Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 59599 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR Parts 730– 

774 (2008). The Regulations issued pursuant to the 

EAA, which is currently codified at 50 U.S.C. app. 

§ 2401–2420 (2000). Since August 21, 2001, the 

EAA has been in lapse and the President, through 

Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 

2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended 

by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent 

being that of July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43603, July 25, 

2008), has continued the Regulations in effect under 

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)). 

fine and a $100.00 special assessment 

fee. 

Section 766.25 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent 

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

Exporter Services, in consultation with 

the Director of the Office of Export 

Enforcement, may deny the export 

privileges of any person who has been 

convicted of a violation of the [Export 

Administration Act (‘‘EAA’’)], the EAR, 

of any order, license or authorization 

issued thereunder; any regulation, 

license, or order issued under the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 170 1–1706); 18 

U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of 

the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 

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

Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).’’ 15 

CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of 

the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The 

denial of export privileges under this 

provision may be for a period of up to 

10 years from the date of the conviction. 

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

app. § 24 10(h). In addition, Section 

750.8 of the Regulations states that the 

Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office 

of Exporter Services may revoke any 

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

licenses previously issued in which the 

person had an interest in at the time of 

his conviction. 

I have received notice of Cheng’s 

conviction for violating the AECA, and 

have provided notice and an 

opportunity for Cheng to make a written 

submission to BIS, as provided in 

Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have 

received a submission from Cheng. 

Based upon my review and 

consideration of that submission, my 

consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, including its 

Director, and the facts available to BIS, 

I have decided to deny Cheng’s export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of eight years from the date of 

Cheng’s conviction. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

I. Until December 3, 2015, Philip 

Cheng, currently incarcerated at 

Registration Number 10105–111, FCI 

Terminal Island, Federal Correctional 

Institution, P.O. Box 3007, San Pedro, 

CA 90731, and with an address at: 7654 

Peach Blossom Drive, Cupertino, CA 

95014, and when acting for or on behalf 

of Cheng, his representatives, assigns, 

agents, or employees, (collectively 

referred to hereinafter as the ‘‘Denied 

Person’’) may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Regulations, or in any other activity 

subject to the Regulations, including, 

but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the Regulations, or in any 

other activity subject to the Regulations; 

or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

II. No person may, directly or 

indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

III. After notice and opportunity for 

comment as provided in Section 766.23 

of the Regulations, any other person, 

firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to Philip Cheng 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 if necessary to prevent evasion of 

the Order. 

IV. 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. 

V. This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect until 

December 3, 2015. 

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the 

Regulations, Cheng may file an appeal 

of this Order with the Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Industry and Security. 

The appeal must be filed within 45 days 

from the date of this Order and must 

comply with the provisions of Part 756 

of the Regulations. 

VII. A copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to Cheng. This Order shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

Bernard Kritzer, 

Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. E8–23795 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Galaxy Aviation Trade Co. Ltd., et al.; 

Final Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: 

Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd., 15 

Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley 

Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ. 

Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, 

Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, 

UK, NW2 2PJ. 

Hamid Shaken Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi 

Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special 

Road, Tehran, Iran. 

Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Makran Cross, 

Heravi Square, Moghan Aye, Pasdaran 

Cross, Tehran, Iran. 

Appellants; Final Decision and Order. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
59600 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 

1The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended. 50 U.S.C. 

app. § 24012420 (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)), as extended by the Notice 

of July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43,603 (July 25, 2008)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)). 

1The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended. 50 U.S.C. 

app. 24012420 (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)), as extended by the Notice 

of July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43,603 (July 25, 2008)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)). 

2The modified Order was served on the 110 

respondents and was also published in the Federal 

Register on July 22, 2008 (73 FR 42544). 

Respondents Ankair and Iran Air have not appealed 

the 110 and are not parties to this appeal 

proceeding. 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of 

the Administrative Law Judge (‘‘AU’’) 

issued on September 16, 2008. 

On August 27, 2008, the Appellants, 

Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd, 

Hooshang Seddigh, Hamid Shakeri 

Hendi and Hossein Jahan Peyma 

(‘‘Galaxy’’), filed with the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center an appeal of a 

temporary denial order (‘‘TDO’’) issued 

by the Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement on June 6, 2008, pursuant 

to section 766.24 of the Export 

Administration Regulations 

(‘‘Regulations’’).1 The relevant facts are 

as follows. The Bureau of Industry and 

Security’s (BIS) Office of Export 

Enforcement had obtained information 

that a Boeing 747 aircraft was about to 

be re-exported to Iran without the 

proper U.S. Government authorization. 

Based on the information before him, 

the Assistant Secretary issued an 

exparte Order on June 6, 2008, 

temporarily denying for 180 days the 

export privileges of Galaxy, as well as 

Iran Air (of Tehran, Iran), and Ankair (of 

Istanbul, Turkey), in accordance with 

Section 766.24 of the Regulations. The 

Order was published in the Federal 

Register on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34249). 

On July 10, 2008, the Assistant 

Secretary issued a modified Order that 

expanded the scope of the denial as to 

Ankair, but did not modify the TDO as 

to Galaxy or Iran Air. The modified 

Order was likewise published in the 

Federal Register on July 22, 2008 (73 FR 

42544). 

On August 27, 2008, the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center received a one-page 

letter from Galaxy appealing the TDO 

and requesting that it be withdrawn as 

to Galaxy. Galaxy filed no other 

materials or information to substantiate 

its request (section 766.24(e)(2)–(3) of 

the Regulations). The appeal did not 

indicate that it had been served on the 

BIS as required by section 766.24(e)(3) 

of the Regulations. After the Docketing 

Center confirmed that the appeal had 

not been served, a copy was sent to BIS 

by facsimile on September 2, 2008. On 

September 11, 2008, BIS filed a written 

response seeking a continuation of the 

TDO, along with multiple exhibits 

supporting its request. Ankair and Iran 

Air have not appealed the TDO. 

On September 16, 2008, following a 

review of the entire record before him, 

the ALJ found in his Recommended 

Decision and Order that ‘‘BIS has met 

the standard contained in Section 

766.24 of the Regulations and has 

introduced evidence that the potential 

violations under investigation are 

significant, deliberate and covert, and 

not merely technical or negligent.’’ He 

further found that it is ‘‘reasonable to 

believe that the temporary denial order 

is required in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation’’ of the 

export control laws and regulations. The 

AU recommended that the TDO issued 

on June 6, 2008, and modified on July 

10, 2008, be affirmed and Galaxy’s 

appeal be denied. 

Based on my review of the entire 

record, I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law made by the AU in 

his Recommended Decision and Order. 

Accordingly, it is ordered, 

First, the Temporary Denial Order 

issued by the Assistant Secretary for 

Export Enforcement on June 6, 2008, 

and modified on July 10, 2008, is 

affirmed, and this appeal is denied. 

Second, the Appellants are advised 

that they may appeal to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia in accordance with Section 

766.24(g) of the Regulations and 50 

U.S.C. app. 2412(d)(3). 

Third, this Final Decision and Order 

shall be served on Appellants and on 

BIS and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. In addition, the AU’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for Section IV relating to the 

Recommended Order, shall also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This order, which constitutes the final 

agency action with regard to this appeal, 

is effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Mario Mancuso, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

In the Matter of: 

Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd., 15 

Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley 

Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ. 

Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, 

Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, 

UK, NW2 2PJ. 

Hamid Shaken Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi 

Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special 

Road, Tehran, Iran, 

Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Makran Cross, 

Heravi Square, Moghan Aye, Pasdaran 

Cross, Tehran, Iran. 

Respondents/Appellants; AJL Recommended 

Decision and Order. 

I. Preliminary Statement 

This Recommended Decision and 

Order is made in regard to a recent 

Temporary Denial Order (‘‘TDO’’) 

wherein the Assistant Secretary of 

Export Enforcement (‘‘Assistant 

Secretary’’) of the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, United States Department 

of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’) denied export 

privileges to Respondents Galaxy 

Aviation Trade Company Ltd., 

Hooshang Seddigh, Hamid Shaken 

Hendi and Hossein Jahan Peyma 

(collectively, ‘‘Galaxy’’ or the ‘‘Galaxy 

Respondents’’). Specifically, the 

Assistant Secretary issued the TDO on 

June 6, 2008 pursuant to Section 766.24 

of the Export Administration 

Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or the 

‘‘Regulations’’),1 and modified said TDO 

as to Respondent Ankair on July 10, 

2008. The case involves allegations that 

Respondents were likely to effectuate a 

re-export of a Boeing 747 to Iran. 

In June 2008, BIS’s Office of Export 

Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) presented 

evidence to the Assistant Secretary 

seeking a TDO in accordance with 

Section 766.24 of the Regulations, in 

order to prevent the imminent re-export, 

in violation of Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations, of a Boeing 747 (or any 

other U.S.-origin aircraft) to Iran 

without U.S. Government authorization. 

Based on the evidence presented by 

OEE, the Assistant Secretary issued an 

exparte Order on June 6, 2008, 

temporarily denying for 180 days the 

export privileges of the Galaxy 

Respondents, as well as of Iran Air (of 

Tehran, Iran), and Ankair (of Istanbul, 

Turkey). The Order was published in 

the Federal Register on June 17, 2008 

(73 FR 34249). On July 10, 2008, the 

Assistant Secretary issued a modified 

Order that expanded the scope of the 

denial as to Respondent Ankair, but did 

not modify the TDO as to the Galaxy 

Respondents or Respondent Iran Air.2

The modified Order was published in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 59601 

3 15 CFR 766.24(b)(l). 

4 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). 

5 Id. 

the Federal Register on July 22, 2008 

(73 FR 42544). 

On August 27, 2008, the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center (‘‘ALJ Docketing 

Center’’) received a one-page letter from 

Galaxy Respondents appealing the TDO 

and requesting that the TDO be 

withdrawn as to the Galaxy 

Respondents. This letter did not include 

a certificate of service or other 

indication that the Galaxy Respondents 

had served it on BIS as required by 

section 766.24(e)(3) of the Regulations. 

On September 2, 2008, the AU 

Docketing Center contacted the Office of 

Chief Counsel for Industry and Security 

at the Department of Commerce, which 

represents BIS in administrative matters 

pending before the ALJs. After the 

Office of Chief Counsel confirmed that 

it had not been thus served with the 

appeal, the ALl Docketing Center 

forwarded a copy thereof on September 

2, 2008. Exhibit 12. On September 11, 

2008, BIS filed a written response with 

sixteen (16) exhibits to Galaxy’s appeal 

seeking a continuation of the TDO. On 

September 15, 2008, BIS filed a 

proposed Recommended Decision and 

Order. ALl Exhibit 1. This 

Recommended Decision and Order will 

not address the TDO or modified TDO 

with respect to Ankair and Iran Air as 

neither has appealed. 

II. Recommended Findings of Fact 

Based upon the record before me, I 

make the following findings of fact: 

1. The TDO was issued by the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement on June 6, 2008. It 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34249). A 

modified Order expanding the scope of 

the denial as to Respondent Ankair was 

issued on July 10, 2008, and was also 

served and published in the Federal 

Register on July 22, 2008 (73 FR 42544). 

Exhibits 1 and 2. 

2. Respondents Galaxy Aviation Trade 

Company Ltd., Hooshang Seddigh, 

Hamid Shaken Hendi and Hossein Jahan 

Peyma filed with the AU Docketing 

Center a one-page letter appealing the 

TDO and denying any involvement in 

the purchase of a Boeing 747 from 

Ankair. Exhibit 12. 

3. On June 6, 2008, prior to the 

issuance of the TDO, Yavuz Cizmeci, 

the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of 

ACT Airlines and Chief Executive 

Officer of Respondent Ankair, reported 

to a BIS special agent that Ankair owned 

a Boeing 747, tail number CALK, 

manufacturer serial number 24134, and 

that that aircraft was going to be sold to 

Galaxy Aviation of the United Kingdom. 

Exhibit 7. 

4. Galaxy Aviation Trade Company 

Ltd. corporate records listed Hooshang 

Seddigh, Hamid Shaken Hendi, and 

Hossein Jahan Peyma as its shareholders 

on June 6, 2008, which was the date the 

TDO was imposed. Exhibit 9. 

5. Hamid Shaken Hendi has an 

address in the same building as Iran 

Air’s Headquarters in Tehran, Iran. 

Hossein Jahan Peyma also has an 

address in Tehran, Iran. Exhibits 8 and 

9. 

6. Galaxy Aviation Trade Company 

Ltd. corporate records listed Sam David 

Mahjoobi of the U.K. as a corporate 

officer of Galaxy on June 6, 2008, which 

was the date the TDO was imposed. 

Exhibit 9. 

7. BIS is in possession of a document 

titled ‘‘Aircraft Sale and Purchase 

Agreement’’ involving the sale of the 

Boeing 747, tail number TC–AKZ, 

manufacturer serial number 24134. 

Ankair is listed as the Seller and Sam 

David Mahjoobi is listed as the Buyer. 

Paragraph 1.1 of the agreement states 

‘‘Delivery or Delivery Date means the 

dates beginning 20 June 2008 and 

ending 27 June 2008 on which the 

Aircraft, Engines, and Documents are 

delivered to Buyer in Istanbul and the 

Bill of Sale for the Aircraft is executed 

and submitted to the Buyer by Seller.’’ 

The document is signed and initialled 

on each page by the respective parties 

to the transaction. Exhibit 15. 

8. Photographs dated June 27,2008, 

from the Web site iraviation.com show 

the Boeing 747, tail number TC–AKZ in 

Tehran, Iran on that date. Exhibit 11. 

9. The Aero Transport Data Bank 

shows the operational history of a 

Boeing 747, Manufacturer’s serial 

number 24134 as now being operated by 

Iran Air on June 27, 2008 and lists a 

new Iranian tail number TC–AKZ. 

Exhibit 10. 

10. The Boeing 747 aircraft at issue is 

of U.S.-origin and is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations. It is 

classified under Export Control 

Classification Number 9A991.b on the 

Commerce Control List and is controlled 

for anti-terrorism reasons, and at the 

time of the alleged violations required 

U.S. Government authorization for 

export or re-export to Iran. Exhibit 4; 15 

CFR part 774, Supp. 1; 15 CFR 746.7. 

11. A United States Department of 

Treasury records search revealed that 

Galaxy Respondents did not obtain U.S. 

Government authorization for the reexport to Iran of this U.S.-origin aircraft. 

Exhibit 5. 

12. A record from the Republic of 

Turkey Ministry of Transport shows that 

this Boeing 747 aircraft was deregistered 

in Turkey effective June 27, 2008. 

Exhibit 13. 

13. BIS Assistant Director of the 

Office of Export Enforcement declared 

that Respondents informed Turkish civil 

aviation authorities on or about June 27, 

2008 that the aircraft’s registration was 

being switched to Pakistan. See Exhibit 

13; Exhibit 14, at ¶ 4. 

14. BIS Assistant Director of the 

Office of Export Enforcement declared 

that Pakistan Civil Aviation Authorities 

have informed the U.S. Government that 

this Boeing 747 aircraft was never 

registered (or de-registered) in Pakistan. 

Exhibit 14, at ¶ 5. 

III. Discussion 

A. Standard for BIS’s Issuance of 

Temporary Denial Order 

The Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement (‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) 

may issue a TDO on an ex parte basis 

‘‘upon a showing by BIS that the order 

is necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAA, the EAR, or any order, license or 

authorization issued thereunder.’’ 3

With regard to whether a violation 

may be ‘‘imminent,’’ the Regulations 

provide that: 

A violation may be ‘‘imminent’’ either 

in time or in degree of likelihood. To 

establish grounds for the temporary 

denial order, BIS may show either that 

a violation is about to occur, or that the 

general circumstances of the matter 

under investigation or case under 

criminal or administrative charges 

demonstrate a likelihood of future 

violations. To indicate the likelihood of 

future violations, BIS may show that the 

violation under investigation or charges 

is significant, deliberate, covert and/or 

likely to occur again, rather than 

technical or negligent, and that it is 

appropriate to give notice to companies 

in the United States and abroad to cease 

dealing with the person in U.S.-origin 

items in order to reduce the likelihood 

that a person under investigation or 

charges continues to export or acquire 

abroad such items, risking subsequent 

disposition contrary to export control 

requirements. Lack of information 

establishing the precise time a violation 

may occur does not preclude a finding 

that a violation is imminent, so long as 

there is sufficient reason to believe the 

likelihood of a violation.4

BIS may therefore show that a 

violation is about to occur or that the 

facts and circumstances of the matter 

under investigation demonstrate a 

reasonable belief in the likelihood of a 

future violation or violations.5

Consequently, a TDO may be issued and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
59602 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 

6 15 CFR 766.24 (e)(1)(i). 

7 15 CFR 766.24 (e)(1)(ii). 

8The word ‘‘working’’ was inserted because 

intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 

holidays are excluded from the computation of time 

when the period of time prescribed or allowed is 

seven days or less. 15 CFR 766.5(e). 

9 15 CFR 766.24(e)(4); 50 U.S.C. app. 2412(d)(2). 

10See Executive Orders 12957 (March 16, 1995), 

12959 (May 6, 1995), and 13059 (August 19, 1997). 

11References in BIS’s opposition brief to the 

‘‘Aero Transport Database’’ should instead read 

‘‘Aero Transport Data Bank.’’ 

maintained in force, when, as in this 

case, matter is still under investigation 

by BIS. 

B. Appeal Procedure for Temporary 

Denial Order 

Once a TDO has been issued or 

renewed, any respondent may appeal 

the issuance or renewal of the TDO at 

any time to an administrative law judge 

(‘‘AU’’).6 The filing of the appeal shall 

stay neither the effectiveness of the TDO 

nor any application for renewal.7

Section 766.24(e)(3) states that a ‘‘full 

written statement in support of the 

appeal must be filed in support of the 

appeal together with appropriate 

evidence, and be simultaneously served 

on BIS, which shall have seven 

[working] days from receipt to file a 

reply.’’ 8 Section 766.24(e)(4) provides, 

in turn, that within 10 working days 

after the appeal is filed, the AU is to 

submit a Recommended Decision to the 

Under Secretary for Industry and 

Security (‘‘Under Secretary’’) addressing 

whether the issuance of the TDO should 

be affirmed, modified, or vacated.9

As discussed above, an appellant 

must simultaneously serve a copy of any 

appeal on BIS and the AU docketing 

center and thus, no appeal is perfected 

unless or until BIS is served with a copy 

thereof. That is to say that no timeline 

can begin to run until BIS has been 

served with the appeal. In the instant 

case, Galaxy served the AL Docketing 

Center with its appeal on August 27, 

2008, but there was no evidence it ever 

served a copy thereof on BIS. On 

September 2, 2008, the AU Docketing 

Center served a copy of Galaxy’s appeal 

on BIS after confirming that BIS in fact 

had not yet been served. Exhibit 12. 

For the purpose of this case, the 

appeal will be treated as being perfected 

on September 2, 2008 when BIS was 

served a copy thereof. Therefore, BIS’s 

reply brief filed on September 11, 2008 

was filed within seven (7) working days 

of the appeal and was thus timely. 

C. Temporary Denial Order Necessary in 

the Public Interest To Prevent Imminent 

Violation 

After careful consideration of the 

entire record. I find that the TDO was 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAA, the EAR, or an order, license, or 

authorization thereunder. There was 

and is sufficient reason to believe in the 

likelihood of a violation and the 

Assistant Secretary’s TDO should be 

affirmed. 

1. BIS’s Showing 

In June 2008, as part of an on-going 

investigation, BIS obtained evidence 

that Iran Air, an Iranian government 

owned airline, was seeking to acquire 

aircraft, including a Boeing 747 cargo 

plane from Turkey, through a third 

party in the United Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’). 

Exhibit 7, at ¶ 6. Iran, a state-sponsor of 

terrorism, is the subject of a broad U.S. 

trade embargo.10 On June 6, 2008, prior 

to the issuance of the TDO, BIS special 

agents interviewed HBK Investments 

(‘‘HBK’’), which in turn contacted ACT 

Airlines (‘‘ACT’’) of Istanbul, Turkey 

concerning ACT’s potential sale of a 

Boeing 747 to Iran. Exhibit 7, at ¶ 6. 

HBK owns 17.5% of ACT. Exhibit 7, at 

¶ 5. ACT’s Chairman and/or Chief 

Executive Officer (‘‘CEO’’) Yavuz 

Cizmeci—who also is CEO of 

Respondent Ankair—denied that ACT 

owned the plane and stated that it 

actually was owned by Ankair and that 

Ankair was going to sell the aircraft to 

Galaxy Aviation of the U.K. Exhibit 7, 

at ¶ 1 The Regulations issued pursuant 

to the Export Administration Act of 

1979, as amended. 50 U.S.C. app. 

24012420 (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)), as extended by the 

Notice of July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43,603 

(July 25, 2008)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C.1701—1706 

(2000)). 4–6; Exhibit 14, at ¶ 3. Notably 

also, BIS did not raise the name Galaxy 

Aviation with HBK during the initial 

discussion; rather, HBK first raised 

Galaxy Aviation’s name with BIS based 

on the information provided by Ankair 

and ACT. Exhibit 7, at ¶ 6. 

Further examination of Galaxy’s 

corporate records revealed to BIS that 

Respondent Hamid Shaken Hendi, one 

of Galaxy’s three listed shareholders, 

has an address in the same building as 

Respondent Iran Air’s headquarters in 

Tehran, Iran. Exhibit 8 & 9. Moreover, 

another of Galaxy’s principal 

shareholders, Respondent Hossein Jahan 

Peyma, also has a Tehran, Iran address. 

See Exhibits 8 and 9. 

BIS’s investigation has developed 

additional evidence indicating that the 

transaction which the TDO was 

originally issued to prevent between 

Ankair and Galaxy has actually 

occurred. Specifically, BIS has 

presented evidence that the Boeing 747 

in question was reexported to Iran after 

issuance, service, and publication of the 

TDO in question in this case. BIS has 

obtained a copy of contractual 

documents indicating that Ankair was 

to deliver the 747 between June 20 and 

June 27, 2008. Exhibit 15. 

Moreover, the Aero Transport Data 

Bank,11 a worldwide fleet list of all 

airlines operating transport aircraft, 

indicates that the Boeing 747 referenced 

in the TDO left Turkey and has not only 

been re-exported to Iran, but also has 

been issued a new Iranian tail number. 

Exhibit 10; Exhibit 14, at ¶ 6. BIS has 

submitted evidence that this occurred 

subsequent to the issuance and 

publication of the TDO at issue in this 

case. Id. In addition, consistent with the 

delivery period set forth in the contract, 

a plane-spotter photo was posted to the 

aviation Web site iraviation.com that 

shows the aircraft on the ground in 

Tehran, Iran on June 27, 2008, at 

precisely the end of delivery period set 

forth in the contract. Exhibit 11. There 

is further evidence that this same day, 

June 27, 2008, the Turkish Ministry of 

Transport sent a letter to its 

counterparts at the Pakistan General 

Civil Aviation Authority, informing 

them that the aircraft was de-registered 

in Turkey effective that date. Exhibit 13; 

Exhibit 14, at ¶ 4. This letter was 

apparently sent to the Pakistan for or 

received by Iran Air or Ankair or 

Ankair’s parent, Dunyaya Bakis Hava 

Tasimaciligi A.S., also known as (‘‘a/k/ 

a’’) Dunyaya Bakis Air Transportation, 

Inc. (‘‘DBHT’’). Exhibit 5. A similar U.S. 

Department of Treasury records search 

reveals that no such license was 

obtained with respect to these 

individuals. Exhibit 5. 

Nevertheless and as discussed above, 

the unauthorized re-export of a Boeing 

747 to Iran will likely occur or occur 

again in violation of the requirements of 

Section 746.7 of the Regulations. It is 

clear that this would constitute a 

significant violation of the Regulations 

something more than a technical or 

negligent infraction. Furthermore, there 

is sufficient reason to believe that 

Respondents took deliberate actions 

here which further support the 

possibility of imminent future 

violations. This, together with BIS’s 

specific concern that two additional 

U.S.-origin aircraft under the control of 

Ankair will be or have recently been reexported to Iran, and with Respondent’s 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Notices 59603 

14See 15 CFR 766.24(e) (indicating that within 

five working days after receipt of a recommended 

decision concerning a TDO appeal, the Under 

Secretary is to issue a written order affirming, 

modifying, or vacating the recommended decision. 

lack of appropriate evidence to support 

its written appeal further substantiates 

the public need to affirm the Assistant 

Secretary’s TDO. Exhibit 16. 

IV. Conclusion 

I hereby find that BIS has met the 

standard required by section 766.24 of 

the Regulations and has introduced 

evidence that the potential violations 

under investigation are significant, 

deliberate and covert, and not merely 

technical or negligent, It was and is 

reasonable to believe that the temporary 

denial order is required in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the Act, the Regulations, or 

any order, license or other authorization 

issued under the Act. 

Therefore, I recommend that TDO 

issued by the Assistant Secretary on 

June 6, 2008, and modified on July 10, 

2008 be affirmed and Respondents’ 

corresponding appeal be denied. 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security for review and 

final action for the agency, without 

further notice to the respondent, as 

provided in section 766.24 of the 

Regulations.14

[REDACTED SECTION] 

Done and Dated, September 16, 2008, New 

York, NY. 

The Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski, 

Administrative Law Judge. 

ATTACHMENT A, Exhibit Lists 

A. BIS Exhibits 1–16: 

1. June 6, 2008 Order Temporarily Denying 

Export Privileges. 

2. July 10, 2008 Order Modifying 

Temporary Denial of Export Privileges. 

3. June 25, 2008 Article Entitled ‘‘Iran Air 

Drops Plans to Buy Russian Aircraft Over 

Cost Fears.’’ 

4. September 10,2008 Letter to Mr. Thomas 

Madigan, Director Office of Export 

Enforcement. 

5. August 5th and August 25th Letters 

Regarding U.S. Department of Treasury 

Records Search. 

6. August 7, 2008 Letter to Mr. Hamit 

Kahveci, World Focus Airlines. 

7. September 10, 2008 Declaration of Tracy 

E. Martin. 

8. Excerpt of IranAir Web site. 

9. Current Appointments Report for: 

GALAXY AVIATION TRADE COMPANY 

LTD. 

10. Airframe History of B.747 msn 24134. 

11. Photographs of airplane. 

12. July 25, 2008 Letter to Office of the 

Administrative Law Judge from Galaxy 

Aviation Trade Company Ltd. 

13. June 27, 2008 Letter to Director of 

General Civil Aviation Authority Pakistan 

from the Republic of Turkey Ministry of 

Transport. 

14. September 11, 2008 Declaration of John 

Sonderman. 

15. May 20,2008 Aircraft Sale and 

Purchase Agreement. 

16. Aero Transport Data Bank (world wide 

fleet list) publicly available at http:// 

www.aerotransport.org/. 

B. Respondents did not file any exhibits. 

C. ALJ Exhibit 1: 

1. BIS’s Recommended Decision and Order 

Received September 16, 2008. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served the 

foregoing RECOMMENDED DECISION AND 

ORDER as indicated below to the following 

person(s): 

Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room H–3892, 

14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, Fax: 202–482– 

2387. (By Facsimile and Federal Express.) 

Gregory Michelsen, Attorney-Advisor, 

Attorney for Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Office of Chief Counsel for 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room H–3839, 14th Street & 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230, Fax: 202–482–0085. (By 

Facsimile and Federal Express.) 

Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd. and 

Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, 

Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, 

UK NW2 2PJ. (By First Class Mail, Postage 

Prepaid.) 

Hamid Shakeri Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi 

Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special 

Road, Tehran, Iran. (By First Class Mail, 

Postage Prepaid.) 

Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Makran Cross, 

Heravi Square, Moghan Ave., Pasdaran 

Cross, Tehran, Iran. (By First Class Mail, 

Postage Prepaid.) 

ALJ Docketing Center, Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, 40 S. Gay Street, Room 412, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21202–4022, Fax: 

(410) 962–1746. (By Facsimile and Federal 

Express.) 

Done and dated this 16th day of September, 

2008 at New York, New York. 

Regina V. Maye, 

Paralegal Specialist to the Hon. Walter J. 

Brudzinskj, Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. E8–23726 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–351–840) 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil; 

Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3874. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 25, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published a 

notice of initiation of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain orange juice fromBrazil. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 22337 (April 25, 2008). The 

period of review is March 1, 2007, 

through February 29, 2008, and the 

preliminary results are currently due no 

later than December 1, 2008. The review 

covers two producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping order within 245 days after 

the last day of the anniversary month of 

the date of publication of the order. 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further 

provides, however, that the Department 

may extend the 245–day period to 365 

days if it determines it is not practicable 

to complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. We determine 

that it is not practicable to complete this 

administrative review within the time 

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act because of certain technical 

issues contained in supplemental 

questionnaire responses. Analysis of 

these issues requires additional time. 

Therefore, we have fully extended the 

deadline for completing the preliminary 

results until March 31, 2009. The 

deadline for the final results of the 

review continues to be 120 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. 

This extension notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 3, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–24022 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES