Bell v. United States

Court of International Trade

Bell v. United States

23 Ct. Int'l Trade 65, 1999 CIT 13

CourtUnited States Court of International Trade

DecidedJanuary 29, 1999

DocketCourt 92-11-00764

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 65 (Bell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. United States, 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 65, 1999 CIT 13 (cit 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT ORDER

Goldberg, Judge:

On November 12, 1993, the Court remanded the above-captioned action to Customs so that plaintiff might present additional evidence pertaining to the denial of his application for a customs broker license. See Jeffrey S. Bell v. United States, 17 CIT 1220 (1993). On May 3,1994, upon Order of the Court, the parties then advised that the Secretary of the Treasury had granted Mr. Bell’s appeal of the denial of his license application and that the parties intended to file a stipulation to dismiss the above-captioned action pursuant to USCIT R. 41(a)(1)(B).

Having subsequently failed to submit any papers whatsoever, the Court issued an Order on December 7, 1998, requiring that plaintiff in the above-captioned action show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s show cause Order. Defendant responded in a letter to the Court on January 20, 1998, indicating that it had been unable to locate counsel for plaintiff. Upon consideration of plaintiffs failure to respond to the Order to show cause; upon all other papers and proceedings had herein, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby

Ordered that above-captioned action is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT ORDER

Goldberg, Judge:

On November 12, 1993, the Court remanded the above-captioned action to Customs so that plaintiff might present additional evidence pertaining to the denial of his application for a customs broker license. See Jeffrey S. Bell v. United States, 17 CIT 1220 (1993). On May 3,1994, upon Order of the Court, the parties then advised that the Secretary of the Treasury had granted Mr. Bell’s appeal of the denial of his license application and that the parties intended to file a stipulation to dismiss the above-captioned action pursuant to USCIT R. 41(a)(1)(B).

Having subsequently failed to submit any papers whatsoever, the Court issued an Order on December 7, 1998, requiring that plaintiff in the above-captioned action show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s show cause Order. Defendant responded in a letter to the Court on January 20, 1998, indicating that it had been unable to locate counsel for plaintiff. Upon consideration of plaintiffs failure to respond to the Order to show cause; upon all other papers and proceedings had herein, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby

Ordered that above-captioned action is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ct. Int'l Trade 65, 1999 CIT 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-united-states-cit-1999.