27 C.F.R. § 44.162

Suspension and revocation of permit

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Where the appropriate TTB officer has reason to believe that an export warehouse proprietor has not in good faith complied with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. chapter 52, and regulations thereunder, or with any other provision of 26 U.S.C. with intent to defraud, or has violated any condition of his permit, or has failed to disclose any material information required or made any material false statement in the application for permit, or has failed to maintain his premises in such manner as to protect the revenue, or is, by reason of previous or current legal proceedings involving a felony violation of any other provision of Federal criminal law relating to tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette tubes, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with 26 U.S.C. chapter 52, or has been convicted of a felony violation of any provision of Federal or State criminal law relating to tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette tubes, the appropriate TTB officer shall issue an order, stating the facts charged, citing such export warehouse proprietor to show cause why the permit should not be suspended or revoked after hearing thereon in accordance with part 71 of this chapter, which part (including the provisions relating to appeals) is made applicable to such proceedings. If, after hearing, the hearing examiner, or on appeal, the Administrator, finds that such person has not shown cause why the permit should not be suspended or revoked, such permit shall be suspended for such period as the appropriate TTB officer deems proper or shall be revoked.

(72 Stat. 1421; 26 U.S.C. 5713) [T.D. TTB-75, 74 FR 14485, Mar. 31, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 315 F. Supp. 3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 315 F. Supp. 3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 204 (e) ; see also 27 C.F.R. § 44.162 . The plaintiff also asserts that determining whether a change in actual or legal control occurred "would require TTB to conduct an examination of laws and corporate documents unique to the corporate entity, which determine how 'control'…”
Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2018). “§ 204 (e); see also 27 C.F.R. § 44.162 . 7 The plaintiff also asserts that determining whether a change in actual or legal control occurred “would require TTB to conduct an examination of laws and corporate documents unique to the corporate entity, which determine how ‘control’…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.