In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 C & C VITAMINS & SUNDRIES, INC.
 P. O. Box 4555 at
 Pittsburgh, PA 15205

 P.S. Docket No. 11/117;
 
 08/26/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Sandra C.McFeeley, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1100

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Scott T. Williams, Esq.
 Weisel, Xides & Odermatt
 2006 Law & Finance Building
 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

On July 27, 1981, Respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside Mail Stop Order No. 81-145 dated July 16, 1981. The Mail Stop Order was issued because Respondent had not filed its Answer within the 15-day period allowed in the Notice of Answer and Hearing which was properly served on Respondent on June 15, 1981, pursuant to the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to False Representation and Lottery Orders, 39 C.F.R. Part 952.

Respondent alleges in its Motion that the Answer was not timely filed because of its inexperience and confusion about legal proceedings and its mistaken assumption that no action could be taken until the date of the scheduled hearing. Respondent also states in its Motion that it desires to file an Answer to the Complaint and is considering a Consent Agreement proposed by Postal Service counsel. Finally, Respondent contends that even if the Mail Stop Order is not set aside, it should be allowed to obtain paymetn for merchandise already delivered to purchasers.

In order to prevail, Respondent must establish that its reason for failure to file a timely Answer constitutes good cause for setting aside the properly issued Mail Stop Order. See That Special Look, P.S. Docket No. 10/61 (P.S.D. August 12, 1981). Respondent has not sustained its burden in this case. Respondent's contention with regard to its inexperience and confusion and its assumption that nothing could be done until the date of the hearing is not persuasive. The Notice of Answer and Hearing and Rules of Practice clearly advised Respondent that if it did not file its Answer within the time allowed it would be deemed to be in default, and to have waived hearing and further procedural steps. See Americanwide Auto Buying Service, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 7/59 (P.S.D. August 9, 1979). In view of this clear warning Respondent, even though inexperienced in legal proceedings, should not have been confused about the consequences of its inaction.

Although Respondent stated in its Motion that it was considering the possibility of a Consent Agreement, it was given an opportunity to explore the matter but has declined to enter into a Consent Agreement proposed by Postal Service counsel. Finally, since Respondent has been found to be in default there is no basis for allowing it to receive the benefits of the advertising which is the subject of this proceeding.

Accordingly, Respondent's Motion toSet Aside the Mail Stop Order is denied, Supplement A to the Order is revoked and the Order is placed in full force and effect.