Drexel Chemical Co. v. United States

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 867

United States Court of International Trade·Decided June 27, 2003·No. Court No. 98-02-00295-S·Published

Opinion

AMENDED JUDGMENT

MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge:

Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) and good cause having been shown, it is hereby;

ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Consent Motion to Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the Consent Motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the United States pay interest to Drexel as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2644 and 19 U.S.C. § 1505.

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

AMENDED JUDGMENT

MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge:

Upon consideration of the Consent Motion to Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) and good cause having been shown, it is hereby;

ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Consent Motion to Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the Consent Motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the United States pay interest to Drexel as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2644 and 19 U.S.C. § 1505.

Drexel Chemical Co. v. United States, 27 Ct. Int'l Trade 867 (cit 2003).

Pincite

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 867 (Drexel Chemical Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Payment of duties and fees

19 U.S.C. § 1505

Interest

28 U.S.C. § 2644

Opinion

Related