In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 DERMA-DIET
 P. O. Box 906 at
 San Mateo, California 94403

 P.S. Docket No. 5/171;  
 
 09/27/77
 
 Lussier, Edward F.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 DanielS. Greenberg, Esq.
 Law Department U. S. Postal Service
 Washington, D.C.

 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT:
 Ms. Wilma Brewster
 San Mateo, California 

This is an appeal from the Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge William A. Duvall, which decision recommended the issuance of a mail stop order under the provisions of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 based upon the conclusion that the above-named Respondent in these proceedings was merchandising a product for skin revitalization through the mails by means of false representations. The factual background and basis for the conclusion are set forth in the Initial Decision and need no repetition here.

Essentially Respondent's appeal attacks the expert testimony upon which the Initial Decision is based. This attack is inconsistent with the position taken by Respondent at the hearing (See Transcript, pages 17, 39) and is otherwise ineffective to disturb either the credentials or the testimony of the Complainant's medical expert. Accordingly, to the extent that this part of Respondent's appeal letter may be construed as a formal exception to the Initial Decision, within the meaning of § 952.25 of the applicable Rules of Practice, it must be disallowed.

A second portion of the attack upon the Complainant's medical expert may be found in the appeal letter's statement that the witness did not question if there were extra ingredients in the product other than those listed on the label. However, the witness may properly assume that the ingredients listed by Respondent on its label are correct. Had Respondent wished to show that there were other unlisted ingredients and attack the testimony at the hearing in that fashion the opportunity was open but it is inappropriately raised at this point in time. To the extent this issue in the appeal letter may be construed as an exception to the Initial Decision it is disallowed.

Finally, Respondent requests that instead of the normal notice that is placed on the face of envelopes returned to senders under a mail stop order a special stamp be utilized. The normal stamp reads "Return to Sender; Order Issued Against Addressee for Violation of False Representation Law." The stamp which Respondent requests be used instead reads "BUSINESS CLOSED--DO NOT REORDER." The applicable statute, 39 United States Code § 3005, provides that the mail be returned "appropriately marked as in violation of this section." There has been no showing of special circumstances warranting a deviation from the normal procedure. Accordingly, Respondent's request must be denied.

The Initial Decision is supported by the evidence and is hereby affirmed. A mail stop order under the provisions of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued contemporaneously with the issuance of this decision.