J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States

57 Cust. Ct. 238, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1787

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1966

DocketC.D. 2773

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Cust. Ct. 238 (J. D. Richardson Co. 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

J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 238, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1787 (cusc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Rao, Chief Judge:

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff, although due notice as to [239]*239tbe time and place of trial bad been given, and tbe defendant moved to dismiss tbe action for want of prosecution.

It appearing from tbe official papers that tbe entry herein was liquidated on November 20, 1964, but that the protest was not filed until February 3,1965, a date exceeding tbe statutory limit of 60 days fixed for filing protest in section 514 of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, tbe protest is untimely. The motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of prosecution is, therefore, denied, but the protest is dismissed as untimely.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Rao, Chief Judge:

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff, although due notice as to [239]*239tbe time and place of trial bad been given, and tbe defendant moved to dismiss tbe action for want of prosecution.

It appearing from tbe official papers that tbe entry herein was liquidated on November 20, 1964, but that the protest was not filed until February 3,1965, a date exceeding tbe statutory limit of 60 days fixed for filing protest in section 514 of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, tbe protest is untimely. The motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of prosecution is, therefore, denied, but the protest is dismissed as untimely.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Cust. Ct. 238, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-d-richardson-co-v-united-states-cusc-1966.