Legal Opinion
United States v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., and International Cargo and Surety Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 5, 1997No. 96-1097PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRYSON, Circuit Judge..
This case requires us to construe 19 U.S.C. § 1514, which provides that, with certain nar- • rowly defined exceptions, the Customs Service’s liquidation of an entry is “final and conclusive” as to all parties unless an administrative protest is filed challenging the liquidation. International Cargo & Surety Insurance Co. (IC & S), the surety for importer Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc. (Cherry Hill), argues that the protest requirement of section 1514 applies to actions brought by importers or sureties for the refund of duties paid, but does not apply to enforcement actions…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Nelson J. Elliott v. Samuel SwartwoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (Surety for Carreon, Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Juice Farms, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Ambassador Division of Florsheim Shoe v. The United States, and Footwear Industries of America, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, and U.S. Magnesium LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Fujitsu General America, Inc. (Successor-In-Interest to Teknika Electronics Corp.) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Cemex, S.A. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Xerox Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.