O D Inc. d/b/a Discount Tobacco Palace, DAB No. 2026-19 (2026)

RULING DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent O D Inc. asks the Board to reconsider its decision in O D Inc. d/b/a Discount Tobacco Palace, DAB No. 3236 (2026).  In that decision, the Board affirmed the initial decision and default judgment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the ALJ’s subsequent order denying Respondent’s motion to reopen the initial decision.  See O D Inc. d/b/a Discount Tobacco Palace, DAB TB10121 (2025) (Initial Decision); O D Inc. d/b/a Discount Tobacco Palace, Order Denying Resp’t Mot. to Reopen, Docket No. T-26-153 (Mar. 11, 2026) (Denial Order). While the Board may reopen and reconsider a decision for the purpose of correcting a clear error of law or fact, Respondent’s motion identifies no such error.  We therefore deny Respondent’s request for reconsideration.

The regulations in 21 C.F.R. Part 17 applicable to Respondent’s appeal do not expressly authorize the Board to reopen and reconsider its decisions.  See 21 C.F.R. § 17.47(j) (describing the scope of the Board’s review authority).  Nonetheless, the Board has recognized in other circumstances “that it has inherent authority to reopen and reconsider . . . a decision under the general principle that an adjudicator may act to correct an error in a decision.”  Rosa Velia Serrano, Ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider and Supplement the Record, DAB Ruling No. 2019-2, at 5 (April 25, 2019) (citing cases).  Reopening and reconsideration, however, are not routine steps in the Board’s adjudication process.  Id. (citing Mark B. Kabins, M.D., Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration, DAB Ruling No. 2012-1, at 3 (Oct. 14, 2011)).  “Rather, ‘it is the means for the parties and the Board to point out and correct any errors that make the decision clearly wrong.’”  Id.  The Board has emphasized that “[a] ‘motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for an aggrieved party to repeat arguments already made and rejected.’”  Id.

Applying these standards here, Respondent identifies no factual or legal error, much less any clear error, requiring the Board to reopen and reconsider DAB No. 3236.  In fact, Respondent concedes the factual basis for the ALJ’s default judgment, and the Board’s enforcement of the applicable law.  Req. for Recon. at 1 (“I recognize the Board’s responsibility to enforce procedural rules.”), 2 (“I sincerely regret that my Answer was not filed within the required timeframe.”).  Respondent has provided no information or

Page 2

argument that the Board did not already consider and address in its decision.  While Respondent contends that the “circumstances surrounding [its] untimely filing warrant equitable consideration,” id. at 1, the Board is bound by applicable laws and regulations and has no authority to grant equitable relief.  See Sana Ventures LLC, DAB No. 3169, at 10 (2025) (“[T]he ALJ and the Board are not empowered to grant a request for equitable relief.”); Kwik Gas Inc., DAB No. 2852, at 7 (2018) (“We, like the ALJ, cannot ignore binding regulations on equitable grounds.”).

Accordingly, we deny Respondent’s request for reconsideration.  This is a final action by the Board and no further reconsideration requests will be accepted.