Skip to main content


U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government
              Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you knowDot gov**Official websites use .gov**
                 A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
                  HTTPS**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                 A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
  Menu Close
          HHS Search block
    Search
        








  
  
    

  
      

                                      About HHS
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Programs & Services
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Grants & Contracts
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Laws & Regulations Breadcrumb
    Home
                              About
                              Agencies
                              DAB
                              Decisions
                              ALJ Decisions
                              2020
                              Daniel Koshy d/b/a 7-Eleven 11321, DAB TB4815 (2020)
 Navigate to:
  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      About DAB
                                            
            
            Organizational Overview
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Who are the Judges?
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Divisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Contact DAB
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Filing an Appeal Online
                                            
            
            DAB E-File
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Different Appeals at DAB
                                            
            
            Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Procedures
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to Board
                          
            
            Practice Manual
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Guidelines
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Regulations
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      National Coverage Determination Complaints
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
                                            
            
            Sharing Neutrals
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      ADR Training
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Other ADR Services
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      DAB Decisions
                                            
            
            Board Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions
    
                                    
                              
            
      
      
      
      Stakeholder Feedback
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Careers
                                            
            
            Open Career Opportunities
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Internships & ExternshipsText resize icon

                    




Daniel Koshy d/b/a 7-Eleven 11321, DAB TB4815 (2020)








  
  
    

  
      
Department of Health and Human Services 
    DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          Civil Remedies Division





Center for Tobacco Products,
	Complainant,
v.
Daniel Koshy
	d/b/a 7-Eleven 11321,
	Respondent.
Docket No. T-19-1831FDA Docket No. FDA-2019-H-0984Decision No. TB4815January 29, 2020

        
              
    

      INITIAL DECISION
The Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) seeks to impose a civil money penalty (CMP) against Respondent, Daniel Koshy d/b/a 7-Eleven 11321, located at 2915 Springfield Road, Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008. The complaint seeks an $11,410 civil money penalty from Respondent 7-Eleven 11321 for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21 U.S.C. § 301 *et seq.*, and its implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140, at least six times within a 48-month period.
The complaint alleges CTP previously initiated a civil money penalty action against Respondent 7-Eleven 11321. The prior action concluded after an Initial Decision was entered against Respondent 7-Eleven 11321 for at least five violations1
 of the Act. Specifically, Respondent was found to have sold regulated tobacco products to minors
**Page 2**
and failed to verify, by means of photo identification containing a date of birth, that purchasers were 18 years of age or older. The complaint further alleges that Respondent 7-Eleven 11321 subsequently committed two additional violations of the Act. Specifically, that Respondent sold regulated tobacco products to a minor and failed to verify, by means of photo identification containing a date of birth, that the purchaser was 18 years of age or older, thereby violating the Act. Therefore, CTP seeks an $11,410 civil money penalty against Respondent 7-Eleven 11321 for a total of six violations within a 48-month period.
Procedural History
CTP began this case by serving an administrative complaint on March 5, 2019, seeking an $11,410 civil money penalty on Respondent 7-Eleven 11321, at 2915 Springfield Road, Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008, and by filing a copy of the complaint with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Division of Dockets Management. On March 31, 2019, Respondent timely filed a request for an extension of time in which to file an answer. By Order dated April 4, 2019, I granted Respondent's request and extended the answer deadline to May 6, 2019. Subsequently, Respondent timely answered CTP's complaint. In its answer, Respondent admitted the allegations, but contested the civil money penalty. Respondent's Answer (Answer) at 1-2 (CRD Docket Nos. 5-5a).
On May 13, 2019, I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre-Hearing Order (APHO), which established the procedure and deadlines in this case. Among other things, the APHO set a deadline of August 5, 2019 for CTP's pre-hearing exchange submission, and a deadline of August 26, 2019 for Respondent's submission of its pre-hearing exchange.
CTP filed its pre-hearing exchange on August 5, 2019. CTP's pre-hearing exchange included 15 numbered exhibits (CTP Exs. 1-15) and declarations of two witnesses, including Inspector Theresa McClain. On August 27, 2019, Respondent filed a request for a one-month extension in which to file its pre-hearing exchange. Specifically, in a two-line request, Respondent stated:
I would like to request an extension of one month on this case, as I am currently struggling with some health issues and have not had a chance to review the received documents yet.
CRD Docket No. 11. On August 30, 2019, I issued an Order denying Respondent's request for an extension and scheduling a pre-hearing telephone conference. With regard to the request for an extension, I concluded that in accordance with the regulations at 21 C.F.R. § 17.25(a), (b)(2) and § 17.19(b)(17), Respondent failed to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" for its untimely request for an extension. My Order then scheduled a pre-hearing telephone conference for September 13, 2019, at 11:00 AM Eastern Time. CRD Docket No. 12.
**Page 3**
On September 13, 2019, I held a pre-hearing conference call in this case. Respondent did not appear at the pre-hearing conference call, or provide any response to the Order that scheduled the pre-hearing conference call. Respondent was ordered to show cause for its failure to appear at the pre-hearing conference no later than September 30, 2019. On September 29, 2019, Respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. Respondent asserted that due to a shortage of employees during the scheduled time for the pre-hearing conference call, he was unable to get coverage of his establishment in order to participate in the conference call. CRD Docket Nos. 14-16. Based on Respondent's representation, by Order dated October 8, 2019, I rescheduled the pre-hearing telephone conference for October 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM Eastern Time.
On October 31, 2019, I held the prehearing conference call in this case. During the pre-hearing conference call, the parties agreed that an administrative hearing was not required and consented to a decision based on the administrative record. I admitted the CTP's proposed exhibits into the record as there was no objection to any of the proposed exhibits by Respondent. Following the prehearing conference, I gave the parties until December 5, 2019, to simultaneously submit final briefs. On December 5, 2019, each party filed a final submission.
Accordingly, the record is now closed and I am issuing a decision on the record in this case.
Issues
Whether Respondent sold cigarettes to a minor on December 11, 2018, and failed to verify, by means of photo identification containing a date of birth, that the purchaser was 18 years of age or older, in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(1) and 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(2)(i).
	Whether the civil money penalty of $11,410 that CTP seeks is an appropriate amount, pursuant to the provisions of 21 C.F.R. § 17.33(a).Analysis
In order to prevail, CTP must prove Respondent's liability by a preponderance of the evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring that the trier-of-fact believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than not before finding in favor of the party that had the burden to persuade the judge of the fact's existence. *In re* *Winship*, 397 U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970); *Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborer*s, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
CTP has the burden to prove Respondent's liability and appropriateness of the penalty by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 C.F.R. § 17.33(b). Respondent has the burden to
**Page 4**
prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors likewise by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 C.F.R. § 17.33(c).
**I. Violations**
CTP determined to impose a CMP against Respondent pursuant to the authority conferred by the Act and implementing regulations at Part 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Act prohibits the misbranding of tobacco products while they are held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce. 21 U.S.C. § 331(k). A tobacco product is misbranded if distributed or offered for sale in any state in violation of regulations issued under section 906(d) of the Act. 21 U.S.C. § 387c(a)(7)(B); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.1(b). FDA and its agency, CTP, may seek civil money penalties from any person who violates the Act's requirements as they relate to the sale of tobacco products. 21 U.S.C. § 331(f)(9).
The sale of cigarettes to an individual who is under the age of 18 years is a violation of implementing regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(1). The failure to verify, by means of photo identification containing the bearer's date of birth, that no cigarette purchaser is younger than 18 years of age is also a violation of implementing regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(2)(i).
In the case presently before me, at approximately 10:58 AM on December 11, 2018, an FDA-commissioned inspector conducted an inspection of 7-Eleven 11321, located at 2915 Springfield Road, Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008. CTP alleged that during the inspection, Respondent committed violations of selling cigarettes to a minor, in violation of 21 C.F.R.§ 1140.14(a)(1), and failing to verify the age of the purchaser by means of photographic identification containing the bearer's date of birth, in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(2)(i). Specifically, a person younger than 18 years of age was able to purchase a package of Newport Box 100s cigarettes. Complaint ¶ 7.
In support of the December 11, 2018 allegations, CTP submitted evidence including the declaration of Inspector Theresa McClain who conducted the inspection at issue, Inspector McClain's narrative report of the alleged incident, and photographs of the package of Newport Box 100s cigarettes allegedly purchased on December 11, 2018. CTP Exs. 6, 8, 10-11.
In her declaration, Inspector McClain stated that, at approximately 10:58 AM on December 11, 2018, she conducted a follow-up undercover buy (UB) compliance check inspection at Respondent's location, 2915 Springfield Road, Broomall, Pennsylvania 19008. CTP Ex. 6, at 2 ¶ 7. Inspector McClain further stated:
During the inspection, I parked my car near the 7-Eleven 11321 and Minor A and I exited the vehicle. I watched Minor A enter 7-Eleven 11321, and I entered the establishment moments after Minor A. From my location, I had
**Page 5**
a clear, unobstructed view of the sales counter and Minor A. During the inspection, I observed Minor A purchase a package of cigarettes from an employee at the establishment. Prior to the purchase, I observed that Minor A did not present any identification to the employee. The employee did not provide Minor A a receipt after the purchase.
*Id*. at 3 ¶ 8. Inspector McClain declared that after the inspection, she and Minor A returned to the car where she immediately retrieved the package of cigarettes from Minor A, which she observed were Newport cigarettes. *Id.*¶ 9. Inspector McClain stated that she then labeled the cigarettes as evidence, photographed all of the panels of the package, and processed the evidence with standard procedures at the time of the inspection. *Id*.
On its face, this evidence is more than sufficient to prove that Respondent violated the law on December 11, 2018. In fact, Respondent's owner, Daniel Koshy, admitted to the alleged violations in his Answer (CRD Docket No. 5) and Final Response (CRD Docket No. 19). Therefore, I find that Respondent violated the regulations on December 11, 2018. 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(2)(i). Respondent had four violations from the previous civil money penalty action and two additional violations on December 11, 2018. Therefore, Respondent's actions constitute six violations of law within a 48-month period.
**II. Civil Money Penalty**
I have found that Respondent committed six violations of the Act and its implementing regulations within a 48-month period. The FDA, and its CTP, may seek civil money penalties from any person who violates the Act's requirements as they relate to the sale of tobacco products. 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(9). In its complaint, CTP sought to impose the maximum penalty amount, $11,410, against Respondent. Complaint ¶ 1. Accordingly, I now turn to whether an $11,410 civil money penalty is appropriate.
When determining the amount of a civil money penalty, I am required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such other matters as justice may require." 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(5)(B); *see also* 21 C.F.R. § 17.34.
**i. Nature, Circumstances, Extent, and Gravity of the Violations**
Respondent has failed to comply with the Act and its implementing regulations on six occasions. The repeated inability of Respondent to comply with federal tobacco regulations is serious in nature and the civil money penalty amount should be set accordingly.
**Page 6**
**ii. Respondent's Ability to Pay and Effect on Ability to Do Business**
Respondent's owner, Daniel Koshy, argued that he does not have the money to pay the full penalty amount due to low annual income and significant loan debt. Answer (CRD Docket No. 5) at 1; Respondent's Final Response (CRD Docket No. 19) at 4. To demonstrate his inability to pay the $11,410 civil money penalty sought by CTP, Respondent submitted a copy of his 2018 Schedule C federal income tax form (CRD Docket No. 5, at 4), and a copy of the balance statement from one of his bank loans (CRD Docket No. 19, at 9). First and foremost, while this documentation is included in the administrative record, Respondent's submissions were not identified by Respondent as exhibits or admitted as evidence into the record.2
 Therefore, I will not consider such documentation as evidence in support of Respondent's position. However, that being said, I will note that the submitted documentation shows only Respondent's liabilities and do not provide a complete economic snapshot as it pertains to his inability to pay the CMP sought by CTP. For an informed deliberation on this issue, documentation of Respondent's assets as well as his liabilities should have been provided for my consideration. In the absence of any supportive evidence, I do not find Respondent's contention of inability to pay the penalty amount to be credible.
**iii. History of Prior Violations**
As noted, Respondent has six times violated the prohibition against selling tobacco products to persons younger than 18 years of age, and failing to verify, by means of photo identification containing a purchaser's date of birth, that no tobacco product purchasers are younger than 18 years of age. 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(1); 21 C.F.R § 1140.14(a)(2)(i). Respondent's continued unwillingness or inability to comply with the federal tobacco regulations calls for a more severe penalty.
**iv. Degree of Culpability**
Respondent is culpable for six violations of the Act and its implementing regulations.
**v. Matters as Justice May Require/Additional Mitigating Factors**
Mitigation is an affirmative defense for which Respondent bears the burden of proof. Respondent must prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors by a
**Page 7**
preponderance of the evidence. 21 C.F.R. § 17.33(c). Respondent has not presented any mitigating factors that have been admitted into evidence.
**vi. Penalty**
Based on the foregoing reasoning, I find a penalty amount of $11,410 to be appropriate under 21 U.S.C. §§ 303(f)(5)(B) and 333(f)(9).
Conclusion
Pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.45, I enter judgment in the amount of $11,410 against Respondent, Daniel Koshy d/b/a 7-Eleven 11321, for six violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 *et seq.*, and its implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140, within a 48-month period. Pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.11(b), this order becomes final and binding upon both parties after 30 days of the date of its issuance.


          /s/
        Wallace Hubbard

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. CTP did not include violations that occurred outside the relevant timeframe for this complaint. The violation previously alleged on April 2, 2014 falls outside of the timeframe in the instant action. back to note 1
                      2. During the October 31, 2019 pre-hearing telephone conference, I noted the absence of Respondent's pre-hearing submission from the record. "Mr. Koshy affirmed that there were no witnesses or exhibits to be presented by Respondent . . . ."  See November 4, 2019 Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference (CRD Docket No. 18) at 2 (emphasis added). back to note 2 Back to top
    Contact HHS
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Careers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      HHS FAQs
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Nondiscrimination NoticeHHS Archive
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Accessibility Statement
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Privacy Policy
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Viewers & PlayersBudget/Performance
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Inspector General
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Web Site Disclaimers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      EEO/No Fear ActFOIA
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      The White House
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      USA.gov
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
        Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases.

Sign Up
  HHS Headquarters
          200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
                  Washington, D.C. 20201
                  Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775​ Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon () mean that you are leaving the HHS website. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
                  Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
                  You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
                  HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites. For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.
 Continue
                  Go back