Glezer v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Glezer v. United States

43 Cust. Ct. 424

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1959

DocketNo. 63579; protest 58/21516 (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Cust. Ct. 424 (Glezer 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

Glezer v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 424 (cusc 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

From an examination of the official papers, it appears that on August 12, 1957, and on March 10, 1958, the plaintiff wrote the collector requesting a refund of duty. On March 26, 1958, plaintiff objected to the liquidation, failing to refund certain duties, which the collector filed as a protest on March 31, 1958. When the case was called for trial, defendant moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not filed within 60 days after liquidation, as provided in section 514. It appearing that the pro[425]*425test was filed too late, the protest was dismissed. It was noted that the infirmity of untimeliness would exist, eren if plaintiff’s earliest letter of inquiry to the collector could be deemed a protest.

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

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

From an examination of the official papers, it appears that on August 12, 1957, and on March 10, 1958, the plaintiff wrote the collector requesting a refund of duty. On March 26, 1958, plaintiff objected to the liquidation, failing to refund certain duties, which the collector filed as a protest on March 31, 1958. When the case was called for trial, defendant moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not filed within 60 days after liquidation, as provided in section 514. It appearing that the pro[425]*425test was filed too late, the protest was dismissed. It was noted that the infirmity of untimeliness would exist, eren if plaintiff’s earliest letter of inquiry to the collector could be deemed a protest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Cust. Ct. 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glezer-v-united-states-cusc-1959.