Connor v. United States
United States Customs Court
1Opinion of the Court
Rao, Judge:
This is a motion to dismiss the above-entitled action on the ground that the protest purporting to initiate it is not legally sufficient and for the further reason that it was not filed by an authorized party within the provisions of section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Said section reads as follows:
SEC. 514. PROTEST AGAINST COLLECTOR’S DECISIONS.
Except as provided in subdivision (b) of section 516 of this Act (relating to protests by American manufacturers, producers, and wholesalers), all decisions of the collector, including the legality of all orders and findings entering…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Greely's Administrator v. BurgessSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- United States v. SalambierSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- United Bulb Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1941
- United States v. MaloneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1924
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lunitz v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962