U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— COMMODITY BENEFITS

7 U.S.C. § 15

PAYMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF COMMODITIES THAT POSE A HEALTH OR SAFETY RISK.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—The Secretary may use funds available to carry out section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774, chapter 641; 7 U.S.C. 612c), that are not otherwise committed, for the purpose of reimbursing States for State and local costs associated with the removal of commodities distributed under any domestic food assistance program administered by the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the commodities pose a health or safety risk.“(b)Allowable Costs.—The costs—“(1) may include costs for storage, transportation, processing, and destruction of the commodities described in subsection (a); and“(2) shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary.“(c)Replacement Commodities.—“(1)In general.—The Secretary may use funds described in subsection (a) for the purpose of purchasing additional commodities if the purchase will expedite replacement of the commodities described in subsection (a).“(2)Recovery.—Use of funds under paragraph (1) shall not restrict the Secretary from recovering funds or services from a supplier or other entity regarding the commodities described in subsection (a).“(d)Crediting of Recovered Funds.—Funds recovered from a supplier or other entity regarding the commodities described in subsection (a) shall—“(1) be credited to the account available to carry out section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774, ch. 641; 7 U.S.C. 612c), to the extent the funds represent expenditures from that account under subsections (a) and (c); and“(2) remain available to carry out the purposes of section 32 of that Act until expended.“[(e) Repealed. Pub. L. 108–265, title III, § 301, June 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 788.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2022 · leading case: In the Matter of an Application to Enforce an Admin. Subpoena of the Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Naji Robert Nahas, 738 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Matter of an Application to Enforce an Admin. Subpoena of the Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Naji Robert Nahas, 738 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 28× “TAMM, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns a federal district court’s jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. § 15 (1982) to enforce an investigative subpoena served by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) on a foreign citizen in a foreign nation.”
Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948). · cites it 2× “Commodity Exchange Act of 1922 [ 7 U.S.C. §§ 15 , 6, 7a]. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 [7 U.”
George F. Frey, Jr., & Edward A. Cox, Jr., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. The Commodity Exch. Auth., 547 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “The district court has held that the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 15 , grants the plaintiffs-appellees in this case the right to pre-hearing discovery by means of subpoenas duces tecum and depositions.”
United States v. Sec. State Bank & Trust, Dr. William R. Newton, Intervenors-Appellants, 473 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1973). · cites it 5× “” 7 U.S.C.A. § 15 ; 49 U.S.C.A. § 12 (2). This appeal presents questions concerning the circumstances in which a federal district court may propérly enforce a subpoena issued by the Secretary under § 6(b).”
Stanley Greenwood v. Thomas H. Dittmer, Ray E. Friedman & Co., Stanley Greenwood v. Thomas H. Dittmer, Ray E. Friedman & Co., 776 F.2d 785 (8th Cir. 1985). “1976); see also 7 U.S.C. § 15 (authority to decide state law claims not included in Commission’s enforcement powers).”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Worth Bullion Grp., Inc., 717 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2013). “§ 6b, which prohibits, inter alia, the use of deception in connection with the sale of any commodity futures contract; and 7 U.S.C. § 15 , which prohibits any person from using deception in connection with the sale of any commodity in interstate commerce.”
Collins v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 737 F. Supp. 1467 (N.D. Ill. 1990). · cites it 2× “The CFTC’s authority to issue subpoenas rests not upon the RFPA but upon the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 15 . Cf. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v.”
Silverman v. Berkson, 661 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1995). “The court emphasized, however, that “this case does not pose a question about the authority of Congress; rather, it poses a question about the congressional intent embodied in 7 U.S.C. § 15 .” Id. at 495. A federal court will enforce an investigative subpoena issued to a foreign…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Harker, 615 F. Supp. 420 (D.D.C. 1985). · cites it 3× “On February 13, 1985, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 15 , the Commission entered an Order designating persons to issue subpoenas and take testimony in an investigation entitled “In the Matter of Trinity Metals Exchange, Inc.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Nahas, 580 F. Supp. 245 (D.D.C. 1983). · cites it 4× “The subpoena was issued pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“the Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 15 . The subpoena required Nahas to appear, testify, and produce documents at the Commission’s offices in Washington, D.”
Ping He (Hai Nam) Co. v. Nonferrous Metals (U.S.A.) Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “See 7 U.S.C. § 15 . Significantly, the Act also provides several avenues by which injured investors can obtain redress for violations of the Act.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Polonyi, 531 F. Supp. 18 (W.D. Mo. 1981). · cites it 2× “This is an administrative subpoena enforcement action brought under 7 U.S.C. § 15 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”).”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.