Case ID: cust-ct_58/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kao, Chief Judge:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(C.D. 3029)
    Silvine Importers, Inc. v. United States
    United States Customs Court, Second Division
    (Decided June 12, 1967)
    Plaintiff not represented by counsel.
    
      Carl Eardley, Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
    Before Rao and Ford, Judges
   Kao, Chief Judge:

When tbe above-enumerated protest was called for trial, there was no appearance on bebalf of plaintiff or its attorney. Defendant moved to dismiss the cause of action on the grounds of untimeliness of protest.

Keference to the official papers discloses that the protest was not filed with the collector of customs within the 60-day period after liquidation of the entry as required by section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514). The protest is, therefore, untimely.

Defendant’s motion is granted, and the protest is dismissed on the ground of untimeliness.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.