Legal Opinion · Dissent

Diamond Tool Research Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 30, 1965No. C.D. 2551Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Donlon, Judge:

I do not agree with my learned colleagues in their decision that plaintiff has not made a frima facie showing, at least, of its qualification as one who is authorized to file this protest under section 516(b). The issue as to qualification is well and succinctly stated by defendant, who is the protagonist of that issue, in its brief as follows:

1. Plaintiff has made no frima facie showing that it qualifies as a manufacturer of merchandise of the class or kind in issue.

2. Plaintiff has made no frima facie showing that it qualifies as a producer of merchandise of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Atkins v. Disintegrating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. United States Ex Rel. Bailey-Lewis-Williams of Florida, Inc. v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 1961
  3. Christensen Diamond Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  4. International Vitamin Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1947
  5. Samuel Dunkel & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API