Base
Notice07-55902007-11-08

In the Matters of: S.P. Equipamentos de Protecao ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhauma, 386-Saude 04146-030 Sao Paulo, Brazil, Respondent; Decision and Order on Petition to Set Aside Default Order

Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau

Document Excerpt

Document Headings Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to the agency docket number / agency internal file number the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket Nos. 04-BIS-15] On February 26, 2007, the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for ( printed page 63164) Industry and Security issued a Final Decision and Order, pursuant to his authority under Section 766.22 of the Export Administration Regulations (hereinafter “Regulations”), in which he affirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law as recommended by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Respondent was in default on an administrative proceedings initiated against it under the Regulations. Respondent has petitioned me to set aside the default order using my authority under Section 366.7(b) of the Regulations. For the reasons stated below, I grant the Petition. The relevant facts in this matter are as follows. In a charging letter filed on September 13, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) alleged that Respondent committed two violations of the Regulations, [ 1 ] issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app 2401-2420 (2000)). [ 2 ] On September 13, 2004, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the charging letter by registered to the Respondent at its last known address. The file indicates that the notice of issuance of a charging letter was received by the Respondent on or about September 24, 2004, and counsel, who no longer represents the Respondent, filed a Notice of Appearance on February 7, 2005. Respondent, or its former counsel, did no

Read full document on FederalRegister.gov →

Full Document

Citation: 72 FR 63163