## Facts

- Carl Borchsenius Co., Inc., a New York corporation, was consignee of a 5,000-bag shipment of coffee from Brazil to New Orleans.
- During transit or unloading, approximately 1,500 bags became wet; inspections found “damp, moldy coffee.”
- FDA detained the entire shipment under the FDCA’s import provisions, 21 U.S.C. § 381.
- The importer applied under 21 U.S.C. § 381(b) for authorization to recondition the coffee by skimming molded beans and drying wet beans; FDA approved and supervised the process.
- After reconditioning, FDA deemed part of the coffee compliant and eligible for import, but found the remainder still appeared adulterated and rejected it.
- FDA conditioned release of the compliant portion for import on destruction of the rejected portion and refused the importer’s request to export the rejected coffee.
- The importer sought mandamus-type relief to compel FDA officials to (i) permit export of the rejected portion and (ii) release the compliant portion without a destruction condition.

## Issues

1. Whether, after an importer elects to proceed under 21 U.S.C. § 381(b) to bring detained goods into compliance, the FDA must permit export of any portion that remains noncompliant.
2. Whether the FDA may condition release of the compliant portion for import on destruction (rather than export) of the remaining adulterated portion.
3. Whether mandamus lies to compel FDA officials to allow export or to release the compliant goods without the destruction condition.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the defendants and denied mandamus relief.
- The court held that an importer’s election to proceed under § 381(b) does not preserve a statutory right to export the remainder that still appears adulterated after reconditioning.
- The court held that the FDA acted within its statutory authority and discretion in conditioning release of the compliant coffee on destruction of the rejected portion.
- Because the statute did not impose a clear, ministerial duty to allow export under these circumstances, mandamus was unavailable.

## Legal Principles

- 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) and § 381(b) establish alternative statutory paths: refusal of admission with export/destruction options under (a), versus discretionary permission to attempt to bring goods into compliance under (b).
- An importer who elects § 381(b) assumes the risk that any portion not brought into compliance may be subject to destruction rather than export.
- The FDCA import scheme affords the FDA broad discretion to impose conditions reasonably tied to preventing adulterated food from entering commerce.
- Mandamus requires a clear, nondiscretionary duty; where the agency’s action is discretionary under the statute, a court will not compel a different outcome.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the FDA’s authority under 21 U.S.C. § 381 to deny export of adulterated coffee remaining after a § 381(b) reconditioning attempt and to require destruction of that rejected portion as a condition of releasing the compliant portion for import, making mandamus relief unavailable.


Carl Borchsenius Co. v. Gardner, 282 F. Supp. 396 (E.D. La. 1968)