Case: The J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States
Abbreviation: J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1966-09-20
Docket Number: C.D. 2773
Citation: 57 Cust. Ct. 238
Volume: 57
Reporter: United States Customs Court Reports
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The J. D. Richardson Co. v. United States
Judges: Before Bao and Pord, Judges
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
(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

Opinion:
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.