161 search results for query *

Summary: 342 F. Supp. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WATSON, Judge: Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a motion not specifically set out in the rules of this court but one I would not hesitate to entertain and grant pursuant to Rule 1.1(b)[1] if the circumstances so required. The specific shortcoming claimed by defendant is a failure by plaintiffs to allege in the complaint that they have complied with the customs regulations which are a prelude to the more.

Summary: 453 F. Supp. V 1975), involving the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended (19 U.S.C. §§ 160, et seq. (1970 and Supp. In Voss International Corp. v. United States, 432 F. Supp. See, e. g., F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. Here, the Commission's notice of a negative injury determination, dated December 2, 1975 and published in the Federal Register (40 FR 57517 (1975)), discloses the background of this litigation, so far as pertinent to the present motion: On September more.

Summary: 408 F. Supp. The Customs Service classified the merchandise under item 206.67 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States [TSUS], as modified by T.D. 68-9, as "[w]ood * * * screens," and imposed a duty at the rate of 40, 36 or 32 percent ad valorem, depending upon the date of entry. In the case at bar, the pertinent provisions may be set forth as follows: Classified under: Schedule 2, part 1: "Subpart E.—Miscellaneous Products of Wood * * * * * * Wood blinds, shutters, screens, and shades, all more.

Summary: 495 F. Supp. The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) has determined that no bounty or grant was paid or bestowed, within the meaning of section 303(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 331(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, 88 Stat. Plaintiffs contend that various regional development programs administered by the Belgium Government, which include low-interest loans, investment subsidies in the form of cash grants, special accelerated depreciation rates at twice the normal rate, and more.

Summary: 458 F. Supp. The action challenges the denial of protests which plaintiff filed when its requests for reliquidation of the involved entries under section 520(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1) (1964),[1] were refused by the appropriate customs officials.

Summary: 426 F. Supp. RE, Judge: The question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of certain Sarlane elastomeric fiber, invoiced as "Spandex Elastomeric Multi-Filament Yarns." It is plaintiff's contention that the imported yarn consists of strands which are not monofilaments, as classified by the customs *557 officials, but rather multifilaments, or grouped filaments, which have not been subjected to such processes as twisting and untwisting, false more.

Summary: 375 F. Supp. The yacht, the "MS Astral," is registered and documented under the laws of the Netherlands Antilles, and was brought into the United States by a resident of this country. The Astral was thereupon classified under TSUS item 696.10, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as a yacht or pleasure boat valued over $15,000, owned by a resident of the United States or brought into the United States for sale or charter to a resident thereof. Plaintiff contends that the yacht was not subject to entry more.

Summary: 349 F. Supp. 22, 424 F.2d 935 (1970); M. A. Schapiro & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 339 F. Supp. 1969); Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Veterans Administration, supra, 301 F. Supp. [11] Thus, statements of fact, such as reports comparing an alternate bid for property with its fair market value, General Services Administration v. Benson, supra, 415 F.2d 878; written appraisal of a house, Tennessean Newspapers, Inc. v. Federal Housing Administration, supra, 464 F.2d 657; more.

Summary: 135 F. Supp. This cause of action challenges the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New Orleans in excluding from entry certain cigar lighters, which the plaintiff endeavored to import into the United States. The act of exclusion was based upon the authority of an order of the President, dated March 17, 1934, 65 Treas. Dec. 659, T.D. 47001, issued in accordance with the provisions of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.A. § 1337, directing the Secretary of the more.

Summary: 358 F. Supp. Thus, in Verrazzano Trading Corp. v. United States, 349 F. Supp. Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 7 F.R.D. 210 (W.D.N.Y. 1947); Laugharn v. Zimmelman, 28 F. Supp. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F. Supp. See e. g., Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F. Supp. Thus, statements of fact, such as reports comparing an alternate bid for property with its fair market value, General Services Administration v. Benson, supra, 415 F.2d 878; written more.

Summary: 146 F. Supp. As originally filed, the protests claimed that the proper rate of tax or duty assessable on the merchandise was ¼ cent per gallon, and each protest, either as filed or by timely amendment, alternatively claims a rate of 3/8 cent per gallon under section 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code, by virtue of section 350(a), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.A. § 1351(a), and the Presidential Proclamations involved. * * *" The facts and the statutory law applicable show the more.

Summary: 360 F. Supp. 429 (1973) F. W. MYERS & CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES. Defendant on the other hand claims the regulations were not complied with since Customs Regulation, section 10.112 permits the late filing of such a document only in the absence of willful negligence. — Whenever a document, form, or statement required by regulations in this part to be filed in connection with the entry is not filed at the time of the entry or within the period for which a bond was filed more.

Summary: 433 F. Supp. Plaintiff claims said bags are not luggage, nor are they ejusdem generis with the articles enumerated in schedule 7, part 1, subpart D, headnote 2(a)(i) of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. For the purposes of the tariff schedules — (a) the term "luggage" covers— (i) travel goods, such as trunks, hand trunks, lockers, valises, satchels, suitcases, wardrobe cases, overnight bags, pullman bags, gladstone bags, traveling bags, knapsacks, more.

Summary: 351 F. Supp. In so doing, the plaintiff asserts: (1) the clerk of this court in April of 1972, pursuant to rule 14.6(d), sent to the plaintiff, as well as all other parties having actions pending in the October 1970 Reserve File, a notice informing them that the respective actions will be dismissed unless removed from the reserve file within the applicable period of time, to wit — October 31, 1972; (2) as a result of the act of mailing the afore-described notice by the clerk, the plaintiff is more.

Summary: 336 F. Supp. United States v. Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc., et al., 54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914 (1967); United States v. Bud Berman Sportswear, Inc., 55 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 929 (1967); United States v. Pan American Import Corp., et al., C.A.D. 993, 428 F.2d 848, 57 CCPA 134 (1970). In United States v. Pan American Import Corp., et al., supra, the court pointed out (428 F.2d p. 852, p. 138): * * * where a separable appraisement is involved, once an importer has shown that the merchandise was freely more.

Summary: 483 F. Supp. NEWMAN, Judge: INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, American manufacturers and/or wholesalers of certain hand tools, contest the negative injury determination of the United States Tariff Commission ("Commission")[1] in Wrenches, Pliers, Screwdrivers, and Metal-Cutting Snips and Shears From Japan, Investigation No. [2] In this action, plaintiffs seek to overturn the negative injury determination reached by the Commission on October 21, 1974, viz., that "an industry in the United States is not more.

Summary: 467 F. Supp. Plaintiffs, domestic manufacturers and wholesalers of float glass, allege certain bounties or grants were being paid or bestowed upon the manufacture of float glass in the Federal Republic of Germany. Plaintiffs urge such importations of float glass are, therefore, subject to assessment of countervailing duties as provided for in section 303(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 331(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, 88 Stat. The essential facts relating to assistance given more.

Summary: 377 F. Supp. Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, New York City (Eugene F. Blauvelt and Gail T. Cumins, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff. The merchandise was assessed with duty at the rate of 9 per centum ad valorem under the provision in item 799.00 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) for "Other" articles not provided for elsewhere in the tariff schedules. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is free of duty under the provision in item 437.76, TSUS, for "Viruses, more.

Summary: 377 F. Supp. The sole issue, rather, is whether certain "Sec. 520(c) request letters" (as they are characterized in the complaint) constitute valid protests within the meaning of section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514),[1] and *957 thereby invest this court with jurisdiction over the actions. 75, C.D. 3531, 287 F. Supp. [2] Within 60 days after each liquidation, plaintiff filed a letter with the district director of customs requesting correction under section 520(c) more.

Summary: 416 F. Supp. Under its terms (1) DuPont agreed to purchase from Azufrera at least 80% of its crude sulphur requirements for use at two of DuPont's plants in New Jersey; (2) Azufrera agreed to deliver the sulphur to its docks at Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, Mexico and there to load same onto vessels supplied by Caribbean; (3) title to the sulphur and risk of loss thereof was to pass from Azufrera to DuPont when the sulphur was loaded onto the vessels at Coatzacoalcos; (4) Caribbean agreed to accept more.