Case Name: Wilhelm A. MAAS d. b. a. Mans Trading Co. et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee; AIR-SEA FORWARDERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-05-23
Citations: 496 F.2d 1233
Docket Number: Customs Appeal Nos. 74-11, 74-12
Parties: Wilhelm A. MAAS d. b. a. Mans Trading Co. et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. AIR-SEA FORWARDERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 496
Pages: 1233–1234

Head Matter:
Wilhelm A. MAAS d. b. a. Mans Trading Co. et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. AIR-SEA FORWARDERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Customs Appeal Nos. 74-11, 74-12.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
May 23, 1974.
Stein & Shostak, Los Angeles, Cal., attys. of record, for appellants. James F. O’Hara, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel.
Irving Jaffe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Joseph I. Liebman, New York City, for United States.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.

Opinion:
MILLER, Judge.
Although separate transcripts of the record and separate briefs were filed, the above appeals were joined for oral argument and will be disposed of in a single opinion.
Each appeal is from an order of the Customs Court denying appellants' motion for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution of the above cases and also in numerous other cases listed on a schedule recited as being annexed to said order. The schedules annexed to the motions are not shown, as such, in the transcript, but a separate schedule of cases is attached to the order and is certified by the clerk of the Customs Court to be identical to that recited as annexed to the motion. Each transcript also includes a certificate of similarity from the clerk of the Customs Court, stating that the order of dismissal in the captioned action is. typical of the other orders of dismissal entered in all actions covered by the appeal.
The essential facts and issues involved herein are identical to those in the consolidated appeals in Reynolds Trading Corp. et al. v. United States, Cust. & Pat.App., 496 F.2d 1228, decided this date, and our opinion there is controlling here.
Appellee's argument for dismissal is rejected and the orders of the Customs Court denying appellants' motions for rehearing and vacating and setting aside separate orders of dismissal for lack of prosecution are affirmed.
Affirmed.