Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

56 Agric. Dec. 1684

establishment for the purpose of verifying whether Respondent had corrected the specified sanitation deficiencies.

Conclusion

Respondent has failed to eliminate insanitary conditions at Amoroso Foods, Inc. (Establishment 8761/P-8761) in violation of section 8 of the FMIA and section 7 of the PPIA and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Order

Inspection services under the PPIA and Title I of the FMIA are indefinitely withdrawn from Respondent, its successors, affiliates or assigns.

This order shall be final and effective 35 days after service of this Decision and Order upon Respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the Rules of Practice applicable to this proceeding. (7 C.F.R. § 1.145).

[This Decision and Order became final July 28, 1997.-Editor]

PLANT QUARANTINE ACT

In re: RIGAUD PIERRE.

P.Q. Docket No. 97-0006.

Decision and Order filed June 2, 1997.

Failure to file an answer - Importation of potatoes from Haiti into the United States without a permit - Civil penalty.

Howard Levine, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge.

This is an administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty for a violation of the Plant Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 151-167) and the Federal Plant Pest Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 150aa-150jj) (Acts), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (7 C.F.R. § 319.56 et seq.).

This proceeding was instituted by a complaint filed against Rigaud Pierre, respondent, on January 23, 1997, by the Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent has not filed an answer to date. Pursuant to section 1.136(c) of the rules of practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(c)), failure to deny or otherwise respond to the allegations in the complaint constitutes, for the purposes of this proceeding, an admission of said allegations. By respondent's failure to answer, respondent has admitted the allegations of the complaint.

Accordingly, the material allegations alleged in the complaint are adopted and set forth herein as the Findings of Fact, and this Decision is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the rules of practice applicable to this proceeding. (7 C.F.R. § 1.139).

1.

Findings of Fact

Rigaud M. Pierre, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, is an individual with a mailing address of 12 Church Street, New Rochelle, New York 10801.

2. On or about March 27, 1996, the respondent violated

sections 319.56-3(a) and 321.4(a) of the regulations by importing seventeen (17) potatoes from Haiti into the United States without a permit.

Conclusion

By reason of the facts contained in paragraphs one and two above, Rigaud Pierre, respondent, has violated 7 C.F.R. § 319.56-3(a) and 321.4(a).

[merged small][ocr errors]

56 Agric. Dec. 1689

1

Therefore, the following order is issued.

Order

Rigaud Pierre is hereby assessed a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000). This penalty shall be payable to "Treasurer of the United States" by certified check or money order, and shall be forwarded to:

United States Department of Agriculture

APHIS Field Servicing Office

Accounting Section

Butler Square West, 5th Floor

100 North Sixth Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

within thirty days from the effective date of this order. The certified check or money order should include the docket number of this proceeding.

This Order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and shall be final and effective thirty-five (35) days after service of this Decision and Order upon respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the rules of practice applicable to this proceeding (7 C.F.R. § 1.145).

[This Decision and Order became final July 15, 1997.-Editor]

In re: ANA MARIA ROSALES.

P.Q. Docket No. 97-0001.

Decision and Order filed May 30, 1997.

Failure to file an answer - Importation of mangoes into the United States from Mexico without a permit - Civil penalty.

Howard Levine, Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision and Order issued by Edwin S. Bernstein, Administrative Law Judge.

This is an administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty for a violation of the Plant Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 151-167) and the Federal Plant Pest Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 150aa-150jj) (Acts), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (7 C.F.R. § 319.56 et seq.).

This proceeding was instituted by a complaint filed against Ana Maria Rosales, respondent, on October 29, 1996, by the Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent has not filed an answer to date. Pursuant to section 1.136(c) of the rules of practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(c)), failure to deny or otherwise respond to the allegations in the complaint constitutes, for the purposes of this proceeding, an admission of said allegations. By respondent's failure to answer, respondent has admitted the allegations of the complaint.

Accordingly, the material allegations alleged in the complaint are adopted and set forth herein as the Findings of Fact, and this Decision is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the rules of practice applicable to this proceeding. (7 C.F.R. § 1.139).

Findings of Fact

1. Ana Maria Rosales, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, is an individual with a mailing address of 1204 S. Catalina Street, Los Angeles, California 90006.

2. On or about January 6, 1996, the respondent violated section 319.56-3(a) of the regulations by importing ten (10) fresh mangos from Mexico into the United States without a permit.

Conclusion

By reason of the facts contained in paragraphs one and two above, Ana Maria Rosales, respondent, has violated 7 C.F.R. § 319.56-3(a).

Therefore, the following order is issued.

Order

Ana Maria Rosales, respondent, is hereby assessed a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000). This penalty shall be payable to "Treasurer of the United States" by certified check or money order, and shall be forwarded to:

United States Department of Agriculture

APHIS Field Servicing Office

Accounting Section

Butler Square West, 5th Floor

100 North Sixth Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

56 Agric. Dec. 1691

within thirty days from the effective date of this order. The certified check or money order should include the docket number of this proceeding.

This Order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and shall be final and effective thirty-five (35) days after service of this Decision and Order upon respondent, unless there is an appeal to the Judicial Officer pursuant to section 1.145 of the rules of practice applicable to this proceeding (7 C.F.R. § 1.145).

[This Decision and Order became final August 6, 1997.-Editor]

In re: SERGIO ARTURO CANELES.

P.Q. Docket No. 95-0040.

Decision and Order filed July 2, 1997.

Failure to file an answer - Importation of mangoes from Guatemala into the United States without a permit - Civil penalty..

Jeffrey Kirmsse, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Decision and Order issued by James W. Hunt, Administrative Law Judge

This is an administrative proceeding for the assessment of a civil penalty for a violation of the regulations governing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States (7 C.F.R. 319.56 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the regulations, in accordance with the rules of practice set forth in 7 C.F.R. 1.130 et seq., and 380.1 et seq.).

This proceeding was instituted by a complaint, filed on June 6, 1995, by the Acting Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The complaint alleged that on or about November 30, 1994, the respondent imported mangoes from Guatemala into the United States in violation of 7 C.F.R. 319.56-2(e), because the respondent did not obtain a permit for the mangoes, as required.

The complaint was served upon the respondent by certified mail on June 7, 1995. The respondent failed to file an answer which denied or otherwise responded to the allegations in the complaint. In accordance with section 1.136(c) of the rules of practice (7 C.F.R. 1.136(c)), such failure to deny or otherwise respond to an allegation in the complaint is deemed, for the purpose of this proceeding, an admission of said allegation.

In view of the aforementioned facts, the respondent is deemed to have admitted the material allegations in the complaint and, therefore, has waived his right to a

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »