Ore Reduction Co. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Ore Reduction Co. v. United States

36 Cust. Ct. 450

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 31, 1956

DocketNo. 59965; protest 204796-K (Nogales)

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Cust. Ct. 450 (Ore Reduction 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

Ore Reduction Co. v. United States, 36 Cust. Ct. 450 (cusc 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

As to 10 of the 18 entries covered by the protest herein, the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), were not complied with. Accordingly, the protest, insofar as it related to entries 68, 87, 101, 138, 167, 168, and 169, not having been filed within the 60-day statutory [451]*451period, was dismissed. There being nothing in the record tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification of the collector, the protest was overruled as to entries 132, 144, 155, 156, 246, 265, 344, and 387.

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

As to 10 of the 18 entries covered by the protest herein, the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), were not complied with. Accordingly, the protest, insofar as it related to entries 68, 87, 101, 138, 167, 168, and 169, not having been filed within the 60-day statutory [451]*451period, was dismissed. There being nothing in the record tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification of the collector, the protest was overruled as to entries 132, 144, 155, 156, 246, 265, 344, and 387.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Cust. Ct. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ore-reduction-co-v-united-states-cusc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack