International Electronics Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

International Electronics Corp. v. United States

75 Cust. Ct. 199, 1975 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2205

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1975

DocketCourt No. 71-10-01413

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Cust. Ct. 199 (International Electronics Corp. 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

International Electronics Corp. v. United States, 75 Cust. Ct. 199, 1975 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2205 (cusc 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson Judge:

The clerk of the court, acting under rule 17.1,-refused to file defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s notice of trial on the ground that rule 9.1 provides only for an objection to a notice of trial in the form prescribed therein.

As I read rule 9.1, it does not adequately provide for objections to a notice of trial which go beyond disagreement as to the date or place of trial. Since defendant’s objection here is primarily that the notice of trial is a sham designed to circumvent a previous order of the court and avoid dismissal for lack of prosecution, I am of the opinion that a motion to strike is a proper vehicle. It allows plaintiff to respond in defense of its notice of trial, leads directly to a full resolution of the issue involved and, in accordance with rule 1.1(b), I consider it to be the correct procedure in these circumstances.

It is therefore,

Ordered that the clerk of the court file defendant’s motion of November 18, 1975 to strike plaintiff’s notice of trial.

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

Watson Judge:

The clerk of the court, acting under rule 17.1,-refused to file defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s notice of trial on the ground that rule 9.1 provides only for an objection to a notice of trial in the form prescribed therein.

As I read rule 9.1, it does not adequately provide for objections to a notice of trial which go beyond disagreement as to the date or place of trial. Since defendant’s objection here is primarily that the notice of trial is a sham designed to circumvent a previous order of the court and avoid dismissal for lack of prosecution, I am of the opinion that a motion to strike is a proper vehicle. It allows plaintiff to respond in defense of its notice of trial, leads directly to a full resolution of the issue involved and, in accordance with rule 1.1(b), I consider it to be the correct procedure in these circumstances.

It is therefore,

Ordered that the clerk of the court file defendant’s motion of November 18, 1975 to strike plaintiff’s notice of trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Cust. Ct. 199, 1975 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-electronics-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1975.