Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Barr Shipping Co.

United States Customs Court

Decided June 21, 1972No. A.R.D. 303Published

1Concurrence

CON GUERIN G OPINION

Maletz, Judge:

I concur with Judge Landis’ opinion but think it desirable to add a few comments with respect to tbe jurisdictional *339issue raised by Judge Ridiardson in dissent. For one thing, the dissent would limit the term “agent” as used in section 501(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to the “person who makes entry of imported merchandise on behalf of the consignee.” Such a construction of section 501(a) is, I think, entirely unwarranted. There is no reason why — and the legislative history does not indicate to the contrary — ran agent cannot be appointed for…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. Brooks Transp. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1950

11 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