Notice2026-10682
In the Matter of: Hans De Geetere, Paul Parmentierlaan 121, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium, and Nyckeestraat 4, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium, Knokke-Heist Support Corporation Management, a/k/a Hasa Invest, Paul Parmentierlaan 121, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium, and Nyckeestraat 4, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium; Final Decision and Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 29, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentIndustry and Security Bureau
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 103 (Friday, May 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32000-32003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10682]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
In the Matter of: Hans De Geetere, Paul Parmentierlaan 121, 8300
Knokke Heist, Belgium, and Nyckeestraat 4, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium,
Knokke-Heist Support Corporation Management, a/k/a Hasa Invest, Paul
Parmentierlaan 121, 8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium, and Nyckeestraat 4,
8300 Knokke Heist, Belgium; Final Decision and Order
Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations
(``Regulations''), 15 CFR parts 730-774, authorizes the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary'')
to issue a Temporary Denial Order (``TDO'') for a period of up to 180
days to prevent an ``imminent violation'' of the Regulations. 15 CFR
766.24(b)(l), (b)(4).
On August 26, 2022, the Assistant Secretary issued a TDO against
Hans De Geetere and his company, Knokke-Heist Support Corporation
Management (collectively, ``Appellants''). See 87 FR 53716 (Sep. 1,
2022). The TDO stated that De Geetere engaged in conduct prohibited by
the Regulations by acquiring or attempting to acquire under false
pretenses items subject to the Regulations on behalf of prohibited end-
users or for prohibited end uses. Id. The TDO was effective immediately
and remained in effect for 180 days; it expired on February 22, 2023.
Id. at 53718.
On February 11, 2026, the Appellants filed an appeal of the TDO
under Sec. 766.24(e)(3) of the Regulations. Litigation commenced, and
on May 14, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Timothy G. Stueve issued a
decision recommending dismissal of Appellants' challenge as moot given
that the TDO expired in February 2023 and was never renewed.\1\ Judge
Stueve further explained that the additional forms of relief requested
by Appellants were not within the scope of Sec. 766.24 of the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Office of the Under Secretary for Industry and Security
received a certified copy of Judge Stueve's recommended decision on
May 18, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on my review of the record, I accept Judge Stueve's
recommended decision. This appeal is therefore dismissed. This Final
Decision and Order shall be served on Appellants and on BIS and it and
the Recommended Decision shall be published in the Federal Register.
This Order, which constitutes the Department's final decision
regarding this appeal, is effective immediately.
Dated: May 26, 2026.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Washington, DC 20230
In the Matter of:
Docket Number: 26-BIS-TDO1 Hans De Geetere And Knokke-Heist Support
Corporation Management a/k/a Hasa-Invest Appellants.
Recommended Decision
Issued by: The Honorable Timothy Stueve, Administrative Law Judge
Issued: May 14, 2026
On February 12, 2026, the United States Coast Guard Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Docketing Center received an Appeal and Motion to
Vacate filed by Hans De Geetere and Knokke-Heist Support Corporation
Management (collectively, Appellants) pursuant to 15 CFR 766.24(e).
Appellants request I vacate the temporary denial order (TDO) issued on
August 26, 2022, based on newly discovered evidence not previously
available. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend this appeal be
dismissed as moot.
Background
On August 26, 2022, BIS issued a TDO against Appellants based upon
an investigation by the Office of Export Enforcement (OEE). Pursuant to
15 CFR 766.24(d)(1), TDOs are only valid for 180 days absent renewal,
thus Appellants' TDO expired on February 22, 2023. BIS did not seek
renewal of the TDO. Further, BIS notes Appellants were subsequently
added to BIS's Entity List, a separate and distinct list from the
Denied Persons List, for acting contrary to the national security or
foreign policy interests of the United States.
Appellants state their appeal is based on newly discovered evidence
recently provided by the Belgian government, which was not available to
Appellants at the time of the 2022 TDO. Appellants requested the 2022
TDO be vacated and various forms of relief including: (1) an
investigation into alleged false statements made during the
investigation; (2) the production of documents referenced in a
government affidavit made at the time of the TDO; (3) costs and
attorney's fees; (4) expungement of all references to this matter from
export control databases and public records; and (5) issuance of a
public correction acknowledging that the 2022 TDO was improper. Appeal
at 5.
BIS filed its response on February 26, 2026, arguing the appeal
should be dismissed as moot or otherwise denied because the TDO issued
against Appeallants has expired. BIS did not seek renewal, despite
Appellants' contention the TDO has been renewed. Thus, BIS asserts
Appellants do not have standing to bring an appeal.\2\ This matter was
assigned to me on May 6, 2026 for adjudication. Per BIS regulations, an
ALJ shall issue a recommened decision within 10 working days after
receipt of the appeal. 15 CFR 766.24(e)(4). However, due to the recent
Department of Homeland Security funding hiatus, our office was unable
to process this appeal when it was initially filed. The Department of
Homeland Security was funded on April 30, 2026. As such, the 10 day
deadline to issue a recommended decision started on May 6, 2026, when
this case was assigned to me. The record is now closed, and the appeal
is ripe for decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On May 7, 2026, Appellants filed a reply to BIS' response
which I do not consider a part of the record because Appellants did
not ask permission from the Court to file a reply and the
regulations do not afford appellants the right to file a reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Findings of Fact
1. On August 26, 2022, the Assistant Secretary of Export
Enforcement (Assistant Secretary) issue a TDO against Appellants. BIS
Exhibit 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``BIS Exhibit'' references the exhibits attached to BIS's
Response dated February 26, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The TDO expired on February 22, 2023. 15 CFR 766.24(d)(1)
3. BIS did not seek renewal of the TDO at any time. BIS Exhibit 1.
[[Page 32001]]
Opinion and Recommended Conclusions of Law
BIS regulations related to export administration are issued ``under
laws relating to the control of certain exports, reexports, and
activities.'' 15 CFR 730.1.5. These export control provisions ``are
intended to serve the national security, foreign policy,
nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other interests of
the United States.'' 15 CFR 730.6. To prevent an imminent violation of
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Assistant Secretary
may issue a TDO on an ex parte basis. 15 CFR 766.24(a). The TDO ``will
deny export privileges to any person named in the order as provided for
in Sec. 764.3(a)(2) of the EAR.'' 15 CFR 766.24(a). The order is valid
for 180 days, but the Assistant Secretary may renew it, more than once,
in additional 180-day increments. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(4), 766.24(d)(4).
BIS regulations afford respondents the right to appeal a TDO.
Specifically, ``[a] respondent may, at any time, file an appeal of the
initial or renewed temporary denial order with the administrative law
judge.'' 15 CFR 766.24(e)(1)(i). ``A respondent may appeal on the
grounds that the finding that the order is necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent violation is unsupported.'' 15 CFR
766.24(e)(2). Within 10 working days after an appeal is filed, the
administrative law judge shall submit a recommended decision to the
Under Secretary. 15 CFR 766.24(e)(4). The regulations limit the scope
of the recommended decision. The ALJ may only recommend whether the
issuance or the renewal of the temporary denial order should be
affirmed, modified or vacated. 15 CFR 766.24(e)(4).
Having outlined the relevant law governing this appeal, I now turn
to the facts of in this case and conclude the appeal is moot because
there is no valid TDO against Appellants. Here, BIS issued a TDO in
August 2022 and the TDO expired February of 2023. Appellants have not
provided any evidence that the 2022 TDO was renewed despite arguing
such. BIS indicated it did not seek renewal of the 2022 TDO. Because
there is no current TDO, I am dismissing Appellants appeal as moot
because I cannot provide a recommended decision on the merits in
accordance with the regulations on an expired TDO. Specifically, I
cannot affirm, modify or vacate an expired TDO nor can I evaluate
whether the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an
imminent violation because there is no current order against
Appellants. Doing so would hold no legal significance. Moreover, the
additional forms of relief requested by Appellants outlined above are
not within the scope of 15 CFR 766.24. Even if BIS erred in issuing the
2022 TDO, and that TDO was current, I cannot lawfully direct BIS to (1)
perform an investigation into alleged false statements made during the
investigation; (2) produce documents referenced in a government
affidavit made at the time of the TDO; (3) provide costs and attorney's
fees; (4) expunge all references to this matter from export control
databases and public records; or (5) issue of a public correction
acknowledging that the 2022 TDO was improper. Considering the above, I
recommend this appeal be dismissed as moot.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MY26.000
[[Page 32002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MY26.001
[[Page 32003]]
[FR Doc. 2026-10682 Filed 5-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 29, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.