Hellige, Inc. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 16, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1871
Opinion
When the suit listed above 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 the 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
Hellige, Inc. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 16, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1871 (cusc 1966).
57 Cust. Ct. 16 (Hellige, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.