With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". disagreement is, however, a very narrow one. We agree, given the policy concerns that animate PACA and the general record-keeping requirements set forth in the regulations, see, e.g., 7 C.F.R. §§ 46.14, 46.15, that, in the absence of a writing, there is a presumption against finding that a shipper either has consented to dumping or has agreed that no certification for dumping is necessary. Cf. Jameson v. Valerio’s Produce Co., 46 Agric.Dec. 653, 1985 WL 62906, at *3 (1985) (indicating that proof of dumping rule is intended to protect shippers and growers of produce and holding that, although there therefore is a presumption against waiver, oral waivers of the proof of dumping requirement are per missible); Bagley Produce Co. v. Simpson, 39 Agric.Dec. 456, 1980 WL 21163, at *2 (1980) (<HOLDING>). As the above cases illustrate, however, the

A: holding that because the individual was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage that  consent was tainted by the illegality
B: holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding consent where two agents testified that the defendant orally consented but the defendant denied having orally consented and would not sign a written consent form
C: holding that shipper acquieseed in the dumping of produce because unrebutted evidence established that shippers agent consented to dumping no written agreement evincing such consent was produced or mentioned
D: holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant
C.