Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 52.djvu/1085

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

PUBLIC LAWS-CH. 675-JUNE 25, 1938 Seizure of articles. Post, pp. 1048, 1052. Proviso. If libel for condem- nation proceeding pending. Exceptions. Change of venue. Procedure. When proceedings are pending in two or more jurisdictions. Consolidation for trial. undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address of, the manufacturer of the coal-tar color, to the effect that such color was from a batch certified in accordance with the applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this Act. SEIZURE SEC. 304. (a) Any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in inter- state commerce, or which may not, under the provisions of section 404 or 505, be introduced into interstate commerce, shall be liable to be proceeded against while in interstate commerce, or at any time there- after, on libel of information and condemned in any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the article is found: Provided, however, That no libel for condemnation shall be instituted under this Act, for any alleged misbranding if there is pending in any court a libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act based upon the same alleged misbranding, and not more than one such proceeding shall be instituted if no such proceeding is so pending, except that such limitations shall not apply (1) when such misbranding has been the basis of a prior judgment in favor of the United States, in a criminal, injunction, or libel for condemnation proceeding under this Act, or (2) when the Secretary has probable cause to believe from facts found, without hearing, by him or any officer or employee of the Department that the misbranded article is dangerous to health, or that the labeling of the misbranded article is fraudulent, or would be in a material respect misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer. In any case where the number of libel for condemnation proceedings is limited as above pro- vided the proceeding pending or instituted shall, on application of the claimant, seasonably made, be removed for trial to any district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties, or, in case of failure to so stipulate within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of the district in which the seizure has been made, and such court (after giving the United States attorney for such district reason- able notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable prox- imity to the claimant's principal place of business, to which the case shall be removed for trial. (b) The article shall be liable to seizure by process pursuant to the libel, and the procedure in cases under this section shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the procedure in admiralty; except that on demand of either party any issue of fact joined in any such case shall be tried by jury. When libel for condemnation proceedings under this section, involving the same claimant and the same issues of adul- teration or misbranding, are pending in two or more jurisdictions, such pending proceedings, upon application of the claimant season- ably made to the court of one such jurisdiction, shall be consolidated for trial by order of such court, and tried in (1) any district selected by the claimant where one of such proceedings is pending; or (2) a district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties. If no order for consolidation is so made within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of one such jurisdiction, and such court (after giving the United States attorney for such district reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business, in which all such pending pro- ceedings shall be consolidated for trial and tried. Such order of consolidation shall not apply so as to require the removal of any case the date for trial of which has been fixed. The court granting such 1044 [52 STAT.