Legal Opinion

United States v. Stanley Works

United States Court of International Trade

Decided December 20, 1993No. Court No. 93-03-00140PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Carman, Judge:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover civil penalties for violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) (1988) and to recover marking duties, provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1304(f) (1988), pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d). This Court has jurisdiction over this matter based on 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (1988). Defendant moves to dismiss this action pursuant to USCIT Rules 12 (b)(1), (2) and (5), for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) lack of personal jurisdiction, and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Background

Stanley received a prepenalty notice from…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. HirschSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. United States v. Priority Products, Inc., and Walter L. And Rosalie E. HussCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
  3. United States v. Thorson Chemical Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 1992
  4. United States v. Jac Natori Co.United States Court of International Trade · 1993
  5. United States v. Thorson Chemical Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 1990

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. IslipUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
  2. United States v. RicciUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
  3. Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
  4. United States v. Maxi Switch, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 1998
  5. United States v. RicciUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API