Morsly Handkerchief Co. v. United States
This text of 68 Cust. Ct. 32 (Morsly Handkerchief 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.
Opinion
Plaintiffs move under Eule 14.7 for an order suspending the actions enumerated in an attached Schedule pending the final determination of United Merchants, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 70/29939, and the motions are not opposed by the defendant. Plaintiffs’ motions are disposed of as follows:
As to the actions enumerated in the attached Schedule identified with the prefix (A), the motion is denied without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon proper papers. The court’s files indicate that the entry papers in these cases have not been received by the court from the custody of the customs officials.
As to the actions enumerated in the said Schedule identified with the prefix (B), the motion and the said actions are dismissed for prematurity by reason of the fact that in contravention of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1503 (a)' (section 503 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953) liquidation of the subject entries was not made upon a final appraised value, and as such, is void, liquidation in each instance having taken place within 60 days of the date of the appraiser’s report. See United States v. Boston Paper Board Co.. 23 CCPA 372, T.D. 48233 (1936), and other cases cited in Memorandum to Accompany Order in Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. United States, protest 69/38803, C.D. 4301, decided December 1, 1971. It is the duty of the regional commissioner of customs to liquidate the involved entries in the manner provided for by law so that plaintiffs may file a valid protest against said entries if they be so advised.
[33]*33As to tlie actions enumerated in the said Schedule identified with the prefix (C), the motion, being unopposed and within the court’s jurisdiction, is granted, and the said actions will be suspended under the action entitled United Merchants, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 70/29939.
SOHEDTOE OE ACTIONS
Court Nos.
(A) 70/60058 (B) 70/49479 (B) 70/6739
(B) 70/57126 (B) 70/19793 (B) 70/8167
(B) 70/12919 (B) 70/19406 (B) 70/8467
(B) 70/16744 (B) 70/16808 (B) 70/9901
(B) 70/34796 (C) 70/17562 (C) 70/9920
(B) 70/27466 (B) 70/17580 (B) 70/10268
(B) 70/17762 (C) 70/17664 (B) 70/10269
(C) 70/3417 (B) 70/17836 (B) 70/10484
(B) 70/14632 (B) 70/19226 (B) 70/11127
(B) 70/6954 (B) 70/19228 (B) 70/11128
(C) 70/38270 (B) 70/19301 (B)' 70/11129
(B) 70/56983 (B) 70/19309 (B) 70/12962
(B) 70/56891 (B) 70/19405 (B) 70/13589
(B) 70/57197 (B) 70/19819 (B) 70/13618
(B) 70/56906 (C) 70/19834 (B) 70/14054
(B) 70/57296 (C) 70/22431 (B) 70/14055
(B) 70/57819 (C) 70/22957 (B) 70/14056
(B) 70/57820 (C) 70/23020 (B) 70/14057
(B) 70/58834 (B) 70/25505 (B) 70/17658
(A)70/60631 (C) 70/25860 (B) 70/20070
(A) 70/60720 (C) 70/26150 (B) 70/29641
(B) 70/12920 (C) 70/27822 (B) 70/29736
(C) 70/10542 (B) 70/32220 (B) 70/32461
(B) 70/38402 (C) 70/14567 (B) 70/32906
(C) 70/22491 (C) 70/26126 (B) 70/33128
(B) 70/5876 (C) 70/31807 (B) 70/33318
(B) 70/3996 (C)70/32274 (B) 70/33570
(B) 70/51179 (C)70/29143 (B) 70/34053
(B) 70/51182 (B) 70/16634 (B) 70/34082
(B) 70/56601 (B) 70/268 (B) 70/36682
(B) 70/59200 (B) 70/1711 (C) 70/4254
(B) 70/58248 (C) 70/4884 (C). 70/43852
(B) 70/45007 (C) 70/6107
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 Cust. Ct. 32, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morsly-handkerchief-co-v-united-states-cusc-1972.