Pantoja v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion and Order
Ford, Judge:
Defendant, pursuant to rules 4.7 and 4.12 of the rules of this court has filed a motion to dismiss the above-entitled action on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction.
Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion on the ground that it filed a protest on February 8, 1977. The alleged protest filed on said date is a “Discrepancy Report and Declaration” required by 19 CFR 18.6(c). Defendant denies the discrepancy report and declaration constitutes a protest within the meaning of section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Customs Regulations, 19 CFR 174.13. In any event,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dunlop v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Schell's Executors v. FauchéSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Greely's Administrator v. BurgessSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- How-Tex Peanut Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
3Cited by2 opinions
- Po-Chien, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1982
- United States v. Borge International, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 1985