In the Matter of the Petition by

 WALLACE S. NOLEN,
 P. O. Box 647,
 White Plans, NY l0602,

 Termination of Post Office Box  

 P.S. Docket No. 14/22

 January 20, 1983

 James A. Cohen Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
 Mr. Wallace Nolen
 P. O. Box 647 White Plans, NY 10602 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

Pursuant to 39 C.F.R. 958.10, Appellant has filed an appeal from the decision of an Administrative Law Judge dismissing, as untimely, his appeal from the Postal Service's determination to terminate lock box service. Appellant contends that he should have been afforded a formal hearing on the question of timeliness and argues that any lateness should be executed.

On May 25, l982, the Postmaster of the White Plains, New York Post Office notified Appellant of the determination to terminate lock box service and of his right to file an opposing Petition within 20 days from receipt of the letter. The letter stated that

"If you do not file a timely Petition, this determination will become the final decision of the U. S. Postal Service in this matter." In granting Respondent's motion to dismiss the subsequent appeal, the Administrative Law Judge found that Appellant had received this notice on June 11, l982, and had not filed a Petition until July 21, 1982, well after the 20 day period had expired. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the 20 day time limitation is jurisdictional and "preclude [s] the further processing of this matter in the United States Postal Service" (Decision and Order, p. 6).

The time limitation for appealing a termination of lock box service is set forth both in the Domestic Mail Manual 951.832 and the Rules of Practice of Proceedings relating to the closing of post office boxes, 39 C.F.R. 958.3(a). Although neither of these provisions specifically authorizes a waiver of the 20 day time period for filing an appeal, "[i]t is always within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it." American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service , 397 U.S. 532, 539 (l970), quoting NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co. , 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1953). See Also Weinberger v. Salfi , 422 U.S. 749, 764 (1975); Schacht v. United States , 398 U.S. 58, 64 (1970); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. FERC , 659 F.2d 488, 501 (5th Cir. 1981). However, an Appellant must establish good cause to justify waiver of this imitation. Cf. ViAids Labs, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 464 F. Supp. 976, 981-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Ritz , P.S. Docket No. 12/174 (P.S.D. on Motion to Revoke Default, Jan. 26, l982). A mere assertion that a meritorious defense exists is insufficient. See Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc. , 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Nelson v. Coleman Co., Inc. , 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C. 1966). Moreover, the press of business alone, or a failure to establish procedures for handling mail so as to assure timely responses, does not excuse the failure to comply with the 20 day time limitation. Cf. ViAids Labs, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, supra; Ritz Division of MVCO., Inc., supra; Southern Publications , P.S. Docket No. 11/16 (Order May 18, 1981).

While generally an oral hearing is not required to resolve a timeliness issue, in this case appellant has raised issues of fact on which the parties should be allowed to present evidence. Specifically, Appellant's appeal presents at least the possibility that his signature on the return portion of the certified mail receipt was forged and/or that he was physically unable to file a Petition prior to July 21, 1982. Therefore, before finally deciding this matter, Appellant should be given the opportunity for an oral hearing to establish the facts alleged and any others relating to the timeliness of its appeal and have the presiding officer determine whether the appeal was timely or its untimeliness excusable.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the presiding Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.