Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61609 

1The violations charged occurred in 2000 and 

2001. The Regulations governing the violations at 

issue are found in the 2000 and 2001 versions of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–

774 (2000–2001)). The 2007 Regulations establish 

the procedures that apply to this matter. 

2 50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000). Since 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 15, 

2007 (72 FR 46137 (Aug. 16, 2007)), has continued 

the Regulations in effect under the International 

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

1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Nos. 04–BIS–04, 04–BIS–05, 04–

BIS–06, 04–BIS–07] 

In the Matters of: Megatech 

Engineering & Services Pvt. Ltd., Ajay 

Ahuja, Ravi Shettugar, and T.K. Mohan 

Respondents; Decision And Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of an 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as 

further described below. 

On February 2, 2004, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) initiated 

four administrative proceedings by 

filing Charging Letters alleging that 

Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd. (‘‘Megatech’’) and Ajay Ahuja 

(‘‘Ahuja’’) each committed four 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (‘‘Regulations’’) and that 

Ravi Shettigar (‘‘Shettigar’’) and T.K. 

Mohan (‘‘Mohan’’) each committed 

three violations of the Regulations,1

issued pursuant to the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

(50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000)) 

(‘‘Act’’).2 On August 13, 2004, the ALJ 

consolidated the cases involving 

Megatech, Ahuja, Shettigar and Mohan. 

Thus, use of the term ‘‘the 

Respondents’’ in this document refers to 

Megatech, Ahuja, Shettigar and Mohan, 

collectively. 

The charges against each Respondent 

are as follows: 

Charge 1: Conspiracy to Export Items 

Subject to the Regulations to a Person 

Listed on the Entity List Without BIS 

Authorization: From on or about April 

1, 2000, through on or about August 31, 

2001, the Respondents conspired with 

others, known and unknown, to export 

from the United States to the Indira 

Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research 

(‘‘IGCAR’’) in India a thermal fatigue 

test system and a universal testing 

machine, both items subject to the 

Regulations, without a BIS export 

license as required by section 744.11 of 

the Regulations. 

Charge 2: Engaging in a Transaction 

with Intent to Evade the Regulations: On 

or about June 13, 2000, in connection 

with the export of the fatigue test 

system, the Respondents took actions to 

evade the Regulations. Specifically, the 

Respondents, with others, known and 

unknown, developed and employed a 

scheme by which a company in India 

not on the Entity List would receive the 

export of the fatigue test system from 

the United States without a BIS license 

and then divert it to the true ultimate 

consignee, IGCAR, in violation of the 

Regulations. 

Charge 3: Engaging in a Transaction 

with Intent to Evade the Regulations: On 

or about December 21, 2000, in 

connection with the attempted export of 

a universal testing machine, the 

Respondents took actions to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, the 

Respondents, with others, known and 

unknown, developed and employed a 

scheme by which a company in India 

not on the Entity List would receive the 

export of the universal testing machine 

from the United States without a BIS 

license and then divert it to the true 

ultimate consignee, IGCAR, in violation 

of the Regulations. 

Charge 4 (Respondents Megatech and 

Ahuja only): False Statements in the 

Course of an Investigation Subject to the 

Regulations: On or about August 16, 

2001, through on or about April 8, 2002, 

in connection with the export of the 

fatigue test system, Megatech and Ahuja 

made false statements to the U.S. 

Government regarding its knowledge of 

and involvement in the export. 

Specifically, Megatech and Ahuja 

falsely asserted to U.S. Foreign 

Commercial Service Officers a lack of 

knowledge regarding the intended 

diversion of the items involved to 

ICGAR. 

On October 1, 2007, based on the 

record before him, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that the Respondents 

each committed the violations alleged in 

Charges 1–3 of the Charging Letters 

dated February 2, 2004. Additionally, 

the ALJ found that BIS did not prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence Charge 

4 against Respondents Megatech and 

Ahuja. The ALJ recommended each 

Respondent be denied export privileges 

for a period of fifteen (15) 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 regarding the allegations against the 

Respondents for each of Charges 1–3. I 

also agree with the ALJ’s 

recommendation that the BIS has failed 

to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence the allegations contained in 

Charge 4. I also find that the penalty 

recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, 

given the nature of the violations, the 

importance of preventing future 

unauthorized exports, and the lack of 

any mitigating circumstances. Based on 

my review of the entire record, I affirm 

the findings of fact and conclusions of 

law contained in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, 

First, that, for a period of fifteen (15) 

years from the date of this Order, 

Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd., Ajay Ahuja, Ravi Shettigar, and 

T.K. Mohan, all of Post Bag #17652, A/ 

2/10 Tapovan, Dongre Park, Chembur, 

Mumbai 400 074 India, and all of their 

successors or assigns, and when acting 

for or on behalf of Megatech Engineering 

& Services Pvt. Ltd., its officers, 

representatives, agents, and employees 

(‘‘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 

C. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to 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 Persons any item subject 

to the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Persons 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 Persons 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61610 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

1For proceedings involving violations not 

relating to Part 760 of the Export Enforcement 

Regulations, 15 CFR 766.17(b) and (b)(2) prescribe 

that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision be a 

‘‘Recommended Decision and Order.’’ The 

violations alleged in this case are found in Part 764. 

Therefore, this is a ‘‘Recommended’’ decision. That 

section also prescribes that the Administrative Law 

Judge make recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law that the Under Secretary for 

Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, must 

affirm, modify or vacate. 15 CFR 766.22. The Under 

Secretary’s action is the final decision for the U.S. 

Commerce Department. 15 CFR 766.22(e). 

2The Bureau of Industry and Security was 

formerly known as the Bureau of Export 

Administration. The name of the Bureau changed 

pursuant to an order issued by the Secretary of 

Commerce on April 16, 2002. See Industry and 

Security Programs: Change of Name, 67 FR 20630 

(Apr. 26, 2002); see also In the Matter of Abdulmir 

Madi, et al., 68 FR 57406 (October 3, 2003). 

3Sections 50 U.S.C. 2401–2420 (2000) 

(hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’). From August 21, 1994 

through November 12, 2000, the Act was in lapse. 

During that period, the President, through 

Executive Order 12924, which was 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. 1701–06 (2000)) (hereinafter, ‘‘IEEPA’’). On 

November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and 

it remained in effect through August 20, 2001. Since 

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 7, 2003 (68 FR 

47833, August 11, 2003), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under IEEPA. The export 

control laws and regulations were further extended 

by successive Presidential Notices. See In the 

Matter of Abdulmir Madi, et al., 68 FR 57406 

(October 3, 2003). 

4The regulations are currently codified at 15 CFR 

parts 730–774 (2006). The charged violations 

occurred from April 1, 2000 to August 31, 2001. 

The regulations governing the violations in these 

cases are found in the 2000 and 2001 versions of 

the 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000–2001). The 

Regulations define the violations BIS has charged 

(part 764.2) and establish procedures that apply to 

these cases (part 766). 

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 Persons of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Persons 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 the Denied 

Persons, or service any item, of 

whatever origin, that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Persons 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 the 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 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 the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Persons 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 immediately. 

Dated: October 24, 2007. 

Mario Mancuso, 

Under Secretary for Industry and Security. 

Recommended Decision and Order 1

Issued: October 1, 2007. 

Issued by: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski, 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Table of Contents 

Preliminary Statement 

Recommended Findings of Fact 

General Findings and Background 

Export Administration Regulation 

Business Association and History with 

IGCAR 

Export Restrictions Imposed on 

Transactions with IGCAR 

Negotiations for the Sale of Equipment to 

IGCAR 

Parallel Discussions to Deliver Items to 

IGCAR 

Negotiations for the Sale of a Second MTS 

Machine 

IGCAR Representatives Visit MTS 

Facilities for Training 

Sale and Delivery of the Fatigue Testing 

System 

Investigation by Bureau of Industry and 

Security 

Ultimate Findings of Facts and Counclusions 

of Law 

Discussion 

Recommended Sanction 

Recommended Order 

Appendix A 

In the Matter of: Megatech Engineering & 

Services Pvt. Ltd., et al 

Appendix B Notice to the Parties Regarding 

Review by the Under Secretary 

Certificate of Service 

Preliminary Statement 

On February 2, 2004, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security 2 (‘‘BIS’’ or 

‘‘Agency’’) issued four separate 

Charging Letters against Respondents 

Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd. (Megatech), Ajay Ahuja, Ravi 

Shettigar, and T.K. Mohan. The 

Charging Letters against Respondents 

Megatech and Ajay Ahuja allege 

identical violations of the U.S. Export 

Administration Act of 1979 3 and the 

Export Administration Regulations 4

relating to one (1) count of conspiracy, 

two (2) counts of evading the 

regulations, and one (1) count of 

misrepresentation and concealment of 

facts. The Charging Letters against 

Respondents Shettigar and Mohan 

allege identical violations relating to 

one (1) count of conspiracy and two (2) 

counts of evading the regulations. 

Briefly stated, the Agency alleges all 

four Respondents exported equipment 

controlled under the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or 

‘‘Regulations’’) to a prohibited entity 

without the required license. In Charge 

1, BIS alleges violations of 15 CFR 

764.2(d) in that from April 1, 2000 

through August 31, 2001, Respondents 

conspired to export equipment from the 

United States to the Indira Gandhi 

Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), an 

organization prohibited under the 

Regulations from receiving controlled 

items. In furtherance of the conspiracy, 

false documentation was submitted to a 

U.S. exporter indicating that a party 

other than IGCAR was the ultimate 

consignee for these items. In Charges 2 

and 3, BIS alleges violations of 15 CFR 

764.2(h) in that Respondents developed 

and employed the above detailed 

scheme to intentionally evade the 

export Regulations. Charge 4, which 

pertains only to Megatech and Ahuja, 

alleges that they made false statements 

to Agency officials regarding 

Respondents’ knowledge and 

involvement in the export of items to 

IGCAR in violation of 15 CFR 764.2(g). 

On March 3, 2004, Respondents filed 

their Answers to the Agency’s Charging 

Letter denying the allegations and 

formally demanding a hearing. On 

March 15, 2004, this case was assigned 

to the undersigned Administrative Law 

Judge for adjudication pursuant to an 

Interagency Agreement with the Bureau 

of Industry and Security. 

On August 13, 2004, the proceedings 

against Respondents Megatech, Ahuja, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61611 

5Unless otherwise noted, the citations provided 

hereunder reference the exhibit numbers associated 

with the Agency’s Memorandum and Submission of 

Evidence to Supplement the Record, filed on 

January 12, 2007. Respondents neither submitted a 

Memorandum nor exhibits. 

Shettigar, and Mohan were 

consolidated. Accordingly, reference to 

‘‘Respondents’’ throughout this 

Recommended Decision and Order 

refers to Megatech, Ahuja, Shettigar, and 

Mohan collectively. 

Over the next several months 

Discovery was initiated, Scheduling 

Orders for filing various motions were 

issued, and the parties continued to 

discuss settlement. On February 16, 

2005, the Agency filed its motion to stay 

the proceedings for a period of 12 

months due to a criminal investigation 

of the subject matter of the instant case. 

On February 28, 2005, Respondents 

filed a Motion for Summary Decision, 

which the Agency opposed, stating BIS 

lacks evidence to show Respondents 

knew the exported equipment was being 

diverted from a legitimate business to a 

prohibited entity; therefore, they cannot 

be held accountable for the unknown 

actions of others. After additional 

scheduling orders and motion practice, 

I issued an Order on May 3, 2005 

granting the Agency’s request to stay for 

period of 12 months pending 

disposition of the criminal investigation 

and holding in abeyance any decision 

on Respondent’s Motion for Summary 

Decision. 

Meanwhile, on December 5, 2005, 

counsel for Respondents filed their 

Notice of Withdrawal, advising that they 

withdraw from further representation of 

the above-referenced Respondents. 

Since the matter was stayed, there 

was no further activity until June 2, 

2006, when the Agency advised that the 

criminal investigation was completed 

and that no charges would be filed 

against Respondents. Therefore, BIS was 

able to proceed with the instant 

administrative matter. BIS further 

advised that it has not been in contact 

with Respondents since their counsel 

have withdrawn from representation. 

Therefore, BIS requested another stay 

through August 31, 2006 to allow it time 

to contact Respondents in India and 

determine if they have retained new 

counsel and possibly to continue 

settlement discussions. On June 5, 2006, 

I granted an additional stay until August 

31, 2006. 

On August 23, 2006, BIS advised that 

efforts at reaching settlement have failed 

and that since Respondents are not 

represented, it motioned to modify the 

Scheduling Order so as to advance this 

matter toward resolution. Therefore, on 

September 1, 2006, I ordered 

Respondents to advise the undersigned 

in writing whether they waive their 

right to a hearing, and, if so, the matter 

would be decided ‘‘on the record;’’ that 

is, based on subsequent evidentiary 

submissions as provided for at 15 CFR 

766.15. I further ordered Respondents to 

advise whether they intend to withdraw 

their Motion for Summary Decision. If 

Respondents did not reply to the Order 

by October 27, 2006, it would be 

presumed that they waive their right to 

a hearing, thereby allowing this matter 

to proceed with a hearing and that they 

also withdraw their Motion for 

Summary Decision. 

Respondents failed to respond. 

Therefore, on November 7, 2006, I 

issued an Order in invoking the 

presumptions made in my September 1, 

2006 Order. That is, Respondents waive 

their right to a hearing and withdraw 

their Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment was withdrawn and 

this matter proceeded to be adjudicated 

on the record and without a hearing. 

On January 12, 2007, the Agency filed 

a Memorandum and Submission of 

Evidence to Supplement the Record 

together with sixty-four (64) exhibits 

listed in Appendix A. Copies of the 

Agency’s exhibits were forwarded to 

Respondents. However, they did not 

submit any evidence in accordance with 

the scheduling order. Prior to starting 

work on the Recommended Decision 

and Order, the undersigned waited an 

additional, reasonable period of time for 

Respondents to submit evidence in the 

event of unexpected delays in mail 

delivery. 

Title 15 CFR 766.17(d) provides that 

administrative enforcement proceedings 

not involving Part 760 of the EAR shall 

be concluded within one year from 

submission the Charging Letter unless 

the Administrative Law Judge extends 

such period for good cause shown. In 

light of the above-referenced stays in the 

proceedings, the additional time 

consumed by discovery due to 

Respondents’ residence in India, as well 

as the additional time required for the 

Agency to proceed after withdrawal of 

Respondents’ counsel, I find that good 

cause exists for not concluding these 

proceedings within the time prescribed. 

All facts and issues raised in the 

Agency’s brief have been addressed 

throughout the body of this 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

After careful review of the entire record 

in this matter, I find BIS established by 

a preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence that Respondents conspired to 

export items subject to the Regulations 

to a prohibited entity without the 

required authorization in violation of 15 

CFR 764.2(d) as alleged in Charge 1. I 

also find that the Agency established by 

a preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence that Respondents took actions 

to intentionally evade the Regulations 

by employing a scheme to divert a 

fatigue test system, as alleged in Charge 

2, and a universal testing system, as 

alleged in Charge 3, to a prohibited 

entity, in violation of 15 CFR 764.2(h). 

However, the preponderance of reliable 

and credible evidence does not establish 

a violation of 15 CFR 764.2(g), that 

Respondents Megatech and Ahuja, in 

Charge 4 of their Charging Letters, 

misrepresented and concealed facts in 

the course of an investigation. 

Recommended Findings of Fact 

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions 

of Law are based on a thorough and 

careful analysis of the documentary 

evidence, exhibits, and the entire record 

as a whole. 

General Findings and Background 

1. Megatech Engineering and Services 

Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Megatech’’) is an import/ 

export agent based in Mumbai (formally 

Bombay), India. (Agency Exhibit 8).5

Megatech was formed in 1991 when 

Respondent Ajay Ahuja left his previous 

employer to form his own company. In 

doing so, Ahuja took a Minnesota-based 

company, MTS Systems, Inc. (‘‘MTS 

Systems’’ or ‘‘MTS’’), as his own client. 

(Agency Exhibit 37). 

2. MTS is a United States 

manufacturer of high-tech testing 

equipment sold in India. (Agency 

Exhibits 7, 37). Examples of high-tech 

testing equipment produced by MTS 

include: (1) The servo-hydraulic 

dynamic testing system (also known as 

fatigue test system); and (2) the ServoHydraulic Universal Testing System 

(also known as the universal testing 

machine). (Agency Exhibit 2). 

3. Since its founding in 1991, 

Megatech has been solely and 

exclusively dedicated to representing 

MTS. (Agency Exhibits 7, 8, 37). 

4. Megatech currently employs six 

people: Three as service engineers and 

three as sales engineers. (Agency Exhibit 

8). 

5. At all relevant times, Respondents 

Ajay Ahuja, Ravi Shettigar, and T.K. 

Mohan were employees of Megatech. 

(Agency Exhibit 7). 

6. Respondent Ahuja is the founder 

and primary administrator of Megatech, 

whose responsibilities include both 

management and sales. (Agency Exhibit 

7). Mr. Ahuja works in the Bombay 

(Mumbia) office, along with T.K. Mohan 

and Ravi Shettigar. Respondent T.K. 

Mohan assists with sales, and 

Respondent Shettigar works in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61612 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

6Pursuant to the Export Administration 

Regulations, ‘‘end-user’’ is defined in part as the 

person abroad that receives and ultimately uses the 

exported items. The end-user is not a forwarding 

agent or intermediary but may be the purchaser or 

ultimate consignee. See CFR 772.1. 

service department as an engineer. 

(Agency Exhibit 7). 

7. As the exclusive representative in 

India, Megatech handles approximately 

$1.5 million in sales each year on behalf 

of MTS. (Agency Exhibit 8). In addition 

to sales, Megatech provides support 

services to more than 200 MTS 

machines installed throughout India 

(Agency Exhibit 8). 

8. To keep track of clients, Megatech 

maintains a database containing the 

names of all companies and customers 

to whom products are sold. (Agency 

Exhibit 7). 

9. In a typical transaction, Megatech 

initially meets with the client to 

determine the customer’s intended use 

of the equipment, the required 

specifications, and the customer’s 

available budget. (Agency Exhibits 7, 8). 

10. This information is relayed to 

MTS in Minnesota, who then approves 

the transaction in advance. Once the 

parameters of the transaction are 

outlined, Megatech negotiates a price on 

behalf of MTS. (Agency Exhibit 8). 

11. Before completing an order, MTS 

determines whether an export license is 

needed under United States export laws 

and restrictions. (Agency Exhibit 7). 

12. If a license is required, MTS 

directs Megatech to complete the license 

application and obtain a signature from 

the end-user.6 (Agency Exhibit 7). 

13. After Megatech facilitates the 

contract between MTS and the 

customer, MTS ships the desired 

equipment from Minnesota to the 

customer in India. (Agency Exhibit 7). 

14. Once the equipment arrives in 

India, Megatech engineers install the 

equipment and train the customer how 

to use it. Megatech continues to provide 

on-call service to keep the equipment 

running long-term. (Agency Exhibits 7, 

8). 

15. One of Megatech’s customers on 

the eastern coast of India is the Indira 

Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research 

(‘‘IGCAR’’). (Agency Exhibits 7, 9). 

IGCAR is based in Kalpakkam, India, 

approximately fifty miles from Chennai. 

Both Chennai and Kalpakkam are 

approximately 800 miles from Mumbai 

where Megatech in located. (Agency 

Exhibits 4, 8). 

16. IGCAR was established in 1971 as 

a subordinate entity of the Department 

of Atomic Energy, Government of India. 

(Agency Exhibits 5, 40). The centre is 

engaged in a broad based 

multidisciplinary program of scientific 

research and advanced engineering. 

(Agency Exhibit 5). 

Export Administration Regulations 

17. The Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Industry and Security is the 

federal agency primarily responsible for 

issuing licenses to individuals 

interested in exporting goods that have 

a ‘‘dual-use.’’ A commercial item has a 

dual-use if there is any possibility that 

it ‘‘can be used both in military or other 

strategic casues (e.g., nuclear) and in 

civil applications.’’ (15 CFR 730.1 and 

730.3). 

18. The Export Administration 

Regulations govern the export of goods 

with dual-use and are administered by 

the Bureau of Industry and Security 

under the authority of the Export 

Administration Act. (50 App. U.S.C. 

2401; 15 CFR 730.2). 

19. In an attempt to prevent dual-use 

items from falling into the wrong hands 

the EAR prescribes a complex set of 

regulations which are triggered 

depending on the type of item sought to 

be exported, the destination of the item, 

and the specific entity or person who 

receives it. (15 CFR 732.1). 

20. All items that require an export 

license by the Agency receive an Export 

Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) and are listed on the 

Commerce Control List. This 

classification number determines what 

type of license is required. (15 CFR 

738.2 and 738.3). 

21. Items that are subject to the 

Regulations but not included on the 

Commerce Control List are classified as 

EAR99. (15 CFR 774.1). 

22. On February 3, 1997, the Agency 

established the Entity List comprised of 

end-users that are ineligible to receive 

specified items without a license. 

(Agency Exhibits 3; 62 Fed Reg. 125 

(June 30, 1997); 15 CFR 736.2(b)(5)). As 

a result, all exporters are required to 

obtain Agency authorization before any 

item subject to the EAR can be exported 

to a listed entity. (Agency Exhibits 3; 62 

Fed Reg. 125 (June 30, 1997); 15 CFR 

736.2(b)(5)). 

23. At all relevant times, IGCAR was 

specifically listed on the Entity List due 

to its involvement in unsafeguarded 

nuclear research and development 

activities. (Agency Exhibit 3; 62 FR 125 

(June 30, 1997)). In turn, a validated 

license was required to export any item 

to IGCAR which was subject to the 

Regulations, including items classified 

as EAR99. (Agency Exhibits 2, 3). 

24. At all relevant times, the fatigue 

test system and the universal testing 

machine manufactured by MTS were 

subject to the Regulations and classified 

as EAR99. (Agency Exhibit 2). 

Business Association and History With 

IGCAR 

25. MTS System’s business 

relationship with IGCAR began prior to 

being placed on the Entity List. More 

specifically, MTS supplied a machine to 

IGCAR between 1984 and 1985. While 

this was prior to the existence of 

Megatech, Respondent Ahuja 

participated in the sale through his 

former employer. (Agency Exhibits 7, 9). 

26. Once Megatech became MTS 

System’s sole representative in the 

region, Respondents began to negotiate 

sales on behalf of MTS. In particular, on 

March 28, 1991, Respondent Ahuja sent 

a facsimile to MTS regarding a proposed 

sale of MTS regarding a proposed sale 

of MTS equipment to be used at IGCAR. 

(Agency Exhibit 9). 

27. Following the sales proposal, 

Respondent Ahuja attended a meeting 

with several scientists from IGCAR on 

June 5, 1991. (Agency Exhibits 7, 10). At 

this meeting, the participants discussed 

IGCAR’s specific needs and restrictions 

pertaining to the MTS equipment. 

However, until MTS determined 

whether a license was required to export 

items to IGCAR, the project remained at 

a standstill. (Agency Exhibits 10–11). 

28. In the meantime, Megatech 

continued to provide service on the old 

system installed at IGCAR. (Agency 

Exhibits 7, 15). Respondent Shettigar 

was the primary service engineer to visit 

IGCAR on two separate occasions in 

1993 and 1998. (Agency Exhibits 7, 16). 

Export Restrictions Imposed on 

Transactions With IGCAR 

29. On January 13, 1992, MTS 

employees sent a facsimile to 

Respondent Ahuja in India regarding 

authorization to export goods to IGCAR. 

In particular, MTS received a response 

to an inquiry with the Department of 

Commerce, stating ‘‘no one will be 

allowed to ship goods to IGCAR.’’ The 

prohibition pertained to the USA, UK, 

Japan, and most other industrialized 

nations. (Agency Exhibit 12). However, 

MTS informed Megatech they would 

continue to appeal the decision through 

their legal office in Washington. 

(Agency Exhibit 12). 

30. In the meantime, MTS continued 

to apply for license applications to 

export controlled testing equipment to 

IGCAR. Applications filed in February 

1992 and May 1994 were both rejected 

by BIS, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

(Agency Exhibits 13, 18). 

31. On April 22, 1993, Respondent 

Ahuja requested assistance from a 

subsidiary of MTS in obtaining an 

export license to supply test equipment 

to IGCAR. Respondent Ahuja’s facsimile 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61613 

7All departments and staff members are listed on 

IGCAR’s general reference guide, published on the 

internet at http:/www.igcar.ernet.in/. 

8Technology Options (India) Private Limited 

(‘‘Technology Options’’) was established on May 13, 

1999 in Mumbai and represents foreign companies 

for the sale of advanced analytical instrumentation 

in India. (Agency Exhibit 35). 

9 In his deposition, Respondent Ajav Ahuja 

clarifies the meaning of ‘‘sister companies.’’ More 

specifically, Mr. Ahuja explains ‘‘they are of the 

same group of companies; they are related 

companies who have a common director.’’ (Agency 

Exhibit 7). 

10No explanation was provided in the minutes as 

to why Respondent Ahuja signed on behalf of 

MassSpec rather than on behalf of Megatech. 

(Agency Exhibit 48). 

noted the equipment would be used by 

Dr. K.B. Rao in the Material 

Development Laboratory at 

IGCAR.7 (Agency Exhibit 14). At all 

relevant times, Dr. K Bhanusankara Rao 

(Dr. K.B. Rao) was listed on IGCAR’s 

general reference guide as associate 

director of the Mechanical Metallurgy 

Division within the Material 

Development Group. (Agency Exhibit 5). 

32. Respondent Ahuja recognized that 

the chances for receiving a license were 

low but he proceeded with the sales 

proposal to IGCAR and submitted an 

offer. In turn, he requested assistance 

from MTS’s subsidiary with completing 

the preliminary paper work. (Agency 

Exhibit 14). Information provided in 

Respondent Ahuja’s facsimile included: 

(1) IGCAR listed as the facility name; 

and (2) Dr. Rao listed as the end user. 

(Agency Exhibit 14). 

33. With MTS’s inability to secure an 

export license, IGCAR turned to other 

manufacturers for their needed supplies. 

As a result, Megatech experienced a loss 

of potential business clients. (Agency 

Exhibits 7, 17). 

34. In 1998, MTS received an official 

letter from the Department of Commerce 

informing them that IGCAR would 

require special export treatment due to 

their nuclear activities. (Agency Exhibit 

15). Moreover, when IGCAR was placed 

on the Entity List, suppliers were 

notified that a license was required for 

any item sold to the listed entity; 

however, a license would most likely be 

denied. In fact, U.S. sanctions stated 

there is a ‘‘presumption of denial’’ for 

any Indian/Pakistani nuclear end-user. 

(Agency Exhibit 15). 

35. Despite this awareness, Megatech 

continued to submit offers for every 

tender received from IGCAR, assuming 

that one day the U.S. Export Regulations 

would relax. (Agency Exhibit 15). 

36. MTS repeatedly assured Megatech 

that all MTS subsidiaries and 

representatives were bound by U.S. 

Export Regulations. As such, MTS could 

not supply orders, spare parts, or 

warranty replacement parts to any 

customer on the Entity List without an 

export license. (Agency Exhibit 19). 

Negotiations for the Sale of Equipment 

to IGCAR 

37. In June 1999, Professor K.B. Rao 

contacted Megatech with specifications 

for a fatigue test system. (Agency 

Exhibits 7–8). 

38. Although Professor Rao was listed 

as a faculty member on IGCAR’s general 

reference guide, he asked Respondent 

Ahuja to meet him at the Indian 

Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chennai 

to further discuss the details of the 

order. (Agency Exhibits 5, 7). 

39. Prior to the meeting, Respondent 

Ahuja sent an advance copy of Dr. Rao’s 

specifications to MTS Systems, 

requesting an offer. Respondent Ahuja 

told MTS the request came from 

Professor K.B. Rao of IIT. (Agency 

Exhibit 7). 

40. On July 28, 1999, Respondent 

Ahuja met with Dr. Rao. (Agency Exhibit 

7, 43). At the meeting, Professor Rao 

reiterated his need for a fatigue test 

system and asked if Megatech could 

supply it. (Agency Exhibit 8). Based on 

Dr. Rao’s specifications and concerns, 

Respondent Ahuja made an initial offer. 

(Agency Exhibits 7, 8, 41). 

41. Discussions continued for several 

months through subsequent meetings 

and written communications. (Agency 

Exhibits 8, 44). All correspondence 

between Megatech and Professor Rao 

were addressed to the Indian Institute of 

Technology. (Agency Exhibits 8, 44). 

42. On August 13, 1999, a new 

company was introduced into the 

negotiation process when Respondent 

Ajuha met Dr. Rao at the office of 

MassSpec Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 

(MassSpec) in Mumbai. (Agency 

Exhibits 42, 43). According to 

Respondent Ahuja, MassSpec is IIT’s 

counterpart. (Agency Exhibit 45). 

43. Two associates of Professor Rao 

also attended, Dr. M. Valsan and Mr. 

R.K. Chodankar. (Agency Exhibits 42–

43). At all relevant times, Dr. M. Valsan 

was a scientist at IGCAR in the 

Mechanical Metallurgy Division. 

(Agency Exhibit 6). However, at this 

meeting, Dr. Valsan attended in the 

capacity of an employee of MassSpec. 

(Agency Exhibit 43). Mr. R.K. Chodankar 

attended in the capacity of MassSpec’s 

owner. (Agency Exhibits 8, 43). 

44. On October 21, 1999, Respondent 

Ahuja informed MTS employees the 

purchase order would not be placed by 

MassSpec, instead of IIT. In his e-mail 

to MTS, Respondent Ahuja explained 

that MassSpec was a private entity that 

would obtain a tax benefit if it 

purchased the equipment directly rather 

than give IIT the funds to place the 

order. (Agency Exhibit 45). However, the 

system would still be used by Professor 

Rao at IIT. (Agency Exhibits 8, 45). 

45. On October 21, 1999, Respondent 

Ahuja e-mailed MTS to request the 

removal of all costs associated with 

MTS personnel visits. (Agency Exhibit 

45). According to Ahuja, MTS visits 

were unnecessary since the customer 

using the equipment would visit MTS’s 

facility in the U.S. for a pre-shipment 

inspection. (Agency Exhibit 45). 

Similarly, MTS would train one of 

Megatech’s engineers, who, in turn, 

would install the equipment and receive 

the customer’s final on-site acceptance. 

(Agency Exhibits 45, 47). 

46. Respondent T.K. Mohan assisted 

Respondent Ahuja with the 

negotiations. On November 5, 1999, 

Respondent Mohan e-mailed MTS 

employees to discuss technical inquiries 

and costs associated with the sale of the 

fatigue test system. (Agency Exhibit 46). 

Respondent Mohan’s e-mail designated 

MassSpec (IIT) as the customer. (Agency 

Exhibit 46). 

47. On April 6, 2000, Respondent 

Ahuja informed MTS that another 

change had been made to the 

transaction. The customer now wanted 

to place the order in the name of 

Technology Options (India) Pvt. Ltd. 

(Technology Options).8 Technology 

Options is a sister company of 

MassSpec.9 (Agency Exhibits 7–8, 47). 

48. Mr. Chodankar, the owner of 

MassSpec, would continue to negotiate 

the deal on behalf of Technology 

Options, and Professor Rao would still 

be the person using the machine. 

(Agency Exhibit 8). 

Parallel Discussions To Deliver Items to 

IGCAR 

49. Although communications 

between Megatech and MTS 

characterized the transaction as a sale to 

Technology Options, parallel discussion 

between Respondent Ahuja and Dr. Rao 

revealed the fatigue test system would 

ultimately be delivered to IGCAR once 

it arrived in India. (Agency Exhibit 48). 

50. On May 25, 2000, a price 

negotiation meeting was held at the 

Government of India Department of 

Atomic Energy, Madras Regional 

Purchase Unit (‘‘Department of Atomic 

Energy’’) to discuss the supply of a 

fatigue testing system. Notes from the 

meeting were signed by the attendees, 

who included: Dr. S.L. Mannan and Dr. 

K.B. Rao on behalf of IGCAR; two 

individuals from the Department of 

Atomic Energy; and Respondent Ahuja 

on behalf of MassSpec.10 (Agency 

Exhibit 48). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

51. At all relevant times, the 

Department of Atomic Energy was 

located at 26 Haddows Road, Chennai, 

India. (Agency Exhibit 48). 

52. At the meeting, the representatives 

from the Department of Atomic Energy 

indicated that the Department planned 

to place an order with Respondent 

Ahuja for the delivery of one fatigue test 

system. (Agency Exhibit 48). In turn, 

Respondent Ahuja agreed to provide 

training for one engineer at the 

supplier’s facility. (Agency Exhibit 48). 

53. Respondent Ahuja requested that 

the Department of Atomic Energy 

submit a Letter of Intent on or before 

June 6, 2000 to officially place the order 

with MTS. (Agency Exhibit 48). 

54. On June 6, 2000, Mr. Chodankar 

of ITT wrote to MTS requesting the 

fatigue test system. (Agency Exhibit 49). 

Mr. Chodankar’s letter clarifies that the 

order was placed pursuant to MTS’s 

offer and subsequent meeting with Mr. 

Ajay Ahuja of Megatech. (Agency 

Exhibit 49). 

Negotiations for the Sale of a Second 

MTS Machine 

55. Concurrent with the discussions 

regarding the fatigue test system, 

Megatech discussed the shipment of a 

second machine. (Agency Exhibit 61). 

This time, the order was for a universal 

testing system to be placed by 

Technology Options. (Agency Exhibits 

35, 61). 

56. Respondent Mohan was the 

principal representative involved in the 

negotiations. (Agency Exhibit 61). On 

December 22, 2000, Respondent Mohan 

e-mailed MTS employees with inquiries 

regarding pricing, delivery, and 

contractual obligations for the universal 

testing machine. (Agency Exhibit 61). 

57. Attached to the e-mail was a 

purchase order and sales form 

completed by Respondent Mohan. 

(Agency Exhibit 61). The ‘‘Ship-to’’

category on the form was left blank, 

while the ‘‘Site’’ and ‘‘Sold-to 

Customer’’ sections listed Technology 

Options in Mumbai. (Agency Exhibit 

61.) 

IGCAR Representatives Visit MTS 

Facilities in Training 

58. In November 2000, Dr. K.B. Rao 

and Respondent Ravi Shettigar visited 

the MTS facilities in the United States 

to inspect the fatigue test system and be 

trained on installation prior to 

shipment. (Agency Exhibits 41–42). 

59. Before they could enter the United 

States, both Dr. Rao and Respondent 

Shettigar needed visas approved by the 

U.S. Consulate. To assist with the visa 

process, MTS drafted letters of 

invitation to explain the purpose of the 

visit. (Agency Exhibits 7, 53–54). The 

information contained in those letters 

was provided directly by Respondents 

Mohan and Shettigar. Agency Exhibits 

43, 53–54, 56–57). 

60. Respondents Mohan and Shettigar 

informed MTS that Dr. Rao was the 

Senior General Manager of Technology 

Options. (Agency Exhibits 43, 56–57). 

Sale and Delivery of the Fatigue Testing 

System 

61. On June 8, 2000, Respondent 

Ahuja submitted a sales order form to 

MTS regarding the sale of the fatigue 

test system. (Agency Exhibit 50). On the 

form, Respondent Ahuja listed 

Technology Options as the customer 

and Mumbai as the location site. 

(Agency Exhibits 43, 50). 

62. Subsequently, on June 23, 2000, 

the Department of Atomic Energy 

placed an order on behalf of IGCAR 

with Technology Options for the fatigue 

test system. The order form contained 

the terms previously discussed at the 

meeting held on May 25, 2000 between 

Dr. K.B. Rao and Respondent Ahuja. 

(Agency Exhibit 28). In particular, the 

machine would be delivered and 

installed at IGCAR’s facility; training 

would be provided for the operating 

scientists without additional costs. 

(Agency Exhibit 28). 

63. On December 31, 2000, Megatech 

was notified the fatigue test system 

arrived at Chennai. (Agency Exhibit 8). 

64. Shortly, thereafter, in January of 

2001, Mr. Chodankar of Technology 

Options called Megatech to perform an 

inventory check to ensure that all 

components were shipped from MTS. 

(Agency Exhibits 7–8). 

65. Respondent Shettigar performed 

the required check at the customer’s 

facility in Chennai. (Agency Exhibits 7–

8, 56). More specifically, this inventory 

check took place at 26 Haddows Road. 

(Agency Exhibit 43). This is the formal 

address of the Department of Atomic 

Energy and the same location at which 

Respondent Ahuja attended a meeting 

with IGCAR officials on May 25, 2000. 

(Agency Exhibits 28–30). 

66. On January 22, 2001, Respondent 

Shettigar exchanged several e-mails 

with MTS employees regarding the 

installation of the fatigue test system. 

(Agency Exhibit 64). In his e-mail, 

Shettigar informs MTS that he visited 

the customer’s site to open the crates 

but the customer was not ready for the 

pre-installation check. He further noted 

the customer would not be ready for the 

final installation until sometime in the 

last week of February. (Agency Exhibit 

64). 

Investigation by Bureau of Industry and 

Security 

67. On August 21, 2000 and February 

13, 2001, the Agency received two 

anonymous letters alleging violations of 

the export regulations by IGCAR and 

other Indian organizations on the Entity 

List. (Agency Exhibit 21). The letters 

alleged that MTS, Megatech, MassSpec, 

and Technology Options were among 

the companies involved in such 

activities. (Agency Exhibit 21). As a 

result of the letters, BIS opened an 

investigation to determine the veracity 

of the allegations. (Agency Exhibits 21, 

25). 

68. On February 27, 2001, Special 

Agents met MTS employees to review 

recent exports to India. (Agency Exhibit 

26). MTS volunteered to review their 

sales and narrow the transactions down 

to a small group that the Agency could 

review. (Agency Exhibit 26). 

69. On March 9, 2001, MTS notified 

BIS it discovered a purchase order for 

equipment that shipped to Technology 

Options on 12/19/00, and a second 

order being prepared for shipment at the 

end of the month. (Agency Exhibits 27, 

32). 

70. On June 7, 2001, the universal 

testing machine was formally detained 

by BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement. 

(Agency Exhibit 33). 

71. On June 11, 2001, BIS requested 

U.S. Foreign Commercial Service 

officers in Mumbai to conduct a Post 

Shipment Verification (PSV) at 

Technology Options. The results of the 

PSV determined the fatigue test system 

was neither present at Technology 

Option’s facility nor under its control. 

(Agency Exhibits 34–35). 

72. On May 6, 2002, Respondent 

Ahuja met with Commercial Service 

Officers. (Agency Exhibit 38). At this 

meeting, Megatech viewed several 

documents evidencing the diversion of 

the fatigue test system to IGCAR. 

(Agency Exhibit 38). At the Agency’s 

request, Respondent Ahuja agreed to 

visit IGCAR to confirm whether the 

machine was installed and in use at 

IGCAR’s facility. (Agency Exhibits 8, 

38). 

73. On May 8, 2002, Megatech 

representatives visited IGCAR and saw 

the fatigue test system in use at the 

Materials Development Lab. (Agency 

Exhibits 8, 38–39). Pursuant to their 

agreement, Megatech conveyed this 

information to the U.S. Foreign 

Commercial Service. (Agency Exhibits 8, 

38–39). 

74. On November 4, 2003, 

Commercial Service Agents conducted 

an end-use check at IGCAR and viewed 

the fatigue test system. (Agency Exhibit 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61615 

11Bureau of Industry and Security publishes 

Decisions and Orders pertaining to export 

violations on its Web site, located at http:// 

efoia.bis.doc.gov/ExportControlViolations/ 

TOCExportViolations.htm. 12 50 App. U.S.C. 2401–2420; 15 CFR 730.2. 

40). The team met with IGCAR faculty 

members to review documents 

pertaining to the purchase of the system. 

One document in particular listed all 

companies that bid on the tender, 

including a bid from MassSpec 

Technologies in Mumbai, dated March 

2, 2000. (Agency Exhibit 40). 

Ultimate Recommended Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law 

1. Respondents 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 

App. U.S.C. 2401–2420) and the Export 

Administration Regulations (15 CFR 

parts 730–774). 

2. The evidence in the record as a 

whole demonstrates that Respondents 

Megatech, Ajay Ahuja, Ravi Shettigar, 

T.K. Mohan conspired to export items 

subject to the Regulations to a person 

listed on the Entity List without BIS 

authorization. 

3. The charge of conspiracy, in 

violation of 15 CFR 764.2(d), against 

Respondents Megatech, Ajay Ahuja, 

Ravi Shettigar, and T.K. Mohan alleging 

Respondents conspired to export a 

thermal mechanical fatigue test system 

and a universal testing machine from 

the United States to the IGCAR without 

the required license is proved by a 

preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence as taken from the record 

considered as a whole. 

4. The first offense under the charge 

of evading the Regulations, in violation 

of 15 CFR 764.2(h), alleging 

Respondents Megatech, Ajay Ahuja, 

Ravi Shettigar, and T.K. Mohan 

developed and employed a scheme by 

which a company in India not on the 

Entity List would receive that fatigue 

test system from the United States and 

then divert it to the true ultimate 

consignee, IGCAR, is proved by a 

preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence as taken from the record 

considered as a whole. 

5. The second offense under the 

charge of evading the Regulations, in 

violation of 15 CFR 764.2(h), alleging 

Respondents Megatech, Ajay Ahuja, 

Ravi Shettigar, and T.K. Mohan 

developed and employed a scheme by 

which a company in India not on the 

Entity List would receive the universal 

testing system from the United States 

and then divert it to the true ultimate 

consignee, IGCAR, is proved by a 

preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence as taken from the record 

considered as a whole. 

6. The charge of false statements in 

the course of an investigation subject to 

the Regulations, in violation of 15 

764.2(g), against Respondents Megatech 

and Ajay Ahuja is not proved. 

Therefore, the Administrative Law 

Judge recommends that those charges 

(violations of 15 CFR 764.2(g)) alleged 

against Respondents Megatech and Ajay 

Ahuja be dismissed. 

Discussion 

The Export Administration Act and 

the supporting Export Administration 

Regulations provide broad and 

extensive authority for the control of 

exports from the United States. See 50 

App. U.S.C. 2402(2)(A); 2404(a)(1); 

2405(a)(1); see also 15 CFR 730.2. More 

specifically, the Act authorizes the 

prohibition and regulation of exported 

goods for the purpose of furthering U.S. 

foreign policy or fulfilling international 

obligations. See 50 App. U.S.C. 

3405(a)(1). This includes authority to 

regulate and prohibit the export of 

goods and technology in the interest of 

national security. See 50 App. U.S.C. 

2402(2)(A) and 2404(a)(1). Moreover, all 

U.S. origin items, wherever located, are 

subject to regulations. See 15 CFR 

734.3(a)(2). As such, the governing 

regulations apply extraterritorially 

regardless of a person’s nationality or 

locality, so long as U.S. origin items are 

involved. In the Matter of Abdulmir 

Madi, et al. 68 FR 57406 (October 3, 

2003). 

The burden in this proceeding lies 

with the Bureau of Industry and 

Security to prove the changes instituted 

against the Respondents by a 

preponderance of the evidence. In the 

Matter of Petrom GmbH International 

Trade, No. E891 (BIS Apr. 25, 2005), 

http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ 

ExportControlViolations/ 

TOCExportViolations.htm; In the Matter 

of Abdulmir Madi, et al., 68 FR 57406 

(October 3, 2003).11 In an administrative 

proceeding, the preponderance of the 

evidence standard is demonstrated by 

reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence. Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 

91, 102 (1981). In the simplest terms, 

the Agency must demonstrate that the 

existence of a fact is more probable than 

its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & 

Products v. Construction Laborers 

Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993); 

In the Matter of Petrom GmbH 

International Trade, No. E891 (BIS Apr. 

25, 2005), http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ 

ExportControlViolations/ 

TOCExportViolations.htm. 

In this case, Respondents are charged 

with violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) 

occurring from April 1, 2000 through 

August 31, 2001. The EAR governs the 

export of goods with dual-use and is 

administered by the Bureau of Industry 

and Security under the authority of the 

Export Administration Act.12 50 App. 

U.S.C. 2401–2420; 15 CFR 730.2. In an 

attempt to prevent dual-use items from 

falling into the wrong hands, the EAR 

prescribe a complex set of regulations, 

which are triggered depending on the 

type of item sought to be exported, the 

destination of the item, and the specific 

entity or person who receives it. 15 CFS 

732.1. In turn, specific conduct 

constitutes a violation of the EAR to 

which sanctions may be imposed. See 

15 CFR 764.1. 

In particular, it is unlawful to 

conspire, or act in concert, with one or 

more persons to take any action that 

violates the Act or its underlying 

regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(d). Similarly, 

it is unlawful to engage in any 

transaction, or to take any action, with 

the intent to evade the provisions of the 

Act or its regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(h). 

In these proceedings, knowledge 

includes positive knowledge that a 

circumstance exists. However, 

knowledge also includes an awareness 

of the high probability that a 

circumstance will occur. 15 CFR 772.1. 

Such awareness may be inferred from 

evidence of the conscious disregard of 

facts known to a person. Likewise, 

awareness may be inferred from a 

person’s willful avoidance of facts. Id. 

Finally, a person is prohibited from 

misrepresenting and concealing facts to 

an official of any United States Agency 

in the course of an investigation subject 

to the Regulations. See 15 CFR 

764.2(g)(i). Misrepresentation and 

concealment of facts are defined in part 

as making any false or misleading 

representation, statement, or 

certification. See 15 CFR 764.2(g). 

Prohibited actions further include 

falsifying or concealing a material fact. 

See 15 CFR 764.2(g). 

In this case, the Agency charged 

Respondents Megatech and Ahuja with 

misrepresentation and concealment of 

facts in the course of an investigation. 

More specifically, BIS alleges that 

between August 16, 2001 and May 20, 

2002, Respondents Megatech and Ahuja 

made false statements to the U.S. 

government regarding the export of a 

fatigue test system to IGCAR. The 

alleged misrepresentations are derived 

from statements made to U.S. 

Commercial Service Agents who met 

with Respondent Ahuja at the Megatech 

office on April 19, 2002. The details of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61616 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

that meeting were recapped by Special 

Agent Richard Rothman in an e-mail 

sent to another Agency official. Agency 

Exhibit 37. 

According to Special Agent 

Rothman’s E-mail, Respondent Ahuja 

stated he was first introduced to 

Technology Options by an IIT professor. 

Afterwards, the only persons with 

whom he negotiated at Technology 

Options was Mr. R.K. Chodankar. 

Similarly, Respondent Ahuja stated he 

did not meet Dr. K.B. Rao until after the 

fatigue test system was shipped from the 

United States in December 2000. Special 

Agent Rothman additionally notes that 

Respondent Ahuja claimed he was 

never educated on the important of U.S. 

export controls nor instructed by MTS 

to carefully investigate potential 

customers. Agency Exhibit 37. 

The Agency alleges these statements 

are false because they contradict 

answers supplied by Respondents in 

subsequent Discovery Requests. 

However, a full review of the record 

reveals insufficient evidence to support 

a finding that Respondents made false 

statements or concealed facts during the 

course of the investigation. 

In this case, BIS relies on an E-mail 

generated by Special Agent Rothman as 

evidence of false statements made by 

Respondents Megatech and Ahuja. 

While this e-mail purports to summarize 

a meeting between Respondent Ahuja 

and Agent Rothman, BIS presented no 

further evidence detailing the interview. 

In my opinion, this E-mail is susceptible 

to double interpretation, and I am not 

convinced of its accuracy. 

From the start, Agent Rothman notes 

that his report is written without the 

input of Agent Srinivas who 

accompanied him on the interview. He 

further notes that if anything is missing 

or misstated, Agent Srinivas can provide 

clarification. Agency Exhibit 37. 

However, neither confirmation nor 

clarification is provided by Agent 

Srinivas in the record. While the 

Agency is under no obligation to 

provide this information, without it, the 

credibility of this E-mail is weak. 

Of particular concern, incorrect 

information is contained within the 

body of Agent Rothman’s e-mail. For 

example, Rothman writes, ‘‘On Friday 

afternoon, Srinivas and I met with Ajay 

Ahuja and his senior manager Ravi 

Shettigar of Megatech.’’ Agency Exhibit 

37. According to the bulk of evidence 

provided in the record, Respondent 

Shettigar is not a senior manager but, 

rather, a service engineer. Agency 

Exhibits, 7, 8, 56. When this e-mail is 

read in conjunction with other exhibits, 

it is unclear as to what Respondent 

Shettigar’s role is at Megatech. Is he 

senior manager over Respondent Ahuja 

or is he the senior manager of Megatch’s 

service engineer department? Did Agent 

Rothamn simply misstate Respondent 

Shettigar’s title or did Respondents 

provide incorrect answers? This 

information is crucial when determining 

whether employees shared knowledge 

of each other’s actions. If the Agency 

chooses to rely on a single piece of 

evidence as its basis of proof, the 

contents of that evidence must be 

unequivocal. 

Moreover, given the informal nature 

of E-mail, I am hesitant to apply 

significant weight to this exhibit. Unlike 

an official report, e-mails are often 

written in haste and tend to paraphrase 

events. The E-mail written by Agent 

Rothman is a short summary of his 

interview with Respondent Ahuja, 

which briefly restates the conversation 

that transpired during the meeting. 

There is no credible and substantial 

evidence in the record of what 

information was actually conveyed 

during the interview. From this exhibit 

alone, it is impossible to determine 

what words were actually used by either 

the Agents or Respondent Ahuja. 

Similarly, it is uncertain whether 

Respondent Ahuja fully understood the 

questions being asked or if the interview 

was complicated by a language barrier. 

Likewise, did the Agent fully 

comprehend Respondent Ahuga’s 

answers? When an interview of this 

magnitude is simply paraphrased in an 

e-mail, rather than transcribed or, at the 

very least, notarized, it is determinate 

whether assertions made by an 

individual were misstated or taken out 

of context. 

In addition, it is important to note 

that Agent Rothman’s e-mail was 

written in response to a co-worker’s 

inquiry of a previous e-mail from Agent 

Srinivas. The co-worker wrote, ‘‘I was 

going by Sriniva’s e-mail where he said 

Rao was asked to ‘‘float a company’’ and 

import all the equipment for an IGCAR 

test center. Is that what Rao told 

Srinivas?’’ Agency Exhibit 37. In turn, 

Agent Rothman drafted his report to 

recap the details of his meeting with 

Respondent Ahuja. As such, the e-mail 

describes Respondent Ahuja’s 

statements in the interview and contains 

minimal reference to Rao. Likewise, 

there is no mention of Rao stating he 

was asked to ‘‘float at company.’’

In reviewing this e-mail chain, it is 

unclear why Agent Rothman focuses on 

Respondent Ahuja statements when his 

co-worker’s inquired about Rao. Did the 

co-worker misunderstand the original 

correspondence from Agent Srinivas or 

are there additional e-mails that were a 

part of this chain but not included in 

the record? With these questions in 

mind, I find the reliability of this exhibit 

to be minimal. More importantly, the 

information provided within it is 

inadequate to establish whether 

Respondents made misleading 

representations or concealed facts. 

Therefore, the Agency failed to prove by 

a preponderance of the reliable and 

credible evidence that Respondents 

Megatech and Ahuja wrongfully made 

false statements during the course of an 

investigation. 

However, the Agency successfully 

established that Respondents conspired 

to export goods to a person listed on the 

Entity List without the required 

authorization. Likewise, Respondents 

committed acts of evasion when they 

developed and employed a scheme in 

which a company in India not on the 

Entity List would receive the items from 

the United States and then divert them 

to the true consignee, IGCAR. 

In defense of their actions, 

Respondents raise the following 

argument, which will be addressed in 

further detail: 

1. Respondents did not Know They 

were Dealing with IGCAR 

Representatives nor Intended Controlled 

Items to be Re-Exported to a Prohibited 

Entity. 

For the reasons stated herein, 

Respondent’s argument is rejected. 

1. Respondents Knew They were 

Dealing with IGCAR Representatives 

and Intended to Divert Controlled Items 

to a Prohibited Entity. 

The Agency alleges Respondents 

conspired with others to export hightech testing equipment from the United 

States to IGCAR, an entity in India that 

is prohibited to receive these items 

without the required license. In 

furtherance of the conspiracy, 

Respondents met and engaged in 

various correspondences with their coconspirators, reaching an agreement to 

acquire the equipment without proper 

authorization. BIS further contends that 

Respondents developed and employed a 

scheme by which front companies in 

India would receive the exported 

equipment and then divert it to IGCAR, 

the true ultimate consignee. According 

to the Agency, Respondent’s actions 

were taken with the specific intent to 

evade export regulations and avoid the 

licensing requirements. BIS additionally 

contends Respondents were 

knowledgeable of the U.S. export 

control laws and knew, or should have 

known, that the items required a license 

before being exported to IGCAR. 

Respondents also knew that license 

applications for exports to this entity 

would likely be denied. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61617 

In their Answer to the Agency’s 

Charging Letters, Respondents argue 

they did not know the machines would 

be diverted to IGCAR. Rather, 

Respondents contend they were a victim 

of a sophisticated scheme whereby 

IGCAR set up legitimate front 

companies through which it conducted 

all its negotiations. As such, 

Respondents assert they did not know 

they were dealing with anyone other 

than legitimate businesses that were not 

listed as prohibited entities under U.S. 

law. Respondents claim they never 

received any knowledge to the contrary 

and no red flags were raised that would 

cause them to distrust the information 

received. 

Although Respondents filed an 

Answer to the Charging Letters on 

March 3, 2004, no further evidence was 

provided throughout the course of this 

proceeding to support their arguments. 

On November 7, 2006, it was presumed 

Respondents withdrew their Motion for 

Summary Judgment and waived their 

right to a hearing after they failed to 

respond to numerous pleadings and 

court orders. Similarly, Respondents 

failed to avail themselves of the 

opportunity to submit a Memorandum 

and Submission of Evidence to 

Supplement the Record. As such, the 

only evidence in the record as to what 

transpired in this matter is provided by 

the Agency. This evidence refutes 

Respondents’ claim they lacked 

knowledge and intent to evade the 

Regulations when they diverted 

controlled items to a prohibited entity 

without a required license. 

In particular, Respondents’ familiarity 

and knowledge of IGCAR 

representatives dates as far back as the 

1980’s. More specifically, when MTS 

supplied a machine to IGCAR around 

1985, Respondent Ahuja participated in 

the sale through his former employer. 

See Agency Exhibits 7, 9. Once 

Megatech became MTS System’s sole 

representative in the region, 

Respondents began to negotiate 

additional sales on behalf of MTS. For 

instance, in June 1991, Respondent 

Ahuja attended a meeting with several 

scientists from IGCAR to discuss the 

sale of equipment that would be used at 

IGCAR’s facility. Agency Exhibit 9. 

Although the project remained at a 

standstill until a license could be 

obtained, Respondents continued to 

provide support service on the old 

system installed at IGCAR. Agency 

Exhibits 10, 11, 15. In providing the 

support service, Respondent Shettigar 

personally visited IGCAR on at least two 

separate occasions in 1993 and 1998. 

See Agency Exhibits 7, 16. 

Although the likelihood of obtaining 

an export license grew increasingly 

difficult, Respondents continued to 

submit offers to IGCAR for the supply of 

test equipment. In April 1993, 

Respondent Ahuja requested assistance 

from an MTS subsidiary to complete the 

preliminary paperwork for a sale’s 

proposal, Agency Exhibit 14. In his 

request letter, Respondent Ahuja noted 

the equipment would be used by Dr. 

K.B. Rao in the Material Development 

Laboratory at IGCAR. Id. Further, 

Respondents kept track of their clients’

information over the years through a 

database, which filed the names of all 

companies and customers to whom 

products were sold. Agency Exhibit 7. 

While Respondents continued their 

sales efforts, they knew U.S. regulations 

prevented the export of items to IGCAR 

without a license. Similarly, 

Respondents were aware that license 

applications would most likely be 

denied. In particular, Respondents’

knowledge of U.S. export restrictions 

began in 1992 when their U.S. supplier 

notified them of the difficulty in 

obtaining authorization to export goods 

to IGCAR. MTS received a response to 

an inquiry with the Department of 

Commerce, stating ‘‘no one will be 

allowed to ship goods to IGCAR.’’ In 

turn, MTS sent a facsimile to 

Respondent Megatech informing them 

that the prohibition pertained to the 

USA, UK, Japan, and most other 

industrialized nations. See Agency 

Exhibit 12. 

Moreover, on February 3, 1997, BIS 

established the Entity List comprised on 

end-users that were ineligible to receive 

specified items without a license. As a 

result, all exporters were put on notice 

that a validated license was required 

before any item subject to the 

Regulations could be exported to a 

listed entity. IGCAR was specifically 

included on the list due to its 

involvement in unsafeguarded nuclear 

research and development activities. 62 

FR 125 (June 30, 1997). The following 

year, this information was reiterated 

when MTS received an official letter for 

the Department of Commerce informing 

them that IGCAR would require special 

export treatment due to their nuclear 

activities. Agency Exhibit 15. The letter 

additionally noted there was a 

‘‘presumption of denial’’ for any Indian/ 

Pakistani nuclear end-user. Id. In turn, 

MTS repeatedly assured Respondent 

Megatech that all MTS subsidiaries and 

representatives were bound by U.S. 

Export Regulations. As such, they could 

not supply orders, spare parts, or 

warranty replacement parts to any 

customer on the Entity List without an 

export license. Agency Exhibits 15, 19. 

According to the evidence in record, 

Megatech grew increasingly frustrated 

with MTS’s inability to secure a license 

to export items to entities in India. 

Without export authorization, Megatech 

experienced a loss of potential business 

clients. Agency Exhibits 7, 17. To 

combat this loss, Megatech continued to 

submit sales proposals to IGCAR. In 

June 1999, Megatech met with Professor 

K.B. Rao to discuss specifications for a 

Thermal Mechanical Fatigue System. 

Agency Exhibits 7, 43. Prior to the 

meeting, Respondent Ahuja sent an 

advance copy of Dr. Rao’s specifications 

to MTS Systems, requesting an offer in 

which he informed MTS the request 

came from Professor K.B. Rao of the 

Indian Institute of Technology. Agency 

Exhibit 7. In addition, Respondent 

Ahuja addressed all subsequent 

correspondence to Dr. Rao at the IIT. 

Agency Exhibits 8, 44. Given that 

Megatech maintains client information 

in its database, Respondent Ahuja knew, 

or should have known, that Professor 

Rao actually worked for IGCAR. As 

such, all communication regarding Dr. 

Rao should have included reference to 

IGCAR rather than IIT. 

With the knowledge, they were 

dealing with IGCAR representatives, 

Respondents intentionally developed a 

plan to evade the Regulations. In 

particular, high-tech equipment was 

purchased by front companies that were 

not listed on the Entity List. Once these 

companies received the equipment from 

the United States, they diverted the 

goods to IGCAR. For instance, a new 

company was introduced into the 

transaction on August 13, 1999 when 

Respondent Ahuja met Dr. Rao at the 

office of MassSpec Technologies Pvt 

Limited. See Agency Exhibits 42, 43. 

Following the meeting, Respondent 

Ahuja informed MTS that the purchase 

order would no longer be placed by IIT 

but, rather, by MassSpec. Respondent 

Ahuja claimed MassSpec was IIT’s 

counterpart that would receive a tax 

benefit if it purchased the equipment 

directly. Shortly thereafter, on April 6, 

2000, Respondent Ahuja told MTS that 

yet another change has been made to the 

transaction. This time, the customer 

wanted to place the order in the name 

of Technology Options, a sister 

company of MassSpec. See Agency 

Exhibits 7–8, 47. However, Respondent 

Ahuja assured MTS the system would 

still be used by Professor Rao at IIT. See 

Agency Exhibits, 8, 45. 

The diversion of goods was further 

developed when Respondent Ahuja 

declined routine services typically 

associated with the sale and installation 

of a fatigue test system. As seen on 

October 21, 1999, Respondent Ahuja 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61618 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

emailed MTS to request the removal of 

costs associated with MTS personnel 

visits to the customer in India. See 

Agency Exhibit 45. Instead, Respondent 

Ahuja suggested a representative from 

Technology Options visit MTS’s facility 

in the U.S. for pre-shipment inspection. 

During this time, the customer would 

become familiar with how the 

equipment functioned and its features. 

See Agency Exhibit 45. Similarly, MTS 

would train one of Megatech’s 

engineers, who, in turn, would install 

the equipment and receive the 

customer’s final on-site acceptance. See 

Agency Exhibits 45, 47. With this new 

arrangement there would be no need for 

MTS to visit the customer’s facility in 

India to ensure the machine was 

properly installed at the end-user’s site. 

In accordance with this new 

arrangement, Dr. K.B. Rao and 

Respondent Ravi Shettigar visited the 

MTS facilities in November 2000 to 

inspect the fatigue test system and be 

trained on installation prior to 

shipment. See Agency Exhibits 41–42. 

However, before they could enter the 

United States, both Dr. Rao and 

Respondent Shettigar needed visas 

approved by the U.S. Consulate. To 

assist with the visa process, MTS 

drafted letters of invitation to explain 

the purpose of the visit. See Agency 

Exhibits 7, 53–54. The information 

contained within those letters was false 

and was provided directly by 

Respondent’s Mohan and Shettigar. 

Specifically, Respondents told MTS 

employees that Dr. K.B. Rao was the 

Senior General Manager of Technology 

Options. See Agency Exhibits 43, 56–57. 

Given Respondents’ level of 

involvement with both IGCAR and Dr. 

Rao, Respondents knew, or should have 

known, that Dr. K.B. Rao was not an 

employee of Technology Options but, 

rather, an employee of IGCAR. 

Although Respondents’

communications to MTS characterized 

the transaction as a sale to Technology 

Options, parallel discussion between 

Respondent Ahuja and Dr. Rao revealed 

the fatigue test system would ultimately 

be delivered to IGCAR. See Agency 

Exhibit 48. The record reveals a price 

negotiation meeting occurred on May 

25, 2000 at the Department of Atomic 

Energy to discuss the supply of a fatigue 

testing system. IGCAR is a subordinate 

entity of the Department of Atomic 

Energy. See Agency Exhibits 5, 40. 

Moreover, notes from the meeting were 

signed by the attendees, who included: 

Dr. S.L. Mannan and Dr. K.B. Rao on 

behalf of IGCAR; two individuals from 

the Department of Atomic Energy; and 

Respondent Ajay Ahuja. See Agency 

Exhibit 48. 

At the meeting, the Department of 

Atomic Energy indicated it planned to 

place an order with Respondent Ahuja 

for the delivery of one fatigue test 

system. See Agency Exhibit 48. In turn, 

Respondent Ahuja agreed to provide 

training for one engineer at MTS’s 

facility in the United States. See Agency 

Exhibit 48. As seen in November 2000, 

the person to visit MTS’s facility for 

training was Dr. Rao from IGCAR. See 

Agency Exhibit 42. 

Moreover, Respondent Ahuja 

requested the Department of Atomic 

Energy submit a Letter of Intent on or 

before June 6, 2000 to officially place 

the order with MTS. See Agency Exhibit 

48. In accordance with Respondent 

Ahuja’s request, a Letter of Intent was 

written and sent to MTS on June 6, 

2000. However, the letter was not 

drafted by the Department of Atomic 

Energy but, rather, by Mr. Chodankar of 

ITT. See Agency Exhibit 49. In addition, 

Mr. Chodankar’s letter clarifies that the 

order was placed pursuant to MTS’s 

offer and subsequent meeting with Mr. 

Ahuja of Megatech. See Agency Exhibit 

49. 

Throughout the negotiation process, 

Respondent T.K. Mohan assisted 

Respondent Ahuja and personally took 

part in the plan to divert items to 

IGCAR. For instance, on November 5, 

1999, Respondent Mohan e-mailed MTS 

employees to discuss technical inquiries 

and costs associated with the sale of the 

fatigue test system. See Agency Exhibit 

46. However, Respondent Mohan’s 

e-mail designated MassSpec (IIT) as the 

customer instead of IGCAR. See Agency 

Exhibit 46. Likewise, Respondent 

Mohan was the principal representative 

involved in the negotiations of a second 

machine to be purchased by Technology 

Options. See Agency Exhibits 35, 61. 

These negotiations involved the sale of 

a universal testing machine and ran 

concurrent with the discussions for the 

fatigue test system. See Agency Exhibit 

61. To help facilitate the transaction, 

Respondent Mohan e-mailed MTS 

employees with inquiries regarding 

pricing, delivery, and contractual 

obligations for the universal testing 

machine. See Agency Exhibit 61. 

Attached to the e-mail was a purchase 

order and sales form completed by 

Respondent Mohan. See Agency Exhibit 

61. In the sections entitled ‘‘Site’’ and 

‘‘Sold-to-Customer,’’ Respondent Mohan 

listed Technology Options in Mumbai. 

However, no explanation was provided 

as to why the section entitled ‘‘Ship-to’’

was left blank. See Agency Exhibit 61. 

In furtherance of the conspiracy, 

Respondent Shettigar also took actions 

to evade the Regulations and avoid 

licensing requirements. In particular, 

On January 22, 2001, Respondent 

Shettigar exchanged several e-mails 

with MTS employees regarding the 

installation of the fatigue test system. 

See Agency Exhibit 64. In his e-mail, 

Shettigar informed MTS that the system 

was placed at Technology Option’s 

facility but that the customer was not 

fully ready for the pre-installation 

check. He further noted Technology 

Options would not be ready for the final 

installation until sometime in the last 

week of February. See Agency Exhibit 

64. 

In response to subsequent discovery 

requests from the Agency, Respondents 

identified the location of the site 

referred to in Respondent Shettigar’s 

e-mail. More specifically, Respondents 

claim the inventory check took place at 

a warehouse in the ground floor at 26 

Haddows Road, Chennai. See Agency 

Exhibit 43. However, this is the formal 

address of the Department of Atomic 

Energy and the same location at which 

Respondent Ahuja attended a meeting 

with IGCAR officials Dr. K.B. Rao and 

Dr. S.L. Mannan on May 25, 2000. See 

Agency Exhibits 28–30. 

Finally, Respondents submitted false 

documentation to its supplier, which 

provided a party other than IGCAR was 

the ultimate consignee for the exported 

items. In particular, on June 8, 2000, 

Respondent Ahuja submitted a sales 

order form to MTS regarding the 

purchase of a fatigue test system. See 

Agency Exhibit 50. On the form, 

Respondent listed Technology Options 

as the customer and Mumbai as the 

location site. See Agency Exhibits 43, 

50. However, the record reveals that the 

item was actually sold to IGCAR, 

located in Chennai. More specifically, 

on June 23, 2000, the Department of 

Atomic Energy placed an order on 

behalf of IGCAR with Technology 

Options for the fatigue test system. The 

order form contained the terms 

previously discussed at the meeting 

held on May 25, 2000 between Dr. K.B. 

Rao and Respondent Ahuja. See Agency 

Exhibit 28. In particular, the machine 

would be delivered and installed at 

IGCAR’s facility and training would be 

provided for the operating scientists 

without additional costs. See Agency 

Exhibit 28. 

In light of the above listed 

circumstances, Respondents’ assertion 

they did not know they were dealing 

with IGCAR representatives is 

unavailing. Rather, the evidence 

provided in the record clearly 

establishes Respondents conspired to 

export high-tech equipment to IGCAR 

without the required authorization in 

violation of 15 CFR 764.2(d). Moreover, 

the evidence demonstrates Respondents 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 61619 

intentionally evaded the Regulations by 

developing a scheme to export 

controlled items to front companies that 

would receive the goods from the 

United States then divert them to 

IGCAR. As such, the Agency proved by 

a preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence that Respondents violated 15 

CFR 764.2(h). 

Recommended Sanction 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

has authority to assess sanctions against 

individuals who violate the export 

regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3. 

Sanctions may include civil penalties, 

denial of export privileges, and 

revocation of export licenses. See 15 

CFR 764.3. Here, the record shows 

Respondents did not apply for U.S. 

Government authorization to export 

high-tech testing equipment to IGCAR, 

an entity prohibited to receive these 

items without the required license. 

Instead, Respondents conspired with 

others to set up front companies that 

would receive the exported equipment 

and then divert them to IGCAR, the true 

ultimate consignee. In furtherance of the 

conspiracy, Respondents met and 

corresponded with their coconspirators, reaching an agreement to 

acquire the equipment without proper 

authorization. Likewise, Respondents 

submitted false information and 

documentation to their supplier in the 

U.S., whereby they indicated a party 

other than IGCAR was the ultimate 

consignee for these items. 

The record further demonstrates 

Respondents were provided notice of 

the U.S. restrictions against IGCAR and 

knew the items required a license before 

being exported to IGCAR. Because these 

items are useful in the development and 

production of nuclear weapons, 

Respondents knew a license application 

for export to IGCAR would most likely 

be denied. As such, the record 

demonstrates Respondents’ actions were 

done with the express purpose and 

intent to evade U.S. export control laws. 

There are no mitigating factors on the 

records that would justify a sanction 

lighter than the denial of export 

privileges. Further, the imposition of a 

civil penalty in this case may not be 

effective, given the difficulty in 

collecting payment against a party 

outside the United States. In light of the 

above circumstances, I find that 

Megatech Engineering & Sciences Pvt. 

Ltd, Ajay Ahuja, Ravi Shettigar, and 

T.K. Mohan have demonstrated a severe 

disregard for U.S. export control laws; 

therefore, a denial of U.S. export 

privileges for a period of fifteen (15) 

years against each Respondent is an 

appropriate sanction. 

Wherefore, 

Recommended Order 

[Redacted Section] 

[Redacted Section] 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Division and Order to 

the Under Secretary for review and final 

action for the agency, without further 

notice to the Respondent, as provided in 

15 CFR 766.22. 

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski, Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Done and dated this 1st day of October 2007, 

New York, NY. 

Appendix A—In the Matter of: 

Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd., et. al. 

List of Exhibits 

Agency Exhibits 

1. Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 230 (Dec. 

1, 2004). 

2. Letters (2x) Written to Mr. Mark 

Menefee, Director of the Office of Export 

Enforcement from Steve Clagett (Mar. 18, 

2002 and May 1, 2002). 

3. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 125 (June 

30, 1997). 

4. The World Factbook Reference Material 

on India. 

5. Reference Material on Indira Gandhi 

Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) from 

IGCAR’s Internet Site. 

6. Letter from M. Valsan of the Mechanical 

Metallurgy Division at IGCAR to Mr. Y. 

Bharat, MassSpec Technology Pvt. Ltd. 

(October 13, 1999). 

7. Deposition of Ajay Ahuja (Oct. 19, 2004). 

8. Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd Answer to Agency’s Charging Letter 

(Mar. 3, 2004). 

9. Facsimile from Ajay Ahuja to Don Hall 

at IGCAR (Mar. 28, 1991). 

10. Visit Report to IGCAR, drafted by Ajay 

Ahuja. 

11. Memo from Gary Stewart to Save Santo 

(June 7, 1991). 

12. Facsimile from Scott Anderson, 

Sintech, to Ajay Ahuja (Jan. 13, 1992). 

13. License Application Report from 

Donald E. Hall. 

14. Facsimile from Ajay Ahuja to Mark 

Prow at Sintech (Apr. 22, 1993). 

15. Electronic Mails (3x) between Megatech 

employees and Don Hall (July 9, 1998 

through July 13, 1998). 

16. International Field Service Reports, 

Number 001457, and Field Activity Report. 

17. Speed Post to MATS (Apr. 23, 1994). 

18. Application Submitted by Don Hall to 

BXA, US Dept of Commerce (May 10, 1994). 

19. Electronic Mail (5x) between Ajay 

Ahuja and Becky Scott (July 19, 1999 through 

July 27). 

20. Electronic Mail (2x) from Becky Scott 

to BXA Agent, Regarding Export License 

Application (July 19, 1999). 

21. Anonymous Letter to U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Regarding Export Violations 

(Aug. 21, 2000). 

22. Report of Investigation Activity (Sept. 

25, 2000). 

23. Report of Investigation Activity (Nov. 

16, 2000). 

24. Electronic Mail (2x) Between Becky 

Scott and Randy Strop (Nov. 28, 2000–Nov. 

29, 2000). 

25. Anonymous Letter to U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Regarding Export Violations 

(Feb. 13, 2001). 

26. Report of Investigation Activity (Feb. 

27, 2001). 

27. Bookmarks from the Desktop of Becky 

Scott, Containing Seven (7) Memos. 

28. Purchase Order From, from the 

Department of Atomic Energy (June 23, 

2000). 

29. Customs Duty Exemption Certificate. 

30. Custom Duty Exemption Cover Letter 

(Aug. 4, 2000). 

31. Purchase Order (Nov. 15, 2000). 

32. MTS Facsimile to Office of Export 

Enforcement. 

33. Letter from Bureau of Export 

Administration (June 7, 2001). 

34. Facsimile from Office of Export 

Enforcement, (June 11, 2001). 

35. Unclassified Document from 

Department of Commerce (3 pages). 

36. Unclassified Document from 

Department of Commerce (1 page). 

37. Interagency Electronic Mails from the 

Bureau of Export Administration, Between 

Richard Rothman and Perry Davis (Apr. 19, 

2002–Apr. 22, 2002). 

38. Unclassified Document from 

Department of Commerce (1 page). 

39. Letter from Ajay Ahuja to Richard 

Rothman, Commercial Consul & Trade 

Commissioner (May 20, 2002). 

40. PSV Activity Report. 

41. Electronic Mail (2x) Between Steve 

Trout and Ajay Ahuja (July 28, 1999–July 29, 

1999). 

42. Electronic Mail (2x) Between Ravi 

Shettigar and T.K. Mohan (Nov. 27, 2000–

Nov. 28, 2000). 

43. Respondents’ Responses to Bureau of 

Industry and Security’s First Requests for 

Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production 

of Documents (Oct. 4, 2004). 

44. Letter from Steven Trout, MATS 

Applications Engineer, to Indian Institute of 

Technology (June 7, 2000). 

45. Electronic Mail (7x) Between Ajay 

Ahuja and Steve Trout (Oct. 21, 1999–Oct. 

27, 1999). 

46. Electronic Mail (2x) Between Steve 

Trout and T.K. Mohan (Nov. 5, 1999–Nov. 

10, 1999). 

47. Electronic Mail (3x) Between Ajay 

Ahuja and MTS Employees (Apr. 6, 2000). 

48. Minutes from Negotiation Meeting by 

Government of India Department of Atomic 

Energy Madras Regional Purchase Unit (May 

25, 2000). 

49. Letter from R.K. Chodankar of 

Technology Options with Purchase Order 

(June 6, 2000). 

50. Sales Order Submittal Form–2000, 

submitted by Ajay Ahuja (June 8, 2000). 

51. Letter of Invitation for Ravi Shettigar 

with Facsimile Coversheet (Oct. 10, 2000). 

52. Facsimile from Technology Options 

(Aug. 18, 2000). 

53. Electronic Mail (2x) Between Randy 

Strop and T.K. Mohan (Aug. 19, 2000). 

54. Letter of Invitation from MTS with 

Facsimile Coversheet (Aug. 23, 2000). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
61620 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 31, 2007 / Notices 

55. Electronic Mail (5x) Between Ravi 

Shettigar and Randy Strop (Oct. 31, 2000–

Nov. 6, 2000). 

56. Deposition of Ravi Shettigar (Oct. 20, 

2004). 

57. Electronic Mail (3x) Between T.K. 

Mohan and Randy Strop (Nov. 15, 2000–Nov. 

20, 2000). 

58. Electronic Mail (2x) Between T.K. 

Mohan and Ravi Shettigar (Nov. 15, 2000). 

59. Letter of Invitation from Karen Odash, 

International Coordinator, MATS (Nov. 16, 

2000). 

60. Letter from United States Department 

of State, Regarding Certificate of Visa Records 

of the Bureau of Consular Affairs with 

Attachments (Feb. 16, 2005). 

61. Electronic Mail (3x) with Attachments 

(2x) from T.K. Mohan to Steve Trout (Dec. 21, 

2000). 

62. Customer’s Declaration Form (Dec. 23, 

2000). 

63. Letter from Technology Options to the 

Lufthansa, Air Cargo Section (Jan. 2, 2001). 

64. Electronic Mail (4x) between Ravi 

Shettigar and Randy Strop (Jan. 22, 2001–Jan. 

30, 2001). 

Appendix B 

Notice to the Parties Regarding Review 

by the Under Secretary; Title 15—

Commerce And Foreign Trade Subtitle 

B—Regulations Relating to Commerce 

and Foreign Trade Chapter VII—Bureau 

of Industry and Security, Department of 

Commerce Subchapter C—Export 

Administration Regulations Part 766—

Administrative Enforcement 

Proceedings 

15 CFR 766.22 

Section 766.22 Review by Under 

Secretary. 

(a) Recommended decision. For 

proceedings not involving violations 

relating to part 760 of the EAR, the 

administrative law judge shall 

immediately refer the recommended 

decision and order to the Under 

Secretary. Because of the time limits 

provided under the EAA for review by 

the Under Secretary, service of the 

recommended decision and order on the 

parties, all papers filed by the parties in 

response, and the final decision of the 

Under Secretary must be by personal 

delivery, facsimile, express mail or 

other overnight carrier. If the Under 

Secretary cannot act on a recommended 

decision and order for any reason, the 

Under Secretary will designate another 

Department of Commerce official to 

receive and act on the recommendation. 

(b) Submissions by parties. Parties 

shall have 12 days from the date of 

issuance of the recommended decision 

and order in which to submit 

simultaneous responses. Parties 

thereafter shall have eight days from 

receipt of any responses(s) in which to 

submit replies. Any response or reply 

must be received within the time 

specified by the Under Secretary. 

(c) Final decision. Within 30 days 

after receipt of the recommended 

decision and order, the Under Secretary 

shall issue a written order affirming, 

modifying or vacating the recommended 

decision and order of the administrative 

law judge. If he/she vacates the 

recommended decision and order, the 

Under Secretary may refer the case back 

to the administrative law judge for 

further proceedings. Because of the time 

limits, the Under Secretary’s review will 

ordinarily be limited to the written 

record for decision, including the 

transcript of any hearing, and any 

submissions by the parties concerning 

the recommended decision. 

(d) Delivery. The final decision and 

implementing order shall be served on 

the parties and will be publicly 

available in accordance with Sec. 766.20 

of this part. 

(e) Appeals. The charged party may 

appeal the Under Secretary’s written 

order within 15 days to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia pursuant to 50 U.S.C. app. 

Sec. 2412(c)(3). 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served the 

foregoing Recommended Decision & 

Order via express mail courier to the 

following persons and offices: 

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, Telephone: 

(202) 482–5301. (Via Federal Express). 

John R. Masterson, Jr., Esquire, Chief 

Counsel for Industry and Security, 

Glenn Kaminsky, Esquire, Senior 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for 

Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room H–

3839, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

Telephone: (202) 482–5301. (Via 

Federal Express). 

ALJ Docketing Center, 40 S. Gay Street, 

Room 412, Baltimore, Maryland 

21202–4022, Telephone: (410) 962–

7434. (Via Federal Express). 

Megatech Engineering & Services Pvt. 

Ltd., PB #17652, A/2/10 Dongre Park, 

Chembur, Mumbai 400 074 INDIA. 

(Via Federal Express International). 

Ajay Ahuja, Megatech Engineering & 

Services Pvt. Ltd., PB #17652, A/2/10 

Dongre Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 

074 INDIA. (Via Federal Express 

International). 

Ravi Shettigar, Megatech Engineering & 

Services Pvt. Ltd, PB #17652, A/2/10 

Dongre Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 

074 INDIA. (Via Federal Express 

International). 

T.K. Mohan, Megatech Engineering & 

Services Pvt. Ltd, PB #17652, A/2/10 

Dongre Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 

074 INDIA. (Via Federal Express 

International). 

Done and dated this 1st day of October, 

2007, New York, NY. 

Regina V. Maye, 

Paralegal Specialist to the Administrative 

Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–5382 Filed 10–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Transportation and Related Equipment 

Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Partially Closed Meeting 

The Transportation and Related 

Equipment Technical Advisory 

Committee will meet on November 15, 

2007, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 

Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th 

Street between Constitution & 

Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Export Administration with 

respect to technical questions that affect 

the level of export controls applicable to 

transportation and related equipment or 

technology. 

Public Session 

1. Welcome and Introduction. 

2. Working Group Reports: 

—Composite Working Group. 

—Engine Hot Section—Combustors and 

Turbines. 

—Helicopter Power Transfer Systems. 

—Jurisdiction—17C—Interpretation 9. 

—Flight Controls and Heads Up 

Displays. 

—Inertial. 

—Marine. 

3. Comments from the Public. 

Closed Session 

4. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

November 8, 2007. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available during the public session of 

the meeting. Reservations are not 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES