This is the second appeal to this Court involving the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in blocking funds belonging to the Dong Phuong Bank, a private corporation established under the laws of the Republic of Vietnam. The blocking of funds by the Secretary was done by authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 1 et seq., and the Foreign Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 500.101 et seq. (1980).

Before the fall of the Republic of Vietnam in 1976, the bank was owned by twenty shareholders, all of whom were nationals and residents of Vietnam. Tran Qui Than, plaintiff-appellant in the present case, and in the earlier litigation before this Court, was a shareholder, director and president of the bank. He escaped from South Vietnam and now is a resident of the United States.

I

In Tran Qui Than v. Regan, 658 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1069 , 103 S.Ct. 487 , 74 L.Ed.2d 630 (1982), this Court upheld the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury denying Than’s application for a license to unblock Army funds claimed by the bank, affirming the decision of the district court, Tran Qui Than v. Blumenthal, 469 F.Supp. 1202 (N.D.Calif.1979). Reference is made to the reported decisions of this Court and the district court for a detailed recitation of pertinent facts.

II

The Secretary of the Treasury determined that the Dong Phuong Bank is a “designated national” under the Foreign Assets Control Regulations and that there may be no transfers of American-based assets in which the Bank has an interest without an unblocking license. He denied plaintiffs application for such a license with respect to a contract payment for $221,235 due from the United States Army to a Vietnamese corporation, because the Bank, “a designated national”, was assignee of the contract.

The Secretary further determined that plaintiff had received $29,975.44 of a similar Navy contract payment in which the Bank had an interest as assignee; that payment had been made to another Vietnamese contractor but should also have been blocked under the Regulations because of the interest of the Bank. This payment was made after plaintiff executed a release for the Navy on behalf of the Bank.

Plaintiff retained $5,145.53 as his share of this Navy money and also retained $5,798.78 for “administrative expenses” incurred by him. Plaintiff states that he distributed the balance of the Navy funds among other shareholders of the Bank. The Secretary demanded that plaintiff place all the Navy funds he had received from this payment into a blocked account.

In our opinion reported in 658 F.2d 1296 , supra, this Court remanded to the district court the question of whether the Navy funds must be placed in a blocked account, and, if so, in what amount; that is, whether the blocking should apply only to the share of the Navy funds retained by plaintiff, or whether the funds distributed by plaintiff to other shareholders of the Bank also must be paid into the blocked account.

III

District Judge William W. Schwarzer, in an unreported opinion filed July 13, 1983, held that all the Navy funds, including both the amounts withheld by plaintiff and the amounts distributed by him to other shareholders of the Bank, were subject to blocking by the Secretary.

We agree with the opinion of Judge Schwarzer, including the following language:

Judge Schwarzer also was clearly correct in holding that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable against the Secretary of the Treasury under the facts of this ease. Heckler v. Community Health Services, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2218 , 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (May 21, 1984); Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378, 1382 (9th Cir.1981).

Affirmed.