Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 7839 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730– 

774 (2014). The Regulations are issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 

app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘the EAA’’ or ‘‘the 

Act’’). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA 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 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), 

has continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30 day of 

January 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 

Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02975 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Order Denying Export Privileges 

In the Matter of: 

Maple Pacific Corporation, 26671 Sierra 

Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, 

Respondent; 

Andrew Hsu, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission 

Viejo, CA 96292, Related Person. 

A. Denial of Export Privileges of Maple 

Pacific Corporation 

On February 6, 2012, in the U.S. 

District Court, Central District of 

California, Maple Pacific Corporation 

(‘‘Maple Pacific’’), was convicted of 

violating the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, 

et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) 

(‘‘IEEPA’’). Specifically, Maple Pacific 

willfully exported and transshipped 

goods, namely, industrial parts used to 

maintain equipment in the steel 

manufacturing industry, from the 

United States to Iran without first 

obtaining from the United States 

Department of Commerce, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control, a license or 

written authorization for such export 

and transshipment, knowing such a 

license or authorization was required. 

Maple Pacific was sentenced to 

probation for two years, a $5,000 fine 

and $400 assessment. 

Section 766.25 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent 

part, that ‘‘[t]he Director of the Office of 

Exporter Services, in consultation with 

the Director of the Office of Export 

Enforcement, may deny the export 

privileges of any person who has been 

convicted of a violation of the EAA, the 

EAR, of any order, license or 

authorization issued thereunder; any 

regulation, license, or order issued 

under the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701– 

1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 

4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 

(50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2778).’’ 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also 

Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. 

§ 2410(h). The denial of export 

privileges under this provision may be 

for a period of up to ten (10) years from 

the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 

766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. 

§ 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of 

the Regulations states that the Bureau of 

Industry and Security’s Office of 

Exporter Services may revoke any 

Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) 

licenses previously issued in which the 

person had an interest in at the time of 

his conviction. 

BIS received notice of Maple Pacific’s 

conviction for violating the IEEPA, and 

has provided notice and an opportunity 

for Maple Pacific to make a written 

submission to BIS, as provided in 

Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS 

has not received a submission from 

Maple Pacific. Based upon my review 

and consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, including its 

Director, and the facts available to BIS, 

I have decided to deny Maple Pacific’s 

export privileges under the Regulations 

for a period of ten (10) years from the 

date of Maple Pacific’s conviction. I 

have also decided to revoke all licenses 

issued pursuant to the Act or 

Regulations in which Maple Pacific had 

an interest at the time of its conviction. 

B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related 

Person Andrew Hsu 

Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 

766.23 of the Regulations, the Director 

of BIS’s Office of Exporter Services, in 

consultation with the Director of BIS’s 

Office of Export Enforcement, may, in 

order to prevent evasion of a denial 

order, make a denial order applicable 

not only to the respondent, but also to 

other persons related to the respondent 

by ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business. 

As provided in Section 766.23 of the 

Regulations, BIS gave notice to Andrew 

Hsu (‘‘Hsu’’) that his export privileges 

under the Regulations could be denied 

for up to ten (10) years due to his 

relationship with Maple Pacific and that 

BIS believed that naming Hsu as a 

person related to Maple Pacific would 

be necessary to prevent evasion of a 

denial order imposed against Maple 

Pacific. In providing such notice, BIS 

gave Hsu an opportunity to oppose its 

addition to the Maple Pacific Denial 

Order as a related party. 

Having received no submission from 

Hsu, I have decided, following 

consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, including its 

Director, to include name Hsu as a 

Related Person and make this Denial 

Order applicable to Hsu, thereby 

denying his export privileges for ten 

(10) years from the date of Maple 

Pacific’s conviction. I have also decided 

to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to 

the Act or Regulations in which Hsu 

had an interest at the time of Maple 

Pacific’s conviction. The 10-year denial 

period is scheduled to end on February 

6, 2022. 

Hsu is the sole owner of Maple Pacific 

and performed all aspects of Maple 

Pacific’s operations. Therefore, Hsu is 

related to Maple Pacific within the 

meaning of Section 766.23. BIS also has 

reason to believe that Hsu should be 

added as a related person in order to 

prevent evasion of this Denial Order. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

First, from the date of this Order until 

February 6, 2022, Maple Pacific 

Corporation, with a last known address 

of 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 

96292, and when acting for or on its 

behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, 

officers, employees, agents, or 

representatives, and Andrew Hsu, with 

a last known address of 26671 Sierra 

Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and 

when acting for or on his behalf, his 

successors, assigns, employees, agents, 

or representatives (each as ‘‘Denied 

Person’’ and collectively the ‘‘Denied 

Persons’’) may not, directly or 

indirectly, participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7840 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 

1See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Consol. Court Nos. 11–00109 and 

11–00110, Slip Ops. 13–63 and 13–64 (CIT May 23, 

2013), dated January 17, 2014, (‘‘AR6 Remand’’) 

available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/

13-63&64.pdf. 

2See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00252, Slip 

Op. 13–91 (CIT July 22, 2013), dated January 17, 

2014, (‘‘NSR7 Remand’’) available at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-91.pdf. 

3See AR6 Remand at 41–46. As we explain 

below, the Department’s recalculation of these 

surrogate values now yields an above de minimis 

weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh Hoan. 

Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department 

has amended the final results with respect to Vinh 

Hoan. 

4These companies include: 1) An Giang Fisheries 

Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka 

Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export); 

2) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company 

(formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture 

Co., Ltd.) (‘‘ESS LLC’’); and 3) Southern Fishery 

Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’). 

5See NSR7 Remand at 39–41. 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, 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 from 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 which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a Denied Person, if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the 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, in addition to the Related 

Person named above, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

other individual, firm, corporation, or 

other association or organization or 

other person related to a Denied Person 

by ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order if necessary 

to prevent evasion of this Order. 

Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 

and Section 766.25(g) of the 

Regulations, Maple Pacific may file an 

appeal of the issuance of this Order 

against it with the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Industry and Security. 

The appeal must be filed within 45 days 

from the date of this Order and must 

comply with the provisions of Part 756 

of the Regulations. 

Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and 

Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations, 

Hsu may file an appeal of naming him 

as a related person in this Order with 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. This appeal must 

be filed within 45 days from the date of 

this Order and must comply with the 

provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be 

provided to Maple Pacific and Hsu and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Seventh, this Order is effectively 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until February 6, 2022. 

Issued this 5th day of February, 2015. 

Thomas Andrukonis, 

Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02912 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Court Decisions Not in Harmony 

With Final Results of Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews and Notice 

of Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2014, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final 

judgments in Catfish Farmers of 

America et al. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 11–00109 and Catfish 

Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00110, sustaining 

the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the 

Department’’) AR6 Remand final results 

which included an aligned new shipper 

review.1 On December 19, 2014, the 

Court issued final judgment in Catfish 

Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00252, sustaining 

the Department’s NSR7 Remand final 

results.2 In the AR6 Remand, the 

Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for Vinh Hoan 

Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) using 

revised surrogate values for by-products 

(fish waste, broken meat, and fish skin) 

and made adjustments for the inventory 

changes in the surrogate financial 

statements.3 Because Vinh Hoan’s 

margin is now above de minimis, it also 

becomes the margin for those companies 

not individually examined but receiving 

a separate rate.4 The margins for the 

voluntary respondent Vinh Quang 

Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’) 

and the new shipper Cuu Long Fish 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘CL–Fish’’) did 

not change and remain de minimis. 

In the NSR 7 Remand, the Department 

recalculated the weighted-average 

dumping margin for IDI Corporation 

(‘‘IDI’’) and Thien Ma Seafood Company 

(‘‘THIMACO’’) using revised surrogate 

values for by-products (fish waste, 

broken meat and fish skin).5 However, 

the margins for IDI and THIMACO did 

not change and remain de minimis. 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co. 

v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by 

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the final judgment in these cases is not 

in harmony with the Department’s final 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain frozen fish fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’) covering the period of 

review August 1, 2008, through July 31, 

2009 (‘‘AR6 POR’’), and August 1, 2009, 

through February 15, 2010 (‘‘NSR7 

POR’’). With respect to the AR6 POR, 

the Department is amending the final 

results with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margins for Vinh 

Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC and South 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES