NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASS'N v. Baker, Court No. 85-08-01151.
Decision Date | 03 November 1986 |
Docket Number | Court No. 85-08-01151. |
Parties | NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James A. BAKER III etc. et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Williams & Connolly (Aubrey M. Daniel, III, Stephen L. Urbanczyk, Manley W. Roberts, Robert W. Hamilton and William R. Murray, Jr.), Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Kenneth N. Wolf), New York City, for defendants.
Spriggs, Bode & Hollingsworth (William H. Bode, Donald W. Fowler, Joseph A. Artabane, Mark J. Riedy and Bruce J. Berger), Washington, D.C., for intervenor-defendant RAJ Chemicals, Inc.
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (A. Douglas Melamed, Robert C. Cassidy, Jr. and Deborah M. Levy), Washington, D.C., for intervenor-defendant Citicorp Intern. Trading Co., Inc.
Subsequent to entry of final judgment herein, intervenor-defendant RAJ Chemicals, Inc. ("RAJ") interposed a Motion for Reassignment to Three-Judge Panel and Motion for Rehearing or to Alter and Amend Judgment. The simultaneous motion(s) were addressed to the Chief Judge of the Court pursuant to Rule 77(d)(2) and (4) and Rule 59.1 Intervenor-defendant Citicorp International Trading Company, Inc. ("Citicorp") then filed with the undersigned a Motion for Rehearing and to Alter, or for Relief From, Judgment. That filing was characterized "as a formality, within the thirty days specified in Rules 59 and 60, in order to ensure that no question can be raised about the timeliness of Citicorp's suggestion that it is entitled to the same relief from the earlier Judgment in this case as RAJ."
The Chief Judge has denied RAJ's motion(s) in 10 CIT ___, 643 F.Supp. 626 (1986), which concludes as follows:
Apparently by the time of this decree, Customs had liquidated2 all four contested Citicorp ethanol entries at the incorrect rate of duty. However, in letters dated July 28 and October 22, 1986, defendants' counsel have notified the court of reliquidation of two of those entries "under authority of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Omni USA, Inc. v. US
...Op. 85-98, at 5-6 (Sept. 20, 1985), 9 CIT ___, 623 F.Supp. 1262, 1266-71 (1985), 10 CIT ___, 636 F.Supp. 921, rehearing denied, 10 CIT ___, 650 F.Supp. 172 (1986), appeal docketed, No. 87-1147 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 1987). The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (1982), the residual jurisdicti......
-
Ambling v. Blackstone Cattle Co., Inc.
... ... No. 86 C 6485 ... United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D ... January 8, 1987.650 F ... Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood, 509 F.2d 1287, 1295 (7th ... ...