If the Commissioner of Agriculture or a local health director has probable cause to believe that any milk designated as Grade “A” milk is misbranded or does not satisfy the milk sanitation rules adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-266.31, the Commissioner of Agriculture or a local health director may detain or embargo the milk by affixing a tag to it and warning all persons not to remove or dispose of the milk until permission for removal or disposal is given by the official by whom the milk was detained or embargoed or by the court. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove or dispose of the detained or embargoed milk without that permission.

The official by whom the milk was detained or embargoed shall petition a judge of the district or superior court in whose jurisdiction the milk is detained or embargoed for an order for condemnation of the article. If the court finds that the milk is misbranded or that it does not satisfy the milk sanitation rules adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-266.31, either the milk shall be destroyed under the supervision of the petitioner or the petitioner shall ensure that the milk will not be used for human consumption as Grade “A” milk. All court costs and fees, storage, expenses of carrying out the court’s order and other expense shall be taxed against the claimant of the milk. If, the milk, by proper labelling or processing, can be properly branded and will satisfy the milk sanitation rules adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-266.31, the court, after the payment of all costs, fees, and expenses and after the claimant posts an adequate bond, may order that the milk be delivered to the claimant for proper labelling and processing under the supervision of the petitioner. The bond shall be returned to the claimant after the petitioner represents to the court either that the milk is no longer mislabelled or in violation of the milk sanitation rules adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-266.31, or that the milk will not be used for human consumption, and that in either case the expenses of supervision have been paid. (1983, c. 891, s. 2; 1997-443, s. 11A.63A; 2011-145, s. 13.3(s), (t).)