Berman & Anderson, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Berman & Anderson, Inc. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 531, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1913

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 31, 1966

DocketC.D. 2694

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Cust. Ct. 531 (Berman & Anderson, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berman & Anderson, Inc. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 531, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1913 (cusc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Bao, Chief Judge:

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff, although due notice as to the time and place of trial had been given, and the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution.

It appearing from the official papers that the entry herein was liquidated on October 5, 1964, but that the protest was not filed until December 8,1964, a date exceeding the statutory limit of 60 days fixed for filing protest in section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the protest is untimely. The motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of prosecution is, therefore, denied, but the protest is dismissed as untimely.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Bao, Chief Judge:

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff, although due notice as to the time and place of trial had been given, and the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution.

It appearing from the official papers that the entry herein was liquidated on October 5, 1964, but that the protest was not filed until December 8,1964, a date exceeding the statutory limit of 60 days fixed for filing protest in section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the protest is untimely. The motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of prosecution is, therefore, denied, but the protest is dismissed as untimely.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Cust. Ct. 531, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-anderson-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1966.