In re Landeck & Merrill
| Decision Date | 26 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 200.,200. |
| Citation | 20 F.2d 249 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | In re LANDECK & MERRILL. |
Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Arthur Simon, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for the United States.
W. P. Guthrie, of Seattle, Wash., for Landeck & Merrill.
Landeck & Merrill, licensed custom house brokers under the statute above referred to, were duly notified by the collector of customs to show cause on a given day why their license as customs brokers should not be revoked, charging them with having withheld and used for their own purposes funds due importers in connection with entries named. After hearing, and transmittal of the record to the Treasury Department, the Secretary of the Treasury "finds the firm of Landeck & Merrill guilty of irregularities unfitting them to conduct a customs brokerage business, and the license issued the firm as customs brokers is hereby revoked." From this revocation, appeal is prosecuted under the section above stated.
When this appeal was presented to the court, upon the statements then made as to newly discovered evidence, and upon the suggestion of the court, the matter was continued and application made to the Secretary of the Treasury to have the matter reopened for further evidence. The case was reopened and further evidence presented on behalf of the brokers. The Secretary of the Treasury, upon due consideration of the entire record, together with the new testimony presented, found the brokers guilty of irregularities unfitting them, etc., confirming the former finding, and revoked the license, and the matter is again before the court for review.
The evidence shows that all the refunds due, set out in the charges, have been paid — one after the show cause order was served; the others after notice of nonpayment by the examiner for the collector of customs, some two or three years after the refund was made to the brokers. It is shown that the brokers kept no books of accounts of transactions with clients, or memoranda of funds received or refunds due, except copies of the letters written and loose-leaf files of letters received. When refunds were made, it was "necessary to consult the custom house records. * * *" One of the licensees says: "* * * These refund papers were handed me personally, or Landeck, maybe, most of the time at 9 o'clock in the morning on my first visit to the customhouse, which was a very busy time of day." Witness further says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnhart v. UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPT.
...competency which the license represents. The validity of this purpose has long been recognized by the Courts. See, e.g., In re Landeck & Merrill, 20 F.2d 249 (1927). Viewed in this context, the use of the term "disreputable" in the statute cannot be considered either unduly vague or violati......