in merit and may not have been sufficient to require a hearing, see United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1229 (2 Cir. 1983), cert. denied,_U.S__, 104 S.Ct. 2344, 80 L.Ed.2d 818 (1984), the court made no determination to that effect. The SEC’s good faith cannot be deemed irrelevant as a matter of law to a determination whether its request for interlocutory equitable relief should be granted. Cf. United States v. Second National Bank, 502 F.2d 535, 548 (5 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 912, 95 S.Ct. 1567, 43 L.Ed.2d 777 (1975). 6 . See also SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1344 (5th Cir.1978) ("the seriousness of permanent injunctions has triggered closer appellate scrutiny of SEC injunctions than was found in earlier decisions"); SEC v. Caterinicchia, 613 F.2d 102, 105 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Treasury Department is authorized to
recognizing the importance of a determination on the merits with respect to the issuance of a permanent injunction recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion holding that purpose of stop was complete upon the issuance of the citation holding that application of equitable principles in evaluating requests for permanent injunctions under the patent act should not differ from treatment of permanent injunctions in other fields of law recognizing the developing judicial attitude toward closer appellate scrutiny of the issuance of injunctions