Shreve v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Kao, Judge:
When this case was called for trial, counsel for plaintiff moved to amend the protest to allege that certain filter links, invoiced as “S. 1026 12” Filter Links,” should be assessed with duty at “8% percent under paragraph 372 or 353, as modified.” Counsel further advised the court that if the motion were granted, he would abandon all other claims in the protest.
Counsel for defendant opposed the motion on the ground that it purports to embrace merchandise not covered by the protest, as originally filed; and, in *326view of plaintiff’s expressed, intention of abandoning all other…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Sheldon & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- Lichtenstein v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1910
- Rissman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chas. Kurz Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
- Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1967
- Chas. Kurz Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966