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
                              2021
                              KDC, Inc. d/b/a Zip's Party Store / Marathon, DAB TB5284 (2021)
 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

                    




KDC, Inc. d/b/a Zip's Party Store / Marathon, DAB TB5284 (2021)








  
  
    

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





Center for Tobacco Products,
Complainant,

v.

KDC, Inc.
d/b/a Zip’s Party Store / Marathon,
Respondent.
Docket No. T-20-2077FDA Docket No. FDA-2020-H-0959Decision No. TB5284March 23, 2021

        
              
    

      INITIAL DECISION

I sustain the determination of the Center for Tobacco Products (“CTP”) of the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to impose a civil money penalty of $292 against Respondent, KDC, Inc. d/b/a Zip’s Party Store / Marathon.

I.  Background

Respondent requested a hearing in order to challenge CTP’s determination to impose a civil money penalty.  After the parties completed pre-hearing exchanges of briefs and exhibits I directed Respondent to advise me whether it desired that I convene an in-person hearing so that its counsel could cross-examine CTP’s witnesses.  Respondent did not reply to my directive.  For that reason, I conclude that Respondent does not desire an in-person hearing.  I close the record and decide this case based on the parties’ written evidence.

**Page 2**

CTP offered 22 proposed exhibits, identified as CTP Ex. 1 - CTP Ex. 22.  These proposed exhibits include witnesses’ declarations, notably the testimony of Colin Consiglio (CTP Ex. 4) and Dianne Perukel (CTP Ex. 5), who are FDA-commissioned inspectors who respectively conducted inspections of Petitioner’s facility on April 7, 2019, and January 19, 2020.  Respondent did not object to my receiving the proposed exhibits into evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Consiglio and Ms. Perukel.  I receive CTP Ex. 1 - CTP. Ex. 22 into evidence.

Respondent offered one proposed exhibit, identified as R. Ex. 2.  CTP did not object to my receiving this exhibit and so, I receive it into evidence.  In its brief, Respondent asserted that it relied on an additional exhibit, purportedly identified as R. Ex. 1.  Respondent asserted that this exhibit consists of a video recording of a sale of tobacco products occurring on January 19, 2020.  However, Respondent did not offer the purported exhibit as part of its pre-hearing exchange and the deadline that I set for filing exhibits has expired.  Consequently, I have nothing before me in the nature of R. Ex. 1 that I can receive.

Respondent also provided a witness list including the names of three individuals, designating them as proposed witnesses.  Respondent failed to provide written direct testimony for any of these proposed witnesses, as I required in my Acknowledgment and Initial Pre-hearing Order.  Therefore, Respondent is foreclosed from presenting the testimony of these proposed witnesses.

II.  Issues, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

**A. Issues**

The issues are whether:

Respondent sold tobacco products to minor purchasers in violation of federal regulations governing the sale of tobacco products; and
	A civil money penalty of $292 is a reasonable remedy.**B.  Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law**

CTP determined to impose a civil money penalty against Respondent pursuant to the authority conferred by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) and implementing regulations at Part 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.).  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).  The sale of tobacco products to an individual who is under the age of 18 is a violation of implementing regulations.  21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(1), (b)(1).

**Page 3**

CTP premises its case on the results of inspections of Respondent’s facility, conducted on April 7, 2019, and January 19, 2020.  Mr. Consiglio testified that, on April 7, 2019, he drove to Petitioner’s store accompanied by a minor.  CTP Ex. 4 at 2.  He averred that he verified that the minor possessed true and accurate photographic identification showing his/her actual date of birth.  *Id.*; CTP Ex. 10.  Additionally, he verified that the minor had no tobacco products on his/her possession.  He did so by asking the minor directly, by inspecting the contents of the minor’s pockets, and by having the minor leave his/her bag in the vehicle.  CTP Ex. 4 at 2-3.

Mr. Consiglio testified that the minor then entered Petitioner’s establishment.  He followed shortly thereafter.  CTP Ex. 4 at 3.  Mr. Consiglio stated that he went to a location in the establishment from which he had a clear and unobstructed view of the sales counter.  He averred that he watched the minor purchase cigarettes.  *Id.*

Mr. Consiglio testified that the cigarettes purchased by the minor were Marlboro cigarettes.  He labeled the cigarettes as evidence and photographed them.  CTP Ex. 4 at 3; CTP Exs. 11-12.

Ms. Perukel testified that she drove to Respondent’s establishment on January 19, 2020, in the company of a minor.  CTP Ex. 5 at 2.  She averred that she verified that the minor possessed true and accurate photographic identification.  *Id.*Ms. Perukel testified that she verified that the minor did not possess any tobacco products by visually inspecting the minor, by asking the minor directly, by inspecting the contents of the minor’s pockets, and by having the minor leave his/her bag in the vehicle.  *Id.*at 2-3.

Ms. Perukel testified that from her parked vehicle she had an unobstructed view of the entrance and exit to Petitioner’s establishment.  CTP Ex. 5 at 3.  She remained in her vehicle while the minor left the vehicle and entered the establishment.  *Id.*Minutes later, according to Ms. Perukel, the minor left the establishment, returned directly to the vehicle and handed her a Swisher Sweet Classic cigar.  *Id.*Ms. Perukel averred that she labeled the cigar as evidence and photographed them.  *Id.*; CTP Exs. 16-17.

The evidence that I have described is ample proof that Respondent violated regulations governing the sale of tobacco products to minors, committing two violations during a period of less than one year. Mr. Coniglio’s testimony, if not rebutted, establishes that he directly observed the unlawful sale of a tobacco product – Marlboro cigarettes – by one of Respondent’s employees.  Ms. Perukel’s testimony leads to the inference that someone employed by Respondent unlawfully sold a tobacco product – a Swisher Sweet Classic cigar – to a minor.  I draw that inference from the fact that the minor entered Respondent’s establishment without a tobacco product in his/her possession and exited with a tobacco product.  The only reasonable explanation for those events is that the minor was able to purchase the product while in the store.

**Page 4**

Respondent’s asserted defenses are unpersuasive.  It does not deny that it unlawfully sold a tobacco product to a minor on April 7, 2019.  *See*Brief of Respondent (Respondent’s brief) at 2.  It seems to argue, however, that the transaction at issue on January 19, 2020, was either lawful or that the minor purchaser deceived its employee by offering identification that showed him/her to be of lawful age.  *Id.*  It asserts that the “video of the incident clearly show[s] that the employee secured identification from the purchase[r] and enter[ed] the birth date into the cash register in order to continue the sale.”  *Id.*

However, Respondent failed to offer the purported video as evidence.  Absent such evidence, there exists no proof that Respondent’s employee checked the minor purchaser’s identification and verified from that identification that the minor purchaser was of lawful age.  I do not find that Respondent rebutted Ms. Perukel’s testimony in the absence of any proof supporting Respondent’s assertion.

The unrebutted evidence proves that on two occasions Respondent made unlawful sales of a tobacco product to minor purchasers.  That is egregious conduct.  Regulations authorize a penalty of up to $292 for the violations committed by Respondent.  45 C.F.R. § 102.3; 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(9).

Underscoring the egregiousness of Respondent’s conduct is the fact that Respondent made its second unlawful sale after having received a warning from CTP in the wake of the first unlawful sale.  CTP Ex. 1.

I take notice that tobacco products are highly addictive and dangerous to the health of those who consume them.  They may have lethal long-term effects on consumers.  Younger purchasers are highly susceptible to becoming addicted.  A penalty of $292 is plainly reasonable given the dangers of tobacco products and Respondent’s repeated unlawful sales of these products to minor purchasers.

In its brief Respondent avers that it paid a $100 penalty to remedy the April 7, 2019 unlawful sale.  I find no evidence to support this assertion.  CTP did not assess any penalty prior to imposing the penalty that is at issue here.
  
          /s/
        Steven T. Kessel

                      Administrative Law Judge 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