97-21453. Decision and Order  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 43503-43504]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-21453]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    Bureau of Export Administration
    
    
    Decision and Order
    
        In the Matter of: Ian Ace, with addresses at 4 Mimosa Way, 
    Pinelands, South Africa, A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 3721, 13 
    Loop Street, Cape Town, South Africa, and A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., 
    P.O. Box 44198, 65 7th Street, Denmyr Building, 2104 Linden, South 
    Africa, Respondent.
    
    Decision and Order
    
        On November 27, 1995, the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of 
    Export Administration, United States Department of Commerce 
    (hereinafter ``BXA''), issued a charging letter initiating an 
    administrative proceeding against Ian Ace. The charging letter alleged 
    that Ian Ace committed seven violations of the Export Administration 
    Regulations (currently codified at 15 C.F.R. parts 730-774 (1997)) 
    (hereinafter the ``Regulations''),\1\ issued pursuant to the Export 
    Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401-
    2420) (hereinafter the ``Act'').\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ The violations at issue occurred between mid-1990 and early 
    1992. The Regulations governing those violations are found in the 
    1990, 1991, and 1992 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 
    C.F.R. parts 768-799 (1990, 1991, and 1992)) and are referred to 
    hereinafter as the former Regulations. Since that time, the 
    Regulations have been reorganized and restructured; the restructured 
    Regulations, currently codified at 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774 (1997), 
    establish the procedures that apply to the matters set forth in this 
    Decision and Order.
        \2\ The Act expired on August 20, 1994. Executive Order 12924 (3 
    C.F.R. 1994 Comp. 917 (1995)), extended by Presidential Notices of 
    August 15, 1995 (3 C.F.R. 1995 Comp. 501 (1996)) and August 14, 1996 
    (3 C.F.R., 1996 Comp. 298 (1997)), continued the Regulations in 
    effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
    (currently codified at 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Specifically, the charging letter alleged that, between mid-1990 
    and early 1992, Ace, manager of A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., Cape Town, 
    South Africa, conspired with James L. Stephens, president and co-owner 
    of Weisser's Sporting Goods, National City, California, and Karl 
    Cording, co-owner and managing director of A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., 
    Windhoek, Namibia, to export and, on two separate occasions, actually 
    exported U.S.-origin shotguns, with barrel lengths of 18 inches and 
    over, to Namibia and South Africa, without applying for and obtaining 
    from the U.S. Department of Commerce the validated export licenses Ace 
    knew or had reason to know were required under the Act and Regulations. 
    In addition, BXA alleged that, in furtherance of the conspiracy, and in 
    connection with each of those exports, Ace made false or misleading 
    representations of material fact to a U.S. Government Agency in 
    connection with the preparation, submission, or use of export control 
    documents. BXA alleged that, in so doing, Ace committed one violation 
    of Section 787.3(b), two violations of Section 787.4(a), two violations 
    of Section 787.5(a), and two violations of Section 787.6 of the former 
    Regulations, for a total of seven violations of the former Regulations.
        BXA issued a charging letter to Ace at his residential address in 
    Pinelands, South Africa, and at his business address in Linden, South 
    Africa. BXA has presented evidence that Ace was served with notice of 
    issuance of the charging letter at his Linden, South Africa, business 
    address on December 9, 1995.\3\ Ace failed to answer the charging 
    letter. Thus, on June 26, 1997, pursuant to Section 766.7 of the 
    Regulations, BXA moved that the Administrative Law Judge find that 
    facts to be as alleged in the charging letter and render a Recommended 
    Decision and Order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ The copy of the charging letter addressed to Ace at his 
    residential address was returned to BXA during April 1996. (It had 
    been marked by South African postal authorities as ``Unclaimed''.) 
    On April 24, 1996, BXA sent a copy of the November 27, 1995 charging 
    letter to Ace at a second business address in Cape Town, South 
    Africa. Ace received this copy of the charging letter on June 13, 
    1996.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Following BXA's motion, on July 8, 1997, Chief Administrative Law 
    Judge Joseph A. Angel issued a Recommended Decision and Default Order 
    in which he found the facts to be as alleged in the charging letter. He 
    concluded that those facts constituted violations of the Act and 
    Regulations. The Administrative Law Judge also concurred with BXA's 
    recommendation that the appropriate penalty to be imposed for these 
    violations is a denial, for a period of 20 years, of all of Act's 
    export privileges. As provided by Section 766.22(a) of the Regulations, 
    the Administrative Law Judge referred the Recommended Decision and 
    Order to me for final action.
        Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings of 
    fact and conclusions of law in the Recommended Decision and Order of 
    the Administrative Law Judge. I believe that the Administrative Law 
    Judge's recommended denial of export privileges for 20 years is 
    appropriate. This case is aggravated by the fact that Ace violated 
    export controls that were designed to express U.S. abhorrence with 
    apartheid as then practiced in South Africa. These violations were 
    serious and undetermined important U.S. foreign policy interests. A 
    lengthy period of denial will help keep U.S.-origin items out of his 
    hands and make future violations less likely. Finally, this penalty is, 
    as the Administrative Law Judge explained, consistent with the 
    penalties received by the other participants in these violations.
        Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, First, that for a period of 
    20 years from the date of this Order, Ian Ace, with the following 
    addresses, 4 Mimosa Way, Pinelands, South Africa; A. Rosenthal (PTY) 
    Ltd., P.O. Box 3721, 13 Loop Street, Cape Town, South Africa; and A. 
    Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 44198, 65 7th Street, Denmyr Building, 
    2104 Linden, South Africa, may not, directly or indirectly, participate 
    in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or 
    technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported 
    or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the 
    Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, 
    including, but not limited to:
        A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License 
    Exception, or export control document;
        B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, 
    receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, 
    forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, 
    any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the 
    United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other 
    activity subject to the Regulations; or
        C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item 
    exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to 
    the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
    
    [[Page 43504]]
    
        Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the 
    following:
        A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the denied person any item 
    subject to the Regulations;
        B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
    acquisition by a denied person of the ownership, possession, or control 
    of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be 
    exported from the United States, including financing or other support 
    activities related to a transaction whereby a denied person acquires or 
    attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
        C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition 
    or attempted acquisition from 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 that is owned, possessed or controlled by a denied person, or 
    service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or 
    controlled by a denied person if such service involves the use of any 
    item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from 
    the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means 
    installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
        Third, that after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in 
    Sec. 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or 
    business organization related to the denied person by affiliation, 
    ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of 
    trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of 
    this Order.
        Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or 
    other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items 
    involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced 
    direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
        Fifth, that a copy of this Order shall be served on Ace and BXA, 
    and shall be published in the Federal Register.
        This Order, which constitutes final agency action in this matter, 
    is effective immediately.
    
        Dated: August 8, 1997.
    William A. Reinsch,
    Under Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 97-21453 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/14/1997
Department:
Export Administration Bureau
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-21453
Pages:
43503-43504 (2 pages)
PDF File:
97-21453.pdf