Ruby International, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum and Order
Aquilino, Judge:
The plaintiff has interposed a motion pursuant to CIT Rule 15 (a) for leave to amend its complaint, which, as filed on April 30,1992, contests the failure of the U.S. Customs Service to classify the covered merchandise under item 688.45 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as quartz analog watches in accordance with Belfont Sales Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 541, 666 F.Supp. 1568 (1987), reh’g denied, 12 CIT 916, 698 F.Supp. 916 (1988), aff’d, 878 F.2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Attached to plaintiffs summons is a schedule of some 14 protests filed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Belfont Sales Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988
- Belfont Sales Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1987
- Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1992