nonexistence.'' Concrete Pipe and Products v. 
Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
    In this matter, Petrochemical is charged with aiding and 
abetting the solicitation of an attempted unauthorized export. As a 
general rule, ``No person may engaged in any conduct prohibited by 
or contrary to * * * any conduct required by, the EAA, the EAR * * * 
.'' 15 CFR 764.2(a). It is a violation of the EEA and the EAR to 
solicit or attempt a violation of the rules. Id. at Sec.  764.2(c). 
As charged in this matter, ``No person may cause or aid, abet, 
counsel, command, induce, procure, or permit the doing of any act 
prohibited, or the omission of any act required, by the EAA, the 
EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder.'' Id. 
at Sec.  764.2(b).
    The term ``Export means an actual shipment or transmission of 
items subject to the EAR from the United States * * *.'' Id. at 
Sec.  734.3(b)(1). In this case, an actual export did not occur as 
CIC was thwarted in its bid to carry out the unauthorized export of 
the spare parts in question. However, as indicated above, it remains 
a violation to attempt an unauthorized export in contravention of 
the rules.
    BIS has jurisdiction for all items ``subject to the EAR,'' which 
generally can be found listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL). 
However, ``For ease of reference and classification purposes, items 
subject to the EAR which are not listed on the CCL are designated as 
`EAR99.' '' Id. at Sec.  734.3(c). The spare parts at issue are 
classified as ``EAR99'', see Exhibit A, BIS Memorandum, and are 
``subject to the EAR'' pursuant to 15 CFR 734.3(c). It is also 
important to note that the rules provide that a person, whether or 
not she or he is complying with foreign laws or regulations ``is not 
relieved of the responsibility of complying with U.S. laws and 
regulations, including the EAR.'' Id. at Sec.  734.12.
    Upon review of Respondent's Statement of Answer and the record 
taken as a whole, the basic tenant argued to by Respondent is that 
Petrochemical only acted as an agent with no liability or 
responsibility in the procurement of items for CIC. Petrochemical 
argues that CIC, ``as exporter of the materials'' was responsible 
``for all required export customs, formalities, and obtaining all 
necessary permits for the shipment.'' Petrochemical further asserts 
that BIS lacks jurisdiction as it is a private company incorporated 
and domiciled under the laws of the United Kingdom. Finally, 
Petrochemical attempts to apply criminal elements to this 
administrative proceeding by arguing that it lacked the requisite 
intent or ``mens rea'' necessary to commit the charged violation.
    I find that Petrochemical's Answer to be unavailing and lacking 
legal foundation. Given the regulations and statements of law, 
including the findings of fact as provided above, Petrochemical was 
involved in the solicitation process with CIC that resulted in the 
failed attempt to procure unauthorized spare parts that were subject 
to the EAR, for shipment from the United States to Iran. Certainly, 
Petrochemical cannot argue otherwise. The August 27, 2002 quotation 
from CIC to Petrochemical clearly indicated the country of origin as 
the ``USA.'' See Exhibit I, BIS Memorandum. Petrochemical's argument 
that it was not aware of, or did not order, procure or attempt to 
procure any spare parts from the United States because it was 
dealing strictly with CIC, a European country, is nothing more than 
a veiled attempt to circumvent the exports laws of the United 
States.
    Further, it is clear that Petrochemical cannot shield itself 
from the EAA or EAR by the simple fact that it is a United Kingdom 
corporation, see In the Matter of Abdulamir Madhi, et al., 68 FR 
57406 (October 3, 2003); 15 CFR 734.12, and that intent, criminal or 
otherwise, is an element with regard to the Charge brought in this 
matter. See In the matter of: Aluminum Company of America, 64 FR 
42641-42651 (Aug. 5, 1999) (finding that ``liability and 
administrative sanctions are imposed on a strict liability basis 
once the Respondent commits the proscribed act'') Iran Air v. 
Kugelman, 996 F.2d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (reaffirming the Agency's 
position that knowledge is not an ``essential element of proof for 
the imposition of civil penalties''). In the Agency's Memorandum of 
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it stated, ``to 
prove that [Petrochemical] committed a violation of Section 
764.2(b), BIS need not prove intent or knowledge. Rather, BIS must 
prove that: (1) the items in question were subject to the 
Regulations, (2) a proposed transaction in violation of the 
Regulations was solicited, and (3) [Petrochemical] aided such 
solicitation.'' I agree with the Agency's analysis and hold that the 
Charge for the violation of 15 CFR 764.2(b) is hereby found PROVED 
by the preponderance of the evidence as contained in the written 
record. Petrochemical forwarded the bid for the procurement of 
compressor spare parts that were subject to the EAR and aided and 
abetted CIC in the unlawful solicitation for an attempted and 
unauthorized export of U.S. origin equipment to Iran.

Basis of Sanction

    The Bureau of Industry and Security has authority to assess 
civil penalties and to issue suspensions from practice, including 
the denial of export privileges before the Department of Commerce. 
See 15 CFR 764.3. Here, BIS recommends a three (3) year period of 
denial of export privileges be assessed against Petrochemical for 
its unlawful conduct in this matter. BIS argues that Petrochemical 
disregarded U.S. export laws and regulations with the knowledge that 
a major embargo existed between the United States and Iran.
    The record shows that Petrochemical know that U.S. Government 
authorization had not been given for the transaction at issue. BIS 
notes that employees of CIC, in connection with this transaction, 
accepted settlement agreements that resulted in the assessment of 
denial privileges ranging from five (5) to fifteen (15) years. BIS 
proposes that a three (3) year period for the denial of export 
privileges for Petrochemical is appropriate and is consistent with 
other cases of this nature. See In the Matter of: Arian 
Transportvermittlungs Gmbh, 69 FR 28120, (May 18, 2004) (assessing a 
ten (10) year denial period in connection with an Iranian 
transaction); In the Matter of: Abdulamir Madhi, et al, 68 FR 57406, 
(October 3, 2003) (assessing a twenty (20) year denial period in 
connection with an Iranian transaction); In the Matter of: Jubal 
Damavand General Trading Co., 67 FR 32009, (May 13, 2002) (assessing 
a ten (10) year denial period in connection with an Iranian 
transaction). Without any countervailing evidence to the contrary, I 
agree with the Agency's proposed assessment and hold that a three 
(3) year period for the denial of export privileges against 
Petrochemical is reasonable and justified.

[``Recommended Order'' Section--Redacted]

    This Recommended Decision and Order is being referred to the 
Under Secretary for review and final action by express mail as 
provided under 15 CFR 766.17(b)(2). Due to the short period of time 
for review by the Under Secretary, all papers filed with the Under 
Secretary in response to this Recommended Decision and Order must be 
sent by personal delivery, facsimile, express mail, or other 
overnight carrier as provided in Sec.  766.22(a). Submissions by the 
parties must be filed with the Under Secretary for Export 
Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room H-3808, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, within twelve (12) days from the date of 
issuance of this Recommended Decision and Order. Thereafter, the 
parties have eight (8) days from receipt of any response(s) in which 
to submit replies.
    Within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Recommended 
Decision and Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order, 
affirming, modifying or vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. 
See Sec.  766.22(c). A copy of the agency regulations for Review by 
the Under Secretary is attached.

    Done and dated this 30th day of March, 2005 at New York, New 
York.

Walter J. Brudzinski,

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard.

Certificate of Service

    I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing RECOMMENDED 
DECISION & ORDER by Federal Express to the following persons.

Under Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and 
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room H-3839, 14th & 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202-482-5301.
Philip K. Ankel, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel for Industry and 
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room H-3839, 14th Street & 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, Phone (202) 482-
5301, Facsimile: (202) 482-0085, (via Federal Express).
Petrochemical Commercial Co., Ltd., Attn: M. Beirami, NIOC House, 4 
Victoria Street, London, UK SWIH One, Phone: 020 7799 1717, 
Facsimile: 020 7233 0024, (via Federal Express--International).

[[Page 23987]]

ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, 40 S. Gay Street, Room 412, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022, Phone: 410-962-7434.

    Done and dated this 30th day of March, 2005, at New York, New 
York,


    Done and dated this 30th day of March 2005, at New Udate Dated:
Shaniqua Jenkins,
Paralegal Specialist to the Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 05-9118 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-M