Opinion
39138.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 29, 1961. REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 13, 1961.
Tobacco allotment. Worth Superior Court. Before Judge Gray.
Linton B. West, Regional Attorney, Floyd M. Buford, U.S. Attorney, Truitt Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for plaintiffs in error.
W. J. Crowe, Bob Reinhardt, R. B. Williamson, contra.
1. Administrative bodies are dependent for their jurisdiction upon statutory authority, and may not assume powers which the law does not grant.
2. The local committees and review committees created by the Agricultural Adjustment Act have the duty to set, change and administer acreage allotments for various crops for the purpose of controlling the orderly marketing thereof and preventing overproduction in interstate commerce. The quota set, to attain the purpose declared, must be given a prospective rather than a retroactive effect.
3. The determination of the committee may be reviewed by a proceeding for such purpose in a court of record of the State having general jurisdiction sitting in the county in which the farm is located. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact by the review committee, if supported by evidence shall be conclusive.
4. Where no authority was granted the review committee to cancel retroactively a tobacco acreage allotment after the crop year ended and the crop had been harvested and sold, for the sole purpose of asserting penalties against the producer based on his alleged fraud in obtaining the quota (the statutory penalty being for overproduction, and not a penalty for providing false information), the judge of the superior court did not err in reversing that part of the determination of the review committee which was retroactive in effect.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 29, 1961 — REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 13, 1961.
The plaintiffs in error, in their capacity as members of the Review Committee of Worth ASC County Committee, assign error on a judgment of the Superior Court of Worth County in an action brought by the defendant in error, Lloyd Carter, under the provisions of 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1365, 1366, of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which petition sought court review of a determination by the review committee affirming the action of the Worth County Stabilization Conservation Committee in canceling retroactively, on September 16, 1960, a tobacco allotment and marketing quota assigned by the committee in March 1957, to the farm in question. The result of the cancellation was to subject Carter to penalties under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1314 for overproduction of tobacco on the farm during the 1957 crop year and subsequent years, although, at the time the tobacco was grown and marketed, it was within the quota then in effect based upon such acreage allotment. The judge of the superior court entered an order as follows: "It is ordered and adjudged that the determination of the review committee of the Worth ASC County Committee, dated December 28, 1960, canceling the tobacco allotment of 2.25 acres on farm serial number 29001 which had been established by the Worth ASC County Committee in 1957, is affirmed insofar as said cancellation applies from December 28, 1960, and since. Insofar as the determination of said review committee that its said order dated December 28, 1960, canceling said allotment be retroactive and effective as to prior years on farm serial number 29001, same is reversed."
Under the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture in effect at the time, the record owner of the farm in question, E. B. Hamilton, was entitled to the acreage allotment which he applied for and obtained. Carter would not have been eligible at that time to have applied for and obtained a tobacco acreage allotment. Carter had owned the farm prior to transferring the title to Hamilton in 1956, and title was reconveyed to Carter in November 1957. Based on these and other facts, the review committee found that Hamilton was not the owner of the farm in January 1957, when he made application for the allotment; that the sale bore characteristics which they apparently considered indicia of fraud, and that Carter had attempted before transferring title to Hamilton to get another farmer to operate the farm through a false sale agreement. From these conclusions, and statements contained in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, it is obvious that the retroactive cancellation of the allotment is based on the premise that the committee has an inherent power to cancel any allotment made as a result of false information or fraud, and to make such cancellation retroactive.
This court is limited, as was the superior court, in its scope of inquiry to questions of law and is bound by the findings of fact as determined by the committee, if there is any competent evidence to support such findings. Lee v. Berry, 219 S.C. 346, 352 ( 65 S.E.2d 257); Crolley v. Tatton, 249 F.2d 908; Review Committee v. Willey, 275 F.2d 264, 273. Administrative bodies, such as the committees here dealt with, are the creatures of statute and have only such authority as is granted them by the statute. Neither they in the first instance nor the appellate courts on appeal can by construction extend their jurisdiction beyond the limits set by the statute. After the order of an administrative body had become final, it cannot, in the absence of authority granted by the statute or under proper regulations pursuant thereto, set aside its orders retroactively, even for fraud in their procurement. Simpson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 99 Ga. App. 629, 635 ( 109 S.E.2d 876).
Nothing in the Agricultural Adjustment Act nor the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture gives any such authority to either the county committee or the review committee. The whole intent of the law is prospective in effect, for its purpose is to prevent overproduction and control orderly marketing of the commodities in question. 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1311, 1314; Usher v. U.S., 146 F.2d 369 (2); U.S. v. Lynn, 132 F. Supp. 605. Acreage allotments and marketing quotas based thereon can only have such effect as applied to future crop years. The statutes and regulations granting authority to the committee to change crop quotas are all prospective in effect. See 7 U.S.C.A. § 1313 (g); 7 C.F.R. § 719.4
The penalty provisions of 7 U.S.C.A. § 1314 relate to crops marketed in excess of the quota in effect at the time the marketing is done, or to the crops marketed which are unaccounted for or are falsely identified. They do not seek to penalize the producer for obtaining an allotment by reason of false or erroneous information. The penalty provisions are subject to strict construction. U.S. v. Whittle, 190 F. Supp. 826, affirmed 287 F.2d 638. The Government has other means at hand to punish these acts without extending the clear meaning of this part of the statute.
The judgment of the superior court reversing the determination of the review committee insofar as such determination had a retroactive effect is without error.
Judgment affirmed. Carlisle, P.J., Eberhardt and Custer, JJ., concur.