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”). See87 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 § 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 § 766.24 of the Regulations.

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.

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.

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]

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. ( printed 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 § 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.

( printed page 32002)

( printed page 32003)