ARD

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Wagner v. United States, 67 F.2d 656 (9th Cir. 1933)
  …, 88, 89; Mamaux v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 264 F. 816, 818; Brookman v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 8 F.(2d) 803, 806, 807; Nations v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 52 F.(2d) 97, 99; Ard v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 54 F.(2d) 358, certiorari denied 285 U. S. 550, 52 S. Ct. 406, 76 L. Ed. 941; Friseia v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 63 F.(2d) 977, 980. When we test the plea in abatement in the instant ease in the light of the rules laid down in the foregoing decisions, we find thafit falls far short of the re…
• The United States v. Reliable Chem. Co., 605 F.2d 1179 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
  …on 514(b)(2)(A). Since the provisions of that section are jurisdictional, United States v. Nils A. Boe, supra, they cannot be waived by the Customs Service. See James Akeroyd & Son v. United States, 19 CCPA 249, 258, T.D. 45341 (1931), cert. denied, 285 U.S. 550, 52 S.Ct. 406, 76 L.Ed. 941 (1932). Moreover, the Customs Service’s processing of appellee’s “protest” could not revive it, since it was never effective, having been filed before liquidation. We recognize the Customs Court’s concern for fairness. I…
• Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 667 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1982)
  …d in 28 U.S.C. § 1582(c) (1976): “The Customs Court shall not have jurisdiction of an action unless ... a protest has been filed, as prescribed by [19 USC 1514 (1976)] . . . ." In Akeroyd v. United States, 19 CCPA 249, 258, T.D. 45341, cert. denied 285 U.S. 550, 52 S.Ct. 406, 76 L.Ed. 941 (1931), this court held that the failure of an importer to file a timely protest is a jurisdictional defect. More recently, in United States v. Boe, 64 CCPA at 16, 543 F. 2d at 155, this court said: “Those jurisdictional-…