Legal Opinion · Dissent

Eastern Diamond Products Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided June 30, 1965No. C.D. 2552Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Donlon, Judge:

I do not concur with my learned colleagues that plaintiff has not made at least a prima facie showing that it is an American wholesaler and qualified as such, under section 516(b), to sue on this protest.

In our consideration we have the benefit not only of briefs filed by plaintiff and defendant, but also of an extensive brief filed as amicus curiae by counsel for General Electric Company, sole producer of synthetic diamond dust in the United States.

In its brief, defendant concedes that plaintiff is a bona fide wholesaler of diamond dust, even though it is what…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Bailey-Lewis-Williams of Florida, Inc. v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 1961
  2. Diamond Tool Research Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  3. Mullins Industrial Diamond Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API