What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "trade". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Israel AGRON, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. R. E. STEEDLE, Trustee, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 8, 1930.
No. 4073.
Samuel Kaufman, of Newark, N. J. (Bilder & Bilder, of Newark, N. J., and Paul M. Salsburg, of Atlantic City, N. J., of counsel), for appellant.
Jos. B. Perskie, of Atlantic City, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Israel Agron prayed an order on the latter to turn over to him a valuable lot of furs, which were in the bankrupt’s possession shortly before the bankruptcy. The bankrupt admitted to have bad tbe furs, but •averred bis store bad been robbed and the furs taken. Tbe referee heard tbe proofs and found as a fact: “I must conclude that this is what is called in poliee language an inside job; that the bankrupt, Israel Agron, is responsible for or acted in collusion with other persons in • tbe taking of these fur goods” — and made tbe turnover order prayed for. On Fearing tFe certificate of the referee, tbe court below confirmed tbe referee’s order. Our study of the testimony satisfies us no error was committed by the referee or the court below. Accordingly, the turnover order is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "trade". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto, auto parts, auto repairs
chemical
drug
food
oil, natural gas, gasoline
textile, clothing
electronic
alcohol or tobacco
general merchandise
other 
unclear

Answer: 5