United Flowers, Inc. v. United States
Opinion of the Court
Defendant has moved to dismiss the protest in this case on the ground it was not filed with the district director
This protest, however, refers to itself as a confirmation and reiteration of a protest sent by telegram on April 29, 1968, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss. The copy indicates that it was sent on April 29, 1968 and was addressed to “Regional Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Collector of Customs, 515 Rusk Ave., Houston, Texas.”
Defendant has supplied affidavits indicating that the telegram in question was not received on April 29 by the district director.
Since it is the filing
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that said protest is untimely filed and the motion to dismiss is hereby granted, and it is further
ORDERED, that said protest be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
Prior to the period Involved the post of district director had replaced that of collector of customs. Plaintiff’s use of the title “Collector” In Its communications, Is not considered a defect and has not affected the outcome herein.
The additional affidavits supplied by defendant of nonreceipt by the regional commissioner of customs were not necessary since the regional commissioner is not a person designated to receive protests under section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (46 Stat. 734). Cf. United China & Glass Co. v. United States, 53 Cust. Ct. 68, C.D. 2475 (1964).
See Wagner Tractor, Inc. v. Shields, 381 F. 2d 441, 445, 446 (C.A. 9, 1967).
See, United States v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Apple. 28, T.D. 29896 (1923).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.