Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 65775 

1The Regulations are currently codified at 15 CFR 

Parts 730–774 (2006). The violations charged 

occurred in 2001 and 2002. The Regulations 

governing the violations at issue are found in the 

2001 through 2002 versions of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2001–2002). 

The 2006 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

2Since 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 3, 2006 (71 FR 44,551 (August 7, 2006)) has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)). 

II. Approval of Minutes of October 13, 

Meeting 

III. Announcements 

IV. Staff Director’s Report 

V. Program Planning 

• Briefing Report Benefits of Diversity in 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

VI. Management and Operations 

• Orange County Voter Harassment Letter 

• 2007 Business Meeting and Briefing 

Calendar 

VII. State Advisory Committee Issues 

• Recharter Package for California State 

Advisory Committee 

VIII. Future Agenda Items 

IX. Adjourn 

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press and 

Communications (202) 376–8587. 

David Blackwood, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 06–9186 Filed 11–7–06; 3:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–22] 

In the Matter of: Mr. Daqing Zhou; 

Manten Electronics, Inc.; Beijing 

Office, Suite 2–4–501, 2nd Area Cherry 

Garden, Li Qiao Town, Shun Yi, 

Beijing, PRC 101300, Respondent; 

Final Decision and Order 

In a charging letter filed on December 

1, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that the 

Respondent, Daqing Zhou (‘‘Zhou’’), 

committed three violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations 

(‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter filed 

by BIS alleged that Zhou conspired to 

export microwave amplifiers, items 

subject to the Regulations and classified 

under Export Control Classification 

Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 3A001, from the 

United States to China without the 

required Department of Commerce 

license. BIS alleged that the goal of the 

conspiracy was to obtain microwave 

amplifiers on behalf of a Chinese enduser and to export those microwave 

amplifiers to China. In so doing, BIS 

charged that Zhou committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(d) of the 

Regulations. 

The charging letter also alleged that 

Zhou caused the doing of an act 

prohibited by the Regulations. 

Specifically, BIS alleged that Zhou 

ordered the aforementioned microwave 

amplifiers from a U.S. company for use 

by an end-under in China. The U.S. 

company then exported the microwave 

amplifiers to China without the 

Department of Commerce license 

required by Section 742.4 of the 

Regulations. In so doing, BIS charged 

that Zhou committed one violation of 

Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. 

Finally, the charging letter filed by 

BIS alleged that, in connection with the 

export of microwave amplifiers on or 

about May 23, 2002, Zhou ordered or 

financed microwave amplifiers that 

were to be exported from the United 

States with knowledge that a violation 

of the Regulations would occur in 

connection with those items. In so 

doing, BIS charged that Zhou committed 

one violation of section 764.2(e) of the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 

766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on 

December 1, 2005, BIS mailed the notice 

of issuance of the charging letter by 

registered mail to Zhou at his last 

known address. Although postage marks 

indicate that the charging letter arrived 

in Beijing, the letter was returned to BIS 

unopened. BIS then sent a copy of the 

charging letter to Zhou at the same 

address in Beijing by Federal Express on 

May 1, 2006. The record established that 

on May 17, 2006, the charging letter sent 

by Federal Express was signed for by a 

‘‘D. Zhou.’’

Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

respondent must answer the charging 

letter within 30 days after being served 

with notice of issuance of the charging 

letter’’ initiating the administrative 

enforcement proceeding. To date, Zhou 

has not filed an answer to the charging 

letter with the Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ), and has not otherwise 

responded to the charging letter, as 

required by the Regulations. 

Pursuant to the default procedures set 

forth in Section 766.7 of the 

Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order with the ALJ on 

September 11, 2006. Under Section 

766.7(a) of the Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of 

the respondent to file an answer within 

the time provided constitutes a waiver 

of the respondent’s right to appear,’’ and 

‘‘on BIS’s motion and without further 

notice to the respondent, [the ALJ] shall 

find the facts to be as alleged in the 

charging letter.’’

On October 17, 2006, the ALJ issued 

a Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he concluded that ‘‘BIS 

submitted evidence to establish delivery 

of the notice of the Charging Letter was 

constructively refused on or about 

December 17, 2006 and that BIS 

properly served notice of the Charging 

Letter in accordance with Section 766.3 

of the Regulations.’’ I conclude that the 

ALJ’s reference to ‘‘December 17, 2006’’

was a typographical error. In this case, 

I find that the charges were served on 

the Respondent on May 17, 2006; the 

date that ‘‘D. Zhou’’ signed for the 

Federal Express package containing the 

charging letter that was sent to the 

Respondent’s, Daqing Zhou, last known 

address. Thirty days having past since 

the charges were properly served and 

not answered, BIS was entitled to seek 

a default judgment. 

Based upon the record before him, the 

ALJ held Zhou in default. In the 

Recommended Decision and Order, the 

ALJ found the facts to be as alleged in 

BIS’s charging letter, and determined 

that those facts established that Zhou 

committed one violation of Section 

764.2(d), one violation of Section 

764.2(b), and one violation of Section 

764.2(e) of the Regulations. The ALJ 

recommended that Zhou be denied 

export privileges for twenty years. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under Section 766.22 

of the Regulations. I find that the record 

supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, as modified above, 

with respect to each of the abovereferenced charges brought against 

Zhou. I also find that the penalty 

recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, 

given the nature of the violations, the 

lack of mitigating circumstances, the 

importance of preventing future 

unauthorized exports, and penalties 

imposed in past similar cases. Although 

the imposition of a monetary penalty is 

an appropriate option, I agree with the 

ALJ that in this case such a penalty may 

not be effective, given the difficulty of 

collecting payment against a party 

outside the United States. 

Based on my review of the entire 

record, I affirm the findings of fact, as 

modified, and conclusions of law in the 

ALJ’s Recommended Decision and 

Order. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
65776 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred in 2001 

through 2002. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 2001 through 

2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2001–2002)). The 2006 

Regulations establish the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 2Since 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)), 

as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006 (71 FR 

44,551 (Aug. 7, 2006)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706 (2000)). 

3Furthermore, on May 1, 2006, BIS sent a 

courtesy copy of the charging letter to Zhou at the 

last known e-mail address: david.zhou@163.com. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered: 

First, that, for a period of twenty years 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register, Daqing Zhou (a/k/ 

a ‘‘David Zhou’’), Manten Electronics, 

Inc., Beijing Office, Suite 2–4–501, 2nd 

Area Cherry Garden, Li Quiao Town, 

Shun Yi, Beijing, PRC 101300, and 

when acting for or on his behalf, his 

representatives, agents, assigns, or 

employees (‘‘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 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. 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 Regulations; 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 Regulations 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 Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject tot he 

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 the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves that 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 the 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 Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are foreignproduced direct product of U.S.-origin 

technology. Fifth, 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 publications in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: November 3, 2006. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On December 1, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), issued a Charging Letter 

initiating this administrative enforcement 

proceeding against Daqing Zhou (‘‘Zhou’’). 

The Charging Letter alleged that Zhou 

committed three violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2006)) 

(‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. App. 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the Charging Letter alleged 

that Zhou conspired and acted in concert 

with others, known and unknown, to export 

microwave amplifiers from the United States 

to China without the required Department of 

Commerce license. BIS alleged that the goal 

of the conspiracy was to obtain microwave 

amplifiers on behalf of a Chinese end-user 

and to export those microwave amplifiers to 

China. BIS alleged that in furtherance of the 

conspiracy, Zhou negotiated with individuals 

from China and developed a plan to acquire 

the amplifiers for shipment from the United 

States to China. BIS alleged that, contrary to 

Section 742.4 of the Regulations, no 

Department of Commerce license was 

obtained for the export of the amplifiers from 

the United States to China. (Charge 1). 

The Charging Letter filed by BIS also 

alleged that, on or about May 23, 2002, Zhou 

caused a violation of the Regulations by 

ordering microwave amplifiers, items subject 

to the Regulations and classified under 

export control classification number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 3A001, from a U.S. company for 

use by an end-user in China. At the time of 

the export caused by Zhou, the microwave 

amplifiers in question were controlled on the 

Commerce Control List for National Security 

reasons. BIS alleged that, contrary to Section 

742.4 of the Regulations, no Department of 

Commerce license was obtained for the 

export of the amplifiers from the United 

States to China. (Charge 2). 

Finally, the Charging Letter filed by BIS 

also alleged that, in connection with the 

export of microwave amplifiers on or about 

May 23, 2002, Zhou ordered or financed 

microwave amplifiers that were to be 

exported from the United States with 

knowledge that a violation of the Regulations 

would occur. Specifically, BIS alleged that 

Zhou knew that a violation of the Regulations 

would occur as Zhou notified the U.S. 

exporter that the items in question were 

classified as ECCN 3A001, and was aware 

that the exporter was not going to obtain a 

license for the export. (Charge 3). 

Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations 

provides that notice of the issuance of a 

charging letter shall be served on a 

respondent by mailing a copy by registered 

or certified mail addressed to the respondent 

at the respondent’s last known address. 

Further, the date of service is the date of its 

delivery or of its attempted delivery is 

refused. See 15 CFR 766.4(c). 

Here, BIS mailed the Charging Letter by 

registered mail on December 1, 2005 to Zhou 

at his last known address: Mr. Daqing Zhou, 

Manten Electronics, Inc., Beijing Office, Suite 

2–4–501, 2nd Area Cherry Garden, Li Qiao 

Town, Shun Yi, Beijing, PRC 101300. 

Although postage marks indicate that the 

letter arrived in Beijing, the letter was 

returned to BIS unopened. BIS sent a 

courtesy copy of the Charging Letter to the 

same address in Beijing by Federal Express 

on May 1, 2006.3 This time a person named 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 65777 

4Pursuant to Section 13(c)(1) of the Export 

Administration Act and Section 766.17(b)(2) of the 

Regulations, in export control enforcement cases, 

the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended 

findings of fact and conclusions of law that the 

Under Secretary must affirm, modify or vacate. The 

Under Secretary’s action is the final decision for the 

U.S. Commerce Department. 

5See 15 CFR Part 766, Supp. No. 1, III, A. (Stating 

that a denial order may be considered even in 

matters involving simple negligence or carelessness, 

if the violation(s) involves ‘‘harm to the national 

security or other essential interests protected by the 

export control system,’’ if the violations are of such 

a nature and extent that a monetary fine alone 

represents an insufficient penalty * * *) (emphasis 

added). 

‘‘Dr. Zhou’’ signed for the delivery on May 

17, 2006. The undersigned concludes, BIS 

submitted evidence to establish delivery of 

the notice of the Charging Letter was 

constructively refused on or around 

December 17, 2006 and that BIS properly 

served notice of the Charging Letter in 

accordance with Section 766.3 of the 

Regulations. 

Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

respondent must answer the charging letter 

within 30 days after being served with notice 

of issuance of the charging letter’’ initiating 

the administrative enforcement proceeding. 

To date, Zhou has not filed an answer to the 

Charging Letter. 

Pursuant to the default procedures set forth 

in Section 766.7 of the Regulations, I find the 

facts to be as alleged in the Charging Letter, 

and hereby determine that those facts 

establish that Zhou committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(d), one violation of Section 

764.2(b), and one violation of Section 

764.2(e) of the Regulations. 

Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth 

the sanctions BIS may seek for violations of 

the Regulations. The applicable sanctions 

are: (i) A monetary penalty, (ii) suspension 

from practice before the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, and (iii) a denial of export 

privileges under the Regulations. See 15 CFR 

764.3 (2001–2002). Because Zhou caused the 

export of microwave amplifiers, items 

controlled by BIS for national security 

reasons for export to China, BIS requests that 

I recommend to the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Industry and Security 4 that 

Zhou’s export privileges be denied for twenty 

years. 

BIS suggested this sanction because Zhou’s 

role in conspiring to export amplifiers to 

China, as well as his role in ordering 

amplifiers for export to China, represents a 

significant harm to U.S. national security. 

BIS further argued that Zhou knowingly 

engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

Regulations by conspiring to, and causing the 

export of microwave amplifiers to China with 

knowledge that a violation of the Regulations 

would occur. The items involved in this 

unlicensed export—microwave amplifiers—

required a license for export to China for 

national security reasons. Accordingly, BIS 

asserted that Zhou’s actions represented a 

significant potential harm to the essential 

national security interests protected by U.S. 

export controls.5 Furthermore, BIS believes 

that the recommended denial order is 

particularly appropriate in this case, since 

Zhou failed to respond to the Charging Letter 

filed by BIS, despite evidence indicating that 

Zhou received actual service of the Charging 

Letter. Finally, BIS believes that the 

imposition of a twenty-year denial order is 

particularly appropriate in this case since BIS 

would likely face difficulties in collecting a 

monetary penalty, as Zhou is not located in 

the United States. In light of these 

circumstances, BIS believes that the denial of 

Zhou export privileges for twenty years is an 

appropriate sanction. 

On this basis, I concur with BIS and 

recommended that the Under Secretary enter 

an Order denying Zhou’s export privileges 

for a period of twenty years. Such a denial 

order is consistent with penalties imposed in 

similar cases. See In the Matter of Mark Jin 

a/k/a Zhongda Jin et al, 66 FR 40,971 (Aug. 

6, 2001) (affirming the recommendation of 

the ALJ that a twenty-five year denial order 

was appropriate where the respondent 

knowingly exported items to China without 

a license and defaulted on the BIS charging 

letter); In the Matter of Petrom GmbH 

International Trade, 70 FR 32,743 (June 6, 

2005) (affirming the recommendations of the 

ALJ that a twenty year denial order and a 

civil monetary sanction of $143,000 were 

appropriate where knowing violations 

involved a shipment of EAR99 items to Iran); 

In the Matter of Adbulamir Mahdi, 68 FR 

57,406 (Oct. 3, 2003) (affirming the 

recommendation of the ALJ that a twenty 

year denial order was appropriate where 

knowing violations involved shipments of 

EAR99 items to Iran as a part of a conspiracy 

to ship such items through Canada to Iran). 

[Redacted Section] 

This Order, which constitutes the final 

agency action in this matter, is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register, 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security for review and final action for 

the agency, without further notice to the 

respondent, as provided in Section 766.7 of 

the Regulations. 

Within 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 15 

CFR 766.22(c). 

Dated: October 17, 2006. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 06–9121 Filed 11–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–827) 

Notice of Amended Final Results in 

Accordance With Court Decision: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 12, 2006, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of 

the Court of International Trade (CIT) to 

sustain the Department of Commerce’s 

(the Department’s) remand 

redetermination in the 1999–2000 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of certain cased pencils (pencils) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 

its redetermination, the Department 

assigned Guangdong Provincial 

Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & 

Export Corp. (Guangdong) a cash 

deposit rate of 13.91 percent, rather than 

the PRC–wide rate assigned to the 

company in the contested 

administrative review. As there is now 

a final and conclusive court decision in 

this case, the Department is amending 

the final results of the 1999–2000 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of pencils from the PRC. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok or Howard Smith at (202) 

482–4162 or (202) 482–5193, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 28, 1994, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

pencils from the PRC. See Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

66,909 (December 28, 1994). The 

Department excluded from this order 

Guangdong’s U.S. sales of pencils 

produced by Shanghai Three Star 

Stationery Industry Corp. (Three Star). 

However, in the final determination that 

gave rise to the antidumping duty order, 

the Department stated that if Guangdong 

sold subject merchandise to the United 

States that was produced by 

manufacturers other than Three Star, 

such sales would be subject to a cash 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES