Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 6, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2585
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 62 Cust. Ct. 559 →
Opinion
When, the suit listed aboye was called, there was no appearance by plaintiff either in person or by attorney. A motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution was made on behalf of the defendant.
An examination of the official papers indicates that the protest was not filed within the time prescribed by section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Accordingly, motion made on behalf of defendant is denied and protest is dismissed as being untimely.
Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States, 58 Cust. Ct. 6, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2585 (cusc 1967).
58 Cust. Ct. 6 (Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.