Naftone, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Naftone, Inc. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 886, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1566

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1966

DocketNo. 69819; protest 64/19863 (New York)

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Cust. Ct. 886 (Naftone, Inc. 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

Naftone, Inc. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 886, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1566 (cusc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise of this case consists of mounted camera lenses which were imported at New York from West Germany. It appears from the official papers before the court on the calendar call that the importer’s attorneys, by letter dated April 22, 1964, made formal request of the collector on plaintiff-importer’s behalf for reliquidation of the involved entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A., section 1520(c)(1) (section 520(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended), for the correction of clerical error said to have been made in the invoice. It further appears from the record that the collector did not answer or act upon the request for reliquidation, but instead, transmitted the request to this court along with the official papers as a protest.

[887]*887Inasmuch as the collector has not yet acted upon the request for reliquidation, no valid protest against the collector’s decision on such request is before the court. As such, the instant proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise of this case consists of mounted camera lenses which were imported at New York from West Germany. It appears from the official papers before the court on the calendar call that the importer’s attorneys, by letter dated April 22, 1964, made formal request of the collector on plaintiff-importer’s behalf for reliquidation of the involved entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A., section 1520(c)(1) (section 520(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended), for the correction of clerical error said to have been made in the invoice. It further appears from the record that the collector did not answer or act upon the request for reliquidation, but instead, transmitted the request to this court along with the official papers as a protest.

[887]*887Inasmuch as the collector has not yet acted upon the request for reliquidation, no valid protest against the collector’s decision on such request is before the court. As such, the instant proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Cust. Ct. 886, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naftone-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1966.