Clase v. United States

21 Cust. Ct. 195, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 589
United States Customs Court·Decided August 18, 1948·No. No. 52504; protest 133351-K (New York)·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial counsel for the defendant moved for dismissal of the protest on the ground that “it is insufficient in law,” calling attention to section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), which requires that a protest shall set forth “distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry, payment, claim, decision, or refusal, the reasons for the objection thereto.” That plaintiff recognized the insufficiency of his protest was disclosed by counsel’s admission at the time of trial and his motion, which was granted, to file an amended protest. Such an amended protest was never offered. An examination of the record disclosing nothing from which to draw the classifications urged or the rates claimed, the motion to dismiss was granted. (Davies v. Arthur, 96 U. S. 148; United States v. Salambier, 170 U. S. 621; and Herrmann v. Robertson, 152 U. S. 520, followed.)

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

Clase v. United States, 21 Cust. Ct. 195, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 589 (cusc 1948).

21 Cust. Ct. 195 (Clase v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davies v. Arthur
96 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1878)
Sargent v. Covert
152 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court, 1894)
United States v. Salambier
170 U.S. 621 (Supreme Court, 1898)