ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

7 U.S.C. § 473c–1Offenses in relation to sampling of cotton for classification

submitted 99 years ago by Pub. L. 86-588 to r/title-7-AGRICULTURE · 288 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This law lists crimes related to sampling cotton for official classification. It bans improper sampling, tampering with samples, bribing samplers, and interfering with the sampling process. It also bans submitting duplicate or falsely produced samples.

This section makes seven things unlawful. (a) A person sampling cotton for classification cannot knowingly sample it improperly, identify samples improperly, or take money or anything else of value for neglecting or improperly doing their sampling job. (b) No one may improperly influence, or try to improperly influence, a sampler -- or physically assault, resist, block, or interfere with a sampler taking samples. (c) No one may knowingly alter a sample -- say, by trimming it, peeling it, dressing it up, or removing leaves, trash, dust, or other material -- in order to misrepresent the true quality of the bale it came from. (d) No one may knowingly cause, or try to cause, a false or misleading classification certificate or memo, whether through deceptive baling, handling, or sampling, or by submitting samples while knowing the cotton was baled, handled, or sampled that way. (e) No one may knowingly submit more than one sample from the same bale for classification, except a second sample submitted for a review classification. (f) No one may knowingly run or adjust a mechanical cotton sampler so that it fails to draw a truly representative sample from each bale. (g) No one may knowingly break any Secretary of Agriculture regulation about cotton sampling issued under section 473c of this title.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

It shall be unlawful—

(a)

for any person sampling cotton for classification under this chapter knowingly to sample cotton improperly, or to identify cotton samples improperly, or to accept money or other consideration, directly or indirectly, for any neglect or improper performance of duty as a sampler;

(b)

for any person to influence improperly or to attempt to influence improperly or to forcibly assault, resist, impede, or interfere with any sampler in the taking of samples for classification under this chapter;

(c)

for any person knowingly to alter or cause to be altered a sample taken for classification under this chapter by any means such as trimming, peeling, or dressing the sample, or by removing any leaf, trash, dust, or other material from the sample for the purpose of misrepresenting the actual quality of the bale from which the sample was taken;

(d)

for any person knowingly to cause, or attempt to cause, the issuance of a false or misleading certificate or memorandum of classification under this chapter by deceptive baling, handling, or sampling of cotton, or by any other means, or by submitting samples of such cotton for classification knowing that the cotton has been so baled, handled, or sampled;

(e)

for any person knowingly to submit more than one sample from the same bale of cotton for classification under this chapter, except a second sample submitted for review classification;

(f)

for any person knowingly to operate or adjust a mechanical cotton sampler in such a manner that a representative sample is not drawn from each bale; and

(g)

for any person knowingly to violate any regulation of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to the sampling of cotton made pursuant to section 473c of this title.

Source credit: (Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, § 3c–1, as added Pub. L. 86–588, July 5, 1960, 74 Stat. 328.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1927Enacted · Pub. L. 86-588 · 74 Stat. 328

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 86-588 on 1927-03-03.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case