In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 THAT SPECIAL LOOK, INC.
 P. O. Box 1490 at
 Pompano Beach, FL 33061

 P.S. Docket No. 10/61;

 08/12/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Daniel E.Lewis, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1100

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Mark L. Angert, Esq.
 Entin, Schwartz, Angert, Dion & Broudy
 2020 N.E. 163 Street Suite 300
 North Miami Beach, FL 33162

On June 10, 1982, Complainant filed a Petition for Mail Stop Order Based upon Breach of Consent Agreement in which it alleged that Respondent had breached the terms of a Consent Agreement executed on March 29, 1981. In its Petition Complainant also sought the issuance of a temporary detention order which was issued on June 11, 1981. On June 12, 1981, Complainant filed a Motion to Amend the Temporary Detention Order. The Petition and an Order granting Respondent 10 days to file a response were served on Respondent on or before June 17, 1981.

The Motion to Amend the Temporary Detention Order and an Order granting Respondent 10 days to reply to the Motion were served on Respondent on June 18, 1981. No response was filed by Respondent within either 10-day period.

On July 7, 1981, the parties initiated a conference call in which they requested that no action be taken on the Petition in order to give the parties an opportunity todiscuss possible stipulations. The parties were informed that if they did not advise the Judicial Officer otherwise, on or before July 15, 1981, a decision on the Petition would be issued. As of July 15, 1981, neither party advised that a decision should not be issued. On July 16, 1981, the Postal Service Decision was issued which concluded that Complainant had made a prima facie showing that Respondent had breached the terms of the Consent Agreement in the manner alleged in the Petition. Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Agreement, an Order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 was issued contemporaneously with the Decision.

During a conference call initiated by Respondent on July 21, 1981, Respondent advised it was going to file a Motion to SetAside the Mail Stop Order and requested that the return portion of the Mail Stop Order be stayed during the pendency of its Motion. On the same date Supplement A to the Mail Stop Order was issued staying the return portion of the Order.

On July 24, 1981, Respondent filed its Motion for Reconsideration and Modification or Revocation of the Mail Stop Order. Respondent's Motion alleges that the Petition for Mail Stop Order Based Upon Breach of Consent Agreement was received by its counsel on June 15, 1981, that such counsel was vacationing in Peru from June 15 to June 29, 1981, that pursuant to a conference call the Judicial Officer agreed to withhold an Order on the above matter until July 15, 1981, that counsel for Respondent understood that the Judicial Officer agreed to stay the entry of its Order pending the parties negotiation to enter into an amended Consent Agreement, that the failure of the Respondent's counsel to file an Answer was unintentional, that no prejudice will accrue to the Postal Service by virtue of having the Mail Stop Order vacated and that Respondent is not in violation of the terms of the Consent Agreement. In its prayer for relief, Respondent further states:

"WHEREFORE, based upon the inadvertness sic of counsel, it is respectfully requested that the Default previously entered herein on June 16, 1981 be set aside so that the issues presented may be properly litigated and so that THAT SPECIAL LOOK, INC., will not suffer due to the inadvertness sic of counsel."

Respondent has not established that Mail Stop Order No. 81-144 should be reconsidered and modified or revoked. The failure of Respondent or its counsel to file a timely response to the Petition even if through inadvertence or neglect, does not serve as a basis for setting aside the Mail Stop Order. See Government Lands Digest, P.S. Docket No. 10/111 (P.S.D. July 7, 1981). Moreover, prejudice to Complainant is not the determinative issue. See Economic Data Corporation, P.S. Docket No. 11/92 (P.S.D. July 17, 1981). In order to prevail Respondent must establish that its reason for failure to file a timely response to the Petition constitutes good cause for setting aside the properly issued Mail Stop Order. Respondent has not sustained its burden in this case. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion is denied, Supplement A to Mail Stop Order No. 81-144 is revoked and the Mail Stop Order is placed in full force and effect.