Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

Carr, John V., & Son, Inc., United States v.

Clayton Chemical & Packaging Company, United States v.-

Continental Forwarding, Inc. v. United States...

Delmonico International Corp. v. United States...

Number

A.R.D. 165

A.R.D. 169, 177

Duche, T. M., & Sons, Inc., et al., United States v..

Friedman, Morris v. United States-

Gucker & Goldstein v. United States___.

Hoenig Plywood Corporation, The v. United States...

Tower, C. J., & Sons, United States v...

Orban, Kurt, Company, Incorporated, United States v...

Tanous, Joseph v. United States..

Williams, Clarke Company, United States v.

Wilmington Shipping Company v. United States..

(XI)

A.R.D. 171

A.R.D. 176

A.R.D. 170

A.R.D. 178

A.R.D. 167

A.R.D. 168

A.R.D. 166

A.R.D. 164

A.R.D. 172

A.R.D. 173

A.R.D. 174, 175

CASE REPORTED IN FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

Energetic Worsted Corp. v. United States, 51 Cust. Ct. 55, C.D. 2413; 224 F.

Supp. 606

(XIII)

DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

CUSTOMS COURT

Classification

(C.D. 2424)

CAVALIER SHIPPING CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES Administration—Appearance in reappraisement proceedings— Notice of trial-Motion to dismiss protest for untimeliness

The involved entries covering importations of plywood from Japan were liquidated on June 4, 1959. Plaintiff filed a protest on March 10, 1960, claiming that the liquidations were "void" because they were based upon the improper dismissal of pending reappraisement appeals for nonappearance of the plaintiff therein as appellant and for lack of prosecution wherein notice of trial had not been given in the reappraisement proceedings to appellant's attorneys. However, the record shows that the appellant filed the appeals itself and did not appear by counsel and, further, that notice of trial in the reappraisement proceedings had been given to the appellant per se.

Held, the liquidations were not "void," as claimed, in consequence of which, the defendant's motion for dismissal of the protest for untimeliness is granted.

United States Customs Court, Third Division

Protest 60/7591 against the decision of the collector of customs
at the port of Norfolk

[Dismissed.]

(Decided December 23, 1963)

Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad of counsel) for the plaintiff.

John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General (James F. O'Hara and Sheila N. Ziff, trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Before DONLON and RICHARDSON, Judges

RICHARDSON, Judge: The merchandise involved in the protest at bar consists of plywood, which was imported at Norfolk, Va., from Japan, and advanced in value on appraisement. The involved entries, 72 and 2443, were the subject of reappraisement appeals (R58/ 16376 and R58/16886, respectively) that were dismissed for nonappearance of the plaintiff and lack of prosecution at the February 26, 1959, Norfolk docket pursuant to an order signed by a single judge on March 30, 1959 (initial No. R58/16374). When the instant protest covering these entries was called for trial, counsel for the defendant

1

« EdellinenJatka »