In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 ORIENTAL NURSERIES at
 P. O. Box 370030
 Miami, FL 33137 and
 P. O. Box 520995
 Miami, FL 33152

 P.S. Docket No. 8/24;  
 
 10/07/80
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Tyler Abell, Esq.
 David Simon, Esq.
 Bregman, Abell, Solter & Kay
 1900 L Street, N.W.
 Washington, DC 20036

Complainant has filed a motion to reopen the hearing to present as additional evidence an advertisement which it contends was published subsequent to the hearing and, therefore, not available either at the time the Complaint was filed or the hearing held. Complainant alleges that the new advertisement makes representations identical or substantially similar to those alleged at paragraphs III(a), (b) and (e) of the Complaint. Although it seeks to have the hearing reopened, Complainant states that additional testimony in connection with the tendered advertisement is unnecessary.

Respondent opposes Complainant's motion. Respondent contends that Complainant's motion is procedurally defective in that the affidavit on whichit is based is improperly executed and fails to establish jurisdiction. It also contends that the mtoion should be treated as a motion to amend the Complaint which it says should also be denied. If Complainant's motion is granted, Respondent argues that additional testimony should be permitted to establish jurisdiction and to address novel issues of fact presented by the motion. Finally, Respondent argues that aside from the procedural irregularities, the revised advertisement on which the motion is based does not misrepresent the product.

The Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R., Part 952, provide in § 952.26 that the Judicial Officer may, in his discretion, order the hearing reopened for the presentation of additional evidence by the parties. However, where a hearing has been held and an Initial Decision issued the Judicial Officer has declined to reopen the hearing advising the parties that the issues presented by Complainant's motion were more appropriate for consideration under 39 C.F.R. § 952.30, or in a proceeding initiated by the filing of a new complaint. Jay Norris Corp., P.S. Docket No. 4/152 (P.S.D. 1976); cf., Original Cosmetic Products, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 4/120 (P.S.D. 1976) aff'd in Original Cosmetic Products, Inc. v. Strachan, 459 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) aff'd 603 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1979). Since in this case, like Jay Norris, supra, a hearing has already been held, an Initial Decision issued, and appeals taken by both parties, it is more appropriate for the issues initially raised on appeal in this proceeding to be decided without further delay and for the issues raised by Complainant's motion to be considered and decided in a proceeding initiated by a petition for supplemental order or in a new proceeding, as appropriate. Accordingly, Complainant's motion to reopen hearing is denied.