7 U.S.C. § 608a

Enforcement of chapter

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) to (4) Omitted(5) Forfeitures

Any person exceeding any quota or allotment fixed for him under this chapter by the Secretary of Agriculture and any other person knowingly participating or aiding in the exceeding of such quota or allotment shall forfeit to the United States a sum equal to the value of such excess at the current market price for such commodity at the time of violation, which forfeiture shall be recoverable in a civil suit brought in the name of the United States.

(6) Jurisdiction of district courts

The several district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain any person from violating any order, regulation, or agreement, heretofore or hereafter made or issued pursuant to this chapter, in any proceeding now pending or hereafter brought in said courts.

(7) Duties of United States attorneys; investigation of violations by Secretary; hearings

Upon the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the directions of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings to enforce the remedies and to collect the forfeitures provided for in, or pursuant to this chapter. Whenever the Secretary, or such officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture as he may designate for the purpose, has reason to believe that any handler has violated, or is violating, the provisions of any order or amendment thereto issued pursuant to this chapter, the Secretary shall have power to institute an investigation and, after due notice to such handler, to conduct a hearing in order to determine the facts for the purpose of referring the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action.

(8) Cumulative remedies

The remedies provided for in this section shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any of the remedies or penalties provided for elsewhere in this chapter or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity.

(9) “Person” defined

The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, and any other business unit.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, § 8a, as added May 9, 1934, ch. 263, § 4, 48 Stat. 672; amended Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §§ 8–10, 49 Stat. 762; June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §§ 1, 2(c), 50 Stat. 246, 247; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 909; Pub. L. 87–128, title I, § 141(2), Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 304.)Editorial NotesCodification

Provisions of subsecs. (1) to (4), relating to establishment, regulation and determination of sugar quotas, agreements limiting or regulating child labor, wages, and adjustment of disputes in the sugar industry, and prescribing penalties for violations thereof, were omitted since they ceased to apply on Sept. 1, 1937, in accordance with the provisions of section 510 of the Sugar Act of 1937, act Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 898, 50 Stat. 916. Section 510 of act Sept. 1, 1937, provided in part that: “The provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended [this chapter], shall cease to apply to sugar upon the enactment of this Act [Sept. 1, 1937]” . Provisions similar to former subsecs. (1) to (4) were contained in the Sugar Act of 1948, section 1100 et seq. of this title, which expired on Dec. 31, 1974.

Amendments

1961—Subsec. (5). Pub. L. 87–128 struck out “willfully” after “Any person” and substituted provision for forfeiture of a sum equal to the value of the excess at the current market price for the commodity at the time of violation for provision for forfeiture of a sum equal to three times the current market value of the excess.

1937—Subsec. (6). Act June 3, 1937, § 2(c), struck out “the provisions of this section, or of”.

1935—Subsec. (1). Act Aug. 24, 1935, § 8, substituted “persons engaged in handling” for “handlers” wherever appearing; struck out “or in competition with,” in par. (B); inserted “directly” before “to burden” in par. (B); and struck out “in any way” in par. (B).

Subsec. (6). Act Aug. 24, 1935, § 9, inserted “or” after “regulation,” and struck out “or license”.

Subsec. (7). Act Aug. 24, 1935, § 10, inserted last sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted “United States attorneys” for “district attorneys” in subsec. (7). See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

Validity of Section Affirmed

Act June 3, 1937, affirmed and validated, and reenacted without change the provisions of subsections (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this section, except for the amendment to subsection (6) by section 2 of the act. See note set out under section 601 of this title.

Executive DocumentsAdmission of Hawaii as State

Admission of Hawaii into the Union was accomplished Aug. 21, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as notes preceding 491 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 70 cases, 1936–2012 · leading case: United States v. Riverbend Farms, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Riverbend Farms, Inc. (1988) ca9 · cites it 7× “(“Riverbend”) appeals from the decision of the district court ordering civil forefeiture pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5). Riverbend argues that: 1) Title 7 U.”

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945) scotus · cites it 2× “The Sugar Quota Law, 7 U.S.C. § 608a (1), defined as imports the amounts of sugar permitted to be brought into the United States from the Philippines, and prohibited such importation in excess of prescribed quotas.”

United States v. Adler's Creamery, Inc. (1939) ca2 · cites it 4× “I do not know how successful the program will ultimately prove to be, but I am loath to put even temporary obstacles in its way, now that the responsibility of the administrators has been made clear by the Supreme Court's affirmance of the legislative mandate.”

United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co. (1995) caed · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5). The United States is authorized to initiate criminal prosecutions and forfeiture suits against handlers who violate prorate.”

United States v. St. Regis Paper Company (1966) ca2 · cites it 2× “There, a suit to collect moneys allegedly owing to the Market Administrator for failure to make payments required by a regulation issued by the United States Department of Agriculture was opposed on the ground that the defendant had not been granted a prior administrative…”

Brown v. Hecht Co. (1943) cadc · cites it 2× “675 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a(6). [18] 52 Stat. 1069 , 29 U.”

United States v. $359,500 in United States Currency, Benedetto Romano, Claimant-Appellee (1987) ca2 “, 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5) (forfeiture for exceeding commodities quota or allotment); 27 U.”

American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. United States (1939) ca9 · cites it 2× “We think allegations of such facts were unnecessary, because of 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a(6). Congress apparently concluded that a violation of a valid order would cause irreparable injury, in that the theory expressed by the act required restriction on shipments and unless the fixed…”

United States v. Hinman Farms Products, Inc. (1957) nynd · cites it 3× “8a(7) (7 U.S.C.A. § 608a (7) of the Act was not raised or determined.”

La Verne Co-Op. Citrus Ass'n v. United States (1944) ca9 · cites it 2× “” 2 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a (6): “The several district courts of the United States are hereby vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain any person from violating any order, regulation, or agreement, heretofore or hereafter made or issued pursuant to…”

Gay Union Corporation v. Wallace (1940) cadc · cites it 2× “Under the Sugar Act no allotments of the mainland sugar quota were made in 1937 or 1938.”

Evans v. United States (2006) uscfc “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 608a(5), 608a(6), 608c(14); see also In re Saulsbury Enters.”

Show all 70 citing cases →

— 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5) — 9 cases

United States v. Riverbend Farms, Inc. (1988) ca9 “(“Riverbend”) appeals from the decision of the district court ordering civil forefeiture pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5). Riverbend argues that: 1) Title 7 U.”

United States v. $359,500 in United States Currency, Benedetto Romano, Claimant-Appellee (1987) ca2 “, 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5) (forfeiture for exceeding commodities quota or allotment); 27 U.”

United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co. (1995) caed “” 7 U.S.C. § 608a(5). The United States is authorized to initiate criminal prosecutions and forfeiture suits against handlers who violate prorate.”

Evans v. United States (2006) uscfc “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 608a(5), 608a(6), 608c(14); see also In re Saulsbury Enters.”

United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp. (1998) ca9

— 7 U.S.C. § 608a(6) — 44 cases

Brown v. Hecht Co. (1943) cadc “675 , 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a(6). [18] 52 Stat. 1069 , 29 U.”

United States v. Adler's Creamery, Inc. (1939) ca2 “I do not know how successful the program will ultimately prove to be, but I am loath to put even temporary obstacles in its way, now that the responsibility of the administrators has been made clear by the Supreme Court's affirmance of the legislative mandate.”

American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. United States (1939) ca9 “We think allegations of such facts were unnecessary, because of 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a(6). Congress apparently concluded that a violation of a valid order would cause irreparable injury, in that the theory expressed by the act required restriction on shipments and unless the fixed…”

Saulsbury Orchards & Almond Processing, Inc. v. Yeutter (1990) ca9

United States v. Ideal Farms, Inc. (1958) ca3

— 7 U.S.C. § 608a(7) — 4 cases

United States v. Hinman Farms Products, Inc. (1957) nynd “8a(7) (7 U.S.C.A. § 608a (7) of the Act was not raised or determined.”

Freeman v. BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN AND COMPANY (1966) nysd

— 7 U.S.C. § 608a(8) — 1 case

Rasmussen v. Hardin (1972) ca9

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.