Halman, S.a., et al., Appellants, v. United States of America, 976 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted for the reasons stated in this court's opinion in Industria Panificadora, S.A. v. United States, 957 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), reh'g denied, No. 91-5147 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 1992), petition for cert. filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3061 (U.S. July 10, 1992) (No. 92-76); accord Goldstar (Panama), S.A. v. United States, No. 91-2229, 1992 WL 131907 (4th Cir., June 16, 1992). The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.