******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Ravi’s Import Warehouse Inc.,
Dallas, Texas
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-FIELDSCR-17-00024142
NAL/Acct No.: 201732500001
FRN: 0026514281
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  July 25, 2017 Released: July 26, 2017
By the Regional Director, Region Two:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. We propose a penalty of $22,000 against Ravi’s Import Warehouse (Ravi’s), for 
operating a cellular phone jammer (jammer or signal jammer) in its commercial establishment in Dallas, 
Texas, in apparent willful violation of Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (Act),
1
and Sections 2.805(a) and 15.1(c) of the Commission’s rules.
2
Signal jamming 
devices typically operate by transmitting powerful radio signals that overpower, jam, or interfere with 
authorized communications.  With limited exception for certain Federal government purposes, these 
devices have no lawful use in the United States.
3
2. Commission action against the use of signal jammers is important, as the operation of a 
jammer is unauthorized and can create potential public safety and other risks by causing harmful 
interference to mobile communications.  For example, jammers can endanger life and property by 
preventing individuals from making 911 or other emergency calls or disrupting the basic communications 
essential to aviation and marine safety.  Jammers also prevent consumers and business from engaging in 
numerous, daily forms of communications, ranging from simple one-on-one phone conversations to the
use of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based map applications to social media use.  The Commission 
has issued several enforcement advisories and consumer alerts emphasizing the importance of strict 
compliance in this area.
4
  We expect individuals and businesses, like Ravi’s, to take immediate steps to 
ensure compliance and to avoid any recurrence of this type of misconduct, including ceasing operation of 
any signal jamming devices that may be in their possession, custody, or control.  
                                                     
1
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(b), 333.
2
47 CFR §§ 2.805(a), 15.1(c).
3
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); 47 CFR 
§ 2.807(d).
4
See Warning: Jammer Use by the Public and Local Law Enforcement Is Illegal, FCC Enforcement Advisory, 29 
FCC Rcd 14737 (EB 2014); Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers and Other Jamming Devices, FCC Enforcement 
Advisory, 27 FCC Rcd 2309 (EB 2012); Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers and Other Jamming Devices, FCC 
Enforcement Advisory, 26 FCC Rcd 1327 (2011). These advisories, along with frequently asked questions related to 
the jamming prohibition, are available at http://www.fcc.gov/jammers.  On October 15, 2012, the Enforcement 
Bureau also launched a dedicated jammer tip line – 1-855-55-NOJAM (or 1-855-556-6526) – to make it easier for 
the public to report the use or sale of illegal cell phone, GPS or other signal jammers.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
2
II. BACKGROUND
3. On April 10, 2017, an agent from the Commission’s Dallas Field Office (Dallas Office) 
received a complaint from an AT&T representative, claiming that an AT&T base station was receiving
interference.  The AT&T representative advised the agent that the characteristics of the interference were 
typical of a signal jammer.  While the agent was on route to the general location of the possible signal 
jammer, the AT&T representative determined that the jammer was likely located within Ravi’s 
commercial establishment at 11029 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, Texas, a business which the AT&T 
representative stated he had previously visited to request that it cease operating a signal jammer.  When 
the Dallas Office agent arrived on scene at Ravi’s commercial establishment, the AT&T representative
stated that Ravi’s security personnel noticed the AT&T representative’s presence and, shortly thereafter, 
the jammer ceased operating.  In the presence of the AT&T representative, the agent spoke with Anita 
Bhatia, who stated that she was the owner of Ravi’s. Ms. Bhatia admitted to deploying a signal jammer 
as a means of preventing her employees from using mobile phones while at work.  The agent informed 
Ms. Bhatia of the public safety issues that could be caused by Ravi’s use of a cell jammer. Ms. Bhatia 
acknowledged that, in February 2017, the AT&T representative had warned her adult son against the 
operation of a signal jammer.  Ms. Bhatia further stated that she disposed of the jammer shortly before the 
agent’s arrival.  Ms. Bhatia refused to voluntarily surrender the device to the agent and refused to state 
where within her commercial establishment she disposed of it.  Instead, Ms. Bhatia offered to sell the 
signal jammer to the agent.  The agent declined the offer and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Radio 
Operation informing Ravi’s that the operation of a signal jammer was illegal.
5
The following day, the 
agent contacted the AT&T representative, who confirmed that AT&T was no longer receiving 
interference from equipment operated at Ravi’s commercial establishment.  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
4. Federal law prohibits the operation of jamming devices in the United States and its 
territories.  Section 301 of the Act prohibits the use or operation of “any apparatus for the transmission of 
energy or communications or signals by radio” within the United States unless such use is licensed or 
authorized.
6
  Section 333 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or 
cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act 
or operated by the United States Government.”
7
  In addition, Section 302(b) of the Act provides that “[n]o 
person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and 
systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”
8
5. The applicable implementing regulations for Section 302(b) of the Act are set forth in 
Sections 2.805, 15.1(c), and 15.201 of the Commission’s rules.
9
  Section 2.805(a) of the Commission’s 
rules provides, in relevant part (except in a few narrow circumstances not pertinent here), that “[a] radio 
frequency device may not be operated prior to equipment authorization.”
10
  In addition, pursuant to 
                                                     
5
Ravi’s Import Warehouse, Notice of Unlicensed Radio Operation (Dallas Field Office, EB, Apr. 10, 2017) 
(NOUO).
6
47 U.S.C. § 301.
7
Id. § 333.
8
Id. § 302a(b) (emphasis added).
9
47 CFR §§ 2.805, 15.1(c), 15.201.
10
Id. § 2.805(a); see also id. § 2.803(a) (also prohibiting the marketing of jammer devices through the “sale or lease, 
or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the 
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease”).   
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
3
Sections 15.1(c) and 15.201(b) of the Commission’s rules,
11
intentional radiators
12
cannot be operated in 
the United States or its territories unless they have first been authorized in accordance with the 
Commission’s certification procedures.
13
  Jamming devices cannot be certified or authorized because their 
primary purpose is to block or interfere with authorized radio communications and their use would 
compromise the integrity of the nation’s communications infrastructure.  Thus, jamming devices such as 
the one used by Ravi’s cannot comply with the Commission’s technical standards and, therefore, cannot 
be operated lawfully by consumers in the United States or its territories.
14
B. Illegal Operation of a Signal Jammer
6. As discussed above, on April 10, 2017, an AT&T representative detected a signal jammer 
in use near Ravi’s commercial establishment and alerted an agent from the Dallas Office.  Although the 
jammer was no longer in operation when the agent arrived at Ravi’s, the company’s owner, Ms. Bhatia, 
admitted to the agent (in the presence of the AT&T representative) that she had been operating a signal 
jammer to prevent her employees from using mobile phones while at work.  Thus, Ravi’s operated a 
signal jammer on April 10, 2017, with the intended (and actual) effect of blocking and otherwise 
interfering with radio communications authorized by the Commission.  Operation of the signal jammer 
could have had dire consequences by precluding the use of mobile telephones to reach life-saving 9-1-1 
services provided by police departments, fire departments, and emergency medical technicians.  It could 
also have disrupted critical communications of first responders who might have visited Ravi’s facility or 
nearby locations in a life-and-death situation.  Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that, 
by admittedly operating a signal jammer, Ravi’s apparently willfully violated Sections 301, 302(b), and 
333 of the Act, and Sections 2.805(a) and 15.1(c) of the Commission’s rules.
15
C. Proposed Forfeiture
7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
entity that “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the Act] or of any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”
16
  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes us to 
assess a forfeiture against Ravi’s of up to $19,246 for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory 
maximum of $144,344 for a single act or failure to act.
17
  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we must 
consider the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, 
                                                     
11
Id. §§ 15.1(c), 15.201(b).
12
An “intentional radiator” is a “device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or 
induction.”  Id. § 15.3(o).  Under this definition, signal jamming devices are intentional radiators.
13
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 22.377, 24.51, 27.51, 90.203 (requiring certification of transmitters that operate in the public 
mobile service, personal communications service, miscellaneous wireless communications service, and private land 
mobile radio services).
14
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); see, e.g., R&N Manufacturing, Ltd., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 
3332, 3335, para. 8 (2014) (R&N NAL), cancelled by Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1897 (EB 2016) (adopting a Consent 
Decree terminating and resolving the investigation). 
15
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR §§ 2.805(a), 15.1(c); see The Supply Room, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 4981, 82, para. 4 (2013) (proposing a forfeiture for operating a signal jammer 
in violation of Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Act, as well as certain Commission rules, where the jammer 
operation was used “to prevent [the company’s] employees from using their cellular phones while working”), 
cancelled by Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2082 (EB 2016) (adopting a Consent Decree terminating and resolving the
investigation). 
16
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).  
17
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), (9); see also Jay Peralta, Corona, New York, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 17-35, n.30 (rel. Apr. 14, 2017) (discussing inflation adjustments to the
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(D)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
4
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”
18
  In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines; they establish base 
penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate 
penalty in any given case.
19
  Under these guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that 
are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic 
gain for the violator.
20
  Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules, the applicable base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 301 of the Act 
(operating without an instrument of authorization) is $10,000, and the applicable base forfeiture for 
violation of Section 333 of the Act (interference to authorized communications) is $7,000, for an 
aggregate base forfeiture of $17,000.
21
  
8. We have discretion, however, to depart from these guidelines, taking into account the 
particular facts of each individual case.
22
  In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for the 
misconduct at issue, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of 
the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to 
the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters 
as justice may require.
23
As explained above, Ravi’s operated a radio frequency device that is inherently 
illegal and prohibited for consumer use in the United States.  These illegal jammer operations posed a 
tangible public safety hazard by potentially blocking authorized communications (including essential 911
calls and law enforcement communications). We note that Ravi’s proprietor did not opt to voluntarily 
surrender the jamming equipment to the agent from the Dallas Field Office.
24
  Instead, she offered to sell
the device to the agent (presumably after retrieving it from the trash).
25
  We find that this attempt to 
generate revenue from the Commission’s efforts to resolve an interference complaint (with potential 
public safety ramifications) constitutes egregious conduct warranting an upward adjustment of $5,000 
above the proposed base forfeiture associated with Ravi’s apparent violation of Section 301 of the Act.  
Therefore, after applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, and the 
statutory factors, we propose a total forfeiture of $22,000, for which Ravi’s is apparently liable. 
                                                     
18
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
19
47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8). 
20
Id.
21
Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 CFR § 1.80.  Because the same underlying facts here result in both operation without an 
instrument of authorization ($10,000 base forfeiture) and use of unauthorized or illegal equipment ($5,000 base 
forfeiture), we use only one of these two base forfeiture amounts.
22
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17098-99, para. 22 (1997) (noting that “[a]lthough we 
have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to the forfeiture 
process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under 
our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act”) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
23
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
24
See para. 3, supra.
25
Id.  We note that the Commission has afforded a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture in cases where 
the operator of a signal jammer voluntarily surrendered the device to the Commission.  See, e.g., R&N NAL, 29 FCC 
Rcd at 3337, para. 13 (proposing a downward adjustment of 25 percent based on a voluntary surrender of the signal 
jammers at issue).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
5
IV. CONCLUSION
9. We have determined that Ravi’s apparently willfully violated Sections 301, 302(b), and 
333 of the Act and Sections 2.805 and 15.1(c) of the Commission’s rules.
26
  As such, Ravi’s is apparently 
liable for a forfeiture of $22,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
27
and 
Sections 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
28
Ravi’s Import Warehouse is hereby NOTIFIED of this 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Two Thousand Dollars 
($22,000) for willful violations of Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Act
29
and Sections 2.805 and 
15.1(c) of the Commission’s rules.
30
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s 
rules,
31
within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, Ravi’s Import Warehouse SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL 
FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with 
paragraph 14 below.
12. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Ravi’s Import 
Warehouse shall send electronic notification of payment to Matthew L. Gibson at 
matthew.gibson@fcc.gov, with copy to SCR-Response@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.
32
  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call 
sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are 
additional instructions that should be followed based on the form of payment selected:
• Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
• Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete the wire transfer and ensure 
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank 
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
• Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on 
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.  
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. 
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
                                                     
26
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR §§ 2.805, 15.1(c).  
27
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
28
47 CFR § 1.80.
29
47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a(b), 333.
30
47 CFR §§ 2.805, 15.1(c).
31
47 CFR § 1.80.
32
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-677
6
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101.
13. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
33
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
14. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
34
  The written statement must be mailed to the 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20554, ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau – Office of the Field Director, and must include the NAL/Account 
Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Matthew L. Gibson at 
matthew.gibson@fcc.gov, with copy to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.  
15. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or 
(3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current 
financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Ravi’s Import 
Warehouse, Attn: Anita Bhatia, 11029 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75229.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ronald Ramage
Regional Director
Region Two
Enforcement Bureau
                                                     
33
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
34
47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).