27 U.S.C. § 207

Penalties; jurisdiction; compromise of liability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 27 CasesGoogle Scholar

The District Courts of the United States, and the United States court for any Territory, of the District where the offense is committed or threatened or of which the offender is an inhabitant or has his principal place of business, are vested with jurisdiction of any suit brought by the Attorney General in the name of the United States, to prevent and restrain violations of any of the provisions of this subchapter. Any person violating any of the provisions of section 203 or 205 of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $1,000 for each offense. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, with respect to any violation of this subchapter, to compromise the liability arising with respect to such violation (1) upon payment of a sum not in excess of $500 for each offense, to be collected by the Secretary and to be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, and (2) in case of repetitious violations and in order to avoid multiplicity of criminal proceedings, upon agreement to a stipulation, that the United States may, on its own motion upon five days’ notice to the violator, cause a consent decree to be entered by any court of competent jurisdiction enjoining the repetition of such violation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1939–2021 · leading case: Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr, 391 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr, 391 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “27 U.S.C. § 207 . Shipping beer in interstate commerce without a COLA, in violation of 27 U.”
Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, 7 F.4th 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “See 27 U.S.C. § 207 . The ripeness requirement does not require parties to subject themselves to that kind of jeopardy.”
Wine Hobby Usa, Inc. v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.. Appeal of United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 502 F.2d 133 (3rd Cir. 1974). “§§ 5661 (a), 5687 ; 27 U.S.C. § 207 . 5 . 26 U.S.C. § 5042 (a)(2).”
Banfi Prods. Corp. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 107 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “27 U.S.C. § 207 . Furthermore, ATF has authority to detain and to seize and cause forfeiture of a product under 27 U.”
Eastland Constr. Co., Inc. v. Keasbey & Mattison Co., 358 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1966). “…also 6 U.S.O.A. § 10; 8 U.S.O.A. § 1329; 11 U.S.O.A. § 11(a) (1); 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 45 (c), 77v(a), 78aa, 79y, 80b-14; 27 U.S.C.A. § 207 ; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1402 (b), 1391(e) and (f), 1395(a), 1396; 42 U.S. C.A. } 1653(h): 45 TT.S.C.A. §§ 18, 34, 56. 7 . See, e. g., 5 U.S.C.A. §…”
Acosta v. Team Envtl., LLC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2019). “27 U.S.C. § 207 (h) (emphasis added). The statute only addresses sums excluded from the regular rate, and states that they may not be credited towards overtime compensation owed unless they meet one of the three enumerated exceptions contained in § 207(e)(5)-(7).”
Eastman v. United States, 153 F.2d 80 (8th Cir. 1946). “t amendment, and to protect the revenue and enforce the postal *82 laws with respect to distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages: * * * “(c) It shall be unlawful, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under this chapter by the Secretary of the Treasury— “(1) To engage in…”
James W. S. Davis, Supervisor in Charge of the Alcohol & Tax Div. in Puerto Rico v. Trigo Bros. Packing Corp., 266 F.2d 174 (1st Cir. 1959). “The District Courts of the United States, and the United States court for any Territory, of the District where the offense is committed or threatened or of which the offender is an inhabitant or has his principal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction of any suit…”
Atlas Brew Work, LLC v. Whitaker (D.D.C. 2019). “27 U.S.C. § 207 . Shipping beer in interstate commerce without a COLA, in violation of 27 U.”
Atlas Brew Work, LLC v. William Barr (D.C. Cir. 2020). “See 27 U.S.C. § 207 . On December 20, 2018, Atlas sought COLAs for beer labels intended for sale on the interstate market.”
Rondon v. Home Nurse Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2021). “(quoting 27 U.S.C. § 207 (e)(5), § 207(h)(2)). “Even where an employer pays employees for hours that they did not work, ‘it is permissible (but not required) to count these hours as worked in determining the amount of overtime premium pay, due for hours in excess of 8 per day .”
Acosta v. TEAM Env't LLC (S.D.W. Va 2019). “27 U.S.C. § 207 (h) (emphasis added). The statute only addresses sums excluded from the regular rate, and states that they may not be credited towards overtime compensation owed unless they meet one of the three enumerated exceptions contained in § 207(e)(5)-(7).”
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.