In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 NORTHEAST ENTERPRISES
 Post Office Box 537 at
 Laurel Springs, New Jersey 08021

 P.S. Docket No. 7/4;  
 
 04/13/79
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 ThomasA. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Office
 Law Department U. S. Postal Service
 Washington, D.C.  20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Anthony Pavoni Promoter, pro se
 P. O. Box 537
 Laurel Springs, N.J.  08021

On March 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Quentin E. Grant issued an Initial Decision in which he concluded that Respondent is engaged in the conduct of a scheme for obtaining remittances of money through the mail by means of representations materially false in fact in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Accompanying the Initial Decision was a Notice of Right to Appeal which advised Respondent, that pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 952.25, it could appeal from the Initial Decision by filing exceptions contained in a brief on appeal within 15 days.

On March 27, 1979, a letter dated March 24, 1979, was received from Respondent in which it stated it desired to appeal from the Initial Decision and requested that a hearing be held in Camden, New Jersey. By telegram dated March 29, 1979, confirmed in an order of the same date, Respondent was advised:

Unless Respondent specifies the portions of the opinion to which it takes exception within the 15 day period which expires on April 2, 1979, no proper appeal will have been taken and the Initial Decision will become final.

With regard to Respondent's request for a hearing the telegram and confirming order stated:

Mr. Pavoni's letter also asks that a hearing be scheduled in Camden, New Jersey. Judge Grant held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on January 29, 1979, and Respondent received proper notice of the time and place of hearing. Respondent neither attended the hearing nor asked for a postponement or change of location of the hearing. No additional hearing will be held in this case.

On April 2, 1979, Joseph Gorman, an attorney claiming to represent Respondent, called to obtain clarification of the telegram and confirming order of March 29, 1979. Mr. Gorman was granted a 1 day extension for filing exceptions in a brief on appeal. Thus it was agreed that if the exceptions were placed in the mail on April 3, 1979, they would be considered to be timely filed. No exceptions have been received.

Since Respondent has failed to file exceptions as required under 39 C.F.R. § 952.25 an appeal in the proper form has not been filed. To the extent Respondent's letter dated March 24, 1979, received on March 27, 1979, could be considered to be a timely appeal it does not take issue with any portion of the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, and based on my review of the record I am persuaded the findings and conclusions are correct.

Accordingly a remedial order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued herewith.