Legal Opinion
Macrotel International Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided September 22, 1995No. 95-397CPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Judge.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that exclusive jurisdiction lies in the United States Court of International Trade. The motion is granted.
Background
At the time an importer places imported goods into the commerce of the United States, it must deposit with the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) the duties and fees estimated to be payable on the goods, 19 U.S.C. § 1505(a), including estimated antidumping duties for goods the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has preliminarily found to be sold in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Argosy Limited v. Franklin Hennigan, Individually and as Acting District Director of CustomsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- In Re FassettSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Vivitar Corporation v. The United States, and 47th Street Photo, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Forest Products Northwest, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Halliburton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- Aluminerie Becancour, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
- Canadian Reynolds Metals Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004