ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before the Court for a contested case hearing pursuant to the South Carolina Department of Revenue's
(Department) Final Agency Determination finding that the Respondent violated three provisions of the South Carolina
Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. The Department is seeking fines totaling $1,200.00. A hearing was held before me on
January 22, 2001 at the offices of the Administrative Law Judge Division.
The Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the Department's Final Agency Determination but asked the Court
for a reduction in the amount of the fines which the Department was seeking in this matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into
consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was timely given to the Petitioner and the Respondent.
2. Vinaben K. Patel, doing business as J.P. Enterprises, Inc., holds a retail liquor license, license number 32013447-PRL.
This license was initially issued on June 25, 1986 and is currently active. The business is located at 120 West Council
Street in Bishopville, South Carolina.
3. On May 8, 2000, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Special Agent Marvin Brown conducted an inspection of
the Petitioner's retail liquor store. The Petitioner was operating both a retail liquor store and an alteration shop within the
location. There were sewing machines, clothing irons, and sewing threads and needles laid out on the counter of the
location near the cash register.
4. The licensee also owns a second store, a party shop, located in the same building next to the retail liquor store. The
party shop holds a beer and wine permit and is separated from the liquor store by a partial wall and divider which meets
state law requirements. While Agent Brown was in the liquor store, customers were picking up merchandise from the party
shop, taking it into the liquor store and paying for these items at the cash register located in the retail liquor store. There
was no cash register or employee located in the party shop while Agent Brown was performing his inspection.
Furthermore, Agent Brown found soft drinks, paper cups, and cigarettes stored and offered for sale in the liquor store.
Despite Agent Brown having explained to the Respondent that he could not sell any items from the liquor store except
liquor, the owner sold two paper cups and a Pepsi soft drink along with a pint bottle of liquor on the licensed premises in
Agent Brown's presence.
5. Several signs advertising the sale of specific brands of liquor were displayed in the windows of the retail liquor store and
were otherwise observable from the exterior of the building.
6. The displays of liquor in the retail liquor store were either not marked with any pricing or prices were posted in a variety
of shapes and sizes. Most of the posted prices were handwritten signs approximately two to four inches in height.
Additionally, there were no signs posted in the retail liquor store, as required by S.C. Code Ann. Section 61-6-1530 (Supp.
1999), stating that the sale or possession of liquor to persons under the age of 21 is illegal.
7. Agent Brown issued three citations to the Respondent on May 8, 2000, for violations of S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1510
(Supp. 1999) (failure to maintain separate store or place of business), § 61-6-1520 (Supp. 1999) (improper display of stocks
or signs), and § 61-6-1540 (Supp. 1999) (unlawful storage of other goods or merchandise). He additionally issued two
warnings to the Respondent for violations of § 61-6-1530 (Supp. 1999) (failure to display underage signs) and S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 7-49 (1976) (display of stock - lettering exceeding one inch). The Respondent signed for the three violations
and the two warnings on May 8, 2000.
8. A Final Agency Determination was issued by the Department of Revenue against the Respondent on July 27, 2000, in
which the Department imposed three fines of $400.00 each on the Respondent for citing the Respondent for three "first"
violations under Revenue Procedure #95-7, for fines totaling $1,200.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1999) and S.C. Code Ann. Section 1-23-320 (Supp. 1999).
2. The Petitioner obtained his retail liquor license pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-100, et. seq. (Supp. 1999). South
Carolina Code Ann. § 61-6-1510 (Supp. 1999) provides, in relevant part, that "[a] retail dealer must maintain a separate
store or place of business. . . ." In the present case, the Respondent violated this requirement by operating an alterations
shop out of the same location, or "place of business" as his liquor store. This is a violation of the statute. Furthermore, the
Respondent was also operating both this location and the party shop next door, which holds a beer and wine permit issued
by the Department, as a single business enterprise. Even though these two stores were properly separated from each other,
the Respondent sold goods from the party shop out of the retail liquor store. This is also a violation of the statute which
requires the liquor store to be "a separate store or place of business."
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1520 (Supp. 1999) provides that "[a] retail dealer must display retail prices on the shelf under
each brand and bottle size." However, the display of liquor bottles in the Respondent's store were not marked in
accordance with Section 61-6-1520. The prices which were marked were done so in hand-lettered signs in excess of the
one inch maximum allowed by law. This is a violation of the specific language of the statute which requires pricing to be
displayed and limits the character size of such signs.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1540 (Supp. 1999) prohibits the unlawful storage of goods, wares, and merchandise other than
alcoholic liquors on the premises of a licensed retail liquor establishment. The Respondent was storing a variety of goods
in the retail liquor store, including cigarettes, cups, soda, and items related to the sale of alterations services. Moreover, the
Respondent was selling these items to patrons of the liquor store. The storage of these items on the licensed premises is
also in violation of the statute.
5. I find that due to the violations of both Sections 61-6-1520 and 61-6-1540, that the monetary fines sought by the
Department in the amount of $400.00 each are appropriate. As regards the violation under Section 61-6-1510, I find that
the intent of the legislature in enacting that statute was to prohibit the inducement or enticement of patrons to a retail liquor
store by operating more than one type of business from a store. However, the operation of an alterations shop is not so
likely to induce such patronage as to warrant the maximum fine sought by the Department on this violation. For that
reason, I reduce the amount of the fine on this violation to $100.00.
6. I further find that for financial reasons stated by the Respondent at the hearing, that his immediate payment of the entire
amount of the fine imposed by this order would result in an undue financial hardship on him, his business, and his family.
For this reason, I order the payment of the total $900.00 fine imposed under this order to be made in monthly installments
of $150.00 for a period of six months; the first such payment to be made by not later than February 19, 2001. The last
payment under this schedule is to be made by not later than July 19, 2001. Should the Respondent fail to make any
monthly payment of the fines ordered herein by the 19th of each month, the remainder of the fine shall immediately become
due and payable to the Department of Revenue, which is then hereby duly authorized to file any such warrants or liens as
necessary to collect the remainder of the fine.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent,
Vinaben K. Patel, pay a fine in the amount of $900.00. The fine is to be paid to the Department of Revenue in six (6)
monthly payments of $150.00 commencing on February 19, 2001, on the 19th of each month, until the entire amount of the
fine is paid. Should the Respondent for any reason fail to make any of the six monthly payments, the remainder owed to
the Department shall immediately become due in full.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
February 5, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |