Porter

The administrator appeals from a judgment awarding him the exact amount of overcharges in the sale of red cedar shingles found by the district court to be due because Gray had overcharged in violation of Section 1381.4 a and b of the Price Regulations and a later provision 1381.4 c. The overcharges are later considered and found to have been correctly adjudicated. The evidence shows that Gray has not maintained his burden of proof that his violations of either order were not wilful. On the contrary, the court finds the specific facts constituting willfulness in violating Section 1381.4 c. Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 566 , certiorari denied 325 U.S. 877 , 65 S.Ct. 1554 , 89 L.Ed. 1994 ; Bowles v. Franceschini, 1 Cir., 145 F.2d 510 ; Speten v. Bowles, 8 Cir., 146 F.2d 602 , certiorari denied 324 U.S. 877 , 65 S.Ct. 1023 .

The Administrator assigns error (a) that the district court confined the damages to the actual overcharges and (b) that it failed to assess as a penalty anything in excess of the overcharges, while it should have so assessed exactly three times their total.

The language of the statute is “205(e) * * * In such action, the seller shall be…