## Facts

- Harry Sugarman imported a shipment of damaged coffee beans.
- Federal officials, acting through the FDA under 21 U.S.C. § 381(a), examined the shipment and concluded the beans were “adulterated.”
- The adulteration finding rested on 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(3): the agency determined the beans were “unfit for food,” described as wholly lacking in recognized food values due to damage.
- The FDA ordered the shipment excluded from import.
- Sugarman sought injunctive relief, arguing the exclusion should be judicially reviewable, that the APA required notice and hearing, and that the Secretary should issue regulations defining “fitness for food.”

## Issues

1. Whether an import-exclusion order under 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) is subject to judicial review under the APA, absent arbitrary or capricious agency action.
2. Whether the FDCA, the APA, or the Constitution requires a formal hearing before excluding imports as adulterated.
3. Whether the agency must promulgate regulations further defining “unfit for food” or “fitness for food” before applying 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(3) to exclude imports.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment denying injunctive relief.
- The court held that import exclusion decisions under 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) are committed to agency discretion within the meaning of APA § 701(a)(2) and are not subject to judicial review for ordinary factual or technical disagreement.
- The court agreed that no formal hearing is required by the FDCA, the APA, or the Constitution before excluding imports under § 381(a).
- The court rejected the argument that the Secretary must issue detailed regulations defining “fitness for food” as a prerequisite to enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- APA judicial review is unavailable when “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law” under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); § 381(a) import exclusions fall within that category.
- The statutory phrase “if it appears” in § 381(a) indicates discretionary judgment, with agency determinations tested, at most, for arbitrariness rather than for mere error.
- Courts may have a limited role where the agency’s testing is grossly deficient or the agency arbitrarily refuses to accept test results, but disputes over what an examination established are left to agency expertise.
- Neither the FDCA nor the APA imposes a trial-type hearing requirement for import exclusions under § 381(a), and due process does not require a formal hearing in this setting.
- The “unfit for food” standard in 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(3) may be applied without additional regulations further defining “fitness for food.”

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the FDA’s exclusion of damaged coffee beans, concluding that import exclusions under 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) are largely unreviewable under APA § 701(a)(2), do not require a formal hearing, and may be based on the statutory “unfit for food” standard without additional regulatory definitions.


Sugarman v. Forbragd, 405 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1968)