Marposs Gauges Corp. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
Restani, Judge:
Defendant has moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that a summons was not timely filed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a)(1) (1982). Alternatively, defendant urges that plaintiff failed to file a protest with the Customs Service ("Customs”) and therefore, pursuant to section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (1982), no summons could issue from this court. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that a letter to Customs served as a valid protest and that all filings were timely.
This case arises out of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hambro Automotive Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Mattel, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1974
- United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
- Fibrous Glass Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.