[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17166-17171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Islamic Republic of Iran
Shipping Lines et al.
In the Matter of:
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, No. 37, Aseman Tower,
Sayyade Shirazee Square, Pasdaran Avenue, P.O. Box 19395-1311,
Tehran, Iran; No. 37, Corner of 7th Narenjestan, Sayad Shirazi
Square, After
[[Page 17167]]
Noboyand Square, Pasdaran Avenue, Tehran, Iran;
Tadbir Sanaat Sharif Technology Development Center, First Floor, No.
25, Shahid Siadat Boulevard, North Zanjan Street, Yadegar Emam
Highway, Tehran, Iran; Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd., 1 River Street,
Rosebank, Cape Town, South Africa; Respondents.
Starry Shine International Limited, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem
Plaza, 135 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of
China;
Ghasem Nabipour, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux
Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China; and No 143
Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh, Tehran, Iran;
Ahmad Sarkandi, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux
Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China; and No 143
Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh, Tehran, Iran; and 2 Abbey Road,
Barking Essex 1G11 7AX, London, England;
Shawn Hugo de Villiers, 1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700,
South Africa; and 39 Myburgii Street, Somerset West, Western Cape,
South Africa;
Gunther Migeotte, Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway; and
1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa; and P.O.
Box 36623, Menlo Park, 0102, South Africa; and 16 Manu Rua, 262
Sprite Avenue, Faerie Glen, 0081, South Africa;
Icarus Design AS, Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway;
Related Persons
Order Making Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Applicable to
Related Persons
Pursuant to Section 766.23 of the Export Administration Regulations
(``EAR'' or ``Regulations''), the Bureau of Industry and Security
(``BIS''), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export
Enforcement (``OEE''), has requested that I make the temporary denial
order that was issued against the above-named Respondents Islamic
Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (``IRISL''), Tadbir Sanaat Sharif
Technology Development Center (``TSS''), and Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd.
(``Icarus Marine'') on January 23, 2009, and published in the Federal
Register on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6,465) (hereinafter referred to as
the ``TDO'') applicable to the following entities and individuals, as
persons related to the Respondent IRISL or Respondent Icarus Marine:
Starry Shine International Limited, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem
Plaza, 135 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of
China;
Ghasem Nabipour, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux
Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China; and No 143
Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh, Tehran, Iran;
Ahmad Sarkandi, Suite B 12/F, Two Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux
Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China; and No 143
Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh, Tehran, Iran; and 2 Abbey Road,
Barking Essex 1G11 7AX, London, England;
Shawn Hugo de Villiers, 1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700,
South Africa; and 39 Myburgii Street, Somerset West, Western Cape,
South Africa;
Gunther Migeotte, Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway; and
1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa; and P.O.
Box 36623, Menlo Park, 0102, South Africa; and 16 Manu Rua, 262
Sprite Avenue, Faerie Glen, 0081, South Africa;
Icarus Design AS, Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway.
I. Background
A. The TDO
The TDO, effective upon issuance on January 23, 2009, denies the
export privileges of Respondents IRISL, TSS, and Icarus Marine for 180
days pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Regulations. The TDO issued
based upon my review of the evidence and determination that issuance of
the TDO was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the Regulations. As more fully set forth in the TDO, the
evidence showed, inter alia, that the Respondents were about to violate
the EAR by re-exporting a Bladerunner 51 powerboat, the ``Bradstone
Challenger,'' to TSS in Iran for intended use by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (``IRGC'') Navy. The TDO also discussed
evidence indicating that the vessel the M/V ``Diplomat'' (a/k/a the
``Iran Diplomat'') was going to be used to effect that unlawful
transaction by transporting the Bradstone Challenger from South Africa
to Iran.
The TDO was sent by fax to IRISL, TSS, and Icarus Marine on the
same day that it was issued, January 23, 2009. In spite of the issuance
of the TDO prohibiting the re-export of the Bradstone Challenger and
broadly prohibiting any participation in the export or re-export of
other items subject to the Regulations, the Respondents engaged in the
re-export of the Bradstone Challenger from South Africa to Iran.
Consistent with BIS's evidence and my findings in the TDO, the M/V
Diplomat was used to complete the re-export, as the Bradstone
Challenger was transported on the Diplomat beginning on or about
January 24, 2009. In addition, subsequent to the issuance of the TDO,
BIS received a letter from Respondent TSS on January 28, 2009, in which
TSS admitted that it was the owner of the Bradstone Challenger. None of
the Respondents has appealed or challenged the TDO.
B. Related Persons Notice Letters
Pursuant to Section 766.23, BIS notified Ghasem Nabipour, Ahmad
Sarkandi, and Starry Shine International Limited (``Starry Shine'') of
its intent to add them as persons related to Respondent IRISL by
ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or business, through letters dated
February 2, 2009 and sent to them in accordance with Sections 766.5(b)
and 766.23(b). BIS similarly notified Gunther Migeotte, Shawn Hugo de
Villiers, and Icarus Design AS of its intent to add them as persons
related to Respondent Icarus Marine, through letters dated and sent to
them on February 12, 2009. Each of these six notice letters also
requested that the respective person provide information to BIS
concerning the recipients' role and contractual relationship with
either IRISL or Icarus Marine. In addition, the letters requested
information regarding affiliates and subsidiaries associated with the
recipients and/or Respondents, as well as any other relevant mitigating
information and supporting documentation.
Mr. Nabipour and Mr. Sarkandi responded by letters dated February
27, 2009, via a London-based law firm representing both of them. Mr. de
Villiers responded by letter dated March 3, 2009, which he submitted on
Icarus Marine letterhead and signed as Managing Director of Icarus
Marine. No response has been received from Starry Shine, Icarus Design
or Mr. Migeotte.
II. Related Persons Under Section 766.23
Section 766.23(a) of the Regulations provides that:
In order to prevent evasion, certain types of orders under [Part
766] may be made applicable not only to the respondent, but also to
other persons then or thereafter related to the respondent by
ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or
other connection in the conduct of trade or business. Orders that
may be made applicable to related persons include those that deny or
affect export privileges, including temporary denial orders, and
those that exclude a respondent from practice before BIS. 15 CFR
766.23(a).
Section 766.23(b) provides, in pertinent part and in conjunction
with Section 766.24, that upon a finding by the Assistant Secretary for
Export Enforcement that a TDO should be made applicable to a related
person or persons in order to prevent evasion of the TDO, the Assistant
Secretary shall amend the
[[Page 17168]]
TDO by adding those related persons to the TDO. 15 CFR 766.23(b).
III. Findings
Starry Shine
BIS requested that Starry Shine be added to the TDO as a Related
Person to Respondent IRISL. BIS has presented evidence indicating,
inter alia, that Starry Shine is listed as the owner of the M/V
Diplomat, the vessel that was used to re-export the Bradstone
Challenger to Iran in violation of the TDO and U.S. export control
laws; that Starry Shine's only two directors are Ghasem Nabipour and
Ahmad Sarkandi, who themselves are persons related to IRISL (as
discussed further below); and that IRISL continues to manage and
operate the M/V Diplomat. Starry Shine has not opposed being added to
the TDO, either to challenge that it is related to IRISL or that adding
it to the TDO is justified to prevent evasion.
BIS also has presented evidence indicating, moreover, that
beginning in 2008, Respondent IRISL has engaged in a pattern of evasive
conduct with Starry Shine and other related entities, by transferring
ownership (or at least nominal ownership) of the M/V Diplomat and other
vessels subject to United States Government export restrictions to
Starry Shine and other co-located entities established at or about the
same time and under the direction of Mr. Nabipour and Mr. Sarkandi.
Although listed ownership of these entities has been transferred and
they no loner fly under an Iranian flag, IRISL has continued to manage
and operate them. Furthermore, in published interviews, IRISL's
Chairman has acknowledged the use of such methods to evade U.S. export
control sanctions.
For example, from 1985, when the vessel first took sail, until
2008, the M/V Diplomat flew under an Iranian flag, was owned by IRISL,
and was named the Iran Mufateh. This ship was added as a blocked vessel
in September 2008 by the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (``OFAC'') to its list of specially designated nationals
(``SDN''), at the same time Respondent IRISL became listed as an SDN.
According to the Hong Kong Government corporate registry Web site, as
of June 2008, the M/V Diplomat is owned by Starry Shine. Shortly before
that listed transfer, Ghasem Nabipour and Ahmad Sarkandi had been
appointed as directors of Starry Shine on the same day in March 2008.
The M/V Diplomat sails under a Hong Kong flag, but is still operated
and managed by IRISL.
Besides the M/V Diplomat, Starry Shine owns two other vessels, the
Delight and the Apollo, both of which, like the Diplomat, were owned by
IRISL until 2008 and continue to be managed and operated by IRISL. The
Delight was also designated as a blocked vessel by OFAC at the same
time that the Diplomat was so designated.
BIS also has presented evidence that Starry Shine's only two
directors--Mr. Nabipour and Mr. Sarkandi--also are the only two
directors of other entities formed and used for the same evasive
purposes and co-located with Starry Shine, including at least Top
Glacier Company Limited, Top Prestige Trading Limited and Ideal Success
Investments Limited. Like Starry Shine, each of those entities is the
nominal owner of at least one vessel designated as a blocked vessel by
OFAC in September 2008, and, in the case of these three entities, IRISL
remains the beneficial owner of those vessels.
Furthermore, even in the short time since the issuance of TDO,
IRISL has taken action in an effort to evade U.S. export control laws.
In early March 2009, after issuance of the TDO in late January 2009,
and its publication and the unlawful re-export of the Bradstone
Challenger to Iran via the M/V Diplomat in February 2009, Starry Shine
changed the name of the M/V Diplomat to M/V Amplify. Given the
suspicious timing of this name change and the fact that it did not
result from a change in ownership or management, the evidence indicates
that Starry Shine intends to continue working in concert with IRISL and
others to evade the TDO and the Regulations and to use the M/V Diplomat
for that purpose as well.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Starry Shine is a person related to IRISL by ``ownership,
control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection
in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, and that the TDO should be made applicable to Starry Shine
in order to prevent evasion of that order.
Ghasem Nabipour
BIS requested that Mr. Nabipour be added as a Related Person based
on evidence that he is a person related to IRISL, a fact he has
admitted in his response, as described in greater detail below. In
addition, BIS has also now obtained and presented evidence indicating
that Mr. Nabipour likewise is affiliated with other persons related to
IRISL, further strengthening BIS's request to add him as a related
person.
In his response, Mr. Nabipour admits that he manages the day-to-day
ship operations of IRISL and also admits that he ``holds a position of
responsibility'' within IRISL. Mr. Nabipour nonetheless asserts,
without supporting citation or authority, that he should not be added
to the TDO, arguing that the Regulations cannot apply to any activities
of IRISL or any of its employees and also that he is not in a position
to contribute or assist in any possible evasion of the TDO.
Mr. Nabipour's first argument is legally incorrect. The TDO
discusses why the Bradstone Challenger and its re-export are subject to
the Regulations, which presents just one example of various activities
of IRISL and its employees that are or could be subject to the
Regulations. His second argument is factually incorrect. His admitted
relationship, role as shipping manager, and position of responsibility
with IRISL show that he is well-positioned to contribute or assist in
the evasion of the TDO. In fact, the unlawful re-export of the
Bradstone Challenger occurred after IRISL had been served with a copy
of the TDO and the re-export occurred via the M/V Diplomat, but Mr.
Nabipour failed to take any action to prevent that unlawful re-export
in violation of the TDO, and presumably participated in that unlawful
conduct given his role and position at IRISL, as well as his role as
director of Starry Shine.
Mr. Nabipour's arguments do not address his role as director of
Starry Shine, even though the TDO discusses evidence indicating the
central role that BIS expected to be played by the M/V Diplomat, and
was in fact played by that IRISL-Starry Shine vessel, in the unlawful
re-export of the Bradstone Challenger. Nor does Mr. Nabipour address
the evasive action taken in the re-naming of the M/V Diplomat in early
March 2009, discussed in the Starry Shine section above, or his role in
the broader evasion scheme also detailed in the preceding section above
as director of Top Glacier Company Limited, Top Prestige Trading
Limited and Ideal Success Investments Limited.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Ghasem Nabipour is a person related to IRISL by
``ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to Section
766.23 of the Regulations, and that the TDO should be made applicable
to Ghasem Nabipour in order to prevent evasion of that order. The
evidence also indicates that Ghasem Nabipour is a person related to
Starry Shine, which is being
[[Page 17169]]
added to the TDO pursuant to Section 766.23 and this order.
Ahmad Sarkandi
BIS also requested that Mr. Sarkandi be added as a Related Person
to IRISL. BIS presented evidence that Mr. Sarkandi is the Managing
Director of IRISL UK, a position he admits holding in his response,
which he states owns and operates ships ``in international transport,''
and admits that he exercises a ``position of control'' within IRISL UK.
He denies being a shareholder or director of IRISL (or a director of
Icarus Marine or TSS), but has refused to indicate whether he holds any
other position or role within IRISL. IRISL UK is in any event
affiliated with IRISL, and Mr. Sarkandi admits that IRISL UK is a
member of the ``IRISL group.'' BIS also introduced evidence that Mr.
Sarkandi is Managing Director for IRISL's European Regional Office in
the UK, where he has been stationed since 2004.
Like Mr. Nabipour, Mr. Sarkandi mistakenly argues that the
Regulations cannot apply in any way to IRISL UK or one of its
directors. He also similarly argues that his position at IRISL UK
renders him incapable of contributing or assisting in any possible
evasion of the TDO. He asserts that his activities of IRISL UK are
limited to ``managing and expending'' IRISL UK's business enterprises
in the UK, Germany, Belgium, and Italy. He does not argue, however,
that the shipping operations of these enterprises are limited to those
countries, indicating instead that IRISL UK owns and operates ships in
international transport. The record, in any event, suggests that
IRISL's substantial fleet of vessels frequently call at European, as
well as Middle Eastern and Asian ports. Mr. Sarkandi refuses to comment
on his role at Starry Shine, though like Mr. Nabipour, he was notified
of the role that the Starry Shine's M/V Diplomat played in the re-
export of the Bradstone Challenger to Iran for use by the IRGC Navy.
His response also omitted his role at other entities organized with Mr.
Nabipour, purchasing IRISL's blocked vessels, which were discussed
above.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Ahmad Sarkandi is a person related to IRISL by ``ownership,
control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection
in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, and that the TDO should be made applicable to Ahmad
Sarkandi in order to prevent evasion of that order. The evidence also
indicates that Ahmad Sarkandi is a person related to Starry Shine,
which is being added to the TDO pursuant to Section 766.23 and this
order.
Shawn Hugo de Villiers
BIS requested that Shawn Hugo de Villiers be added as a Related
Person to Respondent Icarus Marine. Mr. de Villiers is Managing
Director of Icarus Marine, a fact he has admitted in various
communications with BIS, along with the fact that he and Gunther
Migeotte are the only two directors of Icarus Marine, where Mr. de
Villiers is one of only four employees. He also has provided BIS
evidence that his fellow director/officer, Mr. Migeotte, owns Icarus
Design, which in turn owns half of Icarus Marine. Mr. de Villiers
denies involvement by Icarus Marine in ``any dealings as described in
the'' TDO, including denying knowing ``anything about the sale of this
boat and that includes its current whereabouts.'' He does admit,
however, that ``we [Icarus Marine] do know the company TSS * * *''. Mr.
de Villiers does not elaborate on the nature of that relationship, but
denies that Icarus Marine has supplied ``any boats or other equipment
to TSS in the past 24 months.''
Mr. de Villiers' denials are undermined by the evidence BIS
submitted in connection with the issuance of the TDO and by additional
evidence it has since obtained or presented indicating that the
transaction occurred as described or alleged in the TDO. In addition,
given Mr. de Villiers' admitted role at Icarus Marine and his statement
concerning the company's small size, assertions that he lacks knowledge
of Icarus Marine's dealings or involvement with the Bradstone
Challenger, or a transaction as significant as that described in the
TDO, are not credible.
His denials are further undermined by TSS's January 28, 2009 letter
claiming ownership of the Bradstone Challenger and by information until
recently located on TSS's Web site. The TSS Web site, in a statement
removed shortly after the TDO was published, stated that TSS has
``prosperous cooperation'' with ``Icarus Design AS (Norway).'' The TSS
Web site further described Icarus Design as ``an engineering and naval
architecture company with offices in Alesund Norway and Cape Town[,]
South Africa. * * *'' While Icarus Design does not have a listed office
in South Africa, Icarus Marine's office is located in Cape Town, South
Africa. TSS's admitted knowledge of and dealings with that South Africa
office, which it apparently considered to be an Icarus Design office or
branch office, is an additional indication that, contrary to Mr. de
Villiers' denials, Icarus Marine was involved in the re-export of the
Bradstone Challenger from South Africa to TSS in Iran for use by the
IRGC Navy.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Shawn Hugo de Villiers is a person related to Icarus Marine
by ``ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or
other connection in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to
Section 766.23 of the Regulations, and that the TDO should be made
applicable to Shawn Hugo de Villiers in order to prevent evasion of
that order.
Gunther Migeotte
BIS also requested that Gunther Migeotte be added to the TDO as a
Related Person to Respondent Icarus Marine. Mr. Migeotte has not filed
any response opposing his addition to the TDO, or responded to BIS's
request for information contained in the notice letter, nor has Icarus
Design, of which Mr. Migeotte is the sole owner, Chairman, and Managing
Director. I also note that Icarus Marine, which he also controls and
manages, has not appealed the issuance of the TDO.
BIS has presented open source evidence confirming that Mr. Migeotte
is a principal officer and executive director of Icarus Marine. It also
has obtained evidence from Shawn Hugo de Villiers, Managing Director of
Icarus Marine, that he and Mr. Migeotte are the directors of Icarus
Marine and that Mr. Migeotte also is the sole owner and director of
Icarus Design, which owns 50 percent of Icarus Marine and maintains a
substantial business relationship with Respondent TSS. Icarus Marine
participated in and facilitated the sale and unlawful re-export of the
Bradstone Challenger to Iran despite the TDO. Given his role at Icarus
Marine, indicating that he either directly participated in or at the
very least failed to take action to stop or prevent the violation of
the TDO, there is a clear need to add him as a related person.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Gunther Migeotte is a person related to Icarus Marine by
``ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to Section
766.23 of the Regulations, and that the TDO should be made applicable
to Gunther Migeotte in order to prevent evasion of that order. The
evidence also indicates that Gunther Migeotte is a person related to
Icarus Design AS, which is being added to the
[[Page 17170]]
TDO pursuant to Section 766.23 and this order (as discussed below).
Icarus Design, AS
BIS requested that Icarus Design, AS be added as a Related Person
to Respondent Icarus Marine. Icarus Design, like its director and owner
Mr. Migeotte, has not opposed or otherwise responded to BIS's letter
notifying Icarus Design of its intent to add Icarus Design as a related
person. However, information supplied by Mr. de Villiers in his
response letter, which he signed as Managing Director of Icarus Marine,
substantiates evidence obtained by BIS that Icarus Marine and Icarus
Design are related persons. Icarus Design owns half of Icarus Marine,
the other half of which is owned by Icarus Marine Trust. Icarus
Design's sole owner and sole director is Mr. Migeotte, who along with
Mr. de Villiers, is one of only two directors of Icarus Marine.
Moreover, I also note, that Icarus Design also has a business
relationship with Respondent TSS.
Based on the foregoing and the evidence as a whole in this matter,
I find that Icarus Design, AS is a person related to Icarus Marine by
``ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or business'' pursuant to Section
766.23 of the Regulations, and that the TDO should be made applicable
to Icarus Design AS in order to prevent evasion of that order.
IV. Order
It is Therefore Ordered: First, that having been provided notice
and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the
Regulations, Starry Shine International Limited (located at Suite B 12/
F, Two Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples
Republic of China); Ghasem Nabipour (located at Suite B 12/F, Two
Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples
Republic of China; and No 143 Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh,
Tehran, Iran); and Ahmad Sarkandi (located at Suite B 12/F, Two
Chinachem Plaza, 135 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong, Peoples
Republic of China; and No 143 Shahid Lavasani Avenue, Farmanieh,
Tehran, Iran; and 2 Abbey Road, Barking Essex 1G11 7AX, London,
England) (each a ``Related Person''), have been determined to be
related to Respondent IRISL of Tehran, Iran, by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or
related services, and it has been deemed necessary to make the Order
temporarily denying the export privileges of the Respondents applicable
to these Related Persons in order to prevent evasion of the Order.
Further, having been provided notice and opportunity for comment as
provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, Shawn Hugo de Villiers
(located at 1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa;
and 39 Myburgii Street, Somerset West, Western Cape, South Africa);
Gunther Migeotte (located at Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad,
Norway; and 1 River Street, Rosebank, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa;
and P.O. Box 36623, Menlo Park, 0102, South Africa; and 16 Manu Rua,
262 Sprite Avenue, Faerie Glen, 0081, South Africa); and Icarus Design
(located at Titangata 1, N-1630 Gamle Fredrikstad, Norway) (each a
``Related Person''), have been determined to be related to Respondent
Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd., of Cape Town, South Africa, by affiliation,
ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of
trade or related services, and it has been deemed necessary to make the
Order temporarily denying the export privileges of the Respondents
applicable to these Related Persons in order to prevent evasion of the
Order.
The individuals and entities designated above as a Related Person
(Starry Shine International Limited, Ghasem Nabipour, Ahmad Sarkandi,
Shawn Hugo de Villiers, Gunther Migeotte and Icarus Design, AS) are
collectively the ``Related Persons.''
Second, that the denial of export privileges described in the
Orders against Respondents, which were issued on January 23, 2009, and
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2009 at 74 Fed. Reg.
6465, shall be made applicable to each Related Person, as follows:
I. The Related Person, its successors or assigns, and when acting
for or on behalf of the Related Person, its officers, representatives,
agents, or employees (collectively, ``Related 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 not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other
activity subject to the Regulations; or
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 any other activity subject to the Regulations.
II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Related Person any
item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Related Person of the ownership, possession, or
control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be
exported from the United States, including financing or other support
activities related to a transaction whereby the Related 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 Related Person of any item subject to
the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Related Person in the United States any item
subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States
and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Related Person, or
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Related 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 this Order does not prohibit any export, re-export, or
other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items
involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced
direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
Fourth, that in accordance with the provisions of Section 766.23(c)
of the Regulations, the Related Persons may, at any time, make an
appeal related to 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
[[Page 17171]]
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
This Order shall be published in the Federal Register and a copy
provided to each Related Person.
This Order is effective upon publication and shall remain in effect
until the expiration of the TDO on July 22, 2009, unless renewed in
accordance with the Regulations.
Entered this 8th day of April 2009.
Kevin Delli-Colli,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9-8533 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P