Quiero saber acerca de...

6380
mission agent for a firm, Gibson Hong, which, was the actual purchaser and which caused the goods to be shipped to Communist China.
They assert further that. Inasmuch as the goods had been exported from Germany after delivery there from the United States pursuant to a ZAK license issued by the Government of Germany, which, in turn, was part of COCOM, that such official permission rendered the shipment to China legal. Fur ther, they allege that, inasmuch as the desti nation control clause, with which they were familiar, always contained the words, unless otherwise authorized by the United States, the exportation by Peter Meyns pursuant to a special ZAK licence must have been otherwise authorized by the United States or by an agency representing the United States. Finally, they claim that Gilsonite has no strategic value and, at the time of shipment, was not included in the embargo list. . Such goods, they say, have been shipped from Macao to China from time to time under special permits granted by the Macao Government and with the probable approval of the U.S. Consulate-General.
They protest that, if such be the case, their participation in the Gilsonite transactions should not be singled out as an offense.
. The respondents, when they ar ranged the sales and shipments, did so with the express intention that these goods, known to them to be United States origin goods, be shipped directly to Communist China. The evidence shows also that Gibson Hong is an associate firm of the respondent Agenda Comercial Progresso. The evidence per suades me to believe, without the slightest doubt, that the respondents engaged with Peter Meyns & Co. in devious plans and schemes to further and accomplish ship ments to Communist China of goods ex ported from the United States, for the express purpose of evading and violating the United States prohibitions against the shipment of such goods to Communist China.
Considering the intimate knowledge which respondents had of United States ex port controls and the devices to which they resorted to evade those controls, I cannot believe that they were ever under the im pression that a ZAK license was equivalent to United States authorization for exporta tion to Communist China. Nor can I believe, either, that any reasonable person, with the experience and background which the re spondents had, could have the sincere im pression that a re-export under a special ZAK
license was the alternative authorization theoretically possible under the proviso in the conventional destination control clause.
If, in fact, the respondents saw, as they say they did, that United States commodities were re-exported or shipped from time to time from Macao to China under special per mits granted by the Macao Government, that would be no reason for them to conclude that such transshipments had been approved by the United States Government. Respond ents, however, are not so naive as to claim that such alleged transshipments had been approved by the United States Government, and so they say only that the alleged trans shipments were with the probable approval of the U.S. Consulate-General.
This was denied by the Consulate General.
For completeness, I mention three ad ditional points made in the answer. The first is that COCOM is an international body under the strict supervision and control of United States personnel. This utter non sense requires no comment from me. The second is that respondents are moré in terested in United-States trade than they are in China trade. That is why they submitted their answer, even though the submission thereof could Jeopardize their position in trading with China. Superficially, a state ment like this has some persuasive value
NOTICES
but, in the light of Government Exhibit 1, I would be inclined to conclude that the interest which respondents have in trade with the United States is stimulated by their desire to divert to Communist China the commodities so obtained. Finally, the respondents claim that their role in the pur chases and transshipments was merely that of agents. The law is and always has been that an agent, because he is agent, does not cease to be answerable for his acts.
Quoted by the United States Supreme Court, in Herd v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U.S.
297, 304, Apr. 20, 1959, from Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. Emergency Fleet Corp., 258 U.S.
549,567.
Respondents activities in matters concerned with and involving, trade with the Communist Chinese have been such as to require that they be denied export privi leges so long as export controls shall be in effect. That is my recommendation, and I
submit herewith for your consideration an order to that effect.

Having concluded th at the recom mended action is fair, just, and neces sary to achieve effective enforcement of the law: It is hereby ordered:
I. All outstanding validated export licenses in which the respondents, Agen cia Comercial Progresso ACP or Stanley Ho, appears or participates as purchaser, intermediate or ultimate consignee, or otherwise, are hereby re voked and shall be returned forthwith to the Bureau of Foreign Commerce for cancellation.
H. Henceforth, and so long as export controls shall be in effect, the said respondents, their officers, agents, ser vants, and employees, be, and théy hereby are denied all privileges of par ticipating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or capacity, in any exportation of any commodity or technical data from the United States to any foreign destination, including Canada, whether such exportation has heretofore or here after been completed. Without limita tion of the generality of the foregoing denial of export privileges, participa tion in an exportation is deemed to include and prohibit participation, di rectly or indirectly, in any manner or capacity, a as a party or as a representative of a party to any vali dated export license application, b in the obtaining or using of any validated or general export license or other export control document, c in the receiving, ordering, buying, selling, using, or dis posing in any foreign country of any commodities in whole or in part ex ported or to be exported from the United States, and d in storing, financing, forwarding, transporting, or other serv icing of such exports from the United States.
III. Such denial of export privileges shall extend not only to the respondents, but also to any person, firm, corpora tion, or business organization with which they now or hereafter may be related by affiliation, ownership, control, position of responsibility, or other connection in the conduct of trade in which may be in volved exports from the United States or services connected therewith.
IV. No person, firm, corporation, part nership, or other business organization, whether in the United States or else where, without prior disclosure to, and specific authorization from the Bureau of
Foreign Commerce, shall, on behalf of or in any association with either re spondent, directly or indirectly, in any manner or capacity, a apply for, obtain, or use any license, shippers export declaration, bill of lading, or other ex port control document relating to any such prohibited activity or b order, receive, buy, use, sell, dispose of, finance, transport, or forward any commodity heretofore or hereafter exported from the United States. Nor shall any person do any of the foregoing acts with re spect to any such commodity or exporta tion in which either respondent may have any interest of any kind or nature, direct or indirect.
Dated: August 4,1959.
J ohn C. B orton,
Director, Office of Export Supply.
F.R. Doc. 59-6519: Filed, Aug. 6, 1959;
8:49 a.m.

Federal Maritime Board FARRELL SHIPPING CO., INC., AND
T. A. PROVENCE AND CO.
Notice of Agreement Filed for Approval
Notice is hereby given that the follow ing described agreement has been filed with the Board for approval pursuant to section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916
39 Stat. 733, 46 U.S.C. 814:
Agreement No. 8394, between Farrell Shipping Co., Inc., New Orleans, La. and T. A. Provence and Company, Mobile, Ala., is a cooperative working arrange ment under which the parties will per form freight forwarding services for each other.
Interested parties may inspect this agreement and obtain copies, thereof at the Regulation Office, Federal Maritime -Board, Washington, D.C., and may sub mit, within 20 days after publication of this notice in the F ederal R egister, written statements with reference to the agreement, and their position as to ap proval, disapproval, or modification, to gether with request for hearing should such hearing be desired.
Dated: August 4, 1959.
By order of the Federal Maritime Board.
J ames L. P imper, Secretary.
F.R. Doc. 59-6509; Filed, Aug. 6, 1959;
8:47 a.m.

MISSISSIPPI SHIPPING CO. ET AL.
Notice of Agreements Filed for Approval
Notice is hereby given that the ing described agreements have been in with the Board for approval pursuant section 15 of the Shipping Act, 191
Stat. 733, 46 U.S.C. 814:
. t 1 Agreement No. 7644-3, betwe Mississippi Shipping Company, Inc., a Waterman Steamship Corporation