that my client although he is losing a constitutionally protected property right his license gets no hearing what so ever not three revocation not post revocation we should jest that that reading of section six forty one dispute here with the hearing well the hearing is provided for in section six forty one d of the act and what it says is in any case where a broker is accused of violating any law for any regulation it ministered my custom and at the time he really wasn't in any physical or mental state to make the report and he think that this statute allows for good cause exceptions i think urse it says it made thereafter be revoked subject to the following procedure now it's not clear whether the procedures to follow are intended to be exclusive and without regard to the right to hearing section six forty one date or whether they are additional and a proper interpretation of this statute should just that they are in fact additional requirements subsections a and b they say that the secretary has to set written notice and give an opportunity to correct if the broker is able to finally correct the statute says that spirit of the revocation proceeding the licensors back let me ask you a different question if i could plaintiff there was no claim made of a right to a hearing under section six forty one deep in that case the question of whether six forty one t v required a hearing in these cases was never rares we raised this question in this nonetheless there's jurisdiction under fifteen eighty one i four but read them all says the revocation of a license under sixteen forty one g is not referenced anywhere in fifteen eighty one revocation of a license or also a self executing method for revoking the license mechanism that doesn't provide for error that's not necessarily session sixteen forty one she says what session sixteen forty one she says is that if you require porters not filed on the problems not corrected the license shall be revoked without prejudice to the filing of application for new license now that does not s by what procedure the license shall be revoked it does not say that the license shall be revoked without a care it does not say that for this minor transgression the license shall be revoked without regard to the procedures and sixteen forty one did it and there is a serious question your honor was interpreted sixteen forty one ga as provided for the revocation of the license without a hearing or the opportunity for here and the problem is that it calls into congress to into question the constitutionality of statute and yes really the crux of our argument here it's a question of how you interpret section six forty one  this court interprets section six forty one as provided for the revocation of a broker's lessons with no year no opportunity to go to the secretary of treasury nor opportunity to have a monetary penalty imposed in lieu of revocation no opportunity for settlement with the secretary of the treasury then you call the statute into constitutional disrepute but what exactly is your argument if you're  revocations for any violations of the customs law or regulation and so section he goes further it says that for any violation except for a couple of criminal violations the option of a monetary revoked right be pushed to preparatory language to the section such that the license made there after be revoked subject to the following conditions now there's obviously an ambiguity in the statute and there's two possible ways to resolve what we're saying is if you resolve it the way you see i keep it by saying this one protected constitutionally protected property if it's licenses revoked with no hearing whatsoever it's going to follow the section sixteen forty one  section sixteen forty one she too it's plain and unambiguous for sure the word mase used but it's used in the term of the contingency if after having been provided notice that they have failed to provide a try and work work one of a couple of things could happen they could produce the triangle report within the timeframe allowed by section sixteen for g two or they might not produce it in the event that they do not produce it the license will be revoked in the event that they do produce it within the required time period it will not be revoked so you're saying that  what the government is arguing here and that is the only way that the term or the terms of this statutory provision can reasonably be interpreted this and there are there certain for sure sixteen forty one  be allows for discretionary revocations sixteen forty one g two however does not and we don't want it we don't want the secretary to be allowed any discretion to  take away someone's life sentence for failing to file or try any other report because if they could do it that way there would be no reason to resort to the hearings provided for in sixteen forty one did they could just  include we never received your license and therefore it's gone here however what this of what congress did is it took discretion completely out of this and it may end date certain procedures for a simple statement i am still acting as a cop customs broker and i am doing so at this location and the government below before the key did argue that there was no subject matter jurisdiction absolutely we argued that there was no jurisdiction for the court to entertain this case it really i understand why the trial court did what it did here because and that is because they were arguing something that seems a different spin that will that there was included in the retinal case gratis correct they gave a spin and operative word would be spin it was a comment upon the  key judge in the government's view to deal with that argument is the threshold matter oh absolutely i thought why would the government say that they could do it at the threshold matter but in the quote on the question of jurisdiction as opposed to the way they did it i mean i thought you said earlier that you thought the defeat i keep judge was wrong and that he should that there was no jurisdiction well ultimately the court didn't say it didn't have jurisdiction or over claims that reason for six hundred forty one cheated right and that is for sure  claims raised under sixteen forty one however the court there stepped out that the cia has jurisdiction over such claims the question becomes what does the court do when someone asserts what is  is getting to be a nuisance reviewing all of our disciplinary actions and the secretary said ok we have something that is clearly a disciplinary action that would otherwise fit under g would you would just make a decision under g eight would understand your question my reading of the statute is that the secretary doesn't have the discretion to make a decision under so i don't know how to really answer here if a decision is being made by this it's accurate terry to revoke someone's license that decision if it's for one of the disciplinary infractions that are in compas by sixteen argument that we're making to the court here is the flip of that here mr ship is attempting to cloak a sixteen forty one jeep to revocation in the guard in the the court ultimately is going to reach the conclusion that was reached right a moment that there isn't jurisdiction isn't it necessary for the court first to address mr peterson's argument that the procedures of d that is precisely what the trial court did here that the problem that i'm having with responding to this question is that i really don't know the answer to your question on the one hand i think the court is absolutely international treaties jurisdiction the question is whether or not there's any merit to the claim in the first instance here there's no merit to the claim and so  however there could have been a possible i can't even see the possibility that a current sixteen forty one deals with a completely different set of issues that are that pertain thought that pertain to the step to money crimes for lack of a better word for it i think you kind of answered the question a little in response to one of my questions which is maybe analogous to what we happened in some of the personnel cases which is if you didn't volunteer if you resigned voluntarily there's a threshold question of jurisdiction and then we have the diversion of what frivolous or non frivolous than either hearing or not  comparable procedure but i think you mentioned in response that you do in the jurisdictional contact look at whether or not at least it rivoli or something and and that's the threshold inquiry with respect to that that is one hundred percent what i so you're a lawyer and so your view is the key judge here could have made that determination in the context of jurisdiction and but having concluded as he did that it wasn't then just decided this case on a jurisdictional basis that is exactly the position of the united states here that's precisely our position iraq i think the court had to look at whether or not it was a frivolous claim but once it made a determination that the claim in another itself didn't fall within the scope of six hundred forty one d the question the sole question before the court do i have jurisdiction under sixteen forty one g two and the answer is no because twenty eight fifteen eighty one does not allow for the review of revocations for failure to file a try in your report the statute speaks a does not speak of it in fact fifteen eighty one by leaving it out not simply saying revocations and suspensions in general by leaving it out it is an expressed statement that they did not intend the court of international trade to hear such cases there was the part that dealt with chick international so i apologize for not being more specific in my brief but the entire case the case in its entirety must be dismissed because the court of international trade completely like jurisdiction over the issues involved in this action and for all of those reasons we would request that this work for the judgment below is just dismissed as king's thank you question that we pose not the answer to that question the question we pose is whether section sixteen forty one which is one of the things that relates to the court subsection fifteen eighty one  decide if there was no right to a hearing they didn't listen to the rest of our arguments but the question for you is one that clearly has jurisdiction in the shiites it's not dependent on the outcome if that was the case all the merits dismiss said that you know if you convicted of a crime or if you're doing terrible things you get a due process hearing but if you just didn't file your triennial report here don no hearing no nothing they acted unconstitutionally due do it and people have their licenses revoked under section six hundred forty one g b which is what happened my client and my client has been deprived of constitutional due process under the bell first person and the other cases relating to licenses believe that by saying that the revocation for the grounds specified in subsection jeev must be done through the procedure in six forty one which is certainly a permissible construction of this back to this court would preserve