Clase v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Clase v. United States

21 Cust. Ct. 195, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 589

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedAugust 18, 1948

DocketNo. 52504; protest 133351-K (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Cust. Ct. 195 (Clase 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

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

Pincite

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

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.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Cust. Ct. 195, 1948 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clase-v-united-states-cusc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack