Legal Opinion
Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided December 13, 1989No. Court 87-02-00170, 87-04-00608, 87-10-01022 and 87-11-01073PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TSOUCALAS, Judge:
Plaintiff brings these actions to recover duties assessed by the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) under section 466(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a) (1988), on entries of repairs (including the cost of equipment, parts and materials) completed on four of plaintiff's vessels abroad. 1 Defendant moves to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff allegedly failed to pay all liquidated duties, charges or exactions pri- or to commencement of the actions as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a) (1982). Defendant also maintains that…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. MirandaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Miller & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- National Corn Growers Ass'n v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Uniroyal, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Dazzle Mfg., Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
- Melco Clothing Co., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1992
- Apex Oil Co. v. United States Customs Service (In Re Apex Oil Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · 1990
- Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2017
- Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.