Vizocom ICT Export Violation - PRC Military Antenna Technology

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230 In the Matter of:

El Cajon, CA 92019 ORDER RELATING TO VIZOCOM ICT The Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce ("BIS"), has notified Vizocom ICT ("Vizocom"), of its intention to initiate an administrative proceeding against Vizocom pursuant to Section 766. l 8(a) of the Export Administration Regulations (the "Regulations") , through the issuance of a Proposed Charging Letter to 1 Vizocom that alleges that Vizocom committed one violation of the Regulations. 2 Specifically: 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) - Engaging in Prohibited Conduct by Charge 1 Exporting EAR-Controlled Technology to the PRC specifications for a U.S. manufacturer's Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF /UHF) antenna to the "Made in China" portal operated by a Chinese manufacturer located in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). The antenna is designed for military Regulations because they consist of information necessary for the production of the antenna 3 Export Control Classification Number ("ECCN") 3E61 l for the production of an antenna

The Regulations are issued under the authority of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Title XVII, 1 Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2208 ("ECRA" 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4852). The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (the "Code") at 15 C.F.R. Parts 2 730-774 (2025). The regulations governing the violations at issue, which occurred in 2019, are found in the 2019 versions of the Code (15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774 (2019)). The 2025 Regulations govern the procedures that apply to this matter Section 772.1 of the Regulations defines "technology" to mean "[i]nformation necessary for the 3 "development," "production," "use," operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing (or other terms specified in ECCNs on the CCL that control "technology") of an item."

Vizocom JCT Order of7

Pursuant to Sections 742.4 and 742.6 of the 4

5 export of the specifications.

using packaging and a specification sheet that falsely represented the identity of the

1. Vizocom bid on a U.S. Navy Request for Proposal ("RFP") for 450 VHF/UHF
   antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1. The RFP specifically required that the awardee must be an authorized distributor or reseller of antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1 and stated that there was no possible substitute. purchase of said antennas in the amount of$165,109.50 but did not complete the

2. On May 22, 2019, after Vizocom had received the award, a Vizocom employee
   contacted the Chinese manufacturer through its "Made-in-China" web portal, stating, "I am looking for 500 Ea .. Antenna as the attached specification please let me have your price Ex work and lead time." An employee of the Chinese manufacturer confirmed receipt of the specifications ("I checked your antenna specifications") and requested confirmation of some specification parameters.

3. Employees ofVizocom engaged in extensive correspondence with the Chinese
   eventually agreeing to a price of $6 per antenna for 500 antennas. In that external appearance of the requested antenna: "Sorry - one clarification - what is important is that the finish should be silver/nickel, even if the actual material is copper or brass but they should be silver plated and not black color- i .... e. it

should match what we have in the photo below." 6

4 on the U.S. Munitions list. See Section 738.2 of the Regulations.

Under Section 734.14(a)(I) of the Regulations, an "export" is defined as "an actual shipment or 5 transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of an item out of the United States, in

any manner." these activities. Indictment, United Two employees have been indicted on fraud charges for their role in 6 States Kumar and Beren, Case No. 8:22-cr-00121-TDC, (D. Md. April 6, 2022) ECF No. I. v.

Order of7

1. At Vizocom's request, the Chinese manufacturer mailed three antennas it
   produced based on the uploaded specifications to the residence ofVizocom's CEO, as samples. Vizocom subsequently arranged to purchase 500 of the Company 2 to test and package the antennas under its own name and send 450 of

2. Vizocom emailed the technical specification sheet for the antennas to the U.S.
   Navy, altered and modified to fraudulently represent that they were produced by U.S. Company 2. However, Vizocom failed to reveal that the antennas were actually manufactured by the Chinese company in question. Vizocom stated that the sheet was an "updated datasheet from the main manufacturer which we are providing the antennas from." The Navy point-of-contact asked for confirmation that U.S. Company 2 "would build them to the specification of the part number," and Vizocom confirmed, "Yes, [U.S. Company 2] has confirmed that and have already fully tested the antenna."

3. Vizocom provided 450 of the repackaged PRC-made antennas to the U.S. Navy.
   WHEREAS, BIS and Vizocom have entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766. l 8(a) of the Regulations, whereby they agreed to settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; WHEREAS, Vizocom admits committing the alleged conduct described in the Proposed Charging Letter; and WHEREAS, I have approved of the terms of such Settlement Agreement; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: FIRST, Vizocom shall be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $374,474. Vizocom shall pay the U.S. Department of Commerce, over the next five years, in twenty installments consisting of: $18,723.70 due not later than March 15, 2026, followed by quarterly installments of $18,723.70 due every three months thereafter, until the last installment is paid on December 15, 2030, as set forth below. If any of the installment payments is not fully and timely made, any remaining scheduled installment payments

Yizocom ICT Order of7

may become due and owing immediately. Payment shall be made in the manner specified in the attached instructions.[~] Payment Number Amount Date Due $18,723.70 3/15/2026 1 6/15/2026 $18,723.70 2 9/15/2026 $18,723.70 3 $18,723.70 12/15/2026 4 $18,723.70 3/15/2027 5 $18,723.70 6/15/2027 6 7 $18,723.70 9/15/2027 $18,723.70 12/15/2027 8 $18,723.70 3/15/2028 9 6/15/2028 $18,723.70 10 $18,723.70 9/15/2028 I 1 $18,723.70 12/15/2028 12 $18,723.70 3/15/2029 13 $18,723.70 6/15/2029 14 $18,723.70 9/15/2029 15 12/15/2029 $18,723.70 16 $18,723.70 3/15/2030 17 $18,723.70 6/15/2030 18 $18,723.70 9/15/2030 19 $18,723.70 12/15/2030 20 SECOND, that, pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3720E (2018)), the civil penalty owed under this Order accrues interest as more fully described in the attached Notice, and if payment is not made by the due date specified herein, Vizocom will be assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil penalty and interest, a penalty charge and an administrative charge, as more fully described in the attached Notice. THIRD, for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Order, Vizocom JCT, with a last known address of860 Jamacha Rd, Ste 104, El Cajon, CA 92019, shall be made subject to a five-year denial of its export privileges under the Regulations

Vizocom JCT Order of7

("denial"). As authorized by Section 766.18( c) of the Regulations, such denial shall be suspended during this five-year probationary period and shall thereafter be waived, provided that Vizocom has made full and timely payment in accordance with Paragraph 2.a, and has not committed another violation of ECRA, the Regulations, or any order, license or authorization issued under ECRA or the Regulations. If Vizocom does not make full and timely payment in accordance with Paragraph 2.a above, or commits another violation of ECRA, the Regulations, or any order, license or authorization issued under ECRA or the Regulations during the five-year suspension period under the Order, the suspension of the denial may be modified or revoked by BIS pursuant to Section

1. l 7(c) of the Regulations and a denial order (including a five-year denial period)
   activated against Vizocom. If the suspension of the denial is modified or revoked, the activation order may also revoke any BIS licenses in which Vizocom has an interest at the time of the activation order. FOURTH, should the suspension of the denial be modified or revoked pursuant to Section 766. l 7(c) of the Regulations, and a denial order (including a five-year denial period) be activated against Vizocom, for the duration of such denial order, Vizocom, and when acting for or on its behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, representatives, or agents (hereinafter collectively referred to as "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:

2. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export
   control document;

Order of7

1. 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 engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

2. 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 from any other activity subject to the Regulations. FIFTH, should the suspension of the denial be modified or revoked, and a denial order be activated against Vizocom, for the duration of the denial order, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

3. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item
   subject to the Regulations;

4. 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;

5. 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;

Vizocom JCT Order of7

1. 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

2. 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. SIXTH, 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 Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order. SEVENTH, the Proposed Charging Letter, the Settlement Agreement, and this Order shall be made available to the public. This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective immediately. ~

avid Peters Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement

"?} k 1f::J-,! ?r Issued this day of , 2026.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230 In the Matter of: El Cajon, CA 92019 Respondent SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between Vizocom ICT ("Vizocom"), and the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce ("BIS") (collectively, the "Parties"), pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the Export Administration Regulations (the "Regulations"). 1 WHEREAS, BIS has notified Vizocom of its intentions to initiate an administrative proceeding against Vizocom pursuant to the Regulations; 2 WHEREAS, BIS has issued a Proposed Charging Letter to Vizocom that alleges that Vizocom committed one violation of the Regulations, specifically:

Charge 1 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) - Engaging in Prohibited Conduct by Exporting EAR-Controlled Technology to the PRC

specifications for a U.S. manufacturer's Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) antenna to the "Made in China" portal operated by a Chinese manufacturer located in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). The antenna is designed for military

The Regulations are issued under the authority of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Title 1 XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2208 ("ECRA"). The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (the "Code") at 15 C.F.R. Parts 2 730-774 (2025). The regulations governing the violations at issue, which occurred in 2019, are found in the 2019 versions of the Code (15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774 (2019)). The 2025 Regulations govern the procedures that apply to this matter.

Page 2 of 9

Regulations because they consist of information necessary for the production of the antenna 3 Export Control Classification Number ("ECCN") 3E611 for the production of an antenna Pursuant to Sections 742.4 and 742.6 of the 4

export of the specifications.

using packaging and a specification sheet that falsely represented the identity of the

1. Vizocom bid on a U.S. Navy Request for Proposal ("RFP") for 450 VHF/UHF
   antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1. The RFP specifically required that the awardee must be an authorized distributor or reseller of antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1 and stated that there was no possible substitute. purchase of said antennas in the amount of $165,109.50 but did not complete the

2. On May 22, 2019, after Vizocom had received the award, a Vizocom employee
   contacted the Chinese manufacturer through its "Made-in-China" web portal, stating, "I am looking for 500 Ea.. Antenna as the attached specification please let me have your price Ex work and lead time." An employee of the Chinese manufacturer confirmed receipt of the specifications ("I checked your antenna specifications") and requested confirmation of some specification parameters.

3. Employees of Vizocom engaged in extensive correspondence with the Chinese
   eventually agreeing to a price of $6 per antenna for 500 antennas. In that external appearance of the requested antenna: "Sorry - one clarification - what is

Section 772.1 of the Regulations defines "technology" to mean "[i]nformation necessary for the 3 "development," "production," "use," operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing (or other terms specified in ECCNs on the CCL that control "technology") of an item."

on the U.S. Munitions list. See Section 738.2 of the Regulations. Under Section 734.14(a)(1) of the Regulations, an "export" is defined as "an actual shipment or 5 transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of an item out of the United States, in any manner."

Page 3 of 9

important is that the finish should be silver/nickel, even if the actual material is copper or brass but they should be silver plated and not black color - i….e. it should match what we have in the photo below." 6

1. At Vizocom's request, the Chinese manufacturer mailed three antennas it
   produced based on the uploaded specifications to the residence of Vizocom's CEO, as samples. Vizocom subsequently arranged to purchase 500 of the Company 2 to test and package the antennas under its own name and send 450 of

2. Vizocom emailed the technical specification sheet for the antennas to the U.S.
   Navy, altered and modified to fraudulently represent that they were produced by U.S. Company 2. However, Vizocom failed to reveal that the antennas were actually manufactured by the Chinese company in question. Vizocom stated that the sheet was an "updated datasheet from the main manufacturer which we are providing the antennas from." The Navy point-of-contact asked for confirmation that U.S. Company 2 "would build them to the specification of the part number," and Vizocom confirmed, "Yes, [U.S. Company 2] has confirmed that and have already fully tested the antenna."

3. Vizocom provided 450 of the repackaged PRC-made antennas to the U.S. Navy.
   WHEREAS, Vizocom has reviewed the Proposed Charging Letter and is aware of the allegations made against it and the administrative sanctions that could be imposed against it if the allegations are found to be true; WHEREAS, Vizocom has reviewed, with the assistance of counsel, the terms of this Agreement, the Order ("Order") that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement will issue if he approves this Agreement as the final resolution of this matter, and the Proposed Charging Letter, and understands the terms of all three documents; WHEREAS, Vizocom enters into this Agreement voluntarily and with full knowledge of its rights, after having consulted with counsel;

Two employees have been indicted on fraud charges for their role in these activities. Indictment, United 6

States v. Kumar and Beren, Case No. 8:22-cr-00121-TDC, (D. Md. April 6, 2022) ECF No. 1.

Page 4 of 9

WHEREAS, Vizocom states that no promises or representations have been made to it other than the agreements and considerations herein expressed; WHEREAS, Vizocom admits committing the alleged conduct described in the Proposed Charging Letter; and WHEREAS, Vizocom agrees to be bound by the Order, if issued; NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree, for purposes of this Agreement, as follows:

1. BIS has jurisdiction over Vizocom, under the Regulations, in connection
   with the matters alleged in the Proposed Charging Letter.

2. The following sanctions shall be imposed against Vizocom:

3. Vizocom shall be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $374,474.
   Vizocom shall pay the U.S. Department of Commerce, over the next five years, in twenty installments consisting of: $18,723.70 due not later than March 15, 2026, followed by quarterly installments of $18,723.70 due every three months thereafter, until the last installment is paid on December 15, 2030, as set forth below:

Payment Number Amount Date Due

1 $18,723.70 3/15/2026 2 $18,723.70 6/15/2026 3 $18,723.70 9/15/2026 4 $18,723.70 12/15/2026 5 $18,723.70 3/15/2027

Page 5 of 9

6 $18,723.70 6/15/2027 7 $18,723.70 9/15/2027 8 $18,723.70 12/15/2027 9 $18,723.70 3/15/2028 10 $18,723.70 6/15/2028 11 $18,723.70 9/15/2028 12 $18,723.70 12/15/2028 13 $18,723.70 3/15/2029 14 $18,723.70 6/15/2029 15 $18,723.70 9/15/2029 16 $18,723.70 12/15/2029 17 $18,723.70 3/15/2030 18 $18,723.70 6/15/2030 19 $18,723.70 9/15/2030 20 $18,723.70 12/15/2030 Payment shall be made in the manner specified in the attached instructions. If any of the installment payments is not fully and timely made, any remaining scheduled installment payments may become due and owing immediately.

1. For a period of five (5) years from the date of the Order, Vizocom shall be made subject to a suspended five-year denial of its export privileges under the Regulations ("denial"). As authorized by Section 766.18(c) of the Regulations, such denial shall be suspended during this five-year probationary period and shall thereafter be waived, provided that Vizocom has made full and timely payment in

Page 6 of 9

accordance with Paragraph 2.a, has not committed another violation of ECRA, the Regulations, or any order, license or authorization issued under ECRA or the Regulations. If Vizocom does not make full and timely payment in accordance with Paragraph 2.a above, commits another violation of ECRA, the Regulations, or any order, license or authorization issued under ECRA, the suspension of the denial may be modified or revoked by BIS pursuant to Section 766.17(c) of the Regulations and a denial order (including a five-year denial period) activated against Vizocom. If the suspension of the denial is modified or revoked, the activation order may also revoke any BIS licenses in which Vizocom has an interest at the time of the activation order. 7

1. Should the suspension of the denial be modified or revoked pursuant to
   Section 766.17(c) of the Regulations, and a denial order (including a five-year denial period) be activated against Vizocom, for the duration of such denial order, Vizocom , and when acting for or on its behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, representatives, or agents (hereinafter collectively referred to as "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:

2. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license,
   license exception, or export control document;

Such a revocation would include licenses existing at the time of the activation order. 7

Page 7 of 9

1. 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 engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

2. 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 from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

3. Subject to the approval of this Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof,
   Vizocom hereby waives all rights to further procedural steps in this matter including, without limitation, any right to: (a) an administrative hearing regarding the allegations in any charging letter; and (b) seek judicial review or otherwise contest the validity of this Agreement or the Order, if issued. Vizocom also waives and will not assert any Statute of Limitations defense, and the Statute of Limitations will be tolled, in connection with any violation of the Act or the Regulations arising out of the transactions identified in the Proposed Charging Letter or enforcement of this Agreement and the Order, if issued.

4. BIS agrees that upon successful compliance in full with the terms of this
   Agreement and the Order, if issued, BIS will not initiate any further administrative proceeding against Vizocom in connection with any violation of the Regulations arising out of the transaction specifically detailed in the Proposed Charging Letter.

Page 8 of 9

1. This Agreement is for settlement purposes only. Therefore, if this
   Agreement is not accepted and the Order is not issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the Regulations, no Party may use this Agreement in any administrative or judicial proceeding and the Parties shall not be bound by the terms contained in this Agreement in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding.

2. No agreement, understanding, representation or interpretation not
   contained in this Agreement may be used to vary or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement or the Order, if issued; nor shall this Agreement serve to bind, constrain, or otherwise limit any action by any other agency or department of the U.S. Government with respect to the facts and circumstances addressed herein.

3. This Agreement shall become binding on the Parties only if the Assistant
   Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement approves it by issuing the Order, which will have the same force and effect as a decision and order issued after a full administrative hearing on the record.

4. BIS will make the Proposed Charging Letter, this Agreement, and the

Order, if issued, available to the public.

STEVEN FISHER Digitally signed by STEVEN FISHER Date: 2026.02.17 10:00:33 -05'00'

February 11, 2026

PROPOSED CHARGING LETTER U.S. REGISTERED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

El Cajon, CA 92019 Attention: George Attar Dear Mr. Attar: The Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce ("BIS"), has reason to believe that Vizocom ICT ("Vizocom"), has committed the following violation of the Export Administration Regulations (the "Regulations"). 1 Charge 1 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) - Engaging in Prohibited Conduct by Exporting EAR-Controlled Technology to the PRC

specifications for a U.S. manufacturer's Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) antenna to the "Made in China" portal operated by a Chinese manufacturer located in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). The antenna is designed for military Regulations because they consist of information necessary for the production of the antenna 2 Export Control Classification Number ("ECCN") 3E611 for the production of an antenna Pursuant to Sections 742.4 and 742.6 of the 3

export of the specifications.

The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (the "Code") at 15 C.F.R. 1 Parts 730-774 (2024). The regulations governing the violations at issue, which occurred in 2019, are found in the 2019 versions of the Code (15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774 (2019)). The 2025 Regulations govern the procedures that apply to this matter. Section 772.1 of the Regulations defines "technology" to mean "[i]nformation necessary for the 2 "development," "production," "use," operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing (or other terms specified in ECCNs on the CCL that control "technology") of an item."

on the U.S. Munitions list. See Section 738.2 of the Regulations. Under Section 734.14(a)(1) of the Regulations, an "export" is defined as "an actual shipment or 4 transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of an item out of the United States, in any manner."

using packaging and a specification sheet that falsely represented the identity of the

1. Vizocom bid on a U.S. Navy Request for Proposal ("RFP") for 450 VHF/UHF
   antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1. The RFP specifically required that the awardee must be an authorized distributor or reseller of antennas manufactured by U.S. Company 1 and stated that there was no possible substitute. purchase of said antennas in the amount of $165,109.50 but did not complete the

2. On May 22, 2019, after Vizocom had received the award, a Vizocom employee
   contacted the Chinese manufacturer through its "Made-in-China" web portal, stating, "I am looking for 500 Ea.. Antenna as the attached specification please let me have your price Ex work and lead time." An employee of the Chinese manufacturer confirmed receipt of the specifications ("I checked your antenna specifications") and requested confirmation of some specification parameters.

3. Employees of Vizocom engaged in extensive correspondence with the Chinese
   eventually agreeing to a price of $6 per antenna for 500 antennas. In that external appearance of the requested antenna: "Sorry - one clarification - what is important is that the finish should be silver/nickel, even if the actual material is copper or brass but they should be silver plated and not black color - i….e. it should match what we have in the photo below." 5

4. At Vizocom's request, the Chinese manufacturer mailed three antennas it
   produced based on the uploaded specifications to the residence of Vizocom's CEO, as samples. Vizocom subsequently arranged to purchase 500 of the Company 2 to test and package the antennas under its own name and send 450 of

5. Vizocom emailed the technical specification sheet for the antennas to the U.S.
   Navy, altered and modified to fraudulently represent that they were produced by U.S. Company 2. However, Vizocom failed to reveal that the antennas were actually manufactured by the Chinese company in question. Vizocom stated that the sheet was an "updated datasheet from the main manufacturer which we are providing the antennas from." The Navy point-of-contact asked for confirmation

Two employees have been indicted on fraud charges for their role in these activities. Indictment, United 5 States v. Kumar and Beren, Case No. 8:22-cr-00121-TDC, (D. Md. April 6, 2022) ECF No. 1.

that U.S. Company 2 "would build them to the specification of the part number," and Vizocom confirmed, "Yes, [U.S. Company 2] has confirmed that and have already fully tested the antenna."

1. Vizocom provided 450 of the repackaged PRC-made antennas to the U.S. Navy.

• ---

  Accordingly, Vizocom is hereby notified that an administrative proceeding is instituted against it pursuant to Part 766 of the Regulations for the purpose of obtaining an order imposing administrative sanctions , including, but not limited to any or all of the 6 following:

• The maximum civil penalty allowed by law of up to the greater of $374,474 per
  violation, or twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation; 7

• Denial of export privileges;

• Exclusion from practice before BIS; and/or

• Any other liability, sanction, or penalty available under law.
  If Vizocom fails to answer the charges contained in this letter within 30 days after being served with notice of issuance of this letter, that failure will be treated as a default. See 15 C.F.R. §§ 766.6 and 766.7. If Vizocom defaults, the Administrative Law Judge may find the charges alleged in this letter are true without a hearing or further notice to Vizocom. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security may then impose up to the maximum penalty for the charges in this letter. Vizocom is further notified that it is entitled to an agency hearing on the record if it files a written demand for one with its answer. See 15 C.F.R. § 766.6. Vizocom is also entitled to be represented by counsel or other authorized representative who has power of attorney to represent it. See 15 C.F.R. §§ 766.3(a) and 766.4. The Regulations provide for settlement without a hearing. See 15 C.F.R. § 766.18. Should Vizocom have a proposal to settle this case, Vizocom should transmit it to the attorney representing BIS named below.

The potential sanctions are specified in Section 1760(c) of the Export Control Reform Act ("ECRA"), 6

codified at 50 U.S.C. § 4819. This amount is subject to annual increases pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment 7 Act Improvements Act of 2015, Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74, enacted on November 2, 2015. See 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (prescribing civil monetary penalty amount for ECRA violation); 15 C.F.R. §§ 6.3(c)(6), 6.4 (adjusting civil monetary penalty amount for inflation).

Vizocom is further notified that under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act, Vizocom may be eligible for assistance from the Office of the National Ombudsman of the Small Business Administration in this matter. To determine eligibility and get more information, please see: http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman/. The U.S. Coast Guard is providing administrative law judge services in connection with the matters set forth in this letter. Accordingly, Vizocom's answer must be filed in accordance with the instructions in Section 766.5(a) of the Regulations with: U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center 40 S. Gay Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022 In addition, a copy of Vizocom's answer must be served on BIS at the following address: Chief Counsel for Industry and Security Attention: Gregory Michelsen and Laura Cole Room H-3839 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 Gregory Michelsen and Laura Cole are the attorneys representing BIS in this case; any communications that Vizocom may wish to have concerning this matter should occur through them. They may be contacted by email at gmichelsen@doc.gov or lcole@doc.gov. Sincerely,

Steven Fisher Acting Director Office of Export Enforcement