C.F.R. » Title 21 » CHAPTER I—FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS › Subpart E—Imports and Exports

21 C.F.R. § 1.90

Notice of sampling

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

When a sample of an article offered for import has been requested by the division director, FDA shall provide to the owner or consignee prompt notice of delivery of, or intention to deliver, such sample. Upon receipt of the notice, the owner or consignee shall hold such article and not distribute it until further notice from the division director or U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the results of examination of the sample.

[85 FR 50781, Aug. 18, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: United States v. Yuri Izurieta, 710 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Yuri Izurieta, 710 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “113 (c); 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 . Ultimately, if the goods are found to be adulterated, the FDA may demand under the applicable regulation that the goods be “redelivered” to Customs for exportation or supervised destruction.”
Del Monte Fresh Produce NA, Inc. v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “” Food and Drugs, Imports and Exports, 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 ; see also 21 U.S.C. § 381 (a) (requiring such notice to the importer).”
United States v. Imperial Food Imports, & Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 834 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “In such a ease, the FDA will issue a Notice of Sampling, 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 , and often a Notice of Detention and Hearing, 21 C.”
United States v. Toshoku Am., Inc., 879 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “In *819 such a case, the FDA will issue a Notice of Sampling, 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 , and often a Notice of Detention and Hearing, 21 C.”
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 . It is the FDA’s practice to issue a “Notice of Action” alerting an importer of its decision to release a particular shipment for, or to reject it from, import.”
United States v. So's USA Co., 1999 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 3× “” 16 In its motion for summary judgment, the Government raises its second argument that the FDA requested a sample of the face cream, 17 and that because of this request, So’s had a legal obligation to hold the goods pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1.90 (1999). See Gov’t Mot. for Summ.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.