Superscope, Inc. v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Newman, Judge:
Defendant has moved to strike the complaint filed on October 31,1972 in this action “pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4.7(b)”. The predicate of defendant’s motion to strike is that “the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter with respect to the merchandise identified in paragraphs 5 and 8 of said complaint”.
Initially, it should be pointed out that rule 4.7(b) does not provide for a motion to strike the complaint, but rather for a motion to dismiss the action.1 However, rule 4.7(e) provides for a motion to strike, but not upon the ground urged by defendant — lack of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- International Mercantile Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Bendix Mouldings, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1973
- Kaiser Reismann Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Estee Lauder Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
- International Mercantile Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1977
- Nadel & Sons Toy Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974