Legal Opinion

Collin v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 3, 1944No. C. D. 851PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cole, Judge:

Before discussing the issue raised through the collector’s classification and plaintiff’s claim, it is necessary to consider defendant’s motion to dismiss protest 30206-K on the ground of' untimeliness. The motion was presented to the trial judge who denied it when it was made at the hearing in Houston, Tex., where the merchandise was entered. The question is a jurisdictional one, and therefore is a proper subject for discussion at any time during pendency of the case (United States v. Mexican Petroleum Corp., 28 C. C. P. A. 90, C. A. D. 130). The basis for the motion is explained…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Meyer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. United States v. Aetna Explosives Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Aetna Explosives Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cavalier Shipping Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  2. Ultra Ray Pearl Essence Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
  3. Protest 111618-K of Collin & GisselUnited States Customs Court · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API