Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-67
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited
CTStechnologys.com
Aiswa.com
Shenzhen C.T.S. Import and Export Co., Limited
Shenzhen, Guangdong
People’s Republic of China
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-SED-12-00005692
NAL/Acct. No.: 201432100017
FRN: 0023572043
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: May 24, 2016 Released: May 25, 2016
By the Commission:
1. We impose a penalty of $34,912,500 against C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited, (C.T.S.
Technology) for marketing 285 models of signal jamming devices to U.S. consumers via its Aiswa.com
website. These devices, which were advertised for sale to U.S. consumers, were designed to disrupt a
variety of communications systems, including all major cellphone networks, Wi-Fi systems, and even
Global Positioning System (GPS) channels. Some of the more dangerous devices were advertised as
having the capacity to jam communications for a distance of over one-half mile. C.T.S. Technology in
fact sold several of these high-powered jamming devices to undercover FCC personnel, who had posed as
consumers, and shipped the equipment to the United States.
2. Signal jamming devices overpower, jam, or interfere with authorized communications.
They can endanger life and property by preventing individuals from making 9-1-1 or other emergency
calls, interfering with the communications of first responders such as police officers and firefighters, or
disrupting the basic communications essential to aviation and marine safety. Jammers also prevent
consumers and businesses from engaging in numerous, daily lawful forms of communications, ranging
from simple one-on-one phone conversations to the use of GPS-based map applications to social media
use. For these reasons, signal jammers are illegal. They may not be marketed to the public and have no
lawful consumer use within the United States.
1
3. On June 18, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
2
(NAL) proposing a $34,912,500 forfeiture against C.T.S. Technology for willful and repeated violation of
Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the
Commission’s rules,
3
for marketing illegal radio frequency devices to consumers in the United States.
Copies of the NAL in English and Simplified Chinese were transmitted to the Chinese government for
1
See, e.g., Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers and Other Jamming Devices, FCC Enforcement Advisory, 27 FCC Rcd
2309 (2012) (warning both consumers and retailers that jammers may not be advertised or imported in the United
States). In very limited circumstances and consistent with applicable procurement requirements, jamming devices
may be marketed to and used by the U.S. federal government for authorized, official use. See 47 U.S.C. § 302a(c).
2
The NAL includes a more complete discussion of the facts and history of this case and is incorporated herein by
reference. C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8107
(2014).
3
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 15.201(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-67
2
service on C.T.S. Technology, at its last known address, in accordance with methods prescribed by
international law.
4
While C.T.S. Technology has neither filed a response to the NAL nor paid the
proposed forfeiture, we observe that the press has reported the Chief Executive Officer of C.T.S.
Technology was aware of the issuance of the NAL when it was released,
5
and that C.T.S. Technology
subsequently took certain actions, consistent with the requirements set forth in the NAL, to come into
compliance with U.S. law and ensure that the company does not again make an illegal sale of signal
jamming devices within the United States.
6
To date, however, we have received no official confirmation
from the International Legal Cooperation Center of China’s Ministry of Justice that the NAL was
successfully served on C.T.S. Technology.
4. Despite the lack of official confirmation of service, The Hague Service Convention
expressly provides that a default judgment may be entered when service of a document cannot be
confirmed within a reasonable period of time of no less than six months, provided that “every reasonable
effort” has been made to obtain a certificate of service through the competent authorities of the State in
which the document is to be served.
7
On March 6, 2015, the International Legal Cooperation Center of
the Ministry of Justice, which China has designated as its central authority for administering foreign
requests for service of process, received the NAL and related materials in the manner required by The
Hague Service Convention.
8
On four subsequent occasions—November 10, 2015, December 1, 2015,
4
See generally, The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or
Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (treaty specifying the means by which
documents may be transmitted for service upon litigants in signatory states) (The Hague Service Convention).
5
On the day that the NAL was released and published on the FCC website, the company’s Chief Executive Officer
was quoted as saying that he had not yet received a copy of the document, adding that his company “rarely sells
jamming devices to the U.S.” Thomas Gryta and Gautham Nagesh, FCC Levels Record Fine Against Maker of
Cellphone Jammers, The Wall Street Journal (Tech), (June 19, 2014),
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-levels-record-fine-against-chinese-maker-of-cellphone-jammers-1403205812.
6
After release of the NAL, at least one of C.T.S. Technology’s own web sites, the ctstechologys.com webpage, was
revised to add a hyperlink directing its website visitors to an FCC jammer enforcement webpage that published the
NAL and to expressly warn potential U.S. customers that, to comply with FCC regulations, signal jamming devices
would only be sold to authorized government agencies. See Attention for Jammer,
http://ctstechologys.com/attention-jammer (follow “http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement”
hyperlink) (last visited June 18, 2015); cf. NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 8114, para. 20 (ordering the company to implement
all necessary measures to prevent future sales of jamming devices to U.S. consumers). This webpage further notes
that the company’s order processing system will automatically exclude U.S. addresses. Id.
7
The Hague Service Convention provides, in relevant part:
Each contracting State shall be free to declare that the judge, notwithstanding the provisions of the first
paragraph of this article, may give judgment even if no certificate of service or delivery has been
received, if all the following conditions are fulfilled –
(a) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in this Convention,
(b) a period of time of not less than six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular
case, has elapsed since the date of the transmission of the document,
(c) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to
obtain it through the competent authorities of the State addressed.
Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361, art. 15, para. 2; see id. at Declarations Table (documenting that China
and the United States have each adopted this proviso).
8
According to The Hague Service Convention website, the relevant Chinese authorities report that requests for
service in China are generally executed within three to four months. See China—Central Authority & practical
information,
https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=243. Survey data from 2013, the most recent
available, instead indicates that only half of the requests for service are executed within six months, and 31% of
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-67
3
January 16, 2016, and February 26, 2016—Commission personnel successfully communicated with the
authority but were unable to obtain the certificate of service from the authority or to expedite its return.
Accordingly, more than one year after the NAL was transmitted via the methods provided for in The
Hague Service Convention, the Commission concludes that it has made every reasonable effort to obtain
the certificate.
9
Despite these efforts, the Commission has received no certificate of any kind from
China’s designated authority for these matters. Consequently, we find it appropriate to enter a default
judgment against C.T.S. Technologies. Thus, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture
proposed in the NAL.
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (Act)
10
and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules (Rules),
11
C.T.S. Technology
Co., Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty-four million
nine hundred and twelve thousand and five hundred dollars ($34,912,500) for willfully and repeatedly
violating Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
12
and Sections 2.803 and
15.201(b) of the Commission’s rules.
13
6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Forfeiture Order.
14
If the forfeiture is
not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for
enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.
15
7. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument or wire transfer,
and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced in the caption above. C.T.S.
Technology Co., Limited shall send electronic notification of payment to the Spectrum Enforcement
Division at jammerinfo@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a
completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
16
When completing the Form 159,
enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in
(Continued from previous page)
requests remain “pending” more than a year after submission. See Details,
https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6042&dtid=33 (follow “China: Mainland” hyperlink).
9
In the first of several attempts to obtain the certificate, we asked the authority whether service had been achieved
and when the Commission should expect the certificate of service to arrive. We expressly asked that the authority
please contact us if we could be of any assistance in expediting the return of the certificate. The authority responded
that the case was registered and was being processed by the court system and that it would notify the Commission
when service was completed. In response to our next inquiry, the authority advised only that the court had not yet
responded. In response to a third inquiry, the authority advised that the court system was still processing. However,
we also asked: 1) whether it would be permissible or useful to contact the court directly; 2) if permissible, to which
individual and email address should the inquiry be directed, and 3) whether the authority could offer any additional
guidance on how to obtain the certificate of service. The authority provided a name but stated that the individual
speaks only Mandarin, provided a phone number in the Beijing time zone rather than an email address, and added
that the court does not prefer direct inquiry from foreign parties. As of this writing, the Commission has received no
response to its fourth attempt to obtain the certificate of service.
Topic: $35 million dollar fine for selling cell phone jammers (Read 1710 times)
