General
The J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 238·United States Customs Court·1966
Before Bao and Pord, Judges
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
(C.D. 2773)
The J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States
United States Customs Court, Second Division
(Decided September 20, 1966)
Plaintiff not represented by counsel.
J. William Doolittle, Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
Before Bao and Pord, Judges
[MAJORITY — Rao, Chief Judge:]
Rao, Chief Judge:
When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff, although due notice as to tbe time and place of trial bad been given, and tbe defendant moved to dismiss tbe action for want of prosecution.
It appearing from tbe official papers that tbe entry herein was liquidated on November 20, 1964, but that the protest was not filed until February 3,1965, a date exceeding tbe statutory limit of 60 days fixed for filing protest in section 514 of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, tbe protest is untimely. The motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of prosecution is, therefore, denied, but the protest is dismissed as untimely.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.