RONDINELLA v. Campbell

• Citation: 40 F.2d 747
• Parties: RONDINELLA v. CAMPBELL, Federal Prohibition Administrator et al.
• Decision Date: 11 April 1930
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

40 F.2d 747 (1930)

RONDINELLA v. CAMPBELL, Federal Prohibition Administrator et al.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 11, 1930.

Crescenzo Caggiano, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., Herbert H. Kellogg and George H. Bragdon, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Brooklyn, N. Y. (John E. O'Neill, Senior Advisor to Prohibition Administrator, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

The plaintiff seeks to review the refusal of the Prohibition Administrator to issue a permit to the plaintiff for the year 1930 to use 200 wine gallons of specially denatured alcohol of the formula 39-B for the manufacture of lilac toilet water.

On February 2, 1923, a permit was issued to the plaintiff to use specially denatured alcohol of the formula 39-B in the manufacture of lilac toilet water. This permit, by the terms appearing on the face thereof, was to be in effect until surrendered by the holder or canceled by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for violation of the provisions of title 3 of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA §§ 71-89, 63), or the regulations made pursuant thereto.

On March 26, 1926, upon application made by the plaintiff dated December 22, 1925, for a so-called renewal permit, a permit was granted to the plaintiff to use specially denatured alcohol in the manufacture of lilac toilet water. There was no reservation of rights under the previous permit.

On August 24, 1928, an application for a so-called renewal permit for the year 1929 was made by the plaintiff which was granted on December 31, 1928. This permit, by its terms, expired December 31, 1929. There was no reservation in the application of any rights under the previous permit.

On August 23, 1929, plaintiff filed an application for a so-called renewal permit for the year 1930. This application did not reserve any rights under the previous permits.

On November 26, 1926, the Prohibition Administrator wrote the following letter to the plaintiff "Pro-LA "JEO-tb "641 Washington St. November 26, 1929. "Guiseppe Rondinella, 6222 New Utrecht Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y.

"Dear Sir: I have before me for action your application for a permit to use specially denatured alcohol during the year 1930. In connection with this application I have had an investigation made of your operations under previous permits and unless the following matters revealed by such investigation are satisfactorily explained, the disapproval of your present application is contemplated:

"1. You have unlawfully failed during 1929, and particularly during September, October and November 1929, to keep your place of business open and available for inspection during regular business hours as required by your former permit and the laws and regulations covering the same.

"2. Your equipment is not adequate for the conduct of the business for which the permit is applied; is not of the value required by regulations 3 of the Treasury Department, and on inspection in September 1929 showed no evidence of use in connection with reported manufacturing operations.

"3. You unlawfully failed to manufacture approved preparations during 1928 and 1929 in accordance with the authorized and required formulae therefor, in that you did not possess at the time of reported manufacturing operations the required amount of chemical raw materials and ingredients as well as marketing containers.

"4. You have in bad faith reported the sales of all manufactured merchandise to one customer during the...